What is the criterion for imitating the disbelievers in clothing?

The questioner : The following question: Your Eminence,The Shaykh : you previously mentioned that the criterion for imitating the disbelievers is that the matter be a symbol for them; in that case, it is imitation. There are matters that were a symbol for them, then they spread and becameThe Shaykh : considered a national garment, like the jacket, soThe Shaykh : he does not see it as imitation, even though at first it was specific to them. We had the mashlah, the burdah, the abaya, and others. What is your opinion? May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : Yes, imitation is a legal ruling with a rational meaning, not a devotional matter without a rational meaning. If a garment was once a symbol for the disbelievers and then that symbol was removed from them, the ruling of imitating them is lifted. I cited in some of my sessions the hadith of al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah, which is in "Sahih al-Bukhari." The summary of the story is that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was on a journey, so he went out in the morning to relieve himself. Then al-Mughirah ibn Shu'bah poured water over his ablution, and he performed wudu. When he (peace be upon him) came to washing his arms, he could not manage the cuffs of the sleeves, because—and this is the point—he was wearing a tight-sleeved Roman tunic. So he took it off, threw it over his shoulders, and then performed wudu. If this Roman tunic had been a symbol for the Romans at that time, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) would not have needed to wear the clothing of the disbelievers. He is the one who said to one of his companions when he came to him greeting him: . So we must note that when we say that a garment is imitation of the disbeliever, that garment must actually represent the disbeliever and be a symbol for them.
And I give an example from the old clothing of the disbelievers: how, over time, this clothing transformed into the clothing of some Muslims in some lands. In these lands, you know of a head covering called the "tarboosh." But perhaps you have seen a picture of the tarboosh, for example, in Egypt or in Lebanon, where even the Christians wear a round cap that is red. This is called the tarboosh, and it has a tassel made of fine threads. Some of the scholars and shaykhs in Egypt wrote a treatise on the prohibition of making this tassel from silk fibers, because it is silk.
The point is: this garment called the tarboosh was the clothing of the Ottomans, and they took it from the Austrians when they conquered that disbelieving land, so they adopted this custom from them. When some Muslims wore this or this attire, its ruling at that time was like the ruling of one who wears the brenita today, because it was a symbol for the Austrians. But with time, the Austrians no longer wear this tarboosh, and it became a symbol for the Turkish Muslims. We in Syria, until recently, used to wear the tarboosh, and some shaykhs still wrap the white turban over this red tarboosh. So it is not said that this is imitation of the disbelievers because it was their attire, because this attire has disappeared from them and has become a custom for some Muslims.
Therefore, it is necessary to consider the realization of the meaning of imitating the disbeliever. This is not apparent if it is not a symbol for them, like the example mentioned in the question, which is the jacket. But it is not so with the tie, nor with the cap or the brenita; this is still part of their clothing and their symbols.