Islam’s Fear of the “Other”: The Prohibition to Imitate Disbelievers

One of the more telling signs of a deeply insecure religious system is its obsessive fear of imitation—of being even superficially associated with the beliefs, customs, or appearances of non-believers. Islam exemplifies this paranoia through a wide-ranging and often extreme set of prohibitions that discourage Muslims from resembling Jews, Christians, or any other “kuffar” (disbelievers) in dress, behavior, or even personal grooming. Let’s examine the theological roots, the psychological underpinnings, and the authoritarian enforcement of this doctrine from Islam’s formative centuries until today.

---

The Core Hadith: “Whoever imitates a people is one of them”

The key proof-text comes from a hadith attributed to Muhammad:

“Whoever imitates a people is one of them.”
—Abu Dawud 4031; declared sahih by al-Albani and al-‘Iraqi

This deceptively short sentence has carried immense ideological weight in Islamic jurisprudence. Scholars have used it not just to prohibit certain actions, but to draw rigid identity lines: Muslim vs. non-Muslim, faithful vs. corrupted, insider vs. outsider.

---

Tafsir and Fiqh: Codifying the Hatred of the “Other”

Classical scholars ran with this hadith. Consider:

• Ibn Taymiyyah, in Iqtida’ al-Sirat al-Mustaqim Mukhalafat Ashab al-Jahim (“Following the Straight Path by Differentiating from the People of Hellfire”), devotes an entire treatise to justifying the legal and moral necessity of being unlike non-Muslims.

  “The more the Muslim differs from the non-Muslim in appearance, the more this will distance him from their inner reality.”
  —Ibn Taymiyyah, Iqtida’ al-Sirat

• Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, his disciple, followed this with his own elaborations, especially targeting Christians and Jews. He argued that imitating their clothes, holidays, or customs was a form of moral betrayal and spiritual corruption.

These scholars were not fringe voices. They shaped Hanbali jurisprudence, which heavily influenced later Wahhabi doctrine in Saudi Arabia. Their legal reasoning extended beyond dress to behavior, speech, diet, and even how one laughs or walks.

---

Hadiths Targeting the "Other" — Grooming, Dress, and Festivals

Islamic texts overflow with micro-control over appearance—always framed in opposition to the disbelievers:

• Beards and mustaches:

  “Trim the mustache and let the beard grow; be different from the Magians.”
  —Sahih Muslim 260

• Prayer times:

  “This is a time the Jews and Christians do not pray, so pray between ‘Asr and Maghrib.”
  —Abu Dawud 1271

• Clothing: Muhammad is reported to have avoided red garments, gold, and silk—either because they were associated with Roman or Persian elites or with effeminate men.

• Festivals:

  “Every people has its festival, and this is our festival.”
  —Sahih al-Bukhari 952 (on rejecting pre-Islamic and Christian holidays)

Thus, many Islamic jurists concluded that celebrating Christmas, wearing a tie, or even applauding could amount to prohibited imitation.

---

Qur’anic Basis? Ambiguous but Exploited

Though the Qur’an does not directly address “imitation,” it lays the groundwork for disdain:

“O you who believe, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies (awliya); they are allies of each other. And whoever is an ally to them is of them.”
—Qur’an 5:51

While some modern apologists claim “awliya” means only political alliances, early exegetes like al-Tabari and Ibn Kathir understood it much more broadly. This verse became a cornerstone for the doctrine of al-wala’ wa-l-bara’ (loyalty and disavowal): the idea that true Islam requires full allegiance to Muslims and complete disassociation from non-Muslims.

---

The Psychological Engine Behind It All: Identity Fragility

Why such obsession with appearances and symbols? The answer lies in Islam’s fragility as a late-forming, reactive ideology:

• It emerged in a pluralistic environment—Mecca and Medina were saturated with Jewish, Christian, and pagan traditions.

• To solidify group cohesion, Muhammad needed to build an identity through opposition.

• This explains why early revelations borrow so heavily from Jewish and Christian stories—but later verses begin condemning those same communities (see Qur’an 2:120, 9:30, 5:51).

This identity-by-negation led to a hyper-defensive culture, one where outward imitation was seen as spiritual erosion.

---

Modern Implications: The Roots of Islamic Cultural Totalitarianism

This hadith isn’t a historical relic. Today, it is used by:

• Saudi clerics to forbid Western clothes, holidays, music, and hairstyles.

• Taliban and ISIS to justify banning school uniforms, neckties, or even soccer.

• Conservative imams in the West to discourage Muslims from integrating into society.

Rather than fostering curiosity or engagement, Islam—particularly in its conservative forms—cultivates suspicion, fear, and isolation.

---

Conclusion: When Identity Is Built on Fear

The hadith “Whoever imitates a people is one of them” is not a call for authenticity. It is a call for cultural apartheid. It reveals a theology built not on confidence in its own truth, but on paranoia that even the sight of another culture might unravel its fragile fabric.

When a religion must police its followers’ socks, sunglasses, or holiday greetings to protect its identity, we’re not looking at a robust faith—we’re looking at ideological desperation masquerading as spiritual purity.

---

Primary Sources Cited:

• Abu Dawud, Hadith 4031

• Sahih Muslim, Hadith 260

• Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith 952

• Ibn Taymiyyah, Iqtida’ al-Sirat al-Mustaqim

• Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimma

• Tafsir al-Tabari and Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Qur’an 5:51