Reading from the author's text with commentary and collation of manuscripts: "The chapter on imitating them in what is not part of our Shari'ah consists of two categories: the first is
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reader: "The chapter on imitating them in what is not part of our Shari'ah consists of two categories: the first is with the knowledge that this act is specific to their religion. This act, which is specific to their religion, is either done merely to agree with them—which is rare—or for a desire related to that act, or for a delusion in it, imagining that it is beneficial in this world or the Hereafter. There is no doubt in the prohibition of all of this, but the prohibition reaches the level of major sins in some cases, and it may become disbelief according to the evidence of the Shari'ah. As for an act where the doer does not know that it is from their acts, it is of two types: the first is what was originally taken from them, either in the manner they do it, or with some change in time, place, or the act itself, and the like. This is mostly what the common people are tested with, such as what they do on the little Thursday and the birthday, and the like. They have grown up accustomed to it"
The Shaykh : They, meaning the common people, yes, correct.
The reader: "and the children received it from the fathers, and most of them do not know its origin. So the person is informed of its ruling, if"
The Shaykh : informed
The reader: "So the person is informed of its ruling"
The Shaykh : the person
The reader: "So the person is informed of its ruling, if he does not stop, he becomes part of the first category. The second type is what was not originally taken from them, but they do it as well. There is no concern of imitation in this, but the benefit of differing from them may be lost. So the dislike and prohibition of it depend on a Shari'ah evidence beyond it being an imitation of them, since our imitating them is not more likely than their imitating us. As for the recommendation to leave it for the benefit of differing"
The Shaykh : And this is a reference to an important benefit, which is that if we do an act and we do not know whether its origin is from them or from us, the original ruling is permissibility, because we do not know whether they took it from us or we took it from them. It is derived from this that what some people today make a fuss about, saying that their monks and priests used to shave their beards, so the requirement of differing would be for us to shave our beards. There is no doubt that this is misguidance and deception. Because if they did it, they followed us in it, or rather, the original state is that they do not do it. From another angle, growing the beard is not merely a matter of differing, but it is from the Sunnah of fitrah, as established in Sahih Muslim regarding fitrah, and growing the beard is mentioned among its items. So it is required in itself, regardless of whether it is a difference or not. And with this, the weakness of this argument used by some people becomes clear, either out of conviction in it or out of contention. Some people may be convinced by it, and some people know that they have no argument for it, but they want to contend and mislead the attendees and make them doubt what is known to every thoughtful person. Yes.
The Shaykh : They, meaning the common people, yes, correct.
The reader: "and the children received it from the fathers, and most of them do not know its origin. So the person is informed of its ruling, if"
The Shaykh : informed
The reader: "So the person is informed of its ruling"
The Shaykh : the person
The reader: "So the person is informed of its ruling, if he does not stop, he becomes part of the first category. The second type is what was not originally taken from them, but they do it as well. There is no concern of imitation in this, but the benefit of differing from them may be lost. So the dislike and prohibition of it depend on a Shari'ah evidence beyond it being an imitation of them, since our imitating them is not more likely than their imitating us. As for the recommendation to leave it for the benefit of differing"
The Shaykh : And this is a reference to an important benefit, which is that if we do an act and we do not know whether its origin is from them or from us, the original ruling is permissibility, because we do not know whether they took it from us or we took it from them. It is derived from this that what some people today make a fuss about, saying that their monks and priests used to shave their beards, so the requirement of differing would be for us to shave our beards. There is no doubt that this is misguidance and deception. Because if they did it, they followed us in it, or rather, the original state is that they do not do it. From another angle, growing the beard is not merely a matter of differing, but it is from the Sunnah of fitrah, as established in Sahih Muslim regarding fitrah, and growing the beard is mentioned among its items. So it is required in itself, regardless of whether it is a difference or not. And with this, the weakness of this argument used by some people becomes clear, either out of conviction in it or out of contention. Some people may be convinced by it, and some people know that they have no argument for it, but they want to contend and mislead the attendees and make them doubt what is known to every thoughtful person. Yes.