What is the Standard of Resembling disbeliever?

What is the Standard of Resembling disbeliever

What is the Standard of Resembling disbeliever?

Question:

After delivering one of his lecture, Sheikh Dr Sulaiman bin Salimillah ar Ruhaili was asked a question,

ما هو الضابط في التشبه بالكفار ؟

“What is the standard of an act to be considered as resembling disbeliever?

فأجاب: الضابط للتشبه بالكفار- أن يفعل الإنسان فعلًا لا يفعله إلا الكفار لا بمقتضى الإنسانية- انتبهوا لهذه الضوابط -لا يفعله إلا الكفار- فيُخرج ما يفعله الكفار وغيرهم

He answered:

“The standard or parameter or definition of resembling a disbeliever is doing an act that only disbeliever does it, and not spurred by motivation of humanity.

فإذا كان هذا الفعل يفعله الكفار وغيرهم ؛ فإنه لا يكون تشبهًا ،

Therefore, an act done by both muslims and disbelievers are not considered as an act that resembles disbeliever.

ومن ذلك – فيما يظهر لي أنا والله أعلم – لبس السروايل أو ما يسمى في هذه الأيام بالبناطيل للرجال – إذا لم يكن البنطال ضيقًا ولا شفافًا – فإن لبسه ليس تشبهًا ، لأن هذا لا يختص به الكفار ، بل يلبسه الكفار وغير الكفار من القديم ، وكان يسمى قديما عند العرب بالسراويل.

Among an act that is not confined to disbelievers alone – in my opinion- is wearing trouser or what so-called pantaloon (long trouser) for men, as long as it is not a tight or body hugging trouser. Wearing pantaloon is not included in acts that resemble the act of the disbelievers because this kind of clothes is not specific to the disbelievers. Moreover, since long ago, this kind of clothes has been worn by both disbelievers and believers. In the past, the Arabs called this kind of clothes as “sarawil”.

وأقول :مالا يفعله إلا الكفار بغير مقتضى الإنسانية فإذا كان يفعلونه بمقتضى الإنسانية فإنه لا بأس أن نأخذه عنهم ، مثلًا : السيارات ، السيارات اختُرعت عند الكفار ، ويركبون السيارات بمقتضى حاجة الإنسان إلى ركوبها ، فنأخذ عنهم السيارات ، ونركب السيارات ، هذا بمقتضى الإنسانية ، هذا ليس من باب التشبه ،

In the definition that is mentioned earlier, it is said that resembling disbeliever means doing an act that is exclusively done by disbeliever, and because of the motive of humanity. It means that if a disbeliever does an act due to humanity, it is alright for us to imitate him.

For example, driving a car. Car was invented by disbelievers and they drove it because of human needs to use/drive it. Therefore, it is permissible to import cars made by disbelievers and use it. It is because importing and using it is spurred by human nature and it is not included in resembling disbeliever.

لكن إذا كان الفعل لا يفعله إلا الكفار ، ويفعلونه بغير مقتضى الإنسانية ، مثل بعض الألبسة الخاصة بهم ، يمثِّل العلماء بطاقية اليهود مثلا ،

As for an act that is exclusively done by disbeliever and not because of human need, is like a special clothes of disbeliever of which the scholars took an example of the hat of the jews. Wearing this kind of hat is resembling disbeliever.

أو في الألبسة – أنا فيما يظهر لي والله أعلم – أن ما يسمى بالكرفتة من هذا الباب ، من الألبسة الخاصة بالكفار التي يفعلها الكفار ،

In my opinion, among acts that resembles disbeliever is wearing tie. Tie is considered as special clothes of the disbeliever. Only disbeliever that wear tie.

بل قرأت في بعض الكتب التي تؤرخ لهم أن هذه الكرفتة إنما هي مكان الصليب ، حيث كانوا يضعون في رقابهم صليبًا كبيرًا من خشب أو نحوه ، فلما تمدنوا وثقل عليهم ذلك وضعوا ما يسمى بالفوونكا أو نحوها التي تكون لها وردة طويلة ثم حبل من أسفل ، ثم طوروه إلى ما سموه بالكرفتة ، ويشترطون أن يكون لها عُقَد جانبية وحبل في الوسط يقوم هذا مقام الصليب عندهم،

I’ve read in a literature that discussed about history of the disbeliever, a statement that said that tie is a replacement for cross. In the past, the christians wore a large wooden cross or something like that on their neck. When they became more modern, and felt that it was too troubling to bring the cross everywhere, they wore ties. That is, a kind of long-shaped flower with a lace stretched from top down. This kind of tie is the prototype of the present tie. According to them, a tie must have a protruding shape in both of its sides, and there should be a long piece of cloth stretched in the middle of those protruding shapes. This is, according to the christians, is a replacement of a cross.

فأنا – يظهر لي والله أعلم – أنه لا يجوز للمسلمين أن يلبسوها . أ.هـ

Therefore, I myself think that it is not allowed for muslims to wear tie.

من شرح الأصول الثلاثة في درسه في المسجد النبوي في موسم حج 1429-1430 هـ .للاستماع إلى الفتوى عند الدقيقة 48 بعد تحميل هذا الجزء من شرح ثلاثة الأصول

Source of reference: http://www.archive.org/download/shar…-3-osoul_16.rm[/URL

This statements were given during his lecture and explanation of the book al Ushul al Tsaltsah in the masjid of Nabawi, on months of pilgrimage, year 1429/1430 from Hijra. The recording that contains these statements could be listened after the 48th minute of the recording of his lecture that could be downloaded from the above link.

As for the transcript, it could be read in the link below:
http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=180191

There are several lessons that could be inferred from this explanation:

1. A good definition regarding resembling a disbeliever.

2. According to Sheikh Sulaiman ar Ruhaili, wearing a non-tight (loose) pantaloon is not classified as an act that resembles disbeliever because pantaloon is not considered as a special clothes of the disbeliever.

3. According to the arabs, Pantaloon is similar to sarawil or long trouser. Thus, it is not appropriate to differentiate between pantaloon and sarawil reasoning that sarawil is a loose trouser that utilize drawstring or the like. Whereas trousers other than that is included in the category of pantaloon. People with this kind of opinion should have a supporting indication in the form of explanation of the expert of arabic language or explanation based on the tradition of the arabs.

4. Sheikh Sulayman said that wearing tie is a forbidden act because of the history of the making of the tie. It means that if the origin of its making is not as he said, then wearing tie is not considered as resembling disbeliever. The history of tie as he said is something that needs to be reviewed and reevaluated; thus, the correct view in this matter is that it is allowed to wear tie, as mentioned in the fatwa of Lajnah Daimah that we’ve already posted in this blog.

Got Something To Say:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Copyright © 2018. Powered by WordPress & Romangie Theme.