“Imitating the Disbelievers”: Islam’s Paranoid Obsession with Identity Contamination

At the heart of Islam’s dress obsession lies a paranoid fixation on “Tashabbuh bi’l-Kuffar”—imitating the disbelievers. This isn’t a fringe concern. It’s mainstream Islamic jurisprudence, articulated and upheld by some of the most prominent scholars in the modern Salafi and classical Sunni tradition.

Take Shaykh Muhammad ibn Salih Al-‘Uthaymin, one of the most influential 20th-century jurists in the Wahhabi-Salafi current. His definition is clear:

“Imitating the disbelievers refers to a Muslim doing something that is distinct and exclusive to them.”
—Majmu’ Fatawa Ibn ‘Uthaymin, 12/290

This is not about theological overlap or shared beliefs. It’s about visible, cultural differentiation. It’s a purity code cloaked in religious terminology, aimed at keeping Muslims in a psychologically walled-off subculture.

Even Malik ibn Anas, the founder of the Maliki madhhab, was challenged for not rejecting the wearing of the burnous (a hooded cloak) simply because it was associated with Christian monks. That some of the Salaf considered it makruh (disliked) is a glaring example of paranoia over even superficial resemblance.

---

From Imitation to Innovation: When Clothes Become Kufr

Let’s reflect on this jurisprudential absurdity:

• If a garment is worn by Christians only, it becomes haram.

• If the same garment becomes widespread, it is no longer considered an “imitation” and thus becomes halal.

In other words, the sinfulness of clothing is not inherent but situational and tribal.

This is legal schizophrenia. Islam doesn’t care about the intrinsic nature of clothing; it only cares who wore it first.

This is how Islamic legal reasoning operates:

• If non-Muslims drink coffee, it's haram—until Muslims adopt it.

• If non-Muslims wear a tie, it's haram—until everyone starts doing it.

• If non-Muslims celebrate birthdays, it's an evil bida‘h (innovation)—forever.

The rules shift, not by divine revelation, but by the degree of tribal differentiation from “the other.”

---

Shaykh Salih Al-Fawzan’s Contradiction: When Kufr Weaves Your Clothes

Al-Fawzan tries to soften the blow by claiming:

“It is permissible to wear the garments of disbelievers so long as they are not known to be impure…”
—Al-Mulakhkhas Al-Fiqhi, 1/20

But note the premise: disbelievers and their culture are assumed impure by default. That’s why the permissibility of wearing “their clothes” needs to be defended in the first place.

Also ironic: Muslims can wear fabric made by non-Muslims (because Muhammad supposedly wore such things), but they can’t wear styles invented by non-Muslims. In other words:

“You can use their labor, but not their taste.”

This reflects the exploitative double standard in Islamic law:

• Take from the non-Muslim what is economically useful.

• Reject and vilify everything else that expresses their cultural autonomy.

---

Purity Codes, Power Games, and the Erasure of Individual Identity

This isn't about piety. It’s about control.

• Control over your appearance.

• Control over your affiliations.

• Control over your internal self-definition.

Islam doesn’t ask you to merely believe—it demands you look, behave, and dress like everyone else in the ummah, lest your difference imply apostasy.

This is a system built not on divine wisdom but on sectarian anxiety. Its rules shift depending on geography, power dynamics, and the size of Muslim populations in relation to non-Muslims. A Christian tunic in Medina is haram. The same garment in Morocco? Halal. The difference? Majority status.

---

Conclusion: Islam’s Anti-Assimilation Mandate

The doctrine of avoiding imitation of disbelievers is not a protection of moral purity—it’s a declaration of cultural war.

It weaponizes clothing and behavior to preserve a siege mentality: to convince Muslims they are always under threat, always at risk of being polluted by the outside world.

This is not the behavior of a secure, confident religion. This is the doctrine of a closed system that fears erosion, not by argument, but by aesthetics—by fashion, architecture, even posture.

And in that fear, Islam reveals its deepest fragility: that its theological foundations are so brittle, even a T-shirt can shatter them.