Cross-Dressing or Triple-Crossing!

The Conclusion: AnsweringIslam's

Lies Exposed
By Jalal Abualrub (www.IslamLife.com)
For most of the audience that reads for AnsweringIslam, Arabi looks like ancient
Greek and ancient Hebrew: they can read, understand and pronounce neither, and
certainly, can verify not if a translation of either language is accurate or not. However,
unlike the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, the Quran and Sunnah,
the resource and foundation of the Islamic Creed, acts of worship, practices, dealings
and knowledge, still exist in their original language and original form. In addition,
there are hundreds of millions of Arabs and non-Arabs, Muslim and non-Muslim, who
speak Arabi, who can read, understand and properly pronounce the text of the Quran
and Sunnah and can help verify if a translation of either resource is accurate or not.

Here is why Jalal Abualrub insists on calling AnsweringIslam wicked. I listed

here five of AnsweringIslam's so-called evidence that Prophet Muhammad () was a
cross-dresser. In this conclusion to our series of rebuttals to AnsweringIslam's false
claims about Prophet Muhammad (), we will Inshaallah follow this method of
response: 1) Explain the ruling on cross-dressing in the Old Testament, New Testament
and Islam; 2) Quote five AnsweringIslam so-called proofs that Mirt is women's clothing
each followed by a brief analysis of AnsweringIslam's lies, mistranslations and
deception; 3) Quote Islamic resources that Mirt is not women's clothing; 4) Quote
Muslim scholars stating that Mirt is not women's clothing.

Ruling on Cross-Dressing in the Old Testament

Christians often say that the law of the Old Testament only applies to the Jews;
AnsweringIslam agrees, "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." Of course, Peter could not have agreed on anything
with Paul, who destroyed the religion of Jesus. This false claim ascribed to Peter is one
of the steps Christians took to break free from obedience to Allah, the Exalted. Another
step Christians took was to become 'Christian', worshipping a man who never claimed
divinity, who said he was not sent to them to begin with, "These twelve Jesus sent forth,
and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the
Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. … I am not sent
but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6 & 15:24). It seems that to
Christians 'but' does not mean 'only' but means 'also', while 'not' means 'yes.'

It is astonishingly hypocritical for AnsweringIslam to claim that the law of the

Old Testament does not apply to gentiles yet quote its law against an Arab Prophet not
from the Children of Israel. Prophet Muhammad () was sent with the final law that
abrogates every law that came before it as Allah () stated in the Quran while ordering
Muslims to only abide and rule by what He () has revealed to His Messenger (),

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

   

{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)

Once, Prophet Muhammad () became angry when he saw Umar Ibn al-Khattab
read a part of the Torah, saying to Umar, ٍ‫" ىى ماُ أخٍ ٍىعً دُا ٍا وعؼٔ إال اذثاػ‬If my brother
Musa (Prophet Moses  [peace be upon him]), were to be alive, he would have had no
option but to follow me" (an authentic Hadeeth from the grade Hasan; Irwaa al-Ghalil,
by al-Albani).

After he is sent back to this earth a second time, Prophet `Esa (Jesus ) will rule
Muslims according to the Quran and Muhammad's Sunnah (this is the explanation of a
Hadeeth found in, Sahih Muslim). Islam upheld part of the law revealed to Prophet
Musa () such as stoning the adulterer, but these aspects became fully a part of Islamic
Law when Islam upheld them. Islam is by itself a complete way of life and religion.

The Old Testament was changed repeatedly and severely corrupted that it ended
up being a storybook concentrated on the Children of Israel, their claimed history,
victories and actions, the number of their tribes, sub-tribes, even the count of their cows
and sheep. The Torah was a book of religious instructions revealed TO Moses (),
NOT ABOUT Moses (), NOT BY Moses (), and certainly not by or about the
Children of Israel and how many chickens they had. How can the Torah be the Old
Testament when the Jews and Christians agree that every book written after the five
books [falsely] ascribed to Moses () were written after he died? The Old Testament is
not the Torah, which was changed as the Quran affirmed (2:79), and as Abdullah Ibn
Abbas asserted the Quran affirmed (Sahih al-Bukhari).

The Old Testament does not elaborate at length regarding the law of cross-
dressing. No one knows for certain who wrote anything found in the Old Testament.
No one has the authority to decide what these verses mean in definite terms. The Jews
in particular have no interest in allowing fundamentalist Christians to explain their own
book to them. And the Christians agree that the Mosaic law was not meant for them.

Since both Jews and Christians claim that the Old Testament is the Word of God
we should allow the Old Testament itself to decide what its own verses mean, if possible.
Here is the verse under discussion, "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a
man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the
Lord thy God" (Deuteronomy 22:5). No explanation is given here or anywhere else about
this verse or what it means. However, we can exclude meanings from the prohibition
found in this verse through other Old Testament verses. This is far more powerful than
researching Jewish and Christian claims regarding the meaning of this verse without
authority from God or access to original copies of anything found in the Old Testament.

1. Sharing a Thaub, a skirt, a Li'haf, an Izar, a cloak, a robe, a Shi`ar, a Mirt, a loincloth,
is not cross-dressing according to the Old Testament,

،ٍ‫ وَ َدخَ ْيدُ ٍَؼَلِ كٍِ َػ ِهذ‬،ِ‫ َودَيَ ْلدُ ىَل‬،ِ‫ كَثَغَ ْغدُ رََِيٍِ ػَيَُِلِ وَعَرَشِخُ َػىِسَذَل‬. ِّ‫ وَإِرَا صٍََُْلِ صٍََُِ اىْذُة‬،ِ‫َكََشَسِخُ تِلِ وَسَأََِرُل‬
.ٍِ‫ كَظِشِخِ ى‬،ُّ‫َقُىهُ اىغَُِّّذُ اىشَّب‬

"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);

»ٌٍِّ‫ «أََّا سَاػُىزُ أٍََرُلَ كَاتِغُظْ رََِوَ َشىِتِلَ ػَيًَ أٍََرِلَ ألََّّلَ وَى‬: ِ‫فَىد‬
‫ «ٍَِِ أَِّدِ؟» قَا‬:َ‫كَقَاه‬

"And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy
Thaub over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman." (Ruth 3:9)

2. Covering under a Thaub is not cross-dressing,

.ِِٔ‫ِا ِػََوْ ىَِْلْغِلَ َجذَائِوَ ػَيًَ أَسِتَؼَحِ أَعْشَافِ َشىِتِلَ َّاىزٌِ ذَرَـَغًَّ ت‬
"Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy Thaub, wherewith thou coverest
thyself" (Deuteronomy 22:12).

3. For a man to be covered by a woman's Li'haf and for a woman to be covered by a

man's Thaub is not cross-dressing,

»ٌٍِّ‫ «أََّا سَاػُىزُ أٍََرُلَ كَاتِغُظْ رََِوَ َشىِتِلَ ػَيًَ أٍََرِلَ ألََّّلَ وَى‬:ِ‫ «ٍَِِ أَِّدِ؟» كَقَاَىد‬:َ‫كَقَاه‬

"And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy
Thaub over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman" (Ruth 3:9);

.ِ‫ َكََاهَ إَِىٍَِٕا إِىًَ اىْخَََُِحِ َوؿَغَّرُِٔ تِاىيِّذَاف‬.»ِ‫خق‬

َ َ‫ الَ ذ‬.ٍََّ‫ ٍِوْ إِى‬،ٌِ‫ «ٍِوْ ََا عَُِّذ‬:َُٔ‫فَ َش َجدِ ََاػُِوُ العِرِقْثَاهِ عُِغَشَا وَقَاَىدِ ى‬
‫خ‬

"And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not.
And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with al-Li'haf." (Judges 4:18)

The Old Testament has spoken. All these actions are a type of wearing as
AnsweringIslam clearly propagates, since they attack the Prophet of Islam () because
of doing exactly what these texts report from others without any negative comment.
Therefore, the Old Testament either condemns itself, even condemns God by allowing
and practicing what it says is prohibited and an abomination, or else AnsweringIslam is
wicked. The choice is clear.

Ruling on Cross-Dressing in the New Testament

The New Testament is not the Injil that Muslims believe in. The Injil was a book of
religious instructions revealed TO `Esa (Jesus  [peace be upon him]), NOT ABOUT
`Esa (Jesus ), NOT BY `Esa (Jesus ). Just like the Old Testament, the New Testament
is comprised of storybooks written by anonymous authors of unknown trustworthiness.
How can the New Testament be the Injil that was revealed TO Jesus, when the entire New
Testament was written ABOUT Jesus after he left this earth alive and well, according to
truth, but dead, humiliated and crucified as Christians falsely claim?

Early on, Christians faced a 'problem' with regards to `Esa (Jesus ) being sent
only to the Children of Israel according to his own words, "These twelve Jesus sent forth,
and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the
Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. … I am not sent
but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 10:5-6 & 15:24). This 'problem' was
solved by Christians adding texts to the New Testament claiming that Jesus told them to
preach the Gospel to the world (Matthew 28:19-20), thus accusing Jesus of contradicting
himself about his own mission. This demonstrates how little respect Christians have for
their own falsely claimed lord and savior. A second 'problem' arose in the fact that
according to the New Testament, `Esa (Jesus ) was a Jew, which he certainly wasn't.
Prophet `Esa (Jesus ) did indeed observe the law of Moses, including shunning
unclean foods as listed in Leviticus 11:1-47. He was a faithful believer from the Children
of Israel, a prophet from Allah; he was not a Jew. Christians gladly solved the 'problem'
of Jesus living under the law through Saul (Paul) who singlehandedly corrupted the
religion of Prophets Jesus and Moses, ascribing divinity to the first and calling the law
of the latter 'obsolete' (Hebrews 8:13).

The New Testament seems to say nothing about cross-dressing, but it does seem to
say that the Old Testament law is old and obsolete. Christians claim that the law only
applies to Jews. Thus, for AnsweringIslam to use the law they believe is old, obsolete,
not for gentiles, and so forth, against the Prophet of Islam () who is NOT a Jew, is the
worst type of hypocrisy, especially coming from those who say, "Gentiles were not
required to observe the entirety of the Mosaic Law for either salvation or sanctification."

A false prophet in the name of Shawal (Saul; Paul) abrogated the Law of Moses,
the same law Jesus lived under as Saul himself testified, "But when the fulness of the time
was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law" (Galatians 4:4). Saul
(Paul) also abrogated the religion of Jesus in its entirety. He corrupted the message of
Moses and Jesus to such a great extent that Christianity today does not have even a faint
resemblance to anything that Moses and Jesus called to. These two mighty human
prophets of Allah, Moses and Jesus, were always monotheistic prophets who abided by
the law sent down to them from Allah. Saul (Paul) was a polytheistic who abolished
monotheism and the law of the prophets, and Christians followed his lead until today.
And even though Saul (Paul) committed this crime of enormous proportions,
Christians, who actually follow the religion of Paul which contradicts the religion of
Moses and Christ, somehow call themselves 'Christ-ians' instead of 'Paul-ians.'

Christians, AnsweringIslam included, dwell in and about Saul (Paul). They love
him and love his message because it freed them from the 'obsolete' Mosaic law, from the
'Ten Commandments of condemnation,' from doing anything at all in obedience to
Allah's Commandments, and from all prohibitions, allowing them what is prohibited by
Allah, including Polytheism. The confusing writings ascribed to Saul (Paul) in the New
Testament are abundant, scattered throughout Ephesians, Galatians, etc., making it clear
that he abrogated the law. Sin and good deeds are of little relevance it seems, since no
good deed can benefit one who does not believe in the false doctrines invented by
Christianity, while no evil deed can harm one as long as one believes in Christ as Saul
(Paul) decided on his own.
 Yet, AnsweringIslam finds the courage to quote against Islam a law that they
believe is obsolete, old, done with, a law of death and condemnation, as their false
prophet, Saul (Paul), seems to declare in his own words: 1) "Who also hath made us able
ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the
spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious,
so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his
countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be
rather glorious? For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much more doth the
ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. For even that which was made glorious had no
glory in this respect, by reason of the glory that excelleth. For if that which is done away was
glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious. Seeing then that we have such hope, we
use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children
of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were
blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old
testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the
vail is upon their heart. Nevertheless when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away.
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." (2 Corinthians
3:6-17); 2) "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which
decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." (Hebrews 8:13); 3) "Knowing that a man is
not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in
Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for
by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Galatians 2:16).

A Challenge To All Christians

1. If Christians who believe in Trinity and in Jesus as the lord and savior cross-dress,
can there be condemnation for them under the law if they have Christ in them?
a. If the answer is, 'Yes,' then there must also be condemnation for those who
eat pork, an unclean food (Deuteronomy 14:8), and for those who break the
Mosaic Law and breach the Sabbath.
b. If the answer is, 'No' because the law does not apply to gentiles, so we are
told, then how can gentiles, Christians and Muslims included, be condemned
for breaking a law that was not meant for them?
2. Bring a single unequivocal proof from the New Testament that cross-dressing is prohibited.

Ruling on Cross-Dressing in the Quran and Sunnah

The Quran declares the Prophet's example as the example to follow,
                    

{Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow
for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) Allâh and the (the good of the) Last Day, and
remembers Allâh much} (33:21).

The Prophet of Allah, Muhammad (), cursed those who practice cross-dressing,
in specific, and those who act and behave like the opposite sex, in general. Abdullah
Ibn `Abbas said, ‫" ىؼِ سعىه اهلل طيً اهلل ػئُ وعيٌ ادلرشثهني ٍِ اىشجاه تاىْغاء وادلرشثهاخ ٍِ اىْغاء تاىشجاه‬The
Messenger of Allah  cursed the men who imitate women and the women who imitate
men" (Sahih al-Bukhari). Here is an example to the general prohibition reported
here: Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, reported that the Messenger of
Allah () cursed the man who wears women's attire and the woman who wears men's
attire, ‫( ىؼِ سعىه اهلل طيً اهلل ػئُ وعيٌ اىشجو َيثظ ىثغح ادلشأج وادلشأج ذيثظ ىثغح اىشجو‬Sahih Sunan Abi
Dawud, by al-Albani). Muslims do not need the Old Testament, they already have a
clear law about cross-dressing that is explained by the Prophet who was sent with it.

Prophet Muhammad () explained to Muslims through his practice that:

1. Sharing a Thaub, a Li'haf, an Izar, a cloak, a robe, a Shi`ar, a Mirt, a loincloth, is not
cross-dressing as the Old Testament agrees,

. ٔ‫ماُ اىْيب طيً اهلل ػئُ وعيٌ َظيٍ ٍِ اىيُو وأّا إىل جْثٔ وأّا دائض وػوٌ ٍشط وػئُ تؼضٔ إىل جْث‬

"The Prophet () used to pray by night and I would be next to him while having my
menses; I would have a Mirt on me while a part of it was on him to his side" (Sahih
Muslim, from Aishah);

»ٌٍِّ‫«أََّا سَاػُىزُ أٍََرُلَ كَاتِغُظْ رََِوَ َشىِتِلَ ػَيًَ أٍََرِلَ ألََّّلَ وَى‬

"I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy Thaub over thine handmaid; for thou art a near
kinsman." (Ruth 3:9)

2. Covering under a Thaub is not cross-dressing as the Old Testament agrees,

‫ كئُ اىىدٍ مل َأذين وأّا يف شىب اٍشأج إال ػائشح‬، ‫ال ذؤرَين يف ػائشح‬

The Prophet () said to Um Salamah, "The revelation never came to me while I am Fee
(under) the Thaub of any woman, except Aishah." (Sahih al-Bukhari);
 .ِِٔ‫ِا ِػََوْ ىَِْلْغِلَ َجذَائِوَ ػَيًَ أَسِتَؼَحِ أَعْشَافِ َشىِتِلَ َّاىزٌِ ذَرَـَغًَّ ت‬

"Thou shalt make thee fringes upon the four quarters of thy Thaub, wherewith thou coverest
thyself" (Deuteronomy 22:12).

3. For a man to be covered under a woman's Li'haf and a woman to be covered by a

man's Thaub is not cross-dressing as the Old Testament agrees,

. ‫ كئّٔ واهلل ٍا ّضه ػيٍ اىىدٍ وأّا يف حلاف اٍشأج ٍْنِ ؿريٕا‬، ‫َا أً عيَح ال ذؤرَين يف ػائشح‬

The Prophet () said, "O, Um Salamah! Do not annoy me regarding Aishah, for by
Allah! The revelation never came to me while I am fee Li`hafi a woman among you,
except her." (Sahih al-Bukhari)

‫ [ ٍلرششح حبزاء ٍغجذ سعىه‬، ٔ‫ ( قاىد ٍَُىّح سضٍ اهلل ػْها ) وأّا ّائَح إىل جْث‬، ] ٔ‫ماُ َقىً كُظيٍ ٍِ اىيُو [ ػيً مخشذ‬
‫ كئرا عجذ أطاتين [ عشف ] شىتٔ وأّا دائض‬، ] ٌ‫اهلل طيً اهلل ػئُ وعي‬

"He () would stand by night and pray on his Khumrah (small rug); (Maimunah said) I
would be sleeping next to him on a Firash (bed) next to the place where he () prayed.
When he () prostrated, the side of his Thaub would touch me while I was in my
menses" (As-Silsilah as-Saheehah, by Imam al-Albani);

.ِ‫ َكََاهَ إِىَُِهَا إِىًَ اىْخَََُِحِ َوؿَغَّرُِٔ تِاىيِّذَاف‬.»ِ‫خق‬

َ َ‫ الَ ذ‬.ٍََّ‫ ٍِوْ إِى‬،ٌِ‫ «ٍِوْ ََا عَُِّذ‬:َُٔ‫فَ َش َجدِ ََاػُِوُ العِرِقْثَاهِ عُِغَشَا وَقَاَىدِ ى‬
‫خ‬

"And Jael went out to meet Sisera, and said unto him, Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; fear not.
And when he had turned in unto her into the tent, she covered him with al-Li'haf." (Judges
4:18);

»ٌٍِّ‫«أََّا سَاػُىزُ أٍََرُلَ كَاتِغُظْ رََِوَ َشىِتِلَ ػَيًَ أٍََرِلَ ألََّّلَ وَى‬

"I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy Thaub over thine handmaid; for thou art a near
kinsman." (Ruth 3:9)

Muslims already have a law that explains their Quran and Sunnah as taught by
their own Prophet (). Jews and Christians interpret their books and law as their hearts
wish, having no authority to do so or authoritative written tradition on how they
should implement anything in their books.
 Refuting Five of AnsweringIslam's So-Called Proofs that Mirt
is Women's Clothing

First so-called proof:

Sahih Muslim from Aishah, the Prophet's wife, who said, “The Prophet used to pray at
night while I was beside him and I had my period. I had a mirt on me, a part of which
was also on him, on his side. Commentary: (mirt) Mirt ARE WOMEN’S COVERINGS
(aksia’). The plural is muroot. Ibn al-Athir said: It is made out of wool or perhaps silk or
something else. ٔ‫ماُ اىْيب طيً اهلل ػئُ وعيٌ َظيٍ ًُ اىيُو وأّا إىل جْثٔ وأّا دائض وػيً ٍشط وػئُ تؼضٔ إىل جْث‬
.]ٓ‫ وَنىُ ٍِ طىف وسمبا ماُ ٍِ دض أو ؿري‬:‫" [ػ (ٍشط) ادلشط ٍِ أمغُح اىْغاء واجلَغ ٍشوط قاه اتِ األشري‬

AnsweringIslam's English translation and Arabic cut-and-paste are just awful.

There are various mistakes here, but we will not dwell on them. Here are two Hadeeths
that clearly refute the claim that Mirt is women's clothing,

‫خشض اىْيب طيً اهلل ػئُ وعيٌ ؿذاج وػئُ ٍشط ٍشدو ٍِ شؼش أعىد‬

"The Prophet () went out early one morning wearing a marked Mirt made of black
hair (Sahih Muslim, from Aishah);

ٔ‫ سأَد اتِ اىضتري َغىف يف ٍشط ى‬:‫ػِ ّغري تِ رػيىم قاه‬

"I saw [Abdullah] Ibn az-Zubair performing Tawaf (around the Ka`bah in Makkah)
wearing a Mirt that belonged to him" (Majma` az-Zawa-id, by al-Haithami, from
Nusair Ibn Dhu`luq). Abdullah Ibn az-Zubair, one of the Prophet's companions, briefly
became the leader of the Islamic State after Yazid Ibn Mu`awiyah died.

These two Hadeeths clearly prove that Mirt is not a women's clothing, since they
report two men wrapped in their own Mirts. It is also clear from the Hadeeth
AnsweringIslam is quoting above that: 1) the Prophet () was not wearing a woman's
dress; 2) two people were not dressed in the same dress at the same time; 3) he () was
merely in bed sharing the same cover with Aishah, a part of it on him and a part on her,
as the words of the Hadeeth testify. The Old Testament agrees this is not cross-dressing,

. ِ‫ كَثَغَ ْغدُ رََِيٍِ ػَيَُِلِ وَعَرَشِخُ َػىِسَذَل‬.ِّ‫ وَإِرَا صٍََُْلِ صٍََُِ اىْذُة‬،ِ‫َكََشَسِخُ تِلِ وَسَأََِرُل‬

"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." (Ezekiel 16:8)
 Next, Inshaallah, we will quote proof from Sahih Muslim and the scholar who
explained Sahih Muslim refuting the opinion that Mirt is women's only garments.

Second so-called proof:

From Sahih Muslim, "Narrated by Aisha who said: The Prophet went out on a certain
day at noon and ON HIM was a mirt that was murahal made of black hair.
Commentary: Mirt is a kisa’ which is a garment that is sometimes made out of wool and
sometimes out of hair or cotton or silk. Al-Khatabi said: It is a covering (kisa’) that is
girded with. Al-Nudair said: It is only a cloak, WORN BY WOMEN ONLY and is green
in color. This hadith is responded to. Murhal means it has the image of walking camels.
Al-Khatabi said: the murhal is something that is striped.

. ‫ وػئُ ٍشط ٍشدو ٍِ شؼش أعىد‬،‫ خشض اىْيب طيً اهلل ػئُ وعيٌ راخ ؿذاج‬:‫ قاىد‬. ‫ ػِ ػائشح‬... ٌ‫طذُخ ٍغي‬
‫ ٕى‬:‫ قاه اخلغايب‬. ‫ َشىِب ( َنىُ ذاسج ٍِ طىف وذاسج ٍِ شؼش أو مراُ أو خض‬،‫ ىِثَاط‬،‫ سِدَاء‬:‫[ػ (ٍشط) ادلشط مغاء )مِغَاء‬
. ُٔ‫ وٕزا احلذَس َشد ػي‬. ‫ وال َنىُ إال أخضش‬،‫ وال َيثغٔ إال اىْغاء‬،‫ ال َنىُ ادلشط إال دسػا‬: ‫ وقاه اىْضش‬. ٔ‫مغاء َؤذضس ت‬
".]‫ ادلشدو اىزٌ كُٔ خغىط‬:‫ قاه اخلغايب‬.‫(ٍشدو) ٍؼْآ ػئُ طىسج سداه اإلتو‬

This is the same Nadhr statement that AnsweringIslam keeps quoting in

multiple places mostly without mentioning the name of who said it, even though its
source is only one man, an-Nadhr, not Al-Nudair, Ibn Shumail. By doing so,
AnsweringIslam deceives the reader into thinking that many early scholars said this
when only one of them said it. Muslim Scholars made a point of mentioning An-
Nadhr's statement so as to refute it, as in to reject it as being baseless, as in refusing it
because it is wrong. AnsweringIslam quotes it in such a way as if it is a part of the
revelation, or a Hadeeth, or a unanimous decision by Muslims; nothing is farther from
the truth. And how can AnsweringIslam use for evidence to cross-dressing and Mirt
being women's clothing a Hadeeth that speaks about a man wearing his own Mirt?

We present here the true translation of the quote; AnsweringIslam seems to not
have a clue what it means. The commentator on Sahih Muslim said, "An-Nadhr [Ibn
Shumail] said, 'Mirt can only be a Dir`, and only women wear it, and it only comes in
green;' wa-Hadha-l-Hadeeth-u Yaruddu alaih.'" The commentator on Sahih Muslim
quotes an-Nadhr to refute his statement as being wrong by saying, "wa-Hadha-l-
Hadeeth-u Yaruddu alaih (This Hadeeth refutes him [i.e., refutes an-Nadhr]."

Yaruddu, means, 'to reject; to refuse; to refute.' What is the Hadeeth that refutes
an-Nadhr's opinion? It is the very Hadeeth in Sahih Muslim AnsweringIslam quoted
just above an-Nadhr's opinion, a Hadeeth wherein a man was wrapped in a black Mirt.
AnsweringIslam corrupted the commentator's refutation of an-Nadhr's opinion and
made it appear as if it supports it.

To AnsweringIslam, Black is Green, while Rejected is Responded to

Repeatedly, AnsweringIslam agrees that Mirt is, "A LOINCLOTH, a waist wrap
(Izar)." Here, AnsweringIslam quotes an-Nadhr as saying that Mirt can only be a Dir`,
defined in, al-Mu'jam al-Waseet, as: ‫( قَُض ادلشأج و شىب طـري ذيثغٔ اجلاسَح يف اىثُد‬a woman's
shirt; a small dress a young girl wears at home). So, which one is it, a waist wrap or a
shirt worn by young girls? Dir` is not an Izar; it is not a cloak either as AnsweringIslam
mistranslates it.

AnsweringIslam uses for evidence to cross-dressing an opinion that Mirt is only

worn by women, even though the Hadeeth AnsweringIslam is quoting is about a man
wearing a Mirt, so which one is it?

AnsweringIslam uses for evidence to cross-dressing an opinion that Mirt can

only be green in color but quotes a Hadeeth stating that the Prophet () wore a black
Mirt; can green be mistaken for black?

AnsweringIslam also uses for evidence to cross-dressing statements from the

Imams of Islam refuting an-Nadhr's opinion that Mirt is a woman's garment. So, does
AnsweringIslam agree with the scholars or with an-Nadhr? If AnsweringIslam agrees
with an-Nadhr, then an-Nadhr's opinion does not pertain to the Prophet () to begin
with: 1) the Prophet's Mirt was black NOT green; 2) AnsweringIslam agrees that Mirt is,
'A LOINCLOTH, a waist wrap (Izar),' while an-Nadhr says Mirt is a Dir` only, a shirt
used by young girls. If AnsweringIslam agrees with the scholars, then they invalidate
their own so-called proof. Any way one looks at this finds AnsweringIslam wicked.

AnsweringIslam mistranslates the statement, ' ُٔ‫' وٕزا احلذَس َشد ػي‬, making it look
like this in English, 'This hadith is responded to', as if an-Nadhr's statement is refuting
the Hadeeth when in fact it is the opposite of this understanding. This is what the
statement really means in English, ' ‫( وٕزا‬wa-Hadha [and this]) ‫( احلذَس‬al-Hadeeth
[Hadeeth]) ‫( َشد‬Yaruddu [refutes]) ُٔ‫`( ػي‬alaihi [him, i.e., refutes an-Nadhr]) .' How did,
'This Hadeeth refutes him,' gets translated into, 'This Hadeeth is responded to'?

AnsweringIslam frequently and favorably quoted another major scholar of Islam,

al-Khattabi. But, al-Khattabi whom AnsweringIslam seems to think is good to quote,
also refuted an-Nadhr's opinion. AnsweringIslam did not bother to mention that al-
Khattabi said, ‫ ٕى شىب َيثغٔ اىش جاه واىْغاء إصاساً وَنىُ سداء‬:‫" ادلشط‬Mirt is a Thaub that both men
and women wear as an Izar and it can be a Rida (cloak)" (`Aun al-Ma'bud, Shar'h Sunan
Abi Dawud, by al-Abadi).

An-Nadhr Ibn Shumail was a scholar. But, he made a mistake that was refuted
by other scholars in the very quote AnsweringIslam listed as proof that Mirt is women's
clothing. No matter how big a scholar an-Nadhr was, he cannot contradict the Hadeeths
we mentioned wherein men wear black Mirts, or the scholars we quoted, or Aishah, the
most knowledgeable woman in Islam. Aishah came before an-Nadhr and is more
knowledgeable than an-Nadhr; she knows better what Mirt is.

Imam A'hmad collected this Hadeeth from Aishah, the Prophet's wife,

ُٔ‫ ػِ ػائشح أُ اىْيب طيً اهلل ػئُ وعيٌ ماُ َظيٍ وػئُ ٍشط ٍِ ٕزٓ ادلشدالخ وماُ سعىه اهلل طيً اهلل ػي‬... ‫ٍغْذ أمحذ‬
‫وعيٌ َظيٍ وػئُ تؼضٔ وػيٍَّ تؼضٔ وادلشط ٍِ أمغُح عىد‬

"The Messenger of Allah () used to pray while on him one of those striped Mirts. The
Messenger of Allah () used to pray while a part of it on him and a part on me. Mirt is a
type of black garments."

Thus, an-Nadhr made a mistake on three accounts: 1) an-Nadhr says Mirt is only
worn by women, while the Hadeeth AnsweringIslam is quoting is about a man wearing
Mirt, and we also brought another Hadeeth to the same; 2) an-Nadhr says Mirt can only
be green, when the Hadeeth AnsweringIslam itself is quoting says Mirt is black, we also
brought another Hadeeth to the same; 3) an-Nadhr says that Mirt can only be a Dir`
(little girls shirt), while AnsweringIslam itself agrees that Mirt is, "A LOINCLOTH, a
waist wrap (Izar)." AnsweringIslam also helped our case by posting pictures to Izar as
men's clothing. Thanks!

Third so-called proof:

"From Fateh (rather, Fat`h) Al-Bari, Explanation of Sahih al-Bukhari by Imam Ibn Hajar
al-Asqalani … narrated by Aisha who said: There were believing women who used to
attend with the prophet the dawn (fajr) prayer, covered (multafi’at) in their muroot.
Then they used to return to their houses after concluding their prayer, unrecognized by
anyone. … Murooot is plural of mirt … It is a striped garment made of silk or wool or
something else. It was said that the name mirt applies only if it is green AND WORN
BY WOMEN ONLY, but this is answered by saying a mirt made of black hair.
 ‫ش َهذَُِ ٍَ َغ‬
ِ َ ِ‫ قَاَىدِ مَُِّ ِّغَاءُ اْى َُؤٍَِِْاخ‬... َ‫ أََُّ ػَائِشَح‬... ‫ ىإلٍاً اتِ دجش اىؼغقالين‬... ٌ‫ ششح طذُخ اىثخاس‬،ٌ‫كرخ اهتاس‬
ٍِِِ ٌ‫ضنيَ اىظَّيَاجَ ىَا َؼِشُِكهَُِّ َأ َدذ‬ِ ْ‫سَعُىهِ اىئَِّ طَيًَّ اىئَُّ ػَئَُِِ وَعََّيٌَ طَيَاجَ اىْلَجِشِ ٍُرَيَلِّؼَاخٍ ِتَُشُو ِعهَِِّ شٌَُّ َِْقَيِثَِِ إِهَ ي تُُُىِذهَِِّ ِدنيَ َق‬
‫ وقُو ال َغًَ ٍشعا إال إرا ماُ أخضش وال‬،‫ وٕى مغاء ٍؼيٌ ٍِ خض أو طىف أو ؿري رىل‬... ‫ (وادلشوط) مجغ ٍشط‬... ِ‫اىْـََيظ‬
".‫ وٕى ٍشدود تقىىٔ ٍشط ٍِ شؼش أعىد‬،‫َيثغٔ إال اىْغاء‬

In another part of their article, AnsweringIslam again quoted this same Hadeeth
above from, Fat'h al-Bari. We will only discuss here the part about Mirt wherein
AnsweringIslam lies by saying that, “Al-Nudair ibn Shamil narrated" when he narrated
nothing here, he only offered his own opinion that Mirt "IS SPECIFIC TO WOMEN’S
CLOTHING ‫ وػِ اىْضش تِ مشُو ٍا َقرضً أّٔ خاص تيثظ اىْغاء‬."

Here, Imam Ibn Hajar repeated the same opinion of an-Nadhr we discussed
above so as to refute it. AnsweringIslam quotes Ibn Hajar's refutation of an-Nadhr's
opinion as if it is in support of it. We quoted above two Hadeeths that Mirt is also worn
by men, and two Hadeeths stating that Mirt is black in color. We add here what is as
normal as speech itself: if a woman wears a garment, it is described as being hers, while
if a man wears a garment, it is described as being his even if the garment in both cases is
a gender-neutral Mirt.

AnsweringIslam again uses for evidence to cross-dressing an opinion that Mirt

can only be green in color yet quotes a Hadeeth stating that Mirt is 'made of black hair.'
In addition, Answering Islam intentionally or by way of extreme ignorance corrupts the
Arabi statements they are quoting. They translated ' ‫' وٕى ٍشدود تقىىٔ ٍشط ٍِ شؼش أعىد‬, into,
'but this is answered by saying a mirt made of black hair.' Here is the true translation, '
‫( وٕى‬wa huwa [and it is, i.e., an-Nadhr's statement]) ‫( ٍشدود‬Mardudun [rejected; refuted;
invalidated]) ٔ‫( تقىى‬bi-Qaulihi [by his, or, the statement]) ‫( ٍشط‬Mirt [cloak]) ٍِ (min [made
of]) ‫( شؼش‬Sha`rin [hair]) ‫( أعىد‬Aswad [black]).'

How did 'and his statement is refuted by the [Hadeeth that says]: Mirt of black
hair' become 'but this is answered by saying a mirt made of black hair' which does not
make much sense? The answer is, deliberate wickedness. Here is the proof: 1) Ibn
Hajar quotes an-Nadhr's opinion then refutes it with Muslim's Hadeeth that the Prophet
() went out one day wearing a Mirt made of black hair, but AnsweringIslam
mistranslated it to a sentence that does not make much sense; 2) An-Nadhr says that
Mirt is only worn by women, while two Hadeeths, one of them AnsweringIslam quotes
repeatedly, state that two men went out wearing their Mirt; 3) An-Nadhr says that Mirt
can only be green in color, but Muslim's Hadeeth that AnsweringIslam often uses as
evidence that Mirt is women's clothing, as well as, Aishah's Hadeeth we quoted above
state that the Prophet () wore black Mirts. The readers should by now have
discovered the severity of the corruption and lies of AnsweringIslam.

This same answer also applies to what AnsweringIslam quoted from as-Sindi's
arrangement on ash-Shafi`i's, Musnad, about the same Bukhari Hadeeth in number 3
above, “When the Prophet was about to pray the morning prayer, the women would
depart covered (multafi’at) IN THEIR MUROOT ... IT IS A WOMAN’S COVERING
‫ مغاء ادلشأج‬... ِ‫ ماُ سعىه اىئَّ طيً اىئَّ ػئُ وعيٌ ىَُُظيٍ اىظثخ كََُِْظشكَِْ اىْغاء ٍُرَيلِّؼاخ ِتَُشُوعه‬."

We quoted above two Hadeeths wherein men were wearing Mirt, Hadeeths
reported in the Sunnah more than a thousand years before the scholar as-Sindi was born.

Fourth so-called proof:

AnsweringIslam quotes here another Hadeeth explanation found in as-Sindi's

arrangement on the Musnad by Imam ash-Shafi`i , “Mirt … is a covering made of wool
or silk or cotton that is girded with AND A WOMAN WRAPS HERSELF WITH IT. In
the (Arabic) tongue (This is a dictionary titled, Lisan al-Arab) Mirt is any garment that
is not sown. In the end (This is a dictionary titled, an-Nihayah, not some kind of end!),
the prophet, peace be upon him, used to pray IN HIS WOMEN’S MUROOT meaning
their wraps … what is understood from these texts is that a mirt is a garment that is not
sown THAT A WOMAN WRAPS HERSELF IN and it can be girded with. Since it is
wrapped, the fact that one end of it is on one person and the other end is on another
person is possible if it is long enough. The type (of mirt) in the hadith is of this type,
that is why it is possible to cover both of them …

‫ مغاء ٍِ طىف أو خض أو مراُ َؤذضس تٔ وذريلغ تٔ ادلشأج آ ٍظثاح تأضاكح ٍِ اىيغاُ ويف اىيغاُ أَضا ادلشط مو‬... ‫(ادلشط‬
ُ‫شىب ؿري خمُظ ويف اىْهاَح أّٔ اىْيب طيً اىئَّ ػئُ وعيٌ ماُ َظيٍ يف ٍشوط ّغائٔ أٌ أمغُرهِ وأّ طيً اىئَّ ػئُ وعيٌ ما‬
‫َـاط تاه كُْظشف اىْغا ء ٍريلؼاخ مبشوعهِ ٍا َؼشكِ ٍِ اىـيظ إـ واىزٌ َلهٌ ٍِ ٕزٓ اىْظىص أُ ادلشط شىب ؿري خمُظ‬
ً‫ذريلغ تٔ ادلشأج وَؤذضس تٔ واُ يف األٍامِ ٍاداً ؿري خمُظ وٍِ جْظ ٍا َريلغ تٔ أُ َنىُ عشكٔ ػيً شخض وعشكٔ اىصاين ػي‬
“.‫شخض آخش إرا ماُ عىَال واىزٌ يف احلذَس ٍِ ٕزا اىْىع اىغىَو وذلزا أٍنِ أُ َشَيهَا‬

In previous segments, we responded to these opinions that AnsweringIslam is

quoting. All what these statements mean is that also women use Mirt to wrap with it,
that Mirt is not a sewn garment as it does not have the characteristics of clothes since it
is, here, a wide cloth that can take multiple persons under it. If AnsweringIslam says
that using a shared garment to wrap under it is cross-dressing, then they defy sanity
and logic and also accuse their biblical God of cross-dressing.

This segment is in reference to Hadeeths like the one we explained before from
Aishah, ٔ‫" ماُ اىْيب طيً اهلل ػئُ وعيٌ َظيٍ ٍِ اىيُو وأّا إىل جْثٔ وأّا دائض وػو ٌ ٍشط وػئُ تؼضٔ إىل جْث‬The
Prophet () used to pray by night and I would be next to him while having my menses;
I would have a Mirt on me while a part of it was on him to his side" (Sahih Muslim).
This is the meaning of the quotes mentioned here by AnsweringIslam: Aishah and
the other wives of the Prophet () were merely sharing bedcovering with the Prophet
() similar to what Ruth did with Boaz, before Boaz proclaimed Ruth to be blessed by
the Lord, » ٌٍِّ‫" «أََّا سَاػُىزُ أٍََرُلَ كَاتِغُظْ رََِوَ َشىِتِلَ ػَيًَ أٍََرِلَ ألََّّلَ وَى‬I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread
therefore thy Thaub over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman." (Ruth 3:9-10)

The Prophet of Allah () also used to pray on the gender-neutral coverings of his
wives. He was not wearing women's clothing, because bedcovering is not women's
clothing. Cross-dressing happens when a man wears a woman's shirt that is only for
women to wear, or a woman's underwear, or a woman's gown, types of women's only
clothing universally recognized as women's only clothing where a man wears them as
he would wear his own shirt, pants, underwear or man's dress, making this his habit
and behavior so as to imitate women. Cross-dressing cannot happen if one prays on,
lays covered under, or shares a bedcovering or a gender-neutral garment like the Izar,
or by simply using a cloth or a towel that both men and women use.

Further, 1) two Hadeeths, one of them AnsweringIslam quotes repeatedly, state

that two men went out wearing their Mirt; 2) Muslim's Hadeeth that AnsweringIslam
often uses as evidence that Mirt is women's clothing, as well as, Aishah's Hadeeth we
quoted above wherein the Prophet () wore black Mirts all refute AnsweringIslam's
contention that, "mirt ... do refer to women’s garments" and an-Nadhr's opinion that
Mirt can only be green.

Fifth so-called proof:

Here AnsweringIslam quotes more dictionaries, none of which says that Mirt is only
women's clothing or that using it by both men and women is cross-dressing, “From the
Tongue of the Arabs (Lisan al-Arab) by Ibn Al-Manthour al-Ifriki … In the Hadith (the
prophet used to pray in his women’s muroot) meaning their coverings. The singular is
mirt made of wool, or perhaps silk or something else and it can be girded with… Mirt is
any garment that is not sown.
.)) ٔ‫ ماُ َظيٍ يف ٍشُوط ّغائ‬-ٌّ‫ طيًّ اىئّ ػئُ وعي‬- َّٔ‫ (( أ‬: ‫ ويف احلذَس‬... ٍ‫ التِ ادلْظىس اإلكشَق‬... ‫ىغاُ اىؼشب‬
“ .‫ مو شىب ؿري ٍَخُِظ‬:‫ وادلِشِط‬... ٔ‫وسمب ماُ ٍِ خض أَو ؿريٓ َؤذَضس ت‬
‫ ا‬،‫ أَمْغَُِرِهِّ؛ اىىادذ ٍِشِط َنىُ ٍِ طىف‬:ٌَ‫أ‬

Where does this quote support AnsweringIslam's contention of cross-dressing?

It is only about gender-neutral garments as al-Khattabi stated, "Mirt is a Thaub that
both men and women wear as an Izar and it can be a Rida (cloak)" (`Aun al-Ma'bud,
Shar'h Sunan Abi Dawud, by al-Abadi). The Prophet () used to wrap himself with his
wives' gender-neutral garments of the type used by both men and women for multiple
uses including bedcovering. These garments are not sewn. Just sheets of cloth. They
are not women's shirts, pants, underwear, gowns, or garments that can only be
women's clothing. Also, the Hadeeth they are referring to here is about the Prophet ()
praying on his wives' coverings, how can praying on a garment be cross-dressing?

The fact is that the Prophet of Allah, peace be upon him, used to pray on his
wives' garments or lay in bed with his wives under their bedcovering; this is proof that
Muslims are allowed to do so. Muslims do not take rulings in the religion from
deranged evangelicals. This is not cross-dressing according to any law, especially
Islamic Law. Further, 1) two Hadeeths, one of them AnsweringIslam quotes repeatedly,
state that two men went out wearing their Mirt; 2) Muslim's Hadeeth that
AnsweringIslam often uses as evidence that Mirt is women's clothing, as well as,
Aishah's Hadeeth we quoted above wherein the Prophet () wore black Mirts all refute
AnsweringIslam's contention that, "mirt ... do refer to women’s garments" and an-
Nadhr's opinion that Mirt can only be green.

Islamic Resources State that Mirt is Not Women's Clothing

The best evidence AnsweringIslam could bring is an-Nadhr Ibn Shumail's
opinion on Mirt, "It is only a cloak (an-Nadhr said, Dir` [young girls' shirt], not, Rida
[cloak]), WORN BY WOMEN ONLY and is green in color." AnsweringIslam repeated
this opinion multiple times making it appear as if coming from a tribe of scholars when
the source of it is only one scholar, who made a mistake. AnsweringIslam also brought
as-Sindi's opinion that Mirt, "IS A WOMAN’S COVERING." This is the best specific
so-called proof they have. Otherwise, they brought general statements that say nothing
about Mirt being women's clothing only, or that it is a type of regular clothing like
women's shirts, gowns, pants, underwear, etc., or that using it is cross-dressing.
Proof from Hadeeth that Mirt is not a woman's dress, does not only come in
green and is not only a Dir`:
First Islamic Proof:

‫خشض اىْيب طيً اهلل ػئُ وعيٌ ؿذاج وػئُ ٍشط ٍشدو ٍِ شؼش أعىد‬

"The Prophet () went out early one morning wearing a marked Mirt made of black
hair (Sahih Muslim, from Aishah).

Second Islamic Proof:

ٔ‫ سأَد اتِ اىضتري َغىف يف ٍشط ى‬: ‫" ػِ ّغري تِ رػيىم قاه‬I saw [Abdullah] Ibn az-Zubair performing
Tawaf (around the Ka`bah in Makkah) wearing a Mirt that belonged to him" (Majma`
az-Zawa-id, by al-Haithami, from Nusair Ibn Dhu`luq).

Third Islamic Proof:

A Hadeeth collected in Sahih Muslim from Aishah ( ) proves that her Mirt was not
women’s clothing, but a blanket, a Li'haf:

ٌ‫ إىل سعىه اهلل طيً اهلل ػئُ وعي‬، ٌ‫ تْد سعىه اهلل طيً اهلل ػئُ وعي‬، ‫أسعو أصواض اىْيب طيً اهلل ػئُ وعيٌ كاعَح‬
. ٍ‫كاعرأرّد ػئُ وٕى ٍضغجغ ٍؼٍ يف ٍشع‬

"The wives of the Messenger of Allah () sent Fatimah ( ), daughter of the Messenger
of Allah (), to the Messenger of Allah (). Fatimah asked for permission to enter while
he was laying next to me Fee (under) my Mirt."

As AnsweringIslam agrees about a similar narration, this type of Hadeeth means

that Mirt is a blanket, "This would only suggest that the meaning of mirt in Ahmad’s
narration is that the two were under the same blanket", thus refuting their own proof
that Mirt, "IS A WOMAN’S COVERING."

Fourth Islamic Proof:

Three Hadeeth narrations about the same incident reported from the same companion,
Nu`aim Ibn al-Nahham, directly prove that Mirt is a Li'haf blanket by using these words
as synonyms, and that Fee means Ta`ht (under) also by using these words as synonyms,
‫وأُ يف حلايف كرَُْد أُ َقىه‬
‫ مسؼد ٍؤرُ اىْيب طيً اهلل ػئُ وعيٌ يف ىُيح تاسدج ا‬:‫ ػِ ّؼٌُ تِ اىْذاً قاه‬... ‫ٍغْذ اإلٍاً أمحذ‬
.‫طيىا يف سداىنٌ كيَا تيؾ دٍ ػيً اىلالح قاه طيىا يف سداىنٌ مث عأىد ػْها كئرا اىْيب طيً اهلل ػئُ وعيٌ قذ أٍشٓ تزىل‬

، ‫ وأّا حتد حلايف‬،‫ ىُيح كُها تشد‬-ٌَّ‫ طيًَّ اهلل ػئُ وعي‬- ‫ أرُ ٍؤرُ اىْيب‬: ‫ ػِ ّؼٌُ اىْذاً قاه‬... ‫ادلغرذسك ػيً اىظذُذني‬
.ٓ‫ ومل خيشجا‬،‫ طذُخ اإلعْاد‬.)‫ (وال دشض‬:‫ كيَا كشؽ قاه‬.‫ وال دشض‬،ّٔ‫كرَُْد أُ َيقٍ اهلل ذؼاىل ػيً ىغا‬

‫ ّىدٌ تاىظثخ يف َىً تاسد وأّا يف ٍشط إٍشأيت كقيد ىُد ادلْادٌ قاه ٍِ قؼذ‬- : ‫ ػِ ّؼٌُ تِ اىْذاً قاه‬... ‫ٍغْذ اإلٍاً أمحذ‬
.ُٔ‫كال دشض ػئُ كْادي ٍْادٌ اىْيب طيً اهلل عىُٔ وعيٌ يف آخش أرأّ وٍِ قؼذ كال دشض ػي‬

In this Hadeeth narration, Nu`aim stated that during a cold night he was with his
wife: 1) Fee her Mirt, as he said in the third narration; 2) described the Mirt in the first
two narrations as being his Li'haf (blanket) thus indicating that Mirt is synonymous to
blanket; 3) used the word Ta`ht in the second narration as a synonym to Fee in the first
and third narrations to describe where he was, i.e., under his blanket. Ta`ht can never
be mistaken for wearing, it only means here, 'under.'

This Hadeeth refutes AnsweringIslam in various ways; it uses Mirt and Li'haf
(blanket) as synonyms, and, Fee and Ta`ht (under) as synonyms. When the caller called
to prayer, Nu`aim, may Allah be pleased with him, wished the caller would say that
whoever prayed in his place it is alright; the caller said what Nu`aim wished. Nu`aim
found out later that the Prophet of Allah () had ordered the caller to prayer to say so.

There is no doubt that Imam an-Nadhr Ibn Shumail made a mistake in his
statement on three accounts: 1) an-Nadhr says Mirt is only worn by women, while the
Hadeeth AnsweringIslam often quotes is about a man wearing Mirt, and we brought
another Hadeeth to the same; 2) an-Nadhr says Mirt can only be green, when the Hadeeth
AnsweringIslam itself quotes says that Mirt is black, and we brought another Hadeeth to
the same; 3) an-Nadhr says that Mirt can only be a Dir`, while AnsweringIslam agrees
that Mirt is, "A LOINCLOTH, a waist wrap (Izar)", which cannot be confused with
Dir`, or young girls' shirts; also the above Hadeeths use Mirt as a synonym to blanket.

Muslim Scholars State that Mirt is NOT Women's Clothing

The following two Imams made a clear comment on this Hadeeth:

‫خشض اىْيب طيً اهلل ػئُ وعيٌ ؿذاج وػئُ ٍشط ٍشدو ٍِ شؼش أعىد‬
"The Prophet () went out early one morning wearing a marked Mirt made of black
hair (Sahih Muslim, from Aishah).

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, who explained, Sahih al-Bukhari, reported an-Nadhr Ibn
Shumail's opinion only to refute it by saying, ' ‫( وٕى‬wa huwa [i.e., an-Nadhr's opinion])
‫( ٍشدود‬Mardudun [rejected; refuted]) ٔ‫( تقىى‬bi-Qaulihi [by the statement; i.e., Muslim's
Hadeeth above]) ‫( ٍشط‬Mirt [cloak]) ٍِ (min [made of]) ‫( شؼش‬Sha`rin [hair]) ‫( أعىد‬Aswad
[black]).'

Imam an-Nawawi, who explained Sahih Muslim, also reported an-Nadhr's opinion
then stated that it is rejected and refuted by saying, ' ‫( وٕزا‬wa-Hadha [and this]) ‫( احلذَس‬al-
Hadeeth [i.e., Muslim's Hadeeth above]) ‫( َشد‬Yaruddu [refutes]) ُٔ‫`( ػي‬alaihi [i.e., refutes an-
Nadhr]) .'

Imam al-Khattabi, one of the major scholars of Islam, also stated that Mirt is used by
both men and women, ‫ ٕى شىب َيثغٔ اىشجاه واىْغاء‬:‫" ادلشط‬Mirt is a Thaub that both men and
women wear" (`Aun al-Ma'bud, Shar'h Sunan Abi Dawud, by al-Abadi).

The Conclusion
AnsweringIslam wrote, “It is clear from the foregoing Muslim authorities that
Muhammad did in fact wear women’s clothing. In the appendix we will provide
additional Islamic references concerning the meaning of the terms thawb and mirt. With
this in the background we now proceed to address some of Abualrub’s false analogies
as well as his accusations that we somehow mistranslated the Arabic. In order to avoid
having to admit that his prophet dressed in women’s garments Abualrub decides to
reference some narratives which he somehow thinks disproves our case.”

Rather, it is clear from the forgoing Muslim authorities that Muhammad, salla-
llahu alaihi wa-sallam (peace be upon him), did not in fact wear women’s clothing.
Why is it that no Muslim Scholar ever made the conclusion that the wicked team of
AnsweringIslam liars invented? Muslim Scholars reported the Hadeeths
AnsweringIslam is using; they did not hide these Hadeeths. They did not understand
from these Hadeeths that the Prophet () was cross-dressing. If this is what is meant by
the Hadeeths, then at least one scholar would have said, “These reports indicate that the
Prophet () used to wear women's clothes; however, this is one of his exclusive rights,”
for example. For instance, the Prophet () had more than four wives but the believers
were restricted to having four wives at the same time. The scholars said that this is one
of the Prophet’s exclusive rights. Why none of them said this here? Because it is a
wicked AnsweringIslam lie.

Was Jalal Abualrub Unjust When He Repeatedly Called

AnsweringIslam Wicked?
It seems that the AnsweringIslam authors do not read what they write before
posting it on their wicked website. Here is the proof. We quoted before a Hadeeth from
Aishah found in the great resource of Hadeeth narrations collected by one of the most
respected scholars in the history of Islam, Imam A'hmad Ibn Hanbal, wherein Aishah
explains what her Mirt was. Here are two narrations to be under discussion. Both of
these Hadeeth narrations have the very same chain of narration starting from az-Zuhri
and ending with Aishah, and both of them are about the very same incident.

In A'hmad's narration, Aishah said, ‫اعرأرُ أتى تنش ػيً سعىه اهلل طيً اهلل ػئُ وعيٌ وأّا ٍؼٔ يف‬
‫" ٍشط وادذ قاىد كأرُ ىٔ كقضً إىُٔ داجرٔ وٕى ٍؼٍ يف ادلشط‬Abu Bakr asked for permission to see the
Messenger of Allah () while I and he were Fee one Mirt. He fulfilled Abu Bakr's need,
while he was still with me Fee (under) the Mirt." In the narration found in Sahih
Muslim, the narrators reported that, ً‫أُ أتا تنش اعرأرُ ػيً سعىه اهلل طيً اهلل ػئُ وعيٌ وٕى ٍضغجغ ػي‬
‫" كشاشٔ التظ ٍشط ػائشح‬Abu Bakr asked for permission to see the Messenger of Allah ()
while he was laying in his bed, Labisun Mirta Aishah (literally, 'in contact with [under]
the Mirt of Aishah')."

To any normal human being not blinded in the heart by hatred of Prophet
Muhammad (), these two narrations perfectly explain each other. In A`hmad's
narration for the same story, Aishah said that she and the Prophet of Allah (), her
husband, WERE BOTH FEE (UNDER) ONE Mirt. Therefore, Muslim's narration would
perfectly mean that they both wear under her Mirt; one cannot separate the two
narrations because they narrate the very same story. Only a wicked person would
understand from this statement that both the Prophet () and his wife would be
wearing her dress at the same time and this is cross-dressing. Muslim's narration where
the narrators said, 'Labisun Mirta Aishah', does not mean cross-dressing; A`hmad's
narration clearly explains what went on, a man and his wife were under one blanket.
Labisun, was used in Muslim's narration as a figure of speech since in Arabi, Lubs, which
also means, 'to wear,' also means, 'to be in contact with; to be under; to sit on.' Mirt is
just a cloth that can be used to wrap the body with it, cover with it in bed, cover the
waist with it, etc. These actions can all be called, Lubs, as a figure of speech. Islam
prohibits cross-dressing, and its Prophet () was never a cross-dresser.
 One Mirt, Two Mirts; One Aishah, Two Aishah's; One set of
Clothes, Two Sets of Clothes; & Meeting Guests in the Nude!
AnsweringIslam wrote, "As if this couldn’t get any worse, Abualrub gets
ingenious and tries to cite a narration from Musnad Ahmad which says that Aisha was
“was with him fee mirt-in wa`hid (under one blanket),’” in order to interpret mirt as
blanket! He 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."

Muhammad and his 'child bride'! That's interesting, coming from those who
believe that God married a prostitute called Israel, that God ordered the killing of
hundreds of thousands of men, women and children but to keep 32,000 virgins three
years of age and younger for the sexual pleasure of the Children of Israel. I responded
to this vile speech by AnsweringIslam before. Again, it seems troubling to Christian
preachers these days that a man would marry a woman, while disregarding the horrific
rulings about women they have in their own books and the terrible sexual conduct of
thousands of priests for which the church paid hundreds of millions of Dollars in secret
settlements. This is not our topic, though, and so I will not spend time on it.

To finish responding to what AnsweringIslam wrote in their new article on

cross-dressing, we quote what they said next. Because what they say here is so
outrageously deceptive, I will divide it into parts to make it easier for the reader to
discover the lies of AnsweringIslam.

Muslims, Embarrassed by What is Not Embarrassing, Added a -Non-

Embarrassing Narration Yet kept the Embarrassing One Too!

AnsweringIslam wrote, "There are basically two main responses to this evasion
tactic of appealing to the narration of Ahmad. First, this specific report doesn’t clarify
the narrative from Muslim, but simply shows that Muslims were rather humiliated and
embarrassed with Muhammad wearing women’s clothing. They decided to therefore
change the wording in order to hide this fact."

So, Aishah got embarrassed by her husband being Fee her Mirt, which she
reported to begin with, so she changed her own Hadeeth, yet kept the other
embarrassing narration without change? Now how did that happen? She must have
known that a wicked team called AnsweringIslam will in the future corrupt what she
said, so she changed it fifteen centuries before the wicked team came. That's so neat.
This is evangelical honor at its best: if the Islamic resources proclaim them liars, they
simply come up with more insane lies. The wicked team assumes that Muslims agree
with their lies to begin with. Who said among Muslims that Muslim's narration is
cross-dressing to begin with? No one said that, it is all an AnsweringIslam lie.

And who came first, Imam Muslim or Imam A'hmad? Did A'hmad get
embarrassed by Muslim's narration, even though Muslim was born decades later, so he
changed the words before Muslim ever wrote them? What if the reader knew that
Imam A'hmad actually has both narrations, the exact narration Muslim has and the
narration where Aishah explains what happened in her own words?

To AnsweringIslam, Two Narrations About the Same Story and in the

Same Book Do not Transfer Over to Each Other!

AnsweringIslam wrote, "Second, Abualrub conveniently assumes that

interpreting Sahih Muslim in light of Musnad Ahmad establishes what he thinks is the
interpretation of the narratives. Yet the phrase fee mirt-in wa`hid doesn’t necessarily
deny that Muhammad wore Aisha’s dress. This would only suggest that the meaning of
mirt in Ahmad’s narration is that the two were under the same blanket, but that doesn’t
tell us whether this meaning necessarily transfers over to Muslim’s report."

AnsweringIslam now agrees that A`hmad's narration about Mirt, "is that the two
were under the same blanket." AnsweringIslam made all these lies to, in the end,
discredit their own lies! Allahu Akbar, Allah is the Greatest.

AnsweringIslam now admits that Mirt is a blanket, after insisting that, 'mirt …
do indeed refer to women’s clothing; the hadiths are indeed stating that Muhammad
wore the clothes of his wives; Yet, unfortunately for him (Jalal Abualrub), 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', but in the end,
AnsweringIslam said, 'This would only suggest that the meaning of mirt in Ahmad’s
narration is that the two were under the same blanket.'

What Imam A'hmad narrated from Aishah is the very same Hadeeth about the
very same incident as found in both A`hmad's and Muslim's narrations about Aishah's
Mirt. Imam A'hmad Ibn Hanbal (164-241AH/780-855), who came before Muslim (204-
261/827-884), and Imam Muslim both collected one wording as narrated by Uthman and
other narrators. A'hmad also collected the very same Hadeeth narrated by Aishah in her
own words, a narration that AnsweringIslam now says means, Mirt is a blanket. How
can the meaning in A'hmad not transfer to Muslim, when they are talking about the
same thing and when one narration is Aishah's own words about the same story?
These people are just unbelievable even when they are defeated they still come up with
utter nonsense.

Is Mirt a Blanket or a Dress? How Many Mirts Do We Have Here? How

Many Aishahs Do We Have Here?

After agreeing that Mirt is a blanket, AnsweringIslam goes back to insisting that
Mirt is a woman's dress, "After all, one can legitimately understand from the hadith of
Muslim that Muhammad was dressed in Aisha’s apparel as he lay under her blanket."

Rather, one can legitimately understand that AnsweringIslam is wicked. So, we

have two Mirts here, one Mirt the Prophet () was wearing, and that is a woman's
dress, the other Mirt was a blanket and both Aishah and her husband () were under it.
AnsweringIslam used the same Hadeeth to mean the two opposites: 1) that Mirt is a
blanket; 2) that the Hadeeth does not prove, 'that this cannot be referring to her clothes.'
So, the same Hadeeth means Mirt is a blanket and Mirt is a woman's shirt! How can
anyone tell the difference between a Mirt and another Mirt? This is so amusing!

Or, is it that we have two Aishah's here, one Aishah under the Prophet's Mirt,
which AnsweringIslam now agrees is a blanket, while the other Aishah had her Mirt on
the Prophet (), but no, this Mirt is a woman's dress? Or do we have two prophets, two
Abu Bakrs, Two Umars, Two Uthmans, two Aishahs, two sets of clothes, and two Mirts,
one a woman's shirt and the other a blanket? And how did AnsweringIslam deduct
'from the hadith of Muslim that Muhammad was dressed in Aisha’s apparel as he lay
under her blanket'; how could they see that from under the blanket? And if the Prophet
() and his wife were both covered under one Mirt blanket, what’s the need for the
Prophet () to give up Aishah's Mirt dress or to say the 'TAKE ALL THE CLOTHING
THAT BELONGS TO YOU' stuff that AnsweringIslam invented, when Uthman could
not see the Mirt dress to begin with since the Prophet () and his wife were both
covered under the Mirt blanket? The possibilities are staggering; this is so exciting.

AnsweringIslam Forgot What the Dispute Is About & Confessed to Lying

AnsweringIslam wrote, "Besides, the part of Ahmad that Abualrub quoted

doesn’t say that they were in Aisha’s mirt, but that they were in or under one, whereas
Muslim specifically states that Muhammad was wearing Aisha’s mirt."

Where did it say in any narration for this Hadeeth that there were two Mirts?
And did AnsweringIslam forget what the dispute is about? Let me remind
AnsweringIslam and the reader that the dispute between AnsweringIslam and the truth
is not how many Mirts Aishah had, but the assertion of AnsweringIslam that Mirt, 'do
indeed refer to women’s clothing; IS SPECIFIC TO WOMEN’S CLOTHING.' In their
pursuit of defamation of Islam, AnsweringIslam wanders off to a fantastic and bizarre
land, the land of lies and wicked deception, "The difference in the wording can be taken
as support for our interpretation, e.g. Aisha and Muhammad sat under one blanket as
he wore his wife’s dress." The Hadeeths in Muslim and A'hmad both discuss the very
same Mirt that belonged to Aishah, the very same Mirt that now AnsweringIslam
admits is a blanket. AnsweringIslam also admits here that they only seek to slander
the Prophet of Islam (): they are 'interpreting' Hadeeths to make them mean what they
do not mean, sort of what they do to their own holy books.

Mirt is Only a Woman's Dress; No, a Blanket; No, a Woman's Garment!

To continue their mission of slander, AnsweringIslam wrote, next, "More

importantly, Jalal fails to realize (or conveniently overlooked this fact) that a woman’s
mirt can be wrapped around a person." AnsweringIslam again admits that Mirt is not a
woman's dress but a wrapping cloth. Well, according to the Old Testament (Ruth 3:9;
Ezekiel 16:8), for the Prophet () and his wife to wrap under one Mirt wrapping cloth is
not cross-dressing. A`hmad's narration clearly says that they both were under her
blanket, as AnsweringIslam now admits, so what's the problem?

Next, AnsweringIslam quotes a Hadeeth we duly explained above, so there is no

need to repeat it here. They then wrote, "In light of this, one can legitimately
understand fee mirt-in wa’hid to mean that Aisha and Muhammad wrapped themselves
in a woman’s garment." Here we go again. After AnsweringIslam admitted that 'Aisha
and Muhammad sat under one blanket', they went back to saying that the blanket is a
woman's garment. This is rather confusing!

AnsweringIslam wrote, "Hence, whatever the case may be the narratives we

cited which refer to Muhammad wearing his wives’ mirt, thaub etc. cannot be
overthrown by one single report from Musnad Ahmad (a report which itself can be
interpreted to mean that Aisha’s garment was long enough for both of them to wrap
themselves in)."

AnsweringIslam again admits that they do not seek the truth, but seek to
'interpret' Islamic texts so as to stick their lie to Islam's Prophet () no matter what.
When they use the word 'interpret', they admit to deception and lying. They also
contradict themselves in a massive way, agreeing that Mirt is a blanket, then going back
to saying that it is a woman's dress, then a blanket again, then a woman's long garment.
They do not seek truth, because they are wicked. They have no right to accuse the
Prophet of Islam () of cross-dressing based on their interpretation. The Sunnah is not
the New Testament, thanks, we will defend it to the end of the world, Allah willing!

If Uncovering a Thigh is Cross-Dressing, What About being Naked in

Public?

AnsweringIslam wrote, "Finally, if Muhammad had no hesitation to leave his

thigh uncovered in the presence of Abu Bakr and Umar, something which he did not do
in the presence of Uthman, then why should it be difficult for Abualrub to imagine that
he would have no shame wearing his wife’s dress in the presence of his fathers-in-law?
So much for Jalal’s “rebuttal.”"

So, because Prophet Muhammad () did what is not prohibited for him to do,
uncover a part of his thigh in front of his intimate friends, he must have worn women's
clothes? Better yet, since Peter was naked in public (John 21:7) and Jesus, God himself as
Christians falsely claim, was stripped naked in front of other men (Matthew 27:28), then
they both must have worn women's clothing also. How ingenious!

Finally, this rebuttal on AnsweringIslam's cross-dressing lies has truly

exposed AnsweringIslam for what they truly are: a wicked team of liars blinded in
the sight and mind by utter ignorance, blinded in the heart by sheer hatred of the
Creator of all things, Allah, and His Prophet (), the Final and Last Prophet and
Messenger. Unless they become Muslim, AnsweringIslam will surely keep lying and
deceiving to continue the mission of the lying spirit of I Kings 22. However, Islam will
continue its blessed march and surely, the triumphant end is for Islam,

                 

{They (disbelievers, Jews, Christians) want to extinguish Allâh’s Light (with which
Muhammad  has been sent — Islâmic Monotheism) with their mouths, but Allâh will
not allow except that His Light should be perfected even though the Kâfirûn
(disbelievers) hate (it)} (9:32).

All thanks and praises are due to Allah, Creator of all things, and may
Allah's peace and blessings be on all of His Prophets, starting with Adam,
passing through Nu'h (Noah), Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses), `Esa (Jesus),
and ending with Muhammad. Jalal Abualrub (www.islamlife.com)