every intelligent and perceptive person.

He goes on to say:

“Sharing the same outward appearance fosters harmony and similarity between those who resemble one another, and this, in turn, leads to agreement in morals and deeds. This is a palpable reality: whoever dons the attire of the scholars, for example, feels within himself a certain affiliation with them; and whoever wears the battle-dress of soldiers feels inclined to adopt their qualities until his very nature comes to demand it.”(1)

From another angle, the author again notes that outward resemblance—in dress, appearance, behavior, and custom—must inevitably give rise to a degree of affection, fondness, and loyalty between those who look alike inwardly, part of which psychologists refer to as the “unconscious.” Likewise, inner love can also produce outward likeness.

Thus, when a Muslim imitates the unbelievers in any visible way—whether in dress, habits, or gestures—this usually shows that he harbors, even if only tacitly, an inner affection for those he is imitating, for imitation springs from admiration and a sense of the other’s superiority.

The author then presents another real-life example:

“If two men were to meet while traveling or in a foreign land and found that they resembled each other in turban, clothing, hairstyle, mount, or the like, the affinity between them would be greater than that found with others. You likewise observe that craftsmen and people of the same worldly trade feel a mutual familiarity far stronger than what they feel toward others, even when rivalry or outright hostility exists between them.”(2)

He then says: “So if resemblance in worldly matters breeds love and allegiance, how much more will resemblance in religious matters do so? For its tendency to engender a form of allegiance is greater and more intense,