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’ân) 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 Allâh 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 ‫ واخرًاػهًا يف ثىب واحذ‬which 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 ٌهثظ و ٌقال سخم عاْش انثىب تشيء يٍ انؼٍة‬

‚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 تّ وٌقال نثظ احلٍاء وٌقال نثظ قىيا متهى هبى دْشا ونثظ انُاط ػاػ يؼهى وفالٌ فالَح ػًشِ كاَد‬
‫صاممد ػُّ وخاء فالٌ التغا أرٍَّ يرغافال‬
‫يؼّ شثاتّ كهّ وفالَا ػهى يا فٍّ احرًهّ وقثهّ وٌقال نثغد ػهى كزا أرين خ‬

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, " ‫ط‬ ‫( فقًد إىل حصري نُا قذ اعىد يٍ عىل يا نة‬I 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, ‫ انثغاط املُغىج‬, i.e.,
'the woven Bisat'. The dictionary also defines Bisat as, ‫ ضشب يٍ انفشػ ٌُغح يٍ 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) انشًء انشًء غغا‬
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: ‫( املشط ) كغاء يٍ خض أو صىف أو كراٌ ٌؤذضس تّ وذرهفغ تّ املشأج‬
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'

‫ ٍْ نثاط نكى‬:‫ وانضوج وانضوخح كم يُهًا نثاط نآلخش ويف انرُضٌم انؼضٌض‬... ‫ ( انهثاط ) يا ٌغرش اجلغى‬... ‫( انكغاء ) انهثاط‬
ٍ‫وأَرى نثاط هل‬

For example, the authors then said that as the Quran states, the husband and wife
are Libasun for each other, { ٍَُّ‫كىِ وَأََُرىِ نِثَاطٌ َّنه‬
ُ ‫( ٍَُّْ نِثَاطٌ َّن‬They are Libâs 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, ٍ‫ ٍْ فشاػ نكى وأَرى حلاف هل‬: ‫( وقال انشتٍغ‬They 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.

‫ و ٌقال فالٌ ػفٍف اإلصاس ػف ػًا حيشو ػهٍّ يٍ انُغاء‬... ‫( اإلصاس ) ثىب حيٍظ تانُصف األعفم يٍ انثذٌ ٌزكش و ٌؤَث‬
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 ِ‫ ( انهفاع ) يا جيهم تّ اجلغذ كهّ كغاء كاٌ أو غري‬Lifa`: 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, ) ‫" ويف احلذٌث ( أَّ خشج راخ ٌىو و ػهٍّ يشط يشحم‬In 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,
‫( وحنٍ يف نفاػُا فدهظ ػُذ سأعها فأدخهد سأعها يف انهفاع حٍاء يٍ أتٍها‬We 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,
‫ فخشخد يرهفؼح تقغٍفح نهضتري حىت دخهد‬... ‫خغفد انشًظ ػهى ػهذ سعىل اهلل صهى اهلل ػهٍّ وعهى فغًؼد سخح انُاط‬
. ‫ػهى ػائشح وسعىل اهلل صهى اهلل ػهٍّ وعهى قائى ٌصهً تانُاط‬

"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, ‫( ويف احلذٌث أَّ خشج راخ ٌىو و ػهٍّ يشط يشحم‬In 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,

،‫ ػٍ ػائشح‬،ٍّ‫ ػٍ أت‬،‫ ػٍ حيىي تٍ عؼٍذ تٍ انؼاص‬،‫ ػٍ انضْشي‬،‫ قال أخربَا يؼًش‬،‫ حذثُا ػثذ انشصاق‬24174 :‫يغُذ أمحذ‬
‫قاند اعرأرٌ أتى تكش ػهى سعىل اهلل صهى اهلل ػهٍّ وعهى وأَا يؼّ يف يشط واحذ قاند فأرٌ نّ فقضى إنٍّ حاخرّ وْى يؼً يف‬
ّ‫املشط مث خشج مث اعرأرٌ ػهٍّ ػًش فأرٌ نّ فقضى إنٍّ حاخرّ ػهى ذهك احلال مث خشج مث اعرأرٌ ػهٍّ ػثًاٌ فأصهح ػهٍّ ثٍات‬
‫وخهظ فقضى إنٍّ حاخرّ مث خشج فقاند ػائشح فقهد نّ ٌا سعىل اهلل اعرأرٌ ػهٍك أب و تكش فقضى إنٍك حاخرّ ػهى حانك‬
ًٍ‫ذهك مث اعرأرٌ ػهٍك ػًش فقضى إنٍك حاخرّ ػهى حانك مث اعرأرٌ ػهٍك ػثًاٌ فكأَك احرفظد فقال إٌ ػثًاٌ سخم ح‬
.ّ‫وإين نى أرَد نّ ػهى ذهك احلال خشٍد أٌ ال ٌقضً إيل 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,

،ٍ‫ وَ َدخَ ْهدُ يَؼَكِ فًِ َػ ِهذ‬،ِ‫ َوحَهَ ْفدُ نَك‬،ِ‫ فَثَغَ ْغدُ رٌَِهًِ ػَهٍَِكِ وَعَرَشِخُ َػىِسَذَك‬.ِّ‫ وَإِرَا صَيَُكِ صَيٍَُ انْحُة‬،ِ‫َفًَشَسِخُ تِكِ وَسَأٌَِرُك‬
.ًِ‫ فَصِشِخِ ن‬،ُّ‫ٌَقُىلُ انغٍَِّّذُ انشَّب‬

"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