Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) was asked about the definition of imitating the kuffaar. He replied: The definition of imitation is: doing what is exclusive to those who are being imitated, so imitating the kuffaar refers to a Muslim doing something that is distinct and exclusive to them. With regard to things that have become widespread among the Muslims and is no longer something which distinguishes kaafirs from Muslims, this is not imitation, so it is not haraam on the grounds that it is imitation, unless it is haraam for some other reason. What we have said is what is indicated by this word, and it was explained in a similar way by the author of Fath al-Baari when he said (10/272): Some of the salaf regarded it as makrooh to wear the burnous because it was the garment of monks. Maalik was asked about it and he said: There is nothing wrong with it. It was said to him: But it is the clothing of the Christians. He said: It is worn here. End quote. I (Shaykh Uthaymen) say: It would have been stronger evidence if, when Maalik was asked whether wearing the burnous is haraam, he had quoted as evidence the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “(The pilgrim in ihraam) should not wear a shirt, pants, a burnous…” In al-Fath (10/307) it also says: If we say that they (silken saddlepads) are forbidden because that is an imitation of the non-Arabs, then this is a religious reason, but that was their symbol at that time when they were kuffaar, but now it is not something that is unique to them so this meaning no longer applies, so it is no longer makrooh. And Allaah knows best. Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 12/290.
Posted on: Sat, 24 Aug 2013 10:41:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015