regarding the ruling on non-Muslim clothing that enters Islamic lands?

The questioner : regarding clothing... the permissibility of wearing certain clothing, meaning this type of clothing, and the impermissibility of wearing other types of clothing; for example, the clothing of disbelievers. Because when we say, for example, "we do not imitate the disbelievers in clothing," some people say: "Then we should not wear, for example, the shirt or the jacket or other garments and coats, because they are made by disbelievers, or they originally come from disbelievers?"

The Shaykh : They speak, and even argue and dispute, but when they learn Islam, they stop... the arguing. Because Islam does not forbid every piece of clothing worn by a disbeliever. Rather, there are two things in this matter. The first thing, in general, is obligatory: that a Muslim does not wear the clothing of a disbeliever that serves as his emblem and his symbol, such that if a Muslim sees it, he does not dare to approach him... and display what represents the disbeliever's religion and belief. The clothing of the cap, the "bernitah," is an example. When a Muslim sees a person walking on the road wearing the bernitah, it does not occur to him, nor does it come to his mind, that this person is not a Muslim. Therefore, he does not greet him with the salam, because he is observing the etiquette of Islam. The etiquette of Islam regarding the salam here involves two aspects:
The first is his saying: . He met him as a Muslim in reality of his belief; he is a Muslim, but he does not know him personally. When he saw him wearing the bernitah, he thought to himself that this person is not a Muslim, so he did not initiate the salam. Thus, the one who placed the emblem of disbelief on his head has cut off the connection between himself and his Muslim brothers because of this emblem and this clothing, the headwear of disbelief.
The second aspect of etiquette in Islam is his saying, peace and blessings be upon him: . Thus, if he sees him as a non-Muslim, he does not greet him with the salam. So, any means that leads a Muslim to be distanced from by Muslims, that means or that method becomes forbidden. This is one of the objectives of this means. What is the objective of this person wearing the clothing of disbelief? It is to distance himself from Muslims and for them to distance themselves from him by not dealing with him according to Islamic etiquette. I have brought the greatest example, which is the bernitah. There is no doubt that wearing the bernitah in Islamic lands has these bad consequences, so it is forbidden. What is its ruling in the lands of disbelief? It is the same, or even more severe, because there the situation is reversed against him, in that he increases the number of disbelievers by wearing their clothing. Whereas in Islam, he decreases the number of Muslims and separates himself from them, distinguishing himself from them by wearing the clothing of disbelievers.
And what confirms to you that clothing has an effect on its wearer, whether good or evil, is the story that happened between me and a Maronite Lebanese priest. About twenty or thirty years ago, I took the train that takes us from Damascus to a famous resort of ours called "Baqin," which is about fifty kilometers from Damascus. At a station near the main station in Damascus, the train stopped, and I was with some young men. One of them came to me and said: "Now a priest, a qassis, has boarded." I understood from him that he was saying: "So deal with him." So I pretended that I had boarded with the new passengers. I entered the compartment where he was. You know the train has two facing seats, and this door here, and he was sitting in the corner here. I sat here far from him so that he would not notice that there was something intentional, meaning. And I sat thinking how to open the conversation with this man. Then Allah helped me. A young man from the area where the train had stopped entered on me, and I had prior knowledge that he had recently married his wife, whereas the young men who were with me did not know that. So I wanted to throw, as they say here, two birds with one stone: remind our brothers about their companion that he got married, and let the priest hear the congratulations of the Muslims. So I said to our companion—his name is Sa'id: "I congratulate you with the congratulation of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who taught us, so I say: , and I do not congratulate you with the congratulation of the first age of ignorance, the age of ignorance of the twentieth century. I do not say to you: 'May you have prosperity and sons,' for how many times were sons a calamity for the couple!"
And I started talking about what Allah opened for us until I felt that the priest was full and wanted to overflow with what he had. He said: "If Islam is like this, why do Muslims declare 'Ataturk Mustafa Kemal' a disbeliever?" I spoke with him for a long time. The summary of the speech is that they did not declare him a disbeliever, but rather he himself left the religion when he denied the rulings of the Shari'ah, and made inheritance for males the same as for females, contrary to the Noble Qur'an, and imposed on Muslims the clothing of other peoples, and so on. So he, as they say in our dialect, "latched onto" this word, as if he found for himself an outlet to criticize Islam. He said: "What is wrong if Ataturk imposed on Muslims wearing the cap?" This became like what one of our companions said recently: "This is general clothing for all people, it is universal," he said. So I gave him a long lecture on what? On this specific topic. And of course, the majority of it was the example I gave him. After the long discussion, I said to him: "So I understand from you. So what is his clothing? The Maronites in Lebanon wear black from head to toe, and they put on what? A long black tarboosh, and a black robe like the robe of your sheikhs—no offense—meaning al-Azhar. And as 'Muhammad 'Abduh' said: 'Turbans like towers and robes like chimneys!' He is wearing a robe like this. I said to him: 'So I do not understand how you wear the qalansuwa, but you put a red tarboosh and a white turban on your head, I do not understand why?' He said: 'No, no, no.' I said to him: 'Why?' He said: 'We are men of religion.'"

The questioner : Men of religion.

The Shaykh : Men of religion.

The questioner: Of course.

The Shaykh : Ah, I stood up and latched onto the word more strongly than he had latched onto it. I said to him: "This is the difference between us and you. You Christians have men of religion and men of no religion, men of religion and men of no religion. So what is not permissible for you is permissible for the others. But we Muslims have a level of equality; there is no difference between the old and the young, we are all men of religion. So what is not permissible for Zayd is not permissible for 'Umar, what is not permissible for Zayd is permissible for 'Umar, and so on. Therefore, it is not permissible for us. You now felt the error of a person imitating someone of another religion. When you are a man of religion, you refuse to imitate another man of religion, because you belong to this religion, and you do not believe in this religion. This is how every Muslim takes pride in his religion; he does not want to imitate the religion of others, even if he is the least of people in knowledge and obedience and righteousness, and so on . And it was a long story, fifty kilometers all of it was discussion between me and him.
So, this major type of imitating the disbeliever is undoubtedly forbidden. However, the intensity of the imitation varies; it is not a fixed ratio. Right now, we say that the necktie is close to the beret in being a symbol of disbelief. The knot, this tie, is not as strong as the beret, but it is close to it. And if you go down to the shirt, for example, especially the short-sleeved shirt in summer, there is no intensity of imitation. So, if you go down to the weakest form of imitation, the weakest thing, we do not say that it is forbidden. But the second level I referred to in my speech remains, and I told you: if you had been patient until the end, the second level is to differ from them. Imitation is one thing, and differing from the disbeliever is another. That is, you do not imitate... if you did what they do, but the Lawgiver wants to strengthen the resolve and dignity of the Muslims with their religion. So, at the same time that He forbids you from imitating and says: , He wants from you what is nobler and higher for you and closer to Allah (Mighty and Majestic). He wants you to intentionally differ from the disbeliever, not just to escape imitating him, but to intend to differ from him to the extent that He asks you to differ from him in things he does not intend, nor does he want or love them, but the cosmic law imposed something on him as a creation of Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and you are also a creation, so there is a commonality between you and him, neither he wants you nor you want him, yet differ from him. It is not said that so-and-so imitated so-and-so, because neither of them does that common thing with intention, so there is no imitation at all. Yet the Lawgiver tells you: intend to differ. So he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . The Christian grows old and the Muslim grows old; does the Christian want the gray hair? Of course not. The Muslim may want it, because in some narrations it is light, ah, but here there is a common measure between him and the disbeliever. It is not said that the Muslim imitated the disbeliever in his gray hair because it is not from his action, but rather it is from the law of Allah in His creation. Yet the Messenger tells you: dye your hair, because they do not dye.
Likewise, for example, from this category: . At the time when many jurists choose for the Muslim to pray barefoot, they argue that the shoe may contain some impurity and filth and the like, so it is purer and cleaner to pray barefoot. But these people missed that the Wise Lawgiver aims with His legislation to precise matters that some jurists do not notice. To achieve these precise matters, the Wise Lawgiver is lenient with His servants, just as we are lenient with each other, meaning He overlooks, but this expression, as we say, is not correctly attributed to the Lord of the Worlds. But we say: , so He forgives some things, were it not for that thing the Wise Lawgiver aimed at, He would not have forgiven it. So He says: . This is a legal ruling, but if we reflect on this legal ruling ; purification means like when we wash the garment from impurity with water? No, because no matter how much you rub the shoe on the ground, some of the impurity that the shoe has absorbed must remain in the shoe, and this does not come out by rubbing except that you destroy the bottom of the shoe by rubbing and wiping. So we know for certain that the Wise Lawgiver facilitated for His servants for the purpose we mentioned earlier when He was content with them purifying the shoe by rubbing. Why? So that they can be able to differ from the Jews who are strict in their religion, as Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him) indicated when he was in a gathering and the prayer time came, so he brought his companion Abu Musa al-Ash'ari to lead the people in prayer, because he had a Davidic voice. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said regarding him: . So he brought him forward to lead the people in prayer, and he was wearing shoes, so he took off his shoes and came forward. Then Ibn Mas'ud said to him: Are you in the Sacred Valley? He rebuked him, Are you in the Sacred Valley? Meaning, are you on the law of the Jews, Moses, who refuse to pray in shoes? So this is a facilitation from Allah for the believers that they purify the impure shoes merely by rubbing to achieve a legal purpose, which is differing from the Jews.
So, the Muslim should not be satisfied with just making his habit not imitating the disbelievers and that is enough, no; and he also adds to that, always intentionally differing from the disbelievers, not just that he does not imitate, no, and he also intentionally differs from them. That is, there are two things in the matter that pertain to the Muslim, one is negative, which is not to imitate the disbeliever, and the other is positive, which is to intentionally differ from the disbelievers. These two levels, I strongly doubt that the believer who is saturated with them and tries to apply them in his life will not fall into something that contradicts the Shari'ah specifically regarding imitating the disbelievers. Therefore, for example, some people are surprised by us who have no knowledge of the Shari'ah in general, and by these two characteristics of the Shari'ah in particular, when they find us putting the watch on the right hand. We aim with this to achieve differing, do you see? If I put the watch on the left hand, there is no imitation, because this is like what our companion said earlier: it is widespread in the countries, so the Muslim does not feel, whether he is in his country or outside his country, that there is imitation. But what do we do in this second level? We must, what? We intend to differ from the disbelievers in this as a symbol for the Muslims, and on this we live, and on this we exist - if Allah wills.
Perhaps you are satisfied with this? Yes?

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: About the topic?

Another questioner: About the topic.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.