Huzoor Tajush Shariah مد ظله العالي was asked regarding the opinion of some individuals of today who claim that due to the Tie no longer being considered a symbol of the Christianity, and that people of all religions now wear it, that it is now permissible to wear.


“In regards to the Tie, it is apparent from the Fatawa of Huzoor Mufti e Azam Hind رضي الله عنه‎ and also those of AlaHazrat رضي الله عنه‎, that it is the symbol of Christians and it is their religious symbol. No matter how common a religious symbol becomes among people, it cannot become permissible. As for the claim that it has not remained their symbol then this claim is not acceptable, I recently did a Q and A session in Karachi in which it was proven that the religious status of the Tie still remains even today. The Tie is a garment worn to show respect to the Church and regarding it resembling the Cross then in my Fatwa on the Tie I have included images of this from which it becomes apparent that it is a form of the Cross and is replica of the Cross. Its religious status still remains today, so this is explicitly their religious symbol and there cannot be permissibility in this. Even if this becomes common among the Muslims then it is not free from the fact that this is a garment of the Fussaaq and Fujjaar (sinners). The Fussaaq and Fujjaar wear this in line with the Kafirs and thus for this reason there cannot be permissibility for this and its prohibition stands from this point also.”


Huzoor Tajush Shariah مد ظله العالي was asked if Nikah is valid if the man is wearing the Tie.


“Nikah is valid, however wearing the Tie is a bad deed, Haram, and of bad consequences, and if a Muslim wears it while knowing it to be the appearance of the Christians and their symbol then, Ma’aazAllah, due to imitating them this, in reality, will be Kufr, but no Muslim intends this.”


Huzoor Tajush Shariah مد ظله العالي was asked if Namaz is valid while wearing a T-shirt or a Tie.


“La Ilaha Illa Allah, the Tie is a replica of the Cross, it is in the shape of the Cross, to wear it is impermissible and Haram. Rather, Ma’aazAllah (I seek Allah’s refuge), wearing it while knowing that this is a symbol of Christians and Christianity is a severe matter and it is to lose one’s Imaan. People are not allowed to wear Shirt and Pants as this is not the clothing of the pious and righteous people, and in the Qur’an we have been given the command:

خُذُوا زِينَتَكُمْ عِندَ كُلِّ مَسْجِدٍ

‘(O People), at the time of every Namaz wear that clothing which is a means of beautification for you and is specifically your own clothing.'”


Huzoor Tajush Shariah مد ظله العالي was asked:

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
Bareilly Shareef

The Answer:

Hadrat Mufti e Azam e Hind Radi Allahu Anhu used to say,

“Tie is a refutation of the Quran.”

The Holy Qur’an 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’s alaihis salaam) ‘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 sign 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 nonMuslims 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 collarbone 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 (clearly) 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 its 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 Sall Allahu Alaihi wa Sallam 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 Sall Allahu Alaihi wa Sallam.

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 (i.e. Wrath) of Allah. As it is said in the Holy Qur’an: If Allah is Angry (i.e. displeased), 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, its 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:


Zaid used to wear the coat, shirt with collar and neck-tie, Turkish cap and Peshawari pyjama (trouser) 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.

The 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 (i.e. all of it is contaminated).”

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; ‘Ashbahun Naza’ir’ briefly states,

‘The worship of Idols 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 Sall Allahu Alaihi wa Sallam says, ‘Whoever moves (attempts) 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 waste-band.”

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 (that) 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 crossthread
and special cap of Christians, that is, the hat

(ii) Specially belonging to the non-Muslim nation but not regarded as the symbol of their religion. It is also prohibited.

The Hadith e Sahih that was quoted before is attributed to its apparent meaning in its first condition (wearing it is Kufr) and in its second condition it is just for scolding (i.e. reproaching) and threatening (wearing it is forbidden). [Fatawa Razvia, Part 2, Vol. 10, pg. 177-8]

Huzoor Sayyidi Taajush Shariah Hazrat Allama
Mufti Mohammad Akhtar Raza Khan Qadiri Azhari

The handwriting on the top of the page belongs to Huzoor Taajush Shariah

A Muslim writer, E. Quraishi Sabri, made the following discovery: ‘Towards the end of the 19th Century, the Europeans omitted from dictionaries and Encyclopaedias the introductory phrase about the necktie being a symbol of the cross. A glance of Encyclopaedias printed before 1898 will confirm this point.’ In another report, it is said that the practice of the necktie started on the insistence of the Pope in the year 1790 and that by 1850 all Christian nations had accepted and implemented this order of the Pope.


AlaHazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan رضي الله عنه‎  was asked: Can one take photographs of the Awliya and pious individuals and keep them for the sake of barakah?

Answer: “The photos Sayyidunā Khalīlullāh álayhis salâm, Sayyidunā Ismayil Zabīhullāh álayhis salâm and Sayyidāh Bībī Maryam rađiyAllāhu ánha were painted inside the blessed Ka’abah. They were regarded as sacred, but Sayyidunā RasūlAllâh śallAllāhu álayhi wa âlihi wa sahbihī wa sallam personally erased them with his śallAllāhu álayhi wa âlihi wa sahbihī wa sallam blessed hands.”

(al-Malfūz al-Sharīf)

What we can learn from this:

Those who draw pictures or capture photos of the Awliya and pious people, this itself is a sin by itself, as this is forbidden to do in regards to any living being.

As for then framing and displaying these forbidden images on the walls of ones house is even greater in sin, not only does this cause the Angels to leave one’s house, this was also the way of the Kafirs prior to Islam and still remains their way.

RasūlAllâh śallAllāhu álayhi wa âlihi wa sahbihī wa sallam himself erased these forbidden images, if there was any Barakah or blessiings in this act then he śallAllāhu álayhi wa âlihi wa sahbihī wa sallam would not have done so, this makes evident that this practice is devoid of Barakah and is actually sinful; a path to idolatry.


AlaHazrat Imam Ahmad Raza Khan رضي الله عنه‎ states:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

“The modern day Raafidhis are not only Tabarra’ee (abusive / cursers), but they openly deny the fundamentals of religion. And so, most certainly, by the consensus of Muslims scholars, they are surely disbelievers and apostates.

The honorable scholars of Islam have confirmed that one who does not consider
them disbelievers, is himself a disbeliever. Beside several disbeliefs, there are two (other) clear ones, which are held by every Raafidhi – whether knowledgeable or illiterate, man or woman, child or elderly.


They claim that the Holy Qur’an is incomplete.

Some of them allege that Hazrat Uthmaan Ameer ulMumineen Ghani Zu-ulNoorain
or other Companions or Ahle Sunnah scholars, have removed some parts of the
Holy Qur’an. A group among the Rafidhis claims that they have changed some words, whilst some say though the reduction in or changing of the Holy Qur’an is not proven, it certainly is possible. And whoever believes that someone has made any addition to or reduction or alteration or any sort of change in the Holy Qur’an or even regards it as possible, is indeed – by consensus – a disbelieving apostate; because he is belying the Holy Qur’an itself.

For Almighty Allah has said in the Holy Quran (Surah Hijr – Verse 9):-

‘Indeed We have sent down the Qur’an, and indeed We Ourselves, surely are its Guardians.’

It is in Baidhawi:-

‘It (the quoted verse of the Holy Qur’an) means “We will protect it from any amendment, alteration, addition or reduction”.’

It is in Jalaalain Shareef:-

‘It (the quoted verse of the Holy Qur’an) means that Almighty Allah says, “We ourselves are the protectors of the Qur’an against anyone changing it, or rearranging it, or making any addition or reduction”.’

It is in alJumal:-

‘In contrast to other revealed books, in which amendments and alterations have taken place, the Holy Qur’an is protected from all that. No one from the whole creation, Jinn or human being, can add to or omit from it a single word or a single letter.’

Almighty Allah says in the Holy Qur’an (Surah Haa-Meem alSajdah Verse 41:42)

Indeed it is an honourable Book. Falsehood cannot approach it – neither from its front nor from its back; it is sent down by the Wise, the Most Praiseworthy.’

It is in Tafseer Ma’aalim utTanzeel Shareef:-

‘The exegetists Qatadah and Suddi said: Falsehood means the devil. He cannot remove, add or alter anything in the Qur’an. Zujaaj said: The meaning of “Falsehood” is that the Qur’an is protected from reduction, so nothing can be shortened from it, and thus falsehood cannot enter it from front. And it is protected from any sort of addition, so nothing can be added to it, thus falsehood cannot enter it from the back. Thus the meaning of falsehood is addition and reduction; and this book is totally protected from all sorts of falsehood.’

It is in Kashf ulAsraar by Imam Shaikh Abdul Azeez Bukhaari:-

‘The abrogation of any part of the Qur’an, whether in its recitation or commands was permissible during the time of the Holy Prophet. However, after his departure from the mundane world this is not possible. Some people who are actually Raafidhis and clearly atheists, hide behind slogans of Islam whereas their goal, in fact, is to destroy Islam. They say that this abrogation is allowed even after the departure of the Holy Prophet. They allege that there were some chapters in the Holy Qur’an about the Leadership of Hazrat Ali and about the excellence of Ahle Bayt, which the Companions have removed; and with the passage of time, these verses were forgotten. The proof of the falsehood of their allegation is this verse of the Holy Qur’an: “Indeed We have sent down the Qur’an, and indeed We Ourselves, surely are its Guardians”. It has been similarly stated in the book of Imam Shams ulAemmah Usool ulFiqh.’

Says Imam Qazi Ayaaz in Shifa Shareef after mentioning several of their disbeliefs (that are agreed upon by scholars):–

‘Likewise, the person who denies the Qur’an or any letter of the Qur’an and who alters anything in it, or does any addition to the present Qur’an, is most definitely a disbeliever by the consensus of scholars.’

It is in Fawateh urRahamoot:-

‘I have seen in ‘Majm’a ulBayaan’, the exegesis of a Tabarra’ee Raafidhi, that some of the Raafidhis believe that the Holy Qur’an was previously more than its currently available form; the loss of “that part” is deemed to be the fault of the Companions who compiled the Holy Qur’an (I seek refuge of Almighty Allah). The commentator did not say that, “Whosoever utters this statement is a disbeliever” – (he should have) since it is a denial of the fundamentals of religion. ‘


Every living Raafidhi claims that Sayyeduna Ameer ulMu’mineen Hazrat Ali and the other Imams (may Allah be pleased with them) are all higher in status than the preceding prophets.

And – by consensus of all Muslims – it is agreed that whoever deems a non-prophet
to be higher in status than any prophet, is a disbeliever.

It is explained in Shifa Shareef about such disbeliefs which are recognized by the consensus of Muslims as definitely disbelief:-

‘Likewise, we declare the extremist Raafidhis as disbelievers who claim that the Imams are superior to the prophets.’

Imam Nawawi has quoted in Kitab urRawdhah and Imam Ibne Hajar Makki has mentioned and confirmed this statement of Shifa Shareef in Ee’laam be-Qawaty alIslam and Mulla Ali Qari says in Sharh-e-Shifa:-

‘This (to deem the Imams superior to the Prophets) is open disbelief.’

It is in Minha urRauz alAzhar:-

‘The statement quoted from some (persons of) Karramiah (sect) that ‘It is possible that a saint can become greater in status than a prophet’ – is clear disbelief, deviancy, irreligious-ness and ignorance.’

It is in Sharh-e-Maqaasid and in Tareeqah-e-Muhammadiyah of Allamah Birkiwi:-

‘Indeed there is a consensus established among Muslims that the prophets are greater in status than saints.’

It is in Hadeeqah-e-Nadiyyah:-

‘To deem any non-prophet greater than any prophet is to deem him greater than all prophets.’

It is in the exegesis of Aqaaed Nasafee, Tareeqah-e-Muhammadiyyah and in Hadeeqah-e-Nadiyyah:-

‘Deeming a saint to be greater than any of the prophets, whether he is a Noble Messenger or not, is disbelief and deviancy; and why may it not be such? For this is equal to degrading a prophet in comparison with a saint and is (also) against the consensus, for it is well known that all Muslims have unanimously agreed upon the superiority of the prophets above all saints.’

It is in Irshaad usSaari:-

‘A prophet is greater in status than a saint – and this is an established certainty; and whoever says contrary to this is a disbeliever, because undoubtedly it (this tenet) is one of the fundamentals of religion.’