Speaking about differing from the disbelievers.

The Shaykh : I would like to mention on this occasion that there is something other than imitating the disbelievers, which is established and continuous, unlike imitation, whose ruling may differ as I mentioned earlier. That thing is differing from the disbelievers. Differing from the disbelievers is recommended by the Shari'ah, even though wearing a jacket is not imitation as we mentioned earlier. It is recommended for a person to intentionally leave off his clothing in order to differ from the disbelievers, and this is not in the category of the prohibition of imitating them. This is because the phenomenon of imitation in wearing a jacket is negated, as we mentioned earlier. But is this not from the clothing of the disbelievers? We say: Yes. Therefore, we must differ from them. This differing includes everything the disbelievers do, provided there is no harm for the Muslims in differing from them.
For example, a story that is long; I will summarize it: A discussion took place between me and one of the Maronite priests in Lebanon. About thirty years ago in Damascus, he denied to the Muslims their strictness in their religion, and in particular their declaring "Kemal Ataturk" a disbeliever. His name before was "Mustafa Kemal Pasha." This Turkish leader introduced secularism and irreligion as a substitute for the Islamic Shari'ah, and his state is well known. The point is that fatwas were issued at that time declaring this man a disbeliever, and it is the truth that he should be declared a disbeliever, because he changed the religion of Islam. Among other things, he changed the personal status laws, making, for example, the share of the female equal to that of the male, and so on.
Part of this man's misguidance was that he imposed on the Turkish people the wearing of the cap. Despite the Islamic renaissance currently present in Anatolia, the effects of this cap still exist among some Muslims. He imposed this cap on them. So this priest denied to the Muslims: Why do you mislead by declaring "Ataturk" a disbeliever? Is it because he imposed this cap? This cap is a universal garment, and so on. It is a long story.
The summary: I said to him, after I had established that the Islamic Shari'ah is the most perfect of the Shari'ahs, and that it came with everything the Muslim nation needs, including that it prohibited imitation, which is what he denies to the Muslims. He was wearing the attire of the Maronite priests: a very long black cap, and he also wore a black robe like the robe of the shaykhs in some countries in Syria or Lebanon. So I said to him: Do you think that if you removed this black cap and put a red fez on your head with a white turban on it, would that be permissible for you? He said: No. I said: Why do you deny to us what you do not accept for yourself? He said: Peace be upon you, and Allah's mercy and blessings. He said: We are men of religion, which is their expression, the Christians. I took him by this word. I said to him: This is the difference between us, the Muslims, and you, the Christians. What is lawful for the highest Muslim is lawful for the lowest Muslim. What is forbidden for the highest Muslim is forbidden for the lowest Muslim. We do not have men of religion and men without religion. But you, by your own admission, you do not allow yourself to change this attire because you are a man of religion. This means you admit that there is a large group of Christians who are men without religion. It is permissible for them what is forbidden for you, and what is forbidden for you is not permissible for them. This is the difference between us and you. We Muslims are like the teeth of a comb; there is no difference between the great and the small. Therefore, Islam prohibited imitation, just as you prohibited it for yourself because you are a man of religion. And every Muslim with us is a man of religion . This is with regard to the emblem.
As for clothing that is not an emblem, differing is recommended. For that reason, we adopt this Sunnah: we put the watch, which the Europeans invented and are accustomed to wearing on their left hands, on our right hands. Why? To differ from the disbelievers, and nothing else. If a person were to put the watch on his left hand, as is the majority of Muslims, because it is easier to use for writing, tying it, adjusting the hands, and so on, but since this is a custom of the disbelievers, we differ from the disbelievers in this custom. Why? Because of his saying, peace and blessings be upon him: , . So the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and his family, made dyeing the white hair, which Allah, Mighty and Majestic, has decreed by His wisdom for all His servants, whether they are Muslims or disbelievers, so all of them turn white. There is no difference between a Muslim and a disbeliever, or a righteous Muslim and a wicked Muslim. They all share in this appearance that none of them intended. In fact, if it had been in their power and ability, none of them would have turned white at all. Nevertheless, he said, peace and blessings be upon him: , . That is: this white hair is decreed by Allah upon you from Allah. You cannot help but resemble the disbelievers in white hair, but you can differ from them. So dye it to achieve differing from them.
This hadith is much more important than his saying, peace and blessings be upon him: . Here, too, there is a command to differ, but here the command to differ is in leaving the beard as Allah created it. Whereas there, the command is to dye the beard and not leave it as Allah created it for the one with white hair. So the differing in the first hadith is greater and much more important. It establishes for us a principle that is higher and nobler than the principle of imitation. The prohibition of imitation cannot be implemented in this way, but if a person leaves off differing in some matters, like the example I gave you earlier, there is no blame on the one who leaves that. But it is better for the Muslim to always and forever keep before his eyes that he should differ from the disbeliever as much as he is able to do so. Therefore, I said to that priest that Islam did not forbid the cap because it is a cap, but because it is the attire of the disbeliever. If "Ataturk" had been a believer, a believer in Allah and His Messenger, and he saw a necessity and argument that the cap had a benefit other than the fez that the Turks used, he could have imposed this cap but made a special mark for it. For example, tying a ribbon, which we call in the Levant a "ziq," meaning a band the width of one or two fingers, a white mark. So it would be known that this one wearing the cap is a Muslim, because he would have an emblem. But this disbeliever, who is "Ataturk," wanted to humiliate the Muslims and force them to imitate the disbelievers. Therefore, the scholars of the Muslims attacked him and declared him a disbeliever, not only for this, but also for his changing of rulings more important than what he imposed on the Turkish people of imitating the disbelievers.
I see now that this is enough so that we can rest a little, if Allah wills.

The questioner : The students of knowledgeThose present : And those behind them are asking you to sit after the night prayer to answer the remaining questions, if that is possible for you.

The Shaykh : This is not possible, because we are traveling tomorrow, if Allah wills.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : So we depart, and our appointment is after the return, and the return will be better.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : If Allah wills.