Wearing of the Tie
What do the theologians say about fastening the Tie? What was the Judicial Verdict of A'la Hadrat and Hadrat Mufti-e-Azam (radi Allahu anhuma) on this issue? Please clarify.
Mohammed Shahabuddin Razvi
Hadrat Mufti-e-Azam-e-Hind (radi Allahu anhu) used to say, "Tie is a refutation of the Quran."
The Holy Quran states that the Jews did not kill Hadrat 'Isa (alaihis salaam) and that they did not crucify him, but that Allah made for them one like him. Certainly, they never killed him. Therefore, Christians make the sign of the Cross in remembrance of his (Hadrat 'Isa alaihis salaam's) "crucifixion" and keep the knot (i.e. the Tie around the necks). The persons sitting in the presence of Hadrat Mufti-e-Azam-e-Hind (radi Allahu anhu) always observed him expressing annoyance when he saw anybody wearing a Tie around his neck. Hadrat Mufti-e-Azam Hind (radi Allahu anhu) used to make that person take off his Tie. Further, he used to call it the signs of the Christians. The verdict of Hadrat Mufti-e-Azam Hind (radi Allahu anhu) is re-enforced with some reasons:
(1) I would like, relying on the Help of Allah, to lay the basis of this issue on the universally admitted point, that is, that the Cross is unanimously considered by all Muslims and non-Muslims as the sign of the Christians. The Cross is applicable to the structure on which, according to Christian belief, Hadrat 'Isa (alaihis salaam) was crucified, as well as to the well-known sign (i.e. the Cross). Accordingly, it is stated in the famous English Dictionary, "Practical Advanced Twentieth Century Dictionary", under the word "CROSS", as below:
"Stake with a traverse bar used for crucifixion; the Cross, wooden structure on which, according to the Christian religion's belief, Jesus was crucified; Anything shaped like or ; the sign of the Cross."
(2) This sign, according to Christian belief, is considered to be the reason of protection from misfortune and is also regarded as a means of prosperity. Accordingly, the same Dictionary, quoted above, says under the "CROSS" as follows:
"Cross (oneself); make the sign of the Cross with the hand as a religious act among Christians."
(3) If you see a Tie in the light of the above mentioned facts, it will be clearly evident that the Tie resembles the structure of crucifixion, especially the straight and wide strip which is more similar to the Cross plank. This part is also sacred and respectable in the beliefs of Christians as well as the full Cross. It is also clear by the above-mentioned facts that they (the Christians) consider making the sign of the Cross even with their hands in the air as a means of prosperity. Hence, why would they not consider to keep the sign of the full Cross or part of the Cross as a reason of grace! Certainly, according to their tenet, this is a reason of compassion; this is the Tie, which Christians use to tie around their necks.
(4) If you attentively notice a Tie fastened around the neck of a man, it will come to light that the Tie lying on the chest between the two shoulders is representing the entire Cross. But, by a little deliberation, it is also clear that the whole Cross is existent on the Tie.
This is because when the knot is made after having put the strip around the neck, two strips cross each other at the same time (point) on that knot and these two strips lie on the collar-bone making this form. It shows the Cross structure and the stranglehold apparently. Now, if you put a pin to it, then another Cross is formed. This is clear by the given form. So the Tie represents the Cross by some means and brings the remembrance of the crucifixion to the Christians. In short, the Tie is quite a Cross including the knot, which is the redundant thing.
In the same manner, you compare the bow-tie with a neck-tie. The form of the Cross is existing, meanwhile, the bow-tie is tied around the neck as it appears by the given form.
The Cross, as well as anything like the Cross, is the religious symbol of the Christians. Now, either you admit that the tie is a Cross or you accept that it is similar to the Cross. On both the conditions: that it is a religious sign of the Christians, and whichever thing that is considered to be a sign of non-Muslims would not be legitimate on any account even if, Allah forbid, that it becomes common in any manner.
(5) The status of the Tie has been found out to the prudent by means of observation of it's shape. But the Tie has got so much importance amongst Christians that they put the Tie on the dead body also. So, indeed, it is their customary manner, which makes Muslims deserve disgrace and Hell. Muslims cannot have the legitimacy to use it. Muslims must strictly abstain from it and must also not wear shirts and pants, etc. Muslims have to revive their culture, which is present in the Sunnat, i.e. the practice of the Holy Prophet (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) and the behaviour of religious preceptors. They must not put on the Tie in the name of job, etc. Muslims must rely on Allah and repose confidence in the Holy Prophet (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). They must resist the unlawful conditions of others vigorously. Of course, Muslims will ultimately meet with success as Allah promises to help you if you assist His religion. So, Muslims must not accept on any account a job or post when he is forced to use a Tie or to accept such illegitimate conditions because the hypocrisy and dullness in religious affairs is a violent detriment to the religion and it causes the Anger of Allah. As it is said in the Holy Quran: If Allah is Angry, Allah forbid, nobody can assist you in the whole universe and if Allah leaves you, then there is no helper for you.
(6) The Tie itself is just a testimony, which signifies the religion of Christianity. So there is no need for any other evidence. Even then, all Muslims and non-Muslims agree to the fact that the Tie is a symbol of Christianity as it appeared many times during enquiry from people. It happened just last year that a convert (Muslim) told me that the Tie was considered as a dress of respect to the Church. In this way, it's religious standing comes to light. Also as a clergyman told a Pakistani theologian, "The reward is increased by fastening the Tie according to their belief", as Mufti Naseem Ashraf, a resident of Durban, South Africa, told me.
Hence, find out the insight of Hadrat Mufti-e-Azam Hind (radi Allahu anhu) in Islamic law and estimate the range of his information about the habits and affairs of contemporary persons. Certainly, a theologian must be such that he must have awareness about the people of his time, despite having no contact with them. No doubt, after having known all the principles of Islamic Law, the knowledge of people's conditions is necessary for a theologian. Hadrat Mufti-e-Azam (radi Allahu anhu) has got a great reach in this field. Therefore, Ulama used to say that "Whoever is not aware of the people of his time, he is ignorant."
(7) After all this, few words are quoted from A'la Hadrat's (radi Allahu anhu) work, "Fatawa Razvia" for the sake of attaining blessings. Here is a question and part of the answer:
QUESTION: Zaid used to wear the coat, shirt with collar and neck-tie, Turkish cap and pishwari pyjama and boots and has his hair (done) in English fashion. Amar says, "It has resemblance with Christians." Zaid says, "No. On any account a little difference is enough to escape likeness." Which of the two is right? Please clarify. May Allah reward you.
ANSWER: Whichever (of these), which are considered to be symbols of non-Muslims or of sinful and disobedient persons, it is absolutely forbidden to adopt it willingly without a lawful reason, even if it is a single thing for it that will certainly bring resemblance with them in this very way. This very reason is enough to inhibit (its use), notwithstanding, no resemblance exists in other manners. It is just like the rose and urine. In case there is a full glass of rose water which has one drop of urine, the entire glass is impure as well, as if it is full of urine. After going ahead, he (A'la Hadrat) quoted the special injunction concerning the very issue to establish its identity as a symbol. Accordingly, he states - "Ashbaho Nazair" briefly states, "The worship of Idol is Kufr (infidelity) as well as fastening the band of Jews and Christians, it is alike no matter if the person enters their Church or if he doesn't." (Fatawa Razvia, Part 2, Vol. 10, pg. 148-151)
In this very book, a question had been put to A'la Hadrat (radi Allahu anhu) about wearing such dress that causes no difference between Muslims and non-Muslims. A'la Hadrat (radi Allahu anhu) stated, "It is forbidden. Allah's Rasool (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) says, 'Whoever moves to resemble a nation, he is one of that nation.' But several conditions in this concern are considered to be infidelity, e.g. fastening the wasteband."
Allama Abdul Ghani Nablusi (rahmatullahi alaih) states, "Having the English fashion dress is infidelity according to the correct decision." In is said in "Fatawa Khulasa" that, "If a woman tied a rope around her back and said 'it is a cross-thread', she becomes an infidel."
In the same book, A'la Hadrat (radi Allahu anhu) has given the general rule of this issue as following: The generic (common, general) in this issue of the dress is that three points must be considered in this regard -
(1) the origin of it (the dress) must be lawful,
(2) to seek covering which concerns concealment,
(3) to regard the fashion, it must not be style of non-Muslims or sinful persons. It has two sorts, (i) the religious sign of non-Muslims, e.g. Hindus cross-thread and special cap of Christians, that is, the hat (ii) specially belonging to the non-Muslim nation but regarded as the symbol of their religion. It is also prohibited.
The Hadith-e-Sahih that was quoted before is attributed to it's apparent meaning in it's first condition and in it's second condition it is just for scolding and threatening. (Fatawa Razvia, Part 2, Vol. 10, pg. 177-8)
[Mufti] Mohammad Akhtar Raza Khan Qadiri Azhari
Notes made by Huzoor Taajush Shariah while compiling the fatwa on the tie.