A husband can never rape his wife. when a man marries a woman and pays her mahr, she becomes lawful for him. If she refuses conjugal relations in spite of being in his nikah and after having accepted the mahr, then the la’nat (curse) of Allah and the malaaikah descend on her. The laws of the kuffaar are satanic. A woman who denies conjugal relations to her husband is termed naashizah (grossly disobedient). She is not entitled to receive maintenance from her husband. The case of husband- rape in America is a reflection of the corruption and immorality of kufr society.
If a Muslim’s wife refuses to have conjugal relations with her husband without valid shar’i reason, e.g. she is not sick, then he is allowed to force himself on her. However, living in a kufr country one should be careful of being charged for statutory rape. If the woman is of such a low degree of imaan that she will not hesitate to report the matter to the police. If she is such a woman, then the best course would be to divorce her. When a wife refuses to fulfil the rights of the marriage and refuses to permit conjugal relations, then it is no use living with such a woman. This advice of divorce is given if it has become the practice of the woman to refuse conjugal relations. Howerer, if her refusal is an occasional thing, one should not take drastic steps.
Question: regarding the last issue of the majlis there is a hadith regarding a woman not taking off her burqa in any place that is not the home of her husband. what should we take from this hadith? does it mean that when a woman goes out with her husband and the husband is with the men in one room and the ladies are in another room the wife should still sit in burqa? does it mean that women that work in hospitals or schools where there is purdah, they still have to wear their burqas while teaching etc.? what should we understand from the hadith?
Answer: The fact that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) cursed the woman who removes her jilbaab in a place other than her home indicates the emphasis of maintaining hijaab. If a woman visits friends and relatives, there is the possibility of ghair mahram male relatives or her friend’s husband accidentally coming within view. This happens often in homes, especially small houses. The ghair mahram’s gaze is sure to fall on her gaudy or adorned dress which she wears under her jilbaab. The Fuqaha have explicitly ruled that it is not permissible for a man to look at any garment of a woman. Gaudy feminine garments also excite passion in man. For this reason it is Makrooh for a man to drink water from a glass if he is aware that a woman has drunk from it, and vice versa. A man whose eyes accidentally fall on the beautiful dress of a woman even from behind, is sure to be passionately excited. Most men who lack Taqwa, instead of reciting Ta-awwuz and Wa La Houla, will begin fantasizing about the woman. As it is, his own wife is ‘stale’ for him. Even if he did not see the face of the woman, her dress is likely to influence his heart. It is therefore not permissible for a woman to be careless by removing her jilbaab when she visits other homes. She can remove her Niqaab, but she should not strut about in the homes of other people without her jilbaab. Rasulullah (sallallahu layhi wasallam) said: “A woman advances (comes forward) in the form of shaitaan, and retreats in the form of shaitaan.” In other words, whether a man sees a woman from the front or from behind, shaitaan is eveready to excite his nafsaani passion. Hence, as far as possible, a woman should not unnecessarily remove her outer-cloak when she is visiting relatives and friends. In the first place, there is no hijaab in the hospitals and schools of today. It is not permissible for women to work in surroundings where they are unable to observe proper Shar’i hijaab. In a truly Islamic state, the authorities will make proper arrangements for correct observance of hijaab in such places where it is essential to have female staff, e.g. females-only hospitals. Furthermore, every law has exceptions. An exception cannot be cited to undermine the general law.
Question number one is it permissible for a women in burqa to ride in a lift alone, and here alone means without a mahram and when no one else is in the lift.
(1) Yes, it is permissible for a woman to ride alone in a lift if she is properly clad in hijaab dress. But the problem is that she will not be able to guarantee that she will be alone in the lift. She might start off alone, but if the lift stops at a floor and men enter, what will she do? So, while in principle it is permissible for a woman to be alone in a lift, in practice it is not permissible because her safety and her Purdah cannot be guaranteed. If circumstances compel her to use a lift, she should be accompanied by her mahram.
Question number two is it permissible for a man to get into a lift when a women is in the lift with her fasiq husband who doesn’t care about purdah?
(2) It is not permissible for a man to get into a lift if there is a woman inside even if she is accompanied by a mahram who is not a faasiq. If the mahram is a fasiq, then the position is worse.
Question number three, is it better not to get on the lift when a man who is not a fasiq is on the lift with his wife who is in purdah?
(3) In our view it is not permissible for a man to get into a lift if the lift is occupied by a woman with even a pious mahram. The lift is a small room (cubicle). It is not permissible for a ghair mahram to be in such a small cubicle with a woman even if she is accompanied by a mahram. When Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) arrived in the Land of Madyan and when Nabi Shuayb (alayhis salaam) sent his daughter to call him, then when Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) began walking, he instructed the female to walk at a distance behind him. This was the demand of Purdah and to avoid the eyes falling on the woman if she had to walk in front. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: ‘A woman approaches in the form of shaitaan, and she departs in the form of shaitaan.’ In other words, shaitaani temptation exists when she comes toward you as well as when she moves away, and you view her from behind.
Personally i’ve been avoiding all situations in my apartment complex, although i live on the seventh floor. if i’m alone and people get on the lift with me i get off the lift whether there is a mahram, or not and whether the woman is in burqa or not. my friends including the ulema feel i’m going to far.
(4) Your attitude and practice in this regard are 100% in conformity with the letter and spirit of Shariah. Maintain it, and do not worry what your friends and the Ulama over there say. Minds, hearts and attitudes today are all influenced by western liberalism, hence Islamic culture appears strange to even the Ulama of this era. The following Hadith aptly suits our era: ‘Islam began forlorn. Soon will it return to that forlorn state. Therefore give glad tidings to the forlorn ones.’
In the Shariah there is a principle called Ahwanul Baliyyatain which means the ‘lesser of two evils or the lesser of two calamities. In terms of this principle, when one is confronted with two evils or two calamities, one should opt for the lesser one. In some quarters this principle has been misunderstood. Even some learned men misinterpret it, thus involving people in the commission of haraam. The operation of this principle is based on a condition. This condition is the non-existence of a lawful alternative. This principle cannot be availed of, if a lawful option exists. Only when confronted by two evils and there is no exit may this principle be applied. When there is simply no other alternative, the Shariah orders that one should save oneself from the greater calamity by acceptance of the lesser calamity.
An example of the operation of this principle is given in the Qur’aan Majeed. Eating haraam meat is permitted to save one’s life. When a person is in the dire straits of starvation and no halaal food is available, then to save oneself from death, consumption of even pork becomes permissible. The conditions for this permissibility are: (1) Total unavailability of halaal food of any kind whatever. (2) Eating only sufficient to save one’s life. Eating to satiation is haraam as well as eating for taste or pleasure. The two evils or calamities in this example are death due to starvation and consumption of haraam. The lesser evil according to the Shariah, not according to our logic, in this example is consumption of haraam to the extent of need. A principle cannot be applied in isolation of its shuroot (conditions). It is not lawful to apply the principle and ignore the conditions which are essential for the validity of the principle. Thus, if a halaal option is available, it will be haraam to apply the principle of Ahwanul Baliyyatain Once this has been understood there will be no difficulty in applying this principle. However, if someone is simply bent on misinterpretation for the purpose of gaining nafsaani satisfaction, then there is no rational argument for such a person. This man of dhalaal is not the subject of this address. Some examples will be cited to illustrate the misinterpretation of this principle, which is generally motivated for the mismanipulation of situations at the behest of the nafs. The question is asked: Is it better for a woman to work in her husband’s shop or elsewhere in a stranger’s business where she will be among ghair mahrams? Since the lesser evil is for a wife to be with her husband in his shop, misguided learned men advise that the woman should work in her husband’s shop. Even though she will be constrained to commit many Purdah violations and ruin her modesty in the purdahless environment of the shop. They argue that in view of it being the lesser evil, it is permissible for her to be employed in her husband’s shop. This fallacious argument has completely ignored the essential condition of this principle. There is a third lawful- alternative available here, and that is adherence to the original command of Allah Ta’ala, viz., women should remain in the holy precincts of their homes. In the first instance it is haraam for women to emerge unnecessarily from their homes. It is the obligatory duty of the husband to ensure that he maintains his family. It is not the duty of the wife to earn and feed the family nor assist with this obligation. It is a kabeerah sin to pull her out of the sanctity of the home and plunge her into an environment of immorality and Hijaab violations. In this example, the woman is not compelled by anyone to choose between two evil options. She simply has to reject both options and remain at home in obedience to the Qur’aanic command: “And (O you women!) remain within your homes.” It is better for a woman to participate in a thikr session in a Madrasah hall than to wander around in a hypermarket. Since ‘the lesser evil is the former, votaries of public halqah thikr claim that she should participate in this form of thikr. Again, the essential condition for the application of this principle is ignored. A woman is not under compulsion to either visit the hypermarket or to participate in the thikr session. Since there is no such obligation or compulsion or need for her, it is not permissible for her to invoke this principle. She has to simply reject both options and follow the Islamic injunction of remaining at home. In fact, inviting women to participate in public lectures, thikr, Taraaweeh, etc., is not influenced by the principle of Ahwanul Baliyyatain. It is simply a new-fangled teaching of misguided learned men who seek to justify their errors by resorting to misinterpretation of the principles and teachings of the Shariah.
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) branded a woman who goes on a journey without a valid Shar’i mahram as one who does not believe in Allah and the Day of Qiyaamah. A woman who proceeds on any journey without a valid mahram, be it for Hajj, is cursed. Her ibaadat is rejected and she remains under the la’nat of Allah Ta’ala and His Angels as long as she is on the journey and away from her home. WHO IS A VALID MAHRAM A mahram refers to a male who is a close relative of a woman with whom marriage never was permissible nor will ever be permissible. Father, grandfathers, sons, maternal uncles, paternal uncles and nephews are in this category. A woman is allowed to go on a journey with these mahram males. However, there are two conditions which qualify a mahram to be valid for accompanying the female. These are: (1) Buloogh (adulthood) (2) Aadil (uprighteous) If the male is under 15 years, he will not be adequate for being the mahram of a woman on a journey. If the mahram is baaligh (an adult) but is a faasiq, i.e. not uprighteous, then too it will not be permissible for a female to travel with him even if he happens to be her father or son. MISUNDERSTANDING A grave misunderstanding is that as long as the male is an adult and a close relative, a woman can travel with him. When the mahram cannot fulfil the duties for which he has to accompany the woman, his companionship with her is meaningless, in fact detrimental for her Imaan and Akhlaaq (character). HIS DUTY The duty of the Shar’i mahram is to safeguard the honour of the woman with whom he is travelling. He has to attend to all her needs and affairs along the journey. He has to protect her and ensure that she remains in hijaab/purdah. It is his Waajib duty to keep her safe from all aspects of moral fitnah to the best of his ability. If the mahram is a faasiq, he will obviously be careless and unconcerned in such matters which the Shariah imposes on him. The most important duty of the mahram is to guard the hijaab of the woman. A modernist/faasiq in the first place does not believe in the Qur’aanic ahkaam of Hijaab. He is not concerned with whom the woman will speak and mingle nor does he see anything wrong with strange men conversing with the woman. Such a mahram is vile, shameless and dishonourable. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) described such a mahram as a dayyooth (evil cuckold). He is NEVER an adequate mahram for a woman on a journey. It is haraam for a woman to go on a journey with such a mahram even if he happens to be her son. EVIL PRACTICES Another misunderstanding is the idea that as long as a mahram is accompanying the woman, other males may also travel in the same vehicle on pleasure trips. It should be well understood that to do so will be permissible only when necessary. But to plan a pleasure trip or a holiday from home in such a way that all and sundry travel in the same vehicle, is not permissible. The common holidaying practice is for a man to travel together in the same vehicle with his sisters-in-law or other females for whom hijab is waajib (obligatory). Even if a mahram is with, the purpose of his companionship is defeated and negated in this situation. Contact with ghair mahram males with its evil moral consequences is an almost certainty in this situation. INCOMPETENCE A lad who has just become baaligh (attained puberty) although technically a valid mahram, will be inadequate for the journey if he lacks full jurisdiction over the female with whom he is travelling. His companionship is meaningless if he is unable to exercise authority over the woman. If the woman travelling with him is domineering and refuses to obey him in Shar’i matters, then such a mahram is not adequate for the journey because he will not be in position to fulfil the duties of mahramiyyat which the Shariah imposes on him. This is the same as a lawful guardian of a minor. If the guardian is unable to fulfil the duties of guardianship, custody of the minor may not be assigned to him notwithstanding his initial right of guardianship. Nowadays, people are extremely careless in these matters. Women go in droves on journeys, especially Hajj journeys either without mahrams or with incompetent mahrams. Instead of the Hajj journey being an ibaadat of thawaab, it is transformed into a journey of athaab (punishment).
Leave alone an Aalim, even an ordinary person – a non-Molwi—is not allowed to wear western or kuffaar clothes. Shirt and pants are kuffaar dress. In view of the fact that among laymen, this type of dress has become widespread, especially in the western world, we shall not brand every Muslim in the west who wears shirt and pants, a faasiq. But, undoubtedly, every Molwi, be he in the west or in a Muslim country, will be labeled a faasiq if he wears shirt and pants. Here in South Africa we never allow a man with shirt and pants to lead the salaat or to even stand in the Musjid to deliver a talk even if he is with the Tabligh Jamaat. He is a disgrace to the Ilm he has acquired. A Molwi who wears shirt and pants needs to be stripped of his molwiyyat. He is a disgrace to Ilm-e-Deen and to the lofty Office of Warathatul Ambiya which he is supposed to occupy. Would this Molvi have attended his dastaarbandi ceremony with a shirt and pants? Let him search his conscience and soul.
If a person has been wearing Islamic garb since childhood as is the case in Pakistan, and then he abandons such garments to adopt kuffaar dress, he will be a faasiq. But if he grew up with shirt and pants, he will not be labeled a faasiq. Nevertheless, the error of such garb will still be pointed out to him and he should be encouraged to switch to Islamic dress.
The fatwa of the mufti who declared shirt and pants jaa-iz is incorrect. The mufti sahib has grievously erred. Instead of bringing people nearer to the Deen, he opens up avenues of fisq and fujoor with such miserable fatwas. May Allah Ta’ala save us from the deceptions of shaitaan.
QUESTION: WHAT IS THE HUKM ON HABITUALLY COMING LATE FOR SALAAT? IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE HUKM FOR AN AALIM OR NON-AALIM?
Habitual late coming for salaat whereby a raka’t or so is missed, is undoubtedly a major sin. Salaat is the central pillar upholding the structure of the deen. Weakening this pillar is a major sin. If someone occasionally and unintentionally comes late for salaat, obviously it is not sinful. But we have seen that many of the people of knowledge have made it a habitual practice to arrive late for salaat. They have adopted a very careless attitude towards this fundamental junction of Islam. Instead of their ilm inspiring taqwa in them, they become more careless and lethargic towards observance of the ahkaam. They react like the kuffaar scientists. Who become more perverse in their kufr the more they discover of the wonders of Allah’s qudrat.
This sin applies to all—to laymen, students and to a greater degree to the ulama who are supposed to know better and not become so careless as to establish a practice of late-coming for salaat. It is incumbent for a mu’min to make preparations for his jamaat salaat well in advance of the time set for the commencement of the salaat. The asaatizah are mainly to be blamed for this state of affairs and the students’ neglect of salaat. It is their duty to ensure that the students studying under them are regular and punctual for jamaat. Many ustaadhs continue teaching right until the iqaamah is about to start. Then they all rush to the masjid arriving late. This lackadaisical attitude towards salaat is fraught with grave consequences for one’s imaan. Salaat has become an empty, dry ritual which is regarded as a burden by most performers of salaat. The mashaaikh say: “A Mu’min in the musjid is like a fish in the water and a munaafiq in the musjid is like a wild bird in a cage.”
A habitual late-comer to salaat is undoubtedly a faasiq. He is mardudush shahaadat. The shariah does not grant the ulama exemption from regular and punctual attendance. In fact, the law applies to a greater degree to them. They have to set a better example, then the students will follow. A molwi, he is not an aalim because to qualify as an aalim, the Qur’an stipulates the quality of KHashiyat: “Verilyl, among the servants of Allah, only the ulama fear Him.”—–Qur’aan.
Q. Please advise on the permissibility of engaging a nonMuslim teacher to teach our children at home.
A. It is not permissible to have a non-Muslim to teach your children even at home. The kufr and spiritual rijs and najaasat of his/ her kufr will have a detrimental athar (effect) on the children. Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) forbade breastfeeding by even a Muslim woman if she is ignorant. He said that her ignorance will be transferred to the baby via her milk. To a greater extent will kufr, rijs and najaasat of the non-Muslim be contagious.
I have a question to ask regarding baby names. My wife and I going to have a baby. We are both big Star Wars fans. One of the main characters is princess Leia. If we have a girl we both want to name her ‘leia’. It’s meaning is ‘child of heaven’. We both love the name so much and if we have a daughter, really want to name her that. Would it be haram to do so?? I know you might say to name our baby after sahaba, etc but please all I want to know is if it’s haram to name a baby Leia?
In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh. It is the responsibility of the parents that they choose for their child a good name. Rasūllullāh Sallallāhu Alaihi Wa Sallam has stated: مَنْ وُلِدَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ فَلْيُحْسِنِ اسْمَهُ وَأَدَبَهُ (شعب الايمان للبيهقي, رقم الحديث 8299, مكتبة الرشد للنشر والتوزيع) Translation: Whoever is graced with a child should give him a beautiful name and beautify his characters. (Shuabul-Imān Lilbaihaqī, Hadīth No. 8299) Brother in Islam, Naming a child after a fictional character from a movie franchise is immoral and impermissible. Consider the implications of naming your child after a character based on movies, which are an antithesis to an Islamic identity. A person will be in the hereafter with whom he loves. Being enamored with movie characters and movie stars poses a grave danger to one’s hereafter. One should rather study the life of Rasūlullāh (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) and that of the Ṣaḥābah (Radhiallaahu Anhum) thereby inculcating their love within one’s heart. Accordingly, we re-iterate, it will not be permissible to keep the above name for your child. And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best
Usaamah Dadipatel Student Darul Iftaa Eshowe, South Africa
Checked and Approved by, Mufti Ebrahim Desai.
Fatwa: # 47441Category: Child Upbringing (Tarbiyyah)Country: United StatesDate: 6th March 2021
Q: Is it permissible to buy and wear Nike products? I know that Nike once put the name of Allah on a shoe, but it was unintentional and they apologized. Also, although Nike represents a Greek god, people don’t believe in the god and only buy the shoe for the style. Bearing this in mind, what is the ruling on Nike products?
A: Before addressing the issue in question, it is necessary for you to understand the parameters and limits of Shari’ah in regard to the topic of preserving one’s Islamic identity as a believer and refraining from imitating the ways of the kuffaar. Below we will discuss the details which govern this mas’alah.
In Shari’ah, we are commanded to refrain from imitating the ways of the kuffaar and adopting their lifestyle. Imitating the ways of the kuffaar refers to one abandoning his Islamic identity and adopting the identity which is exclusive to the kuffaar. In other words, all those aspects of life (be it religious or worldly related) through which a believer is identified and clearly distinguished from a disbeliever – for a muslim to abandon that and to adopt the ways of the kuffaar amounts to imitating the ways of the kuffaar. Hazrat Abdullah bin Umar (radhiyallahu anhuma) reports that Nabi (sallallahu alaihi wasallam) said:
عن ابن عمر قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من تشبه بقوم فهو منهم (سنن أبي داود، الرقم: 4033)
The one who imitates a people will be counted among them (in the court of Allah Ta’ala)
Imitating the kuffaar is of different levels.
1. Imitating the kuffaar in their religious beliefs is haraam and amounts to kufr e.g. for a Muslim to subscribe to the belief that Nabi Isa (alaihi salaam) was crucified on the cross.
2. Imitating those signs or symbols that identify with kufr is haraam and amounts to kufr e.g. wearing a cross.
3. Imitating the kuffaar in their religious ceremonies, celebrations or festivals is haraam e.g. for a Muslim to celebrate Diwali, Christmas, Easter, etc. If one participates in the celebration of the kuffaar out of respect for such days, he will become a kaafir. If one participates in a celebration without respecting and honouring their celebration, he will not become a kaafir. However, this action will be haraam.
4. Imitating the kuffaar in their religious attire which is not a symbol of kufr is makrooh-e-tahreemi e.g. for a Muslim to wear an attire that is exclusive to a religious cult (e.g. wearing a saari in our country).
5. Imitating the kuffaar in their culture and lifestyle is also impermissible e.g. imitating them in their tight-fitting and revealing clothing, women wearing men’s clothing and vice versa, men wearing ear-rings, celebrating birthdays, tattooing, women and men freely intermingling, etc.
Wearing such clothes that are not exclusive to the kuffaar, but are instead used by all and sundry e.g. wearing jackets, socks, men wearing formal clothes and women wearing unrevealing dresses is permissible and does not amount to imitating the kuffaar.
Similarly, carrying out those actions or using those items which are not exclusive to the kuffaar but are instead commonly used by all e.g. driving cars, eating and drinking in cups and plates, etc. does not amount to imitating the kuffaar. However, one should refrain from drinking in wine tumblers as this resembles people who drink wine (fujjaar and fussaaq).
As for the clothing that a Muslim should wear, it is preferable that he wear such clothing which has some type of Islamic connotation or is known to be clothing exclusive to Muslims i.e. the clothing of the pious and respectable Muslims.
As far as the issue of Nike is concerned, you should ask yourself whether any Muslim will wear a garment which has the cross emblazoned on it. Obviously, a Muslim will never wear a garment which has a cross on it, whether the cross is on his clothing or on his shoes. The reason why a Muslim will not wear a cross is that he understands that the cross is a sign of kufr and is exclusive to a particular creed (i.e. Christianity). The cross identifies the one who wears it as being part of the same creed.
While the cross is a very obvious sign, there are many other signs which though less obvious are also signs of kufr and identify the one who wears it as being part of the same creed. These symbols have significance for its followers and they are respected and honoured just as the cross is honoured by the Christians.
Among these religious symbols is the symbol of Nike. Encyclopedia Britannica describes Nike in the following words: “Nike, in Greek religion, is the goddess of victory.” It also states that in Rome “she was worshipped from the earliest times. She came to be regarded as the protecting goddess of the state.” The Nike symbol, the swoosh, embodies the spirit of the winged goddess who inspired the most courageous of warriors.
Not long ago, Nike Incorporated apologised in the face of severe protest for putting the name of Allah on sports shoes. First they put the name of Allah on a shoe so that it will be trampled and soiled. Imagine the name of Allah Ta’ala being trampled and kicked around (May Allah Ta’ala save us). Even before the shoe affair, Nike had once erected a billboard which depicted a basketball player. The picture was headlined with the words “They called him Allah.” It is naive to think that these occurrences are mere coincidences. Yet Muslims still feel proud to be associated with Nike and its products.
Why is a basketball player headlined “ALLAH”? Why the name of Allah on shoes? Is it a deliberate attempt to sacrilege and desecrate the name of Allah Ta’ala? The name of Allah Ta’ala on a shoe will surely be trampled, kicked, become soiled with mud or even filth. Allah Forbid! The Qur’an has long ago declared: “…The enmity has become apparent from their mouths, and what their hearts conceal is worse” (3: 118). Often the hatred of the Kuffaar for the Believers becomes manifest from their words and actions. However, we should consider to what extent we support the very people who openly desecrate the name of Allah Ta’ala. If our parents were greatly insulted by any person, will we still support him and add to his coffers? Then what about the name of Allah Ta’ala ? Would we give publicity to those who desecrate our name? Then what about the name of Allah Ta’ala?
عن ابن عمر قال قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم من تشبه بقوم فهو منهم. (سنن أبي داود، الرقم: 4033)
أي من شبه نفسه بالكفار مثلا في اللباس وغيره أو بالفساق أو الفجار أو بأهل التصوف والصلحاء الأبرار فهو منهم أي في الإثم والخير قال الطيبي هذا عام في الخلق والخلق والشعار ولما كان الشعار أظهر في الشبه ذكر في هذا الباب (مرقاة شرح مشكاة 8/ 155)
عن عمرو بن الحارث ، أن رجلا دعا عبد الله بن مسعود إلى وليمة ، فلما جاء ليدخل سمع لهوا ، فلم يدخل ، فقال : ما لك رجعت ؟ قال : إني سمعت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول : من كثر سواد قوم فهو منهم ، ومن رضي عمل قوم كان شريكا في عملهم. (إتحاف الخيرة المهرة، الرقم: 3297)
يكفر بوضع قلنسوة المجوس على رأسه على الصحيح إلا لضرورة دفع الحر والبرد وبشد الزنار في وسطه إلا إذا فعل ذلك خديعة في الحرب وطليعة للمسلمين وبقوله المجوس خير مما أنا فيه يعني فعله … وبخروجه إلى نيروز المجوس لموافقته معهم فيما يفعلون في ذلك اليوم وبشرائه يوم النيروز شيئا لم يكن يشتريه قبل ذلك تعظيما للنيروز لا للأكل والشرب وبإهدائه ذلك اليوم للمشركين ولو بيضة تعظيما لذلك لا بإجابة دعوة مجوسي حلق رأس ولده وبتحسين أمر الكفار اتفاقا حتى قالوا لو قال ترك الكلام عند أكل الطعام حسن من المجوس أو ترك المضاجعة حالة الحيض منهم حسن فهو كافر كذا في البحر الرائق. (الفتاوى الهندية 2/ 276)
كما أن الإتيان بخاصية الكفر يدل على الكفر فإن من سجد لصنم أو تزيى بزنار أو لبس قلنسوة المجوس يحكم بكفره (الاختيار لتعليل المختار 4/150)
ومن تشبه بالكفار عمدا أو باللعب أو تزيى بزي النصارى أو تزنر بزنار النصارى أو تقلنس بقلنسوة المجوسي أو دخل بيعة أو كنيسة لزيارتها والتبرك بها أو يتبرك ببعض كبار الكفار لتنسكه بزيادات عبادتهم أو بشيء من خواص دينهم يكفر ومن قطع لأئمة الهدى بالجنة كأبي حنيفة ومالك والشافعي فقد أخطأ وكذا الجنيد وأبو يزيد الشبلي ونحوهم من الصالحين (معين المفتي على جواب المستفتي للتمرتاشي 1/219)
وبيع المكعب المفضض للرجل إن ليلبسه يكره لأنه إعانة على لبس الحرام وإن كان إسكافا أمره إنسان أن يتخذ له خفا على زي المجوس أو الفسقة أو خياطا أمره أن يتخذ له ثوبا على زي الفساق يكره له أن يفعل لأنه سبب التشبه بالمجوس والفسقة اهـ (رد المحتار 6/392)