By Jalal Abualrub (www.IslamLife.com)
Originally, I thought that my rebuttal on AnsweringIslam's newest cross-dressing article would come in two to three parts. However, it seems that I would need more than 4 parts to respond to all their lies and deception and to bring overwhelming evidence to refute their false claims. I will soon publish parts three and four and a conclusion to my rebuttal, Allah willing. This is only an addition to the second part.
Even before I publish the third segment of my rebuttal on AnsweringIslam's new article about cross-dressing, Sam Shamoun had already responded to the second 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 to his wicked cohorts as clear as daylight. I will only respond here to a part of his new article that pertains to the topic of my series. As for the other side-topics he mentioned in his new article, he knows very well that I will not spend my time chasing his useless arguments. The readers have already had ample access to extensive efficient rebuttals of Shamoun's lies by a number of Muslim authors. When I am done with this series, I will move on to other topics and to other haters of Islam, Allah willing.
Here is a new set of words of abuse that Shamoun wrote in his latest response, "Reexamining Muhammad’s Cross-Dressing – A Muslim Dawagandist (he may have found this word in a garage sale!) double-crosses his readers by covering up the truth Muslim propagandist Jalal Abualrub has decided to repost and update his article where he seeks to refute the charge that his prophet was a cross-dresser. … Seeing that he really didn’t add anything substantial to his newer version (I reposted my old article without any change and wrote so on my website) there will be no need for us to interact with it. He did, however, produce a second reply where he does try to engage some of our points. In light of this we have decided to respond to his criticisms in order to see whether Jalal was able to refute the charge against his prophet being a cross-dresser (which, if it were true, also makes Jesus a cross-dresser)."
Shamoun then said, "I will demonstrate here that Jalal’s eighteen-page bluster is. As we have come to expect of his pseudo-scientific argumentation and shallow research, Jalal once again produced an eighteen-page rant which didn’t refute any of my points (Shamoun must have been reading another article). He spent the great bulk of the article trying to prove that thawb doesn’t necessarily refer to women’s clothing. He proceeds to distort my words to give the misleading impression that I somehow claimed that thawb only means women’s clothing, a gross lie which I am about to expose by God’s grace (he means by 'god' a man who according to him was killed!)."
Disregarding the abuse, I will establish here how Sam Shamoun has indeed said that Thaub refers to women's clothing, and only to that since he made the conclusion that where Thaub is mentioned along with the Prophet, peace be upon him, it refers to women's clothing by dismissing all other contexts. 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 no longer exists in its original form; Shamoun does not believe in the Law of the Torah to begin with, since he eats pork which the Torah forbids; Saul (Paul) abolished the law for Christians, but here Shamoun quotes it for some reason as if he cares about what the Torah says) which rebukes any man who wears women’s dresses and vice-versa."
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 claiming 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", or, "the hadiths are indeed stating that Muhammad wore the clothes of his wives." These are Shamoun's 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 I know of wrote these conclusions before Shamoun wrote them.
Since "mirt and thawb" are two different things separated by 'and', and if followed by the verb "do" as compared to 'does', then, the Shamoun character is stating that both Mirt and Thaub indeed refer to women's clothing, as in each one of them does, since both of them "do". I responded to the Thaub part and will soon publish the response to the Mirt part, Allah willing.
It is Shamoun who brings Hadeeths that say NOT what he says, then based on what the Hadeeths did NOT say, claims that the Hadeeths state that Prophet Muhammad (r) was wearing women's clothes, a lie that no Hadeeth says. What do the Hadeeths he brought speak of? They speak of Mirt and Thaub. What does Shamoun conclude, "mirt and thawb do refer to women’s garments"? So there you have it!
This man's wires seem to be severely crossed! We quoted his assertions here. Yet, Shamoun has an appendix listed online (http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Abualrub/mirt.htm) where he lists all the meanings of Thuab and again brings a collection of books that explain Thaub as clothing, all types of clothing whether real or figurative. Yet, he still insists that when it comes to Prophet Muhammad (r), this can only mean he was wearing women's clothing. He 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." What a liar! Muslims use their un-sewn garments, simply towels, for Hajj, as he himself quotes and even posts the picture for it; Muslims do not regularly wear towels in their daily life. Muslims use their Izar to cover with in bed, especially while travelling? I and my children and other Muslims do that frequently. What's wrong with this man? He denies what is known universally to Muslims and even non Muslims, such as Buddhists and Hindus who wear their un-sewn garments and sometimes cover with them when they take a nap.
In his new article, Shamoun brings an Ayah from the Quran where Allah describes the husband and wife as a Libas (clothing to each other), quoting its explanation as واجتماعهما في ثوب واحد, which says that the husband and wife gather in one Thaub. He thinks this supports his contention that Prophet Muhammad (r) used to wear women's clothing. How? Who knows? He thinks that this means that when having sexual intercourse, husband and wife wear the same dress. The sentence he quotes is in reference to bedcovering, i.e., they cover under their sheet, not that when having sexual intercourse, husband and wife wear a woman's dress? He 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 website is not that Thaub means a host of things, and so does 'wearing'. The problem we have with them is that they exclude all meanings except one when it come to the Prophet of Allah (r). 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 (r) 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 wear'. Is that what they wish to prove? No! what they wish to prove is that the Prophet of Allah (r) used to wear women's clothing.
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, he is referring here to both Thaub and Mirt offering his conclusion, not found in any Hadeeth, that these terms denote to women's clothing (note how he is not saying 'in these contexts, these terms denote to women's clothing,' but rather, he says, 'these terms'; so he accuses Jesus of cross-dressing as we proved). 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.
Summary: of course Shamoun said that "thawb do refer to women’s garments", these are his own words that he is trying to disown now. He wrote his articles not to prove the various contexts of Thaub, but to prove his lie by bending every context he can cut and paste. Shamoun got caught in a lie that also touches his falsely claimed lord and savior, who never claimed to be the lord or savior, so he is trying to deny what he said after facing evidence exposing his lies.
Shamoun then said, "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 prove indeed 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 these facts. More good news to come in part three, Allah willing.
I have no problem at all with Prophet `Esa (Jesus) 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 reality is that there are only two monotheistic religions; Christianity is polytheistic through worshipping three different gods with three different roles, personalities, even fates. Trinity has been losing ground to Islam since the beginning of Islam. This invented creed cannot be defended against the clear monotheism of Islam. 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.
Shamoun wrote, "As the readers can see for themselves I never once said that thawb ONLY refers to women’s clothing (he only said that: mirt and thawb do refer to women’s garments, that's all)! My purpose was to show that thawb refers to the clothes that a person wears, and therefore by extension can and does refer to women’s clothing (that's not why he wrote his article, he wrote his article to use Thaub as proof that Prophet Muhammad practiced cross-dressing). I also went on to provide several lexical sources in the appendix to prove that thawb means clothing in general without ever limiting it to women’s clothes (he claims that when it comes to Prophet Muhammad, Thaub only means a woman's dress). In fact, the very Quranic verses which I cited in my reply to prove that the word refers to clothes in general should have been a signal to Jalal that I wasn’t arguing that thawb only means the clothes that women wear since some of these Quranic passages also included men (I already agree that Thaub does not only denote to women's clothing, so why would Shamoun bring more proof to support a point we agree upon? Because after I wrote my response, Shamoun discovered that he used what is against his arguments as if supporting his arguments). So this is nothing more than a blatant lie on Jalal’s part and proves that he wasn’t able to refute my actual arguments and therefore decided to attack a strawman. The readers may be left wondering that since the word can also refer to men’s clothing how can I therefore be so certain that Muhammad was wearing women’s clothes. The answer comes from one of the very hadiths which I cited … then the prophet said to her, “Do not hurt me with Aisha, for the inspiration did not come upon me when I was IN A WOMAN’S GARMENT (fee thawb imra’ah) EXCEPT THAT OF AISHA.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Hadith Number 2393) … The above narration clearly specifies that Muhammad was wearing a WOMAN’s thawb or dress, specifically the garment of his child bride (I responded to this lie in my original rebuttal and again in the third segment, to come Inshaallah. Shamoun corrupted the context here to mean what no one else before him concluded even after reading the same Hadeeths for fifteen centuries. He did that even as he agrees that Thaub comes in various contexts. It is how he explained these Hadeeths that constitute a lie which also means Jesus practiced cross-dressing. Wait for part 3!).
Shamoun wrote, "In light of the above this means that Muhammad was guilty of violating the command of the true God which expressly prohibits men wearing WOMEN’S thawb or clothes. Here is the Biblical text as it appears in Jalal’s “rebuttal”: "Neither shall a man put on A WOMAN’S THAUB: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God" (Deuteronomy 22:5) (he is quoting here a book he believes Paul abrogated!). Now I could simply end my rebuttal here since this sufficiently shows that Jalal couldn’t refute my actual points and so decided to spend the bulk of his “reply” attacking a strawman, refuting an argument I never made (he only said, "thawb do refer to women’s garments"). Yet there are some other points which he raised that I would like to address. For instance, Jalal claims that Q. 11:5 proves that Aisha’s mirt which Muhammad wore was her bed covering! … In point of fact this ayah proves the exact opposite and shows that Muhammad was indeed wearing his child bride’s dress or clothing."
Aishah was the Prophet's wife, no problem in that, but what happened, again, to the 32,000 virgins the Children of Israel kept to themselves after killing all their relatives? Here is what Shamoun says about that, "Jalal can’t help himself from blaspheming the true God and for perverting what his inspired Scriptures actually teach. In this “rebuttal” he again raises the issue of the virgins who were spared in Numbers 31:17-18 and reads into this act of mercy the vilest of intentions. He also mentions God commanding the annihilation of entire people groups, which is nothing more than a smoke screen to draw focus away from the gross immorality and violent teachings of Muhammad." So, annihilating hundreds of thousands of non-combatants but keeping 32,000 virgins alive is an act of mercy? Meanwhile, Prophet Muhammad's entire ten year war career caused the death of less than 4,000 combatants, a half of them Muslim! Yet, this wicked man dares use the words 'immorality' and 'violent' against Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him.
Why does Jalal Abualrub keep calling Shamoun and AnsweringIslam wicked? Because they lie and deceive. For instance, when he writes an article about Prophet Muhammad's falsely claimed 'cross-dressing', Shamoun has the uncontrollable urge to 'throw in' the term 'child bride', even if this also means he is slandering his own grandparents who married at an early age. Well, Shamoun, and all other Christians who keep mentioning this, Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, married Aishah by agreement from her, her parents, her tribe and his tribe. He 'married' a 'woman'; he did not take 32,000 virgins to himself. An what was that test again that decided which girl did not lay with a man? Would a 3 year or less in age be sufficient? Look how these people slander the god they worship then call their lies 'mercy'!
Shamoun said next, "In the first place, the ayah doesn’t use the word mirt but thiyab, the plural of thawb (Shamoun now seems to say that Mirt is not a type of clothing! This is confusing.). So Jalal is being deceptive here. Secondly, Jalal assumes that the verse refers to people having sexual intercourse (I did not assume, this is what the scholars of Islam said it refers to; I will not repeat the quotes from them here, the reader is referred to the second part of my rebuttal on the main page of www.islamlife.com). Now Shamoun, an non-Arab Christian, has decided what contexts are allowed in Islamic Arabi Ayat! How humble of him!
Shamoun wrote, "Jalal went on to say that no one prior to us ever came to the conclusion that Muhammad wore women’s clothing … This is another boldfaced lie since the truth of the matter is that Arabic speaking Christians have raised the question of Muhammad’s cross-dressing long before I ever decided to write on this subject. In fact, I first came across this argument from my Arabic Christian brothers and sisters in their debates with Muslims (such as who and what dates?)
Shamoun then goes on to quote a Christian priest on the problem the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, had with women (apparently, when men like to marry women, this is not good to Christian priests!). So-called father Zakariya Boutrus (apparently, Shamoun now believes that Copts are true Christians!), is a known liar who invents things against Islam as his heart desires. This may come as a shock to others, but this priest is even more ignorant in Islam than AnsweringIslam is. I would not spend time on this priest and the fantasies he created about Islam, especially the non-existing references he makes to Islamic books where he inserts conclusions as AnsweringIslam does, then declares victory as if the texts he is quoting also have the conclusion he invented. What I would like to say is that at least Prophet Muhammad liked women, in marriage! Need I remind Christians, and especially their priests, about the problem they have in the Christian church? It is amazing how at a time when there are tens of thousands of reports of sexual abuse of minors by the Christian clergy, the liars of AnsweringIslam quote a Christian Copt on sexual behavior of a man who married women. At least he liked women, in marriage.
Jalal Abualrub
www.islamlife.com
| Comments |
|
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||