Cross-Dressing or Triple-Crossing (3)! Did God and Prophet Muhammad Practice Cross-dressing?

By Jalal Abualrub (www.IslamLife.com)

In the second segment to this series of rebuttals on AnsweringIslam's false claim that Prophet Muhammad () used to wear women's clothing, we discovered that AnsweringIslam implicated their own falsely claimed god and savior, who never said he is God or their savior, in the slanderous cross-dressing claim they made against Prophet Muhammad (). We proved that if we were to agree with the sick logic of AnsweringIslam that, ?thawb < do indeed refer to women's clothing‛, then Jesus (`Esa), peace be upon him, also used to wear women's clothing, and worse as we explained in the second segment.

To completely dissipate this utter AnsweringIslam lie, here are two pictures of Thaubs in addition to the Islamic website that has them (http://www.alhannah.com/mensclothing.html). This website sells men's Thaubs under 'men's clothing'. They also sell women's Thaubs under 'women's clothing', and we also included a picture of one of them here to prove what we already established that Thaubs do NOT ?refer to women's clothing‛ or to men's clothing, but to garments of various types and shapes, even as a figure of speech not referring to clothing at all. Note that the garment on the left is called Thaub; it is men's clothing. The garment on the right is also called Thaub; it is a type of women's clothing.

Men's Thaub Women's Thaub

Note the shared characteristics between them, and the differences. This is the best way to discover the deceit of AnsweringIslam. They want to make it appear as if Thaub is a gender-type of garment, i.e., female. This is why they did not spare a chance

to alter the Islamic texts to try and make it appear as if the Prophet of Allah () used to wear a woman's dress.

Even before I publish this segment of my rebuttal on AnsweringIslam's new article about cross-dressing, Sam Shamoun had already responded to the previous segment. This time, the article bears his name, thus confirming what I suspected that he is behind the AnsweringIslam articles about cross-dressing. Shamoun's new response is as bizarre as his other responses, more abuse and more stubborn refusal to see the truth even after it was given to him and his wicked cohorts as clear as daylight. He mentioned things that are not on the topic of this series, so I will Inshaallah ignore them. I will only include here a response to a part of his new response that pertains to the topic of this series. When I am done with this series, I will move on to other topics and to respond to other haters of Islam, Allah willing.

In his newest response, and as usual, Sam Shamoun offers his readers a new set of words of abuse and foul speech. I will disregard the abuse. However, because he denied saying that Thaub refers to women's clothing, I will establish here how Sam Shamoun has indeed said that Thaub refers to women's clothing, and only to that. By dismissing all other contexts, Shamoun made a conclusion that where Thaub is mentioned along with the Prophet, peace be upon him, it refers to women's clothing.

Here are Shamoun's own words, "here is what I said concerning the application of this word to women's clothing < Again: Moreover, we posted the views of authentic Muslim sources admitting that the terms such as mirt and thawb do refer to women's garments, providing substantiation that the hadiths are indeed stating that Muhammad wore the clothes of his wives. In other words, Muhammad put on women's clothing according to the Islamic sources, and thereby comes under the condemnation of the Torah which rebukes any man who wears women's dresses and vice-versa."

Strangely enough, Shamoun makes a reference here to the Torah, which no longer exists in its original form. Just like the majority of Christians, Shamoun does not believe in the Law of the Torah to begin with. They believe that Saul (Paul) abrogated the law for them, that it only applies to the Jews not to them. Consequently, they do not abide by the Sabbath law, stoning the adulterer, or the law about food. They eat pork which the Torah forbids and Jesus never ate. Yet, and for some reason, knowing that the Torah law does not apply to Muslims since they have their own law, Sam Shamoun quotes it as if he cares about what the Torah says, as if the Torah means anything to him.

This is the kind of religion that these people follow, an unholy trinity of some sorts. The first member to this unholy trinity is that, some Christians think that Islam

considers the Old Testament and the Torah, and the New Testament and the Injil, as synonyms. This is a perfect lie and the Quran and Sunnah say no such thing. The Torah was a book of religious instructions sent TO Moses, NOT ABOUT Moses, NOT BY Moses. The Injil was a book of religious instructions sent TO Jesus, NOT ABOUT Jesus, NOT BY Jesus. The Two Testaments are story books written by anonymous authors of unknown trustworthiness. And even though Islam upheld a part of the Law of Moses, most of the Law of Moses was abrogated and replaced by the Islamic Law, the only Law Muslims are required or allowed to follow as Allah () said,

             

    

{And We have sent down to you (O, Muhammad ) the Book (this Qur'ān) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Mohayminan (trustworthy in highness and a witness [an abrogater]) over it (old Scriptures). So judge (you, O, Muhammad ) among them by what Allāh has revealed.} (5:48)

The second part of this unholy trinity is that, when Christians are reminded that even though they claim they truly believe in the Old Testament they do not obey the Law of Moses, they claim that the law was not meant for gentiles, as Sam Shamoun puts it, "Peter was in perfect agreement with Paul regarding the decision that Gentiles were not required to observe the entirety of the Mosaic Law for either salvation or sanctification." Saul (Paul) singlehandedly spoiled and corrupted the religion of Jesus, peace be upon him, abrogated Circumcision (Galatians 5:2), declared all foods as clean (Romans 14:14, 20), and declared the law obsolete. The claim that Peter had anything to do with this crime, is a crime itself. Therefore, according to Shamoun's own words, Muslims do not have to follow the Mosaic Law and don not need it for either salvation or sanctification.

The third part of this unholy trinity is that, AnsweringIslam wants to force the law of the Old Testament down the throats of Muslims, a law Allah said was abrogated and Christians do not honor in the least. There you have it, an unholy trinity.

In his latest article, Shamoun still repeats his lie that Prophet Muhammad () was a cross-dresser, "the hadiths are indeed stating that Muhammad wore the clothes of his wives", after restating that, "the terms such as mirt and thawb do refer to women's garments." These are Shamoun's own words, not the Hadeeths' words. There is no Hadeeth that says, "mirt and thawb do refer to women's garments." Shamoun's statement, "the hadiths are indeed stating that Muhammad wore the clothes of his

wives", is a perfect lie as no such Hadeeths exist. These are Shamoun's own words explaining terms "such as mirt and thawb" and saying that they "do refer to women's garments.". These are Shamoun's conclusions. No one in history that I know of wrote these conclusions before Shamoun wrote them, even though the Hadeeths under discussion have been available to mankind for fifteen centuries.

Since "mirt and thawb" are two different things separated by 'and' and followed by the verb "do", which indicates more than one as compared to does which indicates the singular, then Shamoun is indeed stating that both Mirt and Thaub refer to women's clothing, as in each one of them does, since both of them "do." I responded to the Thaub part and this is the response to the Mirt part.

On their wicked website (http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/mirt.htm), Sam Shamoun posted an appendix listing the meanings of Thuab he could cut and paste, again quoting a collection of books that explain Thaub as clothing, all types of clothing whether real or figurative. Yet, AnsweringIslam still insists that when it comes to Prophet Muhammad (), this only means that "Muhammad wore the clothes of his wives." Shamoun even insists that "Un-sewn garments are very familiar to Muslims. Today, they are specifically used for clothing purposes. These cloths are NOT used as towels to dry the body or blankets to sleep under; they are specifically used for clothing." Consequently, Muslims no longer cover in bed in blankets or dry with towels. According to AnsweringIslam, Muslims no longer use un-sewn garments for this purpose. They must then use sewn dresses, pants and jeans to cover in bed and dry with! Why would not Jalal call these people wicked?

First, our dispute with AnsweringIslam and Sam Shamoun is not what Muslims TODAY do or do not do, but what these words and terms meant fifteen centuries ago. Even then, Shamoun lies and AnsweringIslam lies. Muslims cover in bed using blankets, dry with towels and use their un-sewn towel-like garments for Hajj, for example, as AnsweringIslam admits and even posts the picture for it. Muslims do not regularly wear towels in their daily life or as part of their ordinary clothing. The I`hram garments are meant to be 1) a 2-part Izar for men (as in FOR MEN) 2) to be used while in Hajj (Pilgrimage) and `Umrah. These Izars are also used for covering and are meant NOT to be regular clothing. How many a Muslim man have I seen cover with the upper Izar for Hajj (picture shown below; it is just a sheet, a piece of cloth, one can use it for possibly anything), while taking a nap! Shamoun's statement that these garments are used for clothing is false. In addition, the examples that he gives are for men, while his aim is to slander Muhammad () as a cross-dresser. How can this help his case?

Muslims do use their Izar to cover with in bed, especially while travelling, even today. Muslims do that frequently, especially in Southeast Asia where this type of garment is still widely popular and also in the Arabian Gulf area. What's wrong with this Shamoun? He denies what is known universally to Muslims and even non Muslims, such as Buddhists and Hindus who sometimes cover with their un-sewn garments or even with their turbans when they take a nap.

Next, and to prove that Prophet Muhammad () is a cross-dresser, Shamoun brings an Ayah from the Quran where Allah () describes husband and wife as a Libas (garment) to each other, quoting its explanation as واخر اًػه اً في ثىب واحذ which means that husband and wife gather Fee one Thaub. He thinks that this explanation supports his contention that Prophet Muhammad () used to wear women's clothing. It seems that this type of evangelicals thinks that when having sexual intercourse, husband and wife wear the same dress, a woman's dress, and this is why Allah () described them as being Libas for each other. This must be a new trend that when husband and wife have sexual intercourse, they were a woman's dress in bed, both of them and at the same time, or wear a woman's skirt, or a woman's jeans, both of them and at the same time.

The fact is that the sentence in the Ayah that Shamoun quotes is partly in reference to bedcovering, i.e., husband and wife gather under (Fee) their bed sheet, not that when having sexual intercourse, they wear a woman's dress. Allah () also describes the spouses intimacy to each other and closeness of each other's body to each other while having sexual intercourse to when a garment covers someone's body or to the example of a blanket covering a bed. Shamoun uses evidence that disprove his lies as if proving them.

Since we all agree that Thaub has a host of meanings, why does AnsweringIslam keep bringing proof to this fact. The problem we have with this wicked team is not that Thaub and Libas mean a host of things. The problem we have with them is that they exclude all meanings except one when it comes to the Prophet of Allah (). In other words, to prove that "mirt and thawb do refer to women's garments" AnsweringIslam

provides ample proof that Thaub means a lot more than what they claim it to be. Thanks for the effort. They even bring pictures to Izar in Hajj to prove that Prophet Muhammad () used to cross-dress, apparently by wearing a towel around his waist which all Muslim men who perform Hajj do until today. The pictures they provide only expose their lies, because they only assert the multiple meanings to 'Thaub' and to 'to wear'. Is that what they wish to prove? No! What they wish to prove is that the Prophet of Allah () used to wear women's clothing. That's why they started their mission of slander and lies to begin with.

Here are a few more words that Shamoun wrote in his new article, "In light of the foregoing one would expect that Abularub would provide some kind of evidence from the context of the particular hadiths which we sourced to prove that these terms do not denote the fact that Muhammad was dressed in Aisha's clothes."

Again, Shamoun is referring here to both Thaub and Mirt, offering his own conclusion not found in any Hadeeth that these terms denote to women's clothing. Note how Shamoun does not say 'in these contexts, these terms denote to women's clothing.' Instead, he says, 'these terms', then wants us to prove that Thaub and Mirt do not 'denote the fact that Muhammad was dressed in Aisha's clothes.' Thus, he accuses Jesus of cross-dressing as we proved since to him, Thaub refers to women's clothing. There is not a single Hadeeth in existence saying that the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, wore women's clothing. This is a lie invented by Shamoun and AnsweringIslam.

Sam Shamoun writes, "I will demonstrate here that Jalal's eighteen-page bluster is nothing more than a classic textbook example of strawman argumentation as well as an exercise in utter desperation and futility. Jalal presented a list of verses from the Arabic translation of the Holy Bible where men such as his true Lord and Master Jesus Christ are said to have worn a thawb in order to show just how absurd my claim is concerning Muhammad being a cross-dresser since this would imply that Jesus Christ, his Judge and Ruler, was also a cross-dresser for wearing women's clothing! He also presents a slew of Islamic narrations to show that thawb can refer to the clothing, covering and shroud worn by men."

I did indeed prove that Thaub has a host of contexts and that if we were to believe the lies of AnsweringIslam that, "thawb do refer to women's garments", then also Jesus would be accused of cross-dressing. I proved that AnsweringIslam took the Hadeeths they quoted out of context to come up with a conclusion that no one before them came up with. I proved that Thaub does not mean a woman's dress. I exposed the corruption to the context that was done by AnsweringIslam. Abusing me will not erase or change these facts. More good news to come here, Allah () willing.

I have no problem whatsoever with Prophet `Esa (Jesus  [peace be upon him]) being the chief and master of mankind during his time. I believe in him, unlike those who falsely ascribe divinity to him, a claim he never made. I have a problem with those who worship a man like them who, according to them, was killed by spitting Jews and smacking Romans. The truth is that there are only two monotheistic religions, Islam and Judaism. Christianity is polytheistic, worshipping three different gods with three different roles, three different personalities, even three different fates. Trinity has been losing ground to Islam since the beginning of Islam, because Trinity is an invented creed that cannot be defended against the clear Islamic Monotheism. This is why many hostile Christians, like AnsweringIslam, try their best to avoid discussing their creed and instead resort to slander against Islam and Muslims.

What is amusing is that Shamoun quotes another liar against Islam, a Coptic priest called Zakariya Boutros who dwells about Prophet Muhammad's liking women in marriage. Amazingly, AnsweringIslam is acting as if now, they consider Coptic Christians to be true Christians. Bringing a Christian priest to talk about sexual behavior is another joke. Do not these people live among mankind in this generation to realize how it is truly unwise to take any advice about sexual behavior from Christian priests? AnsweringIslam, Sam Shamoun and their readers know how many hundreds of millions of dollars the Christian church paid to victims of clergy sexual abuse. Apparently, Christian priests, with all their troubles that only now have been partially exposed, have a problem with Prophet Muhammad () who liked women in marriage. At least he married women, as in 'married' followed by 'women'! Need I say more?

In this segment, we will Inshaallah (Allah  willing) discuss the matter of Mirt. We will discover here that if we were to agree with the sick logic of AnsweringIslam, then not only Muhammad () practiced cross-dressing, but also God Himself!

Mirt! What is a Mirt, Again?

The AnsweringIslam team continues, by writing that, ?MIRT: Moreover, here is the definition of mirt according to Al-Mu'jam Al-Waseet (The Intercessory Dictionary), second edition, 1972, part 2, p. 864: (Mirt) - a dress from wool or cotton that is used as an Izar or a cover by a woman. In light of the foregoing one would expect that Abularub (!) would provide some kind of evidence from the context of the particular hadiths which we sourced to prove that these terms do not denote the fact that Muhammad was dressed in Aisha's clothes. Yet, unfortunately for him, he failed to produce anything from the context which would indicate that Muhammad wasn't wearing clothes but was simply covering himself with Aisha's blankets.‛

And Who is Abularub?

Jalal Abualrub wrote: When one does not wish to even try and seek the truth, nothing one reads can be a source of guidance or benefit for them. I did indeed provide ample evidence in my original rebuttal to Shamoun's Cross-dressing article wherein I proved that the Prophet of Allah () was merely covering with the bed-covering of Aishah, his wife, not wearing women's clothing. But, here we go again! Allah willing, I will respond to the rest of their new cross-dressing article by refuting it one segment at a time, as much as possible. But first, I would like to remind the reader that a man who goes by the name ?Esther' should not write anything about cross-dressing to begin with.

Corruption Manifested

Al-Mu`jam al-Waseet, newly discovered by the non-Arabi speaking authors of the AnsweringIslam team, is a contemporary dictionary of Arabi words. But, as the name suggests, it is only a dictionary, it is not the Quran or the Sunnah. The authors of this contemporary dictionary made their beneficial effort, but they are not the authority on what the Quran and Sunnah mean and are not known to be scholars of Hadeeth or Tafsir. Yet, let's read what the dictionary says and find out if they agree with AnsweringIslam that ?mirt and thawb do indeed refer to women's clothing.‛ We will demonstrate how AnsweringIslam corrupted what the dictionary says by misquoting it.

Definitions of Thaub and Yalbas (To Wear)

First, here is what the contemporary dictionary, Al-Mu'jam al-Waseet, says about Thaub:

) انثىب ( يا هٌثظ و قٌال سخم عا شْ انثىب تشيء ي انؼ ةٍ

?Ath-Thaub: Ma Yulbas (What is worn); it is said, ?A man whose Thaub is pure' [in reference to his being] free from blame (or from shortcomings).‛

Therefore, a Thaub is what is worn in contrast to what the AnsweringIslam team claims, ?thawb do indeed refer to women's clothing.‛ Note that the example the dictionary gave is for a man to have a pure Thaub, a figure of speech denoting to purity. This is because Thaub does not mean women's clothing. Thaub does not mean men's clothing either. Thaub refers to what is Yulbas, or worn, and may refer to sewn clothing, un-sewn garments, blankets, robes, cloaks, sheets, or used as a figure of speech as the AnsweringIslam team agrees, ?thawb clearly refers to clothing oneself with something,

whether actual garments one wears or wearing something in a metaphorical sense such as being clothed in fire.‛

However, to AnsweringIslam, when it comes to Muhammad, peace be upon him, Thaub only means that he ?was dressed in Aisha's clothes.‛ This is a theme that AnsweringIslam keeps repeating, such as writing, " What is about to follow next may shock not only Christians but Muslims as well. The authentic hadith literature unashamedly states that Muhammad wore Aisha's apparel as he reclined before her, and also exposed his thighs in front of men" (http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/mhd_cross_dressing1.htm).

I did not know that in Christianity, it is not allowed for men to expose their thighs in front of other men. This is a shock to me knowing that 1) Peter was fishing while naked, i.e., nude, in public, and only felt shy when he was told that Jesus was there (John 21:7); 2) Jesus, whom Christians falsely claim is God, was stripped naked before he was spat on by Jews, smacked by Romans and then crucified, so Christians claim (Matthew 27:28).

I am also shocked on three more accounts! To begin with, there is no such Hadeeth literature that says what Shamoun concluded. To the contrary, what AnsweringIslam says is only a conclusion made by AnsweringIslam on Hadeeth literature. Also, I did not know that Christians would be shocked at Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, exposing his thighs to other men. This Hadeeth indicates that one can expose the lower part of his thighs close to the knees in front of some of his close associates, but not in public. The Christians cannot possibly be shocked at this; those who filled the earth with pornographic pictures and movies cannot possibly talk about this issue. In addition, the thought that Christians actually would think that one laying next to his wife under one bedcovering is shocking or shameful, is itself shocking and shameful.

Second, the meaning of Lubs or Labisa (as in Yulbas above):

) نثظ ( انثىب نثغا اعررش ت و قٌال نثظ الح اٍء و قٌال نثظ قىيا تمهى بهى د شْا ونثظ ان اُط ػاػ يؼهى وفلا فلا حَ ػ شً كا دَ

يؼ شثات كه وفلا اَ ػهى يا ف احر هً وقثه و قٌال نثغد ػهى كزا أرني صخاممد ػ وخاء فلا لاتغا أر يرغافلا

Al-Mu`jam al-Waseet gives these meanings for Labisa: Labisa ath-Thauba Lubsan, to cover with it (the Thaub); it is said, ?Labisa-l-`Hayaa (he took shyness or modesty as his mannerism)'; it is said, ?Labisa Qauman', when one stays with a people for a period of time; Labisa an-Nas, to live with a people; [Labisa] Fulanun Fulanata `Umurah, for a man to remain with a woman (or spouse) his entire youth; [Labisa] Fulanan `ala ma feehi, to

put up with and accept [an acquaintance who has shortcomings]; it is said, ?Labistu `ala Kadha Udhuni', to intentionally not listen to something or someone; Ja-a Fulanun Labisan Udhunaihi, for one to act as if one is not paying attention.

It is beneficial here to mention the literal meaning of the examples given above to demonstrate how the word Yalbas and its variations are used in Arabi.

1. Labisa ath-Thauba Lubsan: to wear the Thaub.

2. Labisa-l-`Hayaa: to wear shyness.

3. Labisa Qauman, and, Labisa an-Nas: to wear a or the people.

4. [Labisa] Fulanun Fulanata `Umurah: he wore her his entire youth.

5. [Labisa] Fulanan `ala ma feehi: to wear someone regardless of what [ills] he may have.

6. Labistu `ala Kadha Udhuni: regarding something, he wore his ear.

7. Ja-a Fulanun Labisan Udhunaihi: so and so came while wearing his ears.

It is obvious that Yalbas is not what AnsweringIslam makes it out to be, but a word that carries complex meanings defined by the context. Otherwise, if one ignores the context and follows the wicked guidance of AnsweringIslam with regards to Yalbas, then Labisa an-Nas, would mean that someone is actually dresses in people, wrapped up in men, women or children, sort of a cross-dressing joke told by a bad male comedian who goes by the name Esther.

In the Sunnah, far more eloquent and ancient than any dictionary, Yalbas has various other meanings; I will mention one of them here. This meaning is very important and provides direct proof that AnsweringIslam lies. Imams Bukhari and Muslim reported that Anas Ibn Malik (; may Allah be pleased with him) said that his grandmother Mulaikah (; may Allah be pleased with her) invited the Messenger of Allah () to eat from food she made. The Messenger of Allah () came and ate from the food. He () then told the family of Anas to stand up so he () can lead them in prayer. Anas () said, " ٍي دىعا ذق اُن يرصح لىإ دًقف لىع اي ةن ط (I went to a Haseer we had, which had become black because of how long it was Lubisa)." Anas went on to say that he sprinkled water on the Haseer, then they prayed two Rak`ah behind the Messenger of Allah (), who then left.

Men Wearing Floor Rugs!

This Hadeeth adds yet another meaning for Yalbas. In Arabi, 'Yalbas', does not always mean, 'to wear.' In the context of the Hadeeth above from Anas, Yalbas means, 'to sit on.' The keyword in the Hadeeth that indicates this meaning is, 'Haseer.' In another

Hadeeth reported in Sahih Sunan Abi Dawud, Anas stated that their Haseer was a Bisat. So what do the synonyms Haseer and Bisat mean?

We will again use the dictionary that AnsweringIslam seems to be fond of, Al-Mu`jam al-Waseet, to find the meaning for, Haseer, defined therein as, جىغُلما طاغثنا , i.e., 'the woven Bisat'. The dictionary also defines Bisat as, ضشب ي انفشػ غٌُح ي انصىف , i.e., 'a type of Farsh (bedding; floor covering) woven from wool.' In addition, Al-Mu'jam al-Waseet mentioned this meaning for a variation of the word, Yalbas: ' )أنثظ( انش ءً انش ءً غغاِ

Albasa something over something else, i.e., to cover something with something else.' Thus, they acknowledge the fact that 'Yalbas (to wear)' in Arabi has a host of meanings as is obvious from the examples presented here.

AnsweringIslam wrote that Jalal Abualrub, "mistakenly assumes that since the narration of Musnad Ahmad says that Muhammad and his child bride were wearing her mirt this somehow proves that this cannot be referring to her clothes." Inshaallah (Allah willing), we will indeed again prove that the Mirt of Aishah () was her blanket when we explain the narration AnsweringIslam is referring to here as well as other narrations. As for the notion of 'child bride', Aishah was the Prophet's wife. Also, they were not wearing her Mirt, they were under it. During the era under discussion, women did not have elephant-size shirts that could take two or more people in them.

We quoted above the Hadeeth found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim from Anas Ibn Malik about their Haseer and how it became black because of how long it was worn (Lubisa). If we follow the logic of AnsweringIslam regarding the word Yalabs and its variations including Labisun, then the family of Anas, would be walking around wearing floor rugs! But the fact is, the Hadeeth we quoted above from Anas uses the word Lubisa, a variation of Lubs, to mean, 'to sit on'! This leads us to something as normal as speech itself, that is, CONTEXT! One has to understand the context of speech before making judgment.

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, author of the explanation of, Sahih al-Bukhari titled, Fat`h-ul-Bari, commented on the Hadeeth from Anas collected by Bukhari and Muslim about the Haseer of their family which became black because of the length of time it was Lubisa. Ibn Hajar said that Anas' statement indicates that sitting on something is called, ?Lubs (wearing).' He added that this Hadeeth is proof that sitting on silk garments [for men] is disallowed, because of the Hadeeth forbidding wearing silk for men.

These are but some of the meanings for Yalbas in Arabi. But who are the Arabs to teach non-Arabi speaking, hostile evangelists what Arabi words mean?

Honesty is Good!

AnsweringIslam takes Arabi sentences found in Arabi books, cunningly corrupt their meaning then claim that they are, ?Teaching a Muslim Shaykh a valuable lesson in translation and meaning of words.‛ They think that no one will discover their deceit. AnsweringIslam wrote, ?the definition of mirt according to Al-Mu'jam Al-Waseet (The Intercessory Dictionary), second edition, 1972, part 2, p. 864: (Mirt) - a dress from wool or cotton that is used as an Izar or a cover by a woman.‛ In contrast, here is how Al-Mu`jam al-Waseet truly defines Mirt: ( طشلما ) جأشلما ّت غفهرذو ّت سضذؤٌ ٌارك وأ فىص وأ ضخ ٍي ءاغك

Mirt: A Kisaa made from Khazz (wool), Suf (wool) or Kittan (fiber; animal hair) that is used as Izar, and a woman wraps herself with it.

Deception is NOT Good!

AnsweringIslam said that the dictionary defined Mirt as a 'dress'; This is a wicked lie. The authors of the dictionary used 'Kisaa' to define Mirt not 'dress'; they defined Kisaa as being al-Libas while defining al-Libas as 'what covers (shields) the body'

) انكغاء ( انهثاط ... ) انهثاط ( يا غٌرش الجغى ... وانضوج وانضوخح كم ي هُ اً نثاط نلآخش وفي انر ضُ مٌ انؼض ضٌ: نثاط نكى

وأ رَى نثاط له For example, the authors then said that as the Quran states, the husband and wife are Libasun for each other, { نِثَاطٌ نَّكُىِ وَأَ رَُىِ نِثَاطٌ نَّهُ (They are Libās for you and you are the same for them)} (2:187).

Among the meanings mentioned for Ayah 2:187 is that found in Tafsir at-Tabari wherein ar-Rabi` said, وقال انشت غٍ : فشاػ نكى وأ رَى لحاف له (They are Firash for you and you are Li'haf for them). This hardly means that the wife is her husband's dress or that the husband wears his wife as one wears a dress since she is his woman's clothing. Rather, as ar-Rabi` stated, the husband is described here as being his wife's bedcovering while the wife is described as being her husband's bed, a figure of speech as is obvious. The authors of the dictionary did not say here that, ?mirt < do indeed refer to women's clothing‛ as AnsweringIslam keeps insisting. Rather, the dictionary gave two uses or definitions for Mirt.

Firstly, Mirt is used as an Izar, defined in the dictionary as follows.

) الإصاس ( ثىب يح ظٍ تان صُف الأعفم ي انثذ زٌكش و ؤٌ ثَ ... و قٌال فلا ػف فٍ الإصاس ػف ػ اً يحشو ػه ي ان غُاء

Izar: A Thuab that wraps the lower half of the body and [this word] is used in both the masculine and feminine contexts; it is said a person is ?Afif al-Izar', when he practices chastity with regards to what is prohibited for him with women.

The dictionary mentioned three things about Izar: 1) it wraps the lower part of the body; 2) it is used in both the masculine and feminine contexts; 3) the example they gave is for men's Izars. To assert these meanings, we enclose here two pictures of Izar.

Millions of Muslims, mainly male, from Indonesia to Morocco still wear Izar, a popular garment that is still called, 'Izar.' They wear Izar at home, in public and at gatherings, including at Masjids to pray. They also may cover with Izar in bed, use it as a sheet to sit or to pray on, or wear a special type of Izar for Hajj and `Umrah as part of the I`hram rituals. Here is an Islamic website that sells men's Izar (http://www.essenceofblack.com/izaar.htm), and here is a picture of one of their Izars.

Here is another picture of an Izar from another Islamic website (http://www.alhannah.com/products/me429.html) that sells Izar of the Khaleeji type, i.e., the type popular in the Arabian Gulf (popularly known as the Persian Gulf) where I grew up. My children wear Izar too just like many millions of Muslims, and may cover with it in bed sometimes using it as a blanket. We also use Izar garments to pray on them sometimes. My children duly testify to the utter ignorance of AnsweringIslam.

Women also wear this type of garment known as Mirt; they wrap with it, pray on it and cover with it in bed sometimes. During the era under discussion, people were poor and did not have the comfortable quilts, soft bed sheets, pillows, blankets, bed frames, or mats we now have. A Mirt may very well have been all what the

spouses had at home to cover with in bed as a blanket. This type of garment does not have the characteristics of regular clothing, such as dresses, pants, skirts, shirts, underwear, socks, and so forth. It is just a square or rectangular piece of cloth used for multiple, gender-neutral purposes.

Secondly, Al-Mu'jam al-Waseet said that Mirt is used by women as a Lifa', defined in the dictionary as follows ( عافهنا ) ِيرغ وأ ٌاك ءاغك ّهك ذغلجا ّت مهيج اي Lifa`: What wraps the entire body, whether a Kisaa or something else.

The dictionary did not mention the Lifa` in the feminine or masculine context here, but in other parts the dictionary brought examples to Lifa` in both the masculine and feminine contexts. The dictionary only said that women may use Mirt as a Lifa` and did not say that Mirt is only worn by women. To the contrary, the Al-Mu`jam al-Waseet itself stated that, وفي الحذ ثٌ ) أ خشج راخ ىٌو و ػه يشط يشحم ( "In the Hadeeth, '[The Prophet of Allah ()] went out one day wearing a marked Mirt." Therefore, the dictionary quoted a Hadeeth here wherein a man wore a Mirt. This directly refutes the lie AnsweringIslam ascribed to the dictionary by insinuating that they said that ?mirt < do indeed refer to women's clothing‛ when they said no such thing. To the contrary, the dictionary quoted a Hadeeth mentioning a man wearing a Mirt!

Yatalaffa`, indicates an action. To explain, a garment may be used to cover a bed or to wrap the body with it. In both of these cases, this garment will be called Lifa' to indicate the action done with the garment, i.e., wrapping. To assert these meanings, we quote here two Hadeeths wherein men and women wrap with the gender-neutral garments of each other, and as such the garments are called 'Lifa'.'

The first narration: It was reported that Ali Ibn Abi Talib (), the Prophet's paternal cousin and son-in-law, said that the Prophet of Allah () came to their house asking what Fatimah (), Ali's wife, wanted from her father, the Prophet of Allah (), the day before when she visited him but found him to be busy. When the Prophet of Allah () came the next day to Ali's and Fatimah's house, Ali Ibn Abi Talib reported,

ونح في نفاػ اُ فدهظ ػ ذُ سأعها فأدخهد سأعها في انهفاع ح اٍء ي أت هٍا (We were both Fee (under) our Lifa' and he sat next to her head; she felt shy from her father and entered her head Fee (under) the Lifa'" (Sunan Abi Dawud). They used the Lifa' as a blanket. She () felt shy because she wanted to ask her father () for a servant to help her.

The second narration is found in, Majma` az-Zawa-id, by Imam al-Haithami: Asmaa Bint Abi Bakr (), Aishah's sister, said,

طاُنا حخس دؼًغف ىهعو ٍّهػ للها ىهص للها لىعس ذهػ ىهػ ظًشنا دفغخ ... دهخد تىح يرتضهن حفٍغقت حؼفهري دخشخف

ػهى ػائشح وسعىل الله صهى الله ػه وعهى قائى صٌه تان اُط .

"The sun eclipsed during the time of the Messenger of Allah () and I heard the noise of people < I departed [my house] using for Lifa' a Qateefah (garment) that belonged to az-Zubair (her husband), until I entered on Aishah while the Messenger of Allah () was standing leading the people in the [Eclipse] Prayer."

These examples to Lifa' as a blanket and as a wrapping garment used by both men and women assert the fact that the Mirt under discussion is gender-neutral used for multiple purposes by males and females. Add to this the fact that Al-Mu'jam al-Waseet dictionary brought clear proof in their dictionary that Mirt is also worn by men, by saying, وفي الحذ ثٌ أ خشج راخ ىٌو و ػه يشط يشحم (In the Hadeeth, [The Prophet of Allah ()] went out one day wearing a marked Mirt).

This is overwhelming proof that Mirt is, according to Al-Mu`jam al-Waseet and the Hadeeths quoted here, also used by men. Otherwise, the dictionary would have said something, anything that may support the AnsweringIslam lies. The definition for Mirt that the AnsweringIslam team claims exist in the dictionary, is severely corrupted.

1. The dictionary did not say that Mirt is only used by women.

2. The dictionary defined Mirt as two things, an Izar and a Lifa`.

a. The dictionary stated that the Izar is used to wrap the lower part of the body and the example they gave is of a man with regards to Izar.

b. The dictionary stated that the Lifa` wraps the entire body, and in other instances brought examples to men and women wearing Lifa'.

3. In another part, the dictionary stated that the Prophet of Allah () went out wearing a Mirt.

Conclusion: The AnsweringIslam team lies; the reader can easily discover their lies from the evidence presented here.

It must have been a tremendous conspiracy that started since the time of the Prophet of Allah () that Muslims and non-Muslims, including countless scholars, knew that the Prophet Muhammad () wore a Mirt yet none of them said that Prophet Muhammad () used to wear women's clothing, since to AnsweringIslam, they are one and the same. Not even the Christians from Yemen who visited the Prophet's Masjid in Madinah said that. Not even the hostile Jews who resided in Madinah made this claim, even though they fought against Islam and tried to kill its Prophet (). And these were

the Prophet's contemporaries. No one before the current era that witnessed the wickedness of haters of Islam sink to an all-time low did anyone deduct from these Hadeeths that Prophet Muhammad () used to cross-dress. These Hadeeths have been available to mankind for fifteen centuries, only the geniuses of AnsweringIslam came to know what these Hadeeths truly mean.

AnsweringIslam says next, ?It gets worse for Abualrub. We now produce statements from Muslim authorities that not only admit that mirt and thawb do indeed refer to women's clothing, but also acknowledge that the use of these very words in the specific hadiths which we cited definitely prove that Muhammad was in fact wearing women's garments. From Sahih Muslim, Hadith Number 4415 Volume Title, ?From the virtues of the Companions.‛ Chapter Title, ?From the Virtues of Uthman Ibn Affan, May Allah be please with him.‛ Narrated by Abdel Malik ibn Shu'aib ibn Laith ibn Sa'ad, narrated by his father, narrated by his grandfather, narrated by Ukail ibn Khalid, narrated by ibn Shihab, narrated by Yahya ibn Sa'id ibn al-Aas who narrated that Aisha, the wife of the prophet, and Uthman related to him that Abu Bakr requested permission from the prophet to enter when the prophet was lying down on Aisha's bed WEARING HER GARMENT (mirt). So the prophet gave permission to Abu Bakr to enter while he (Muhammad) was in that state and Abu Bakr finished what he needed and left. Later, Umar came and requested permission to enter and the prophet gave him permission to enter while he (Muhammad) was in that state. So Umar finished what he needed and left. Later, Uthman requested permission to enter to the prophet, so Muhammad sat up and told Aisha, "TAKE ALL THE CLOTHING THAT BELONGS TO YOU." So Aisha did as the prophet requested and left. Afterwards, Aisha asked the prophet, ?O prophet! Why is it that I didn't see you anxious when Abu Bakr or Umar came like you were when Uthman came in?‛ The prophet replied, ?Uthman is a bashful man, and I feared that if I gave him permission to enter in the state that I was in, he would not have finished what he came for.‛ The Explanation of Sahih Muslim by Al-Nawawi His saying ?wearing HER garment (mirt).‛ It is pronounced as ?mirt‛ with a diacritical mark underneath that ?m‛. It is a cloak made out of wool. Al-Khalil said that it is A ROBE made out of wool or cotton or the like. Ibn al-A'raby and Abu Zaid said that it is A LOINCLOTH, a waist wrap (Izar). Source- http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=4415&doc=1‛

Let us start from the bottom, where AnsweringIslam said, "The Explanation of Sahih Muslim by Al-Nawawi His saying ?wearing HER garment (mirt).‛ It is pronounced as ?mirt‛ with a diacritical mark underneath that ?m‛. It is a cloak made out of wool. Al-Khalil said that it is A ROBE made out of wool or cotton or the like. Ibn al-A'raby and Abu Zaid said that it is A LOINCLOTH, a waist wrap (Izar)." I ask the reader to read this section as many times as possible to find out where this section

says that, ?mirt and thawb do indeed refer to women's clothing‛, or that Prophet Muhammad () was a cross-dresser. This is another example to the ignorance that AnsweringIslam is drowned in. What is the use of all these texts if what they need to establish is not found in them?

This section says that Mirt is "a cloak made out of wool < A ROBE made out of wool or cotton or the like . A LOINCLOTH, a waist wrap (Izar)." I read this part many times yet failed to find where an-Nawawi said here that Mirt is women's clothing or that using a cloak < A ROBE . A LOINCLOTH, a waist wrap (Izar) as a cover is a type of cross-dressing. Instead, an-Nawawi reported the meaning of Mirt as 'a cloak; a robe; a loincloth; an Izar', i.e., garments used for multiple purposes. Refer to the pictures and quotes above to know that this part only asserts what we have been saying, that the Mirt of Aishah is her bedcovering as the context of the relevant Hadeeths establishes.

The pictures of Izars posted above should make the reader wonder what AnsweringIslam is talking about since the Izar is a garment, a cloth that is mainly used by men; the same is true for cloak, robe and loincloth, even if AnsweringIslam writes it like this, 'LOINCLOTH.' Capitalizing loincloth does not make it a woman's dress. A loincloth is hardly a dress let alone a woman's dress; using a cloth to cover in bed is hardly cross-dressing of any type. Men and women also wear robes and cloaks and there is no restriction on them sharing these garments to cover in bed.

Here are the pictures of a robe, a cloak and a loincloth taken from an Islamic website (http://www.alhannah.com/mensclothing.html):

The author of the new cross-dressing AnsweringIslam article did not need to repeat the entire Hadeeth, again, especially since I refuted his claims in my original rebuttal. From the explanation of Mirt, Izar, Lifa`, and Libas that the Al-Mu`jam al-Waseet gave, as well as, the pictures we provided here, we proved that Mirt is a multi-purpose cloth that is also used to wrap the body. If it wraps the lower half of the body, it is called an Izar, a gender-neutral garment. If it wraps the entire body, it is called a

Lifa`. Even today, Arabs still call a blanket, 'Lifa`.' This is because when one is in bed, one Yatalaffa` with his blanket, i.e., wraps the body with or under one's blanket.

We also proved from the Hadeeth we quoted above by Bukhari and Muslim from Anas that Libas does not only mean, 'to wear,' but is also used to describe sitting on something, such as on a rug. We also brought evidence how the AnsweringIslam team lied when they claimed that the al-Mu'jam al-Waseet dictionary defined Mirt as a dress when they said no such thing. Rather, the dictionary mentioned that the Prophet (), a man, the best man ever, wore a Mirt, which is a robe, not a dress. To prove my point instead of proving their own point, AnsweringIslam quotes an-Nawawi's book as saying that Mirt is "a cloak < A ROBE . A LOINCLOTH, a waist wrap (Izar)." They even provided the capital letter-ing and bolding on their own. Thanks!

The Hadeeth AnsweringIslam quoted from Sahih Muslim does not say in any of its narrations that Prophet Muhammad () used to wear women's clothing. The companions mentioned in the Hadeeth never made such a claim. None of them asked the Prophet (), for example, why he wore women's clothing. This is because it never happened. All what this Hadeeth says is that Aishah had a Mirt she used as a bedcovering and her husband, the Prophet of Allah (), used to lay next to her in bed under her bedcovering. The words the Hadeeth used, Labisun Mirta Aishah, are in the context of laying under Aishah's bedcovering. Here is the proof to this meaning, but we first remind the reader that Yalbas also means to sit on and to be under a garment, i.e., using it as a Lifa'.

Imam A'hmad Ibn `Hanbal, one of the major scholars of Islam of all time, also collected the Hadeeth found in Sahih Muslim regarding the Prophet (), Aishah and her Mirt using the same chain of narration starting from Muhammad Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri and ending with Aishah and Uthman, may Allah be pleased with both of them. Also, using the same chain of narration starting from Muhammad Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri and ending with Aishah, Imam A'hmad collected the very same Hadeeth about the very same incident but using Aishah's own words. This Hadeeth is unique in that it responds to AnsweringIslam's lies as if the Mother of the Believers, Aishah, and Imam A'hmad are living among us today answering the lies of haters of Islam who took lying as the religion they follow. Here is the Arabi text of the Hadeeth, followed by its English meaning,

يغ ذُ أحمذ: 24174 حذث اُ ػثذ انشصاق، قال أخبر اَ يؼ شً، ػ انض شْي، ػ يحيى ت عؼ ذٍ ت انؼاص، ػ أت ،ٍّ ػ ػائشح،

قاند اعرأر أتى تكش ػهى سعىل الله صهى الله ػه وعهى وأ اَ يؼ في يشط واحذ قاند فأر ن فقضى إن حاخر و ىْ يؼ في

المشط ثم خشج ثم اعرأر ػه ػ شً فأر ن فقضى إن حاخر ػهى ذهك الحال ثم خشج ثم اعرأر ػه ػث اً فأصهح ػه ث اٍت

وخهظ فقضى إن حاخر ثم خشج فقاند ػائشح فقهد ن اٌ سعىل الله اعرأر ػه كٍ أبو تكش فقضى إن كٍ حاخر ػهى حانك

ذهك ثم اعرأر ػه كٍ ػ شً فقضى إن كٍ حاخر ػهى حانك ثم اعرأر ػه كٍ ػث اً فكأ كَ احرفظد فقال إ ػث اً سخم ح وإني نى أر دَ ن ػهى ذهك الحال خش دٍ أ لا قٌض إلي حاخر .

Imam A`hmad reported that, Abdul Razzaq narrated that, Ma`mar said that, [Ibn Shihab] Az-Zuhri said that, Ya`hya Ibn Sa`eed Ibn al-`Aas narrated from his father from Aishah that, "Abu Bakr sought and received permission to see the Messenger of Allah () while I and he were in one Mirt. He () fulfilled Abu Bakr's need, while he was with me in the Mirt, and then he (Abu Bakr) left. Then, Umar sought permission and he () gave him permission and fulfilled his need while still in that state. He (Umar) then left. Then, Uthman sought permission and he (the Prophet ) pulled his clothes together, sat up and fulfilled his need. He (Uthman) then left." Aishah said, "I said to him, 'O, Messenger of Allah! Abu Bakr sought permission and had his need fulfilled by you while you were in that state. Then, Umar sought permission and he had his need fulfilled by you while you were in that state. Then, Uthman sought permission and you became formal.' He said, 'Uthman is a shy man and had I allowed him in, in that state, I was afraid he would not have mentioned his need to me.'"

Aishah explained the Hadeeth that AnsweringIslam so corrupted. Aishah said that both her and her husband, the Messenger of Allah (), were in one Mirt, as in both of them, as in together, and in two people, as in at the same time. The only possible meaning for this clear statement is that they were both under the Mirt, which was Aishah's cover in bed, i.e., her bedcovering. Can there be any other meaning for this Hadeeth? Would any normal human being with a hint of a mind think that this Hadeeth means that Aishah and her husband () were both and at the same time wearing a woman's dress, or a woman's shirt, or a woman's pants, or a woman's skirt? AnsweringIslam does not make sense.

What's so funny is that this narration found in Musnad A'hmad is also found on a website that AnsweringIslam finds useful, "All of the following references were taken from www.muhaddith.org, specifically http://www.muhaddith.org/cgi-bin/a_Optns.exe?. It should be stated that this is a tremendous Islamic resource tool for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike." If AnsweringIslam but knew that this "tremendous Islamic resource tool for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike" contains proof that they are wicked and only seek defamation and slander of Islam and its Prophet (), they would not have praised it.

It is clear that AnsweringIslam is lying. Aishah clearly states here that her Mirt was her bedcovering, a blanket, wide enough to take two people under it. It could not

have been a woman's dress, because a woman's dress that is wide enough for two people to wear and to walk around while both wearing it only exists in comic books or on comic websites, such as the AnsweringIslam website that Jochen Katz and his wicked supporters run, especially among them Sam Shamoun.

AnsweringIslam wickedly asserts that if a man lay in bed with his wife under one blanket, then this is cross-dressing. If this is true, then what about this biblical text,

فَ شًَسِخُ تِكِ وَسَأَ رٌُِكِ، وَإِرَا صَيَ كُِ صَيَ انْحُةِّ. فَثَغَغْدُ رَ هٌِ ػَهَ كٍِ وَعَرَشِخُ ػَىِسَذَكِ، وَحَهَفْدُ نَكِ، وَدَخَهْدُ يَؼَكِ فِ ػَهِذٍ،

قٌَُىلُ انغَّ ذٍُِّ انشَّبُّ، فَصِشِخِ نِ .ً

"Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine." (Ezekiel 16:8)?

Who is that wearing a skirt and covering his lover with its Dhail (end part)? Is it the biblical god AnsweringIslam worships? Who wears a skirt any way? How can God and a prostitute exist in the same sentence described as lovers while God is wearing the same dress at the same time with his lover? If husband and wife laying under one garment constitutes cross-dressing, then is not AnsweringIslam accusing God of practicing it by spreading the end of his skirt over his lover? If sharing the same garment constitutes cross-dressing, then is not AnsweringIslam accusing God of practicing it with his skirt and lover? If being under one Mirt blanket is cross-dressing, then is not AnsweringIslam accusing God of practicing it? And yet AnsweringIslam still insists that the Bible is the Word of God and Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was a cross-dresser!

All thanks and praises are due to Allah (); and may Allah's Peace and Blessings be on all of His Prophets and Messengers, such as and foremost among them Adam (; peace be upon him), Nu`h (Noah ), Ibrahim (Abraham ), Musa (Moses ), `Esa (Jesus ), and ending with Muhammad ().

Jalal Abualrub

www.islamlife.com  www.muslim-responses.com