Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun and Jochen Katz on "Are Diapers Now Women’s Garments?" article.

Below you'll see Sam Shamoun and Jochen Katz insulted their god by calling him helpless and ignorant who didn't know any better because he was a baby.

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun and Jochen Katz on "Are Diapers Now Women’s Garments?" article:

This article is a rebuttal to their fabricated lies of mistranslating the Arabic words in the Hadith (Saying of Prophet Muhammad), and about me saying diapers, that are located at: http://www../Responses/Osama/diaper_garment.htm.

A few days ago, in his entry posted on 9/12/2006, Osama Abdallah issued the following challenge:

The formulation of this challenge is as devious as asking Osama Abdallah, "Have you now stopped beating your wife?" It doesn't matter whether he answers yes or no, he still looks like a wife-beater, and the more he tries to deny it, the more suspicious he looks.

The deviousness is in the construction. Questions always look more honest and fair than direct accusations. But here the question about "having stopped or not" is merely a camouflage for the direct accusation that is contained in it, i.e., "you have beaten your wife". Without giving evidence for this charge, the accusation is presented as if it is an established fact.

Similarly, Abdallah’s absurd challenge is a devious insinuation because it simply assumes that "Mary made Jesus wear her garment", and only asks whether this would violate the Law. Before this challenge can make any sense, Abdallah needs to prove that Jesus ever wore one of Mary’s garments, as he so brazenly assumes. The burden of proof for this claim is on Abdallah. We do not have to answer every absurd challenge.

Nevertheless, since most readers would have no clue what this is about, we want to inform them about the background of Abdallah’s absurdity.

Ever since our debate (*) where I, Sam, documented from Muslim sources, specifically from the so-called sound collections of Al-Bukhari and Imam Muslim, that Muhammad wore women’s clothing (*), Abdallah has been trying to do everything he can to refute this point. Somehow Osama Abdallah thinks that his current challenge is one of the ways he can undermine my argument.

The problem with Abdallah’s approach here is that he is doing nothing more than committing the fallacy of tu quoque as well as using a false analogy. After all, even if we were to assume that Abdallah is correct that Jesus wore his mother’s garment this would still do nothing to vindicate or justify Muhammad having adorned himself with his young wife’s clothes:

If Abdallah’s claim were true, this would only imply that both Jesus and Muhammad violated God’s express command which prohibits men from wearing the clothing of women:

But that is not at all what we are talking about here. Although Abdallah has given no hint what he is referring to, what he has most likely in mind is the swaddling cloths of newborn Jesus.

It is common for mothers to wrap their babies in their garments in order to protect them from getting cold, so it wouldn’t surprise us that Mary decided to wrap Jesus with her clothing. But Muhammad wasn’t a baby when he asserted that the so-called divine inspiration came to him while in the garment of Aisha, his child bride, and not of the other wives. We, therefore, have to ask what was a grown man of over fifty doing wearing a young prepubescent girl’s clothes?

1- Did Prophet Muhammad really wear Aisha's clothes, or was this a lie by Sam Shamoun? See thorough refutation from the Islamic sources by Jalal Abualrub.

2- Did baby Jesus, the so-called Creator of the Universe, ever get wrapped in his mother's garment?
3- The Jewish Law does not apply to Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") anyway.
4- Prepubescent girls in the gospel of porn.
5- More pedophilia and terrorism in the gospel of porn.

First, it is worth noting that when one deals with Sam Shamoun, one deals with either an extreme toilet-mouth and scum of the earth (we have documented his COUNTLESS foul insults in both text and audio in his rebuttals section), or with a snake-faced (who wouldn't vomit the things he says to us and others in his articles) liar who invents all types of lies to deceive the reader. This is the natural result of following, to the fullest, the x-rated gospel of porn (the book of women's vaginas and breasts literally taste like "wine") and the book of lies and deceptions, where one would have to INVENT false conclusions and lies to prove his baseless theories and beliefs. A great example for this is the trinity lie.

One of the main reasons why Jochen Katz and Sam Shamoun decided to dedicate their site's 9/18/2006 update to our www.answering-christianity.com site, and to me in particular was because of the recent toilet-trophy that I awarded to Sam Shamoun in his section as a commemoration for his excessive foul mouth. In fact, this is what they wrote regarding me personally on their 9/18/2006 site-update:

"September 12 was a really bad day for Osama Abdallah. Apparently his brain had collapsed down to ground zero the day before, since on that day he published several articles and challenges with incredibly bad arguments. Receiving several rebuttals today, he can certainly not complain about an "attention deficit", though all of this may leave him in some kind of disorder."

Not even caring to be considerate to their own American Christian-brethrens on 9/11 (the day before September 12), they decided to mock me by saying that my brain collapsed as the two world-trade center towers collapsed on 9/11/2001. Clearly, the toilet-trophy award got to their silly heads, disturbed it, and more importantly exposed how much real liars this team of liars can be. Their main leader, Sam the toilet-mouth Shamoun, runs his foul mouth on line in audio chats thinking that he can be himself without being caught and exposed, and when he writes for his site, he wears his other mask, the snake-face-mask.

So having said that, let me now move on to expose their lies and fabrication of quotes. They are, after all, just being good polytheist trinitarian pagans, because like I said, they have to rely on invention of lies and fabrication of quotes to convince their readers. I mean by what other methods and means should we think the trinity lie is proven from the Bible?

1- Did Prophet Muhammad really wear Aisha's clothes, or was this a lie by Sam Shamoun?

Jalal Abualrub, with all my disagreements and differences with him, has written an excellent article where he exposed Sam Shamoun on:

1- Either deliberately or accidentally (took it from some other liar) mistranslating the Arabic text, especially the word "fee".

3- Being badly possessed by the 1 Kings 22's lying spirits in the Bible (see more lying spirits here), as I also demonstrated above with his snake-face, that are clearly possessing him and causing him to lie and be a true trinitarian. Sam Shamoun is clearly suffering from lying syndrome and he should read his gospel of porn less, because it is turning him into an evil spirit and a porn star (calling for gay-rape and being "large"). Let's not get graphic here!! Click on his section-link and see the countless documentations of his filth for yourselves.

Dr. Deceiver is Just Being a Good Evangelist

Sam Shamoun is just being a good Evangelist. His Bible falsely claims that God (Allah) sent a ‘spirit’ to lie; I Kings 22: “And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.” Consequently, Shamoun became a lying demon in the mouth of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, inventing lies and corrupting Quranic and Prophetic texts in a massive way and falsely attributing his lies to Allah, the Quran and Prophet Muhammad. Shamoun belongs to a flock of fanatical Evangelists who, even though hardly representative of their own Christian sect let alone Christians in general, have an unholy mission in life: to defame and slander Islam. The team that Jochen Katz assembled at , including Shamoun, took up the profession of lying and deceiving, especially since they came to the conclusion that their only hope in stopping the blessed, worldwide advance of Islam is by lying and corrupting Islamic texts.

Here are two Hadeeths that this shameless man, Shamoun, intentionally corrupted, forgetting a minor detail: the Hadeeths are all in Arabic and there are millions of Arabs who will refute his blatant lies and expose his utter ignorance.

Shamoun wrote, “Muhammad wearing Aisha’s clothes: From the book Sahih Bukhari, Hadith Number: 2393…Narrated by Ismail, narrated by his brother, narrated by Sulaiman, narrated by Hisham Ibn Urwah, narrated by his father, narrated by Aisha who related that the wives of the prophet were divided into two groups. One group consisted of Aisha, Hafsa, Safiya and Sawdah while the other group consisted of Um Salamah and the rest of the women that belonged to the prophet. The Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") had learned of the great love that the prophet had for Aisha so that if one of them had a gift he desired to give to the prophet, he would delay giving it until the prophet came to Aisha’s house. Then the group who sided with Um Salamah came to Um Salamah and asked her to tell the prophet that he should command the people that if any of them had a gift to give to the prophet, they should give it him in whatever house of his wives the prophet was in at the time. So Um Salamah went and talked with the prophet but he did not respond to her. When the group asked her what the prophet said she told them that he did not respond. So they asked her to go talk to him again until he responds…then the prophet said to her, ‘Do not hurt me with Aisha, for the inspiration did not come upon when I was (wearing) A WOMAN’S CLOTHES (Thowb) EXCEPT THAT OF AISHA.’ (Source- http://hadith.alislam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=2393&doc=0)”

Evidence Why ‘Dr. Deceiver’ Deserves This Title

Here is the text of this Hadeeth that Shamoun so corrupted:

First: Al-Bukhari (2393) narrated that Hisham Ibn Urwah said that, his father said that, Aishah said that Allah’s Prophet, peace be upon him, said to Um Salamah, his wife, “Do not hurt me regarding Aishah, as the Divine Inspirations do not come to me while I am Fee the Thaub of any woman, except that of Aishah.”

Note: Shamoun translated ‘Fee’ as ‘wearing’.

Second: Al-Bukhari (3491) reported the same Hadeeth from Hisham Ibn Urwah, from Urwah, from Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her, using these words, “Do not hurt me regarding Aishah, for by Allah, the Divine Inspirations do not come to me while I am Fee the Li`haf of any woman among you (his wives), except that of hers (Aishah).”

Third: Imam Muslim (4427) collected the same Hadeeth from Aishah, where Aishah said that the Prophet’s wives also sent Fatimah, the Prophet’s daughter, after sending Um Salamah, and she asked for permission to enter “while he (the Prophet) was laying with me Fee my Mirt (i.e., Thaub; Li`haf).” Next, the Prophet’s wives sent Zainab Bint Ja`hsh, the Prophet’s wife, who asked for permission to enter while the Prophet was still with Aishah Fee her Mirt, as he was when Fatimah entered on him.

1. Note: The various narrations for this Hadeeth stated that the Prophet, peace be upon him, was Fee (which Shamoun translated as ‘wearing’) the Thaub, Li`haf, or Mirt of Aishah; this is the same Hadeeth, but with different descriptions of the same term.

2. None of the narrations for this Hadeeth said that the Prophet was ‘wearing’ his wife’s ‘clothes’, i.e. as one wears a dress or a shirt; no Muslim scholar ever uttered this ludicrous notion or understood from this Hadeeth that the Prophet wore women’s clothing. I challenge Shamoun to prove otherwise.

3. Why did Shamoun mention the first Bukhari narration using the word ‘Thaub’, but not the second Bukhari narration using the word ‘Li`haf’?

4. How did ‘Thaub’, used in the first Hadeeth in the singular, end up translated as ‘clothes’, which if it were in the Hadeeth, would read, ‘Thiyab (plural)’ not ‘Thaub’?

5. Shamoun is a liar for knowingly corrupting the meaning of the Hadeeth he quoted. He is also either a deceiver, if he knew about the various narrations for this Hadeeth and hid them, or else he is an ignorant who does not know what he is talking about. It is possible, though, that Shamoun may have been told by his beloved ‘Christian Prince’ –a lunatic Arab Christian with a peculiar nickname who does translations for the gang- that Arabs call the blanket they cover with in bed ‘Li`haf’. [Arabs still call a blanket ‘Li`haf’.] If Shamoun knew these facts, then indeed, Sam Shamoun, Dr. Deceiver, deceives and also hides, without objection from Mr. Hide himself, Jochen Katz.

6. Here is why Dr. Deceiver did not use the translation of Hilali-Khan for this Hadeeth. Just read their words: “Do not hurt me regarding Aishah, as the Divine Inspirations do not come to me on any of the beds except that of Aishah.”

Note how they translated ‘Fee’ as ‘on’, not ‘wearing’.

7. Arabic is far more sophisticated and complex than any other language. Arabs use various words to mean the same thing and have various meanings for the same word. This is a good example to the depth of this wonderful language, and here is the unequivocal proof:

a. Shamoun, who translated ‘Fee’ as ‘wearing’, is hereby challenged to bring any proof that in this Hadeeth, ‘Fee’ means ‘wearing’. ‘Fee’ has a host of meanings, such as ‘in; under; on; above; inside, within, etc.’ Read the rest of the article for evidence. I should note here, though, that had ‘Fee’ in the Hadeeth Shamoun corrupted meant ‘wearing’, then, the narration of the same Hadeeth by Imam Muslim (4427) would mean that both the Prophet and Aishah were wearing her Thaub. That would be one huge Thaub!

b. `Aun al-Ma`bud fi Shar`h-i Sunan-i Abi Dawud, defines ‘Li`haf’ as: ‘Whatever you cover with (i.e., blanket)’, as Abu Ubaid stated, adding that ‘Li`haf’ is in reference to every ‘Thaub’ used as a ‘Li`haf’, i.e., as a blanket as Abu Ubaid stated above. In, al-Misba`h: ‘Mil`hafah (as in ‘Li`haf’!) is defined as: every ‘Thaub’ used to cover with.

c. `Aun al-Ma`bud, defines ‘Thaub’ as both sewn clothes and un-sewn garments (as in ‘Li`haf’, as in ‘what one covers with in bed’, as in ‘blanket’). Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani stated in, Fat`h al-Bari, that originally, ‘Thaub’ is in reference to un-sewn garments.

d. ‘Li`haf’ was used by Aishah herself to mean what she covered with in bed. Al-Bukhari (478) and Muslim (795) narrated that Aishah said, “I would be laying in bed and the Prophet, peace be upon him, would come and pray facing the middle of the bed. Since I disliked standing in front of him in his prayers, I used to slip away slowly and quietly from the foot of the bed until I got out of my Li`haf (quilt).” Also, an authentic Hadeeth, from the grade Hasan, collected in Sahih Ibn Majah (526) reported that Um Salamah, the Prophet’s wife, said, “I was with Allah’s Messenger Fee (under) his Li`haf when what touches women (menses) touched me; I slipped out of the Li`haf.” It would be a huge Li`haf if both the Prophet and his wife ‘wore’ it together.

e. Arabs also use ‘Shi`aar’ and ‘Izar’ to describe what one covers with, as stated in `Aun al-Ma`bud, wherein is also stated that ‘Izar’ is what Arabs used to cover with for sleep.

f. The Arabs also use ‘Kisaa’, ‘Qateefah’ and ‘Shamlah’ to mean blanket. Here is an example where ‘Kisaa’ is used to mean ‘Li`haf (or, blanket)’. Imam A`hmad collected a Hadeeth (2441), graded by Shaikh A`hmad Shakir as authentic from the grade Hasan, wherein is reported that Abdullah Ibn Abbas said that he visited his maternal aunt, Maimunah, the Prophet’s Wife, and she took a Kisaa, which she folded, and threw a Namruqah (a pillow) on it, then threw another Kisaa on top of it and went Fee it (i.e. under the upper Kisaa, which she used as a blanket while using the other Kisaa as a mat). When the Prophet, peace be upon him, came, he covered himself with an Izar (i.e., waste garment), took off his Thaub (here it means ‘long shirt’) and went into bed with her in her Li`haf (i.e., Kisaa).

Note how this Hadeeth mentioned a different meaning for ‘Thaub’ and mentioned ‘Kisaa’ in the context of ‘Li`haf’, both meaning blanket.

g. Words like ‘Thaub’ and ‘Kisaa’, used to describe both regular clothes and un-sewn garments such as those used as blankets, are defined by the Context.

8. Thus, the Hadeeth Shamoun corrupted is about the Prophet laying next to his wife, Aishah, ‘Fee’ (i.e., under) her ‘Thaub’ or ‘Li`haf’, i.e., under her bed-cover, i.e., in bed, not wearing her clothes with his other wives and his companions visiting him while he was wearing women’s clothes. The very notion Shamoun uttered here demonstrates the extreme lows Dr. Deceiver, Sam Shamoun, and Mr. Hide, Jochen Katz, are willing to sink into in their mission to slander and defame Muhammad, peace be upon him, the honorable man who cursed men who imitate women and women who imitate men (al-Bukhari 5435). Is there an end to their mission of deceit, lying, slander, deep hatred and defamation? Only Allah knows.

‘Mirt’! What is a ‘Mirt’?

Shamoun continues, by writing, “From the book of Sahih Muslim, Hadith Number: 4415…Narrated by Abdal 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 - pbuh- 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 –pbuh- ‘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.’ (Source- http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=4415&doc=1)’”

Dr. Deceiver Strikes Again!

Shamoun is just being a good Evangelist. The very Hadeeth that Shamoun so corrupted here, is also found in, al-Musnad, by Imam A`hmad Ibn `Hanbal. Here are the correct narrations for both the Hadeeth that Shamoun corrupted here and the Hadeeth Imam A`hmad Ibn Hanbal collected.

First: Muslim (4415) reported that Ibn Shihab az-Zuhri said that, Yahya Ibn Sa`eed Ibn al-`Aas said that, Sa`eed Ibn al-`Aas reported from Aishah and Uthman that Abu Bakr sought permission from Allah's Messenger, peace be upon him, for entrance as he (the Prophet) was laying on his bed Labisun Mirta Aishah, and he gave permission to Abu Bakr in that very state…Then, Umar sought permission and it was given to him in that very state…'Uthman reported: “Then I sought permission from him and he sat up and said to Aishah: ‘Ijma`ii `Alaiki Thiyabaki.’”

1. ‘Labisun Mirta Aishah’ means, ‘covered with the bed-sheet of Aishah’, not ‘WEARING HER GARMENT’, which insinuates that the Prophet wore women’s clothes.

2. ‘Lubs (as in ‘Labisun’)’ is used in various contexts, as explained by this Hadeeth. Al-Bukhari (367) and Muslim (1053) collected a Hadeeth from Anas Ibn Malik, who said, “My grandmother Mulaikah invited Allah's Messenger, peace be upon him, for a meal which she herself had prepared. He ate from it and said, 'Get up! I will lead you in the prayer.' I took my Hasir, washed it with water as it had become dark Min Tuli ma Lubisat and Allah's Prophet stood on it…[and] led us in the prayer."

a. Note: ‘Hasir’ means, ‘woven mat’. Until today, I have never heard of anyone wearing a woven mat as one wears a shirt. Unless, that is, Shamoun and Katz do wear woven mats, which will not surprise me if it happened.

b. Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, author of the explanation of Sahih al-Bukhari entitled, Fat`h-ul-Bari, wrote that, “’Min Tuli ma Lubisat’, indicates that sitting on something is called ‘Lubs (i.e., wearing [as a figure of speech])’. This Hadeeth was used as evidence that mere sitting on silk garments [for men] is disallowed, because of the general implication of [the Prophet’s Hadeeth] forbidding wearing silk [for men].’”

c. There is not a single narration for the Hadeeth that Shamoun corrupted here that says the Prophet was ‘wearing’ Aishah’s clothes, i.e. guests visiting him while he wore a woman’s dress. This is a Shamounic lie. The Prophet, peace be upon him, used to do what normal married couples do: they lay in bed under the same cover.

d. Note what the Prophet, peace be upon him, said in the Hadeeth Shamoun corrupted, “Ijma`ii `Alaiki Thiyabaki”, i.e., ‘Wrap yourself well with your clothes’, and how Shamoun translated it, “TAKE ALL THE CLOTHING THAT BELONGS TO YOU.” Shamoun’s version insinuates that when Uthman came, the Prophet took off Aishah’s dress, told her to take her dress back and collect ALL THE CLOTHING THAT BELONGED TO her, because Uthman did not like to see men wearing women’s clothes or to see clothes scattered all over. Meanwhile, Abu Bakr and Umar did not seem to mind seeing their Prophet wearing a woman’s dress, if anyone believes Shamoun’s sick logic that is. No doubt, if there is a bid to a contract with dishonor, then, Shamoun will qualify to be the front runner to win it.

e. In Arabic, ‘Khudh’ is ‘take’, ‘Ijma`’, in this context, is ‘wrap’, and ‘`Alaik’ means ‘on you’. If we use Shamoun’s “take all the clothing that belongs to you”, it would actually mean that her clothes were scattered all around and he wanted her to tidy up the room. Uthman was a shy man, he only felt comfortable when those in his attendance were formal in their clothing regardless if the room was tidy or not. Imam Muslim (4414) narrated that Aishah said, “Allah's Messenger, peace be upon him, was lying in bed in my room with his thigh uncovered when Abu Bakr sought permission to get in...and he conversed in the same very state (the Prophet's thigh uncovered). Then 'Umar sought permission and it was given to him and he conversed in that very state. Then 'Uthman sought permission…and Allah's Messenger sat down and set right his clothes.” Aishah said, “Abu Bakr entered and you did not stir and did not observe much care (in arranging your clothes), then 'Umar entered and you did not stir and did not arrange your clothes, then 'Uthman entered and you got up and set your clothes right.” He said, “Should I not show modesty to one to whom even the Angels show modesty.”

f. There are numerous Hadeeths in Bukhari (such as Hadeeth No. 352) and Muslim (such as Hadeeth No. 538) wherein different people are reported to have ‘Jama`a `Alaihi Thiyabah’, i.e., ‘wrapped himself well with his clothes’, or, ‘straightened his clothes to look more formal in appearance’. In, `Aun al-Ma`bud, there is this definition for ‘Akhadhta bi-Talbibi Fulan’: when you wrap (‘Ijma`’ or hold) the Thaub that one is wearing [in your hands] and pull him by the Thaub (in today’s expressions ‘pull him by the collar towards you’).’ Similarly, saying that one has ‘Jama`a `Alaihi Thiyabah’ does not mean that one is collecting his clothes, but rather, one is wrapping himself well with his clothes. In his explanation on Sunan an-Nasaii, as-Sindi said that ‘Jumi`at’ [means] ‘wrapped well’, so that one’s body is not exposed.

g. Conclusion: ‘Ijma`ii `Alaiki Thiyabaki’ means ‘Wrap yourself well with your clothes’, while ‘Labisun’ means ‘covered with (or ‘sitting on’)’. The Prophet was with Aishah under the cover of her Mirt, i.e., her blanket, not wearing her Mirt or her clothes. Shamoun is such a shameless liar. Here is more proof.

Second: Imam A`hmad (24174) collected the very Hadeeth Shamoun corrupted here using the same chain of narration as reported above from Muslim. In this narration, Aishah said that Abu Bakr [then Umar] sought permission to see the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, “While I was with him (the Prophet) Fee Mirt-in Wa`hid. He gave him [then gave Umar] permission while he was still with me Fee the Mirt…then Uthman asked for permission and the Prophet sat up and wrapped his clothes.”

a. Ahmad’s narration for the same Hadeeth by Muslim that Shamoun corrupted contains these words: “I was with him ‘Fee Mirt-in Wa`hid (under one blanket)’ and explains Muslim’s narration ‘Labisun Mirta Aishah (‘wearing’ Aishah’s Mirt)’. The Prophet, peace be upon him, was with his wife, Aishah, under her blanket. The two narrations for this Hadeeth collected here report the very same incident. ‘Labisun’ in the first narration by Muslim is a figure of speech clearly explained by the second narration by Ahmad.

b. Many people visited the Prophet, peace be upon him, while he was resting on his bed ‘Labisun (sitting on, or lying under)’ Aishah’s ‘Mirt’. Imam Muslim (4472) narrated that Aishah said, “The Prophet’s wives sent to him the Prophet’s daughter, Fatimah, who sought permission to enter while he was laying with me Fee my Mirt.”

c. Shamoun translated ‘Fee’ as ‘wearing’, and thus, if we adopt his sick logic, Aishah’s dress was big enough for both the Prophet and his wife to wear it together.

1. Meaning of ‘Mirt’:

a. `Aun al-Ma`bud, defines ‘Izar’ as what Arabs used to cover with for sleeping. Al-Misba`h, defines ‘Mil`hafah (as in ‘Li`haf’!) as every ‘Thaub’ used to cover with.

a. In his explanation on Sahih al-Bukhari, Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani defined ‘Mirt’ as ‘Izar’.

b. In his explanation on Sahih Muslim, Imam an-Nawawi said that ‘Mirt’ is a type of ‘Kisaa (i.e., ‘Li`haf’)’. An-Nawawi also reported the same meaning from Imam al-Khattabi, who, along with Ibn al-A`rabi and Abu Zaid, said that ‘Mirt’ is used as an ‘Izar’.

c. In, Shar’h Sunan an-Nasaii, ‘Mirt’ is defined as a ‘Mila`hafah (i.e., ‘Li`haf’)’ and ‘Izar’.

d. Conclusion: ‘Mirt’, in this Hadeeth, pertains to what Aishah used to cover with in bed. The Prophet was under Aishah’s bed-cover next to her. He was not wearing her dress and letting people see him ‘in this state’. Shamoun is such a disgraceful liar.

2. Narrations that prove the meaning given here for ‘Mirt’:

a. Imam A`hmad (22244) collected a statement from `Hudhaifah Ibn al-Yaman who is reported to have said, “I went to the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him, and found him standing in prayer Fee (wrapped in) a Mirt that belonged to one of his wives, with patterns of camel saddles on it (on the Mirt). When he saw me, he let me in where he had set camp and threw the side of the Mirt on me.” According to Shamoun’s deranged explanation, the ‘Mirt’ of the Prophet’s wife would have been her dress and wide enough for two men to wear it.

b. In fact, the ‘Mirt’ the Arabs wore for clothes must have been wide enough for five people to wear it together, if we were to adopt Shamoun’s sick logic that is. Muslim (4450) reported that Aishah said that Allah’s Messenger, peace be upon him, went out one morning wearing a Mirt made of (camel's or sheep's) black hair with patterns of camel saddles on it. Al-Hasan Ibn Ali (his grandson) came and he let him in the Mirt with him. Then, Husain (Hasan’s brother) came and he let him in with him. Then, Fatimah (his daughter) came and he let her in with him. Then, Ali (Fatimah’s husband) came and he let him in with him.” Thus, ‘Mirt’ here means ‘blanket’, a garment used to wrap one’s body.

c. Muslim (798) reported that Aishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said, “The Prophet, peace be upon him, used to pray at night while I was next to him, at a time when I had my period, while I had a Mirt on me a part of which was also on him, on his side.” In another authentic narration for this Hadeeth collected by an-Nasaii (Sahih an-Nasaii 767; this is a Hasan, Sahih Hadeeth), Aishah said, “…I had a Mirt on me a part of which was on the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him.” Also, Imam Abu Dawud (Sahih Abu Dawud 370) collected an authentic Hadeeth, from the grade Sahih, where the Prophet’s wife, Maimunah, reported a similar narration to Aishah’s narration about Maimunah and the Prophet, peace be upon him. In another Hadeeth collected by Imam A`hmad (17255), Nu`aim Ibn an-Nahham is reported to have said that one early morning during a cold day, Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") were called to congregate “when I was Fee (in) the Mirt of my wife.” Finally, Imam A`hmad (23790) reported that Aishah said, “I would be under my Kisaa between the Prophet and the Qiblah (direction of the prayer). Since I disliked moving in front of him, I used to slide from beneath the Qateefah (i.e., Kisaa, Izar, Shi`ar, Shamlah, Li`haf, Thaub, Mirt, blanket, bed cover, quilt).”

Dr. Deceiver vs. the Lying Spirit of I Kings 22

Shamoun is just being a good Evangelist. Indeed, there must be a close relationship between him and the lying spirit of I Kings 22, since Shamoun invents lies and puts them in the mouth of those who never spoke them. Shamoun and his lying cohorts at spend their time inventing concepts and lies about Islam and about Prophet Muhammad, twisting the meaning of the Ayat (Verses) of the Quran and corrupting the Prophetic Statements to mean what the Quran and the Sunnah never preached. This article is a good example for the evilness of these liars. For instance, whom among Muslim scholars ever said that the Prophet, peace be upon him, used to wear women’s clothes?

Shamoun should spend his time convincing his fellow Christians not to ordain gay priests or marry men to men and women to women. This is better for him than acting in this shameful manner and coming up with these ridiculous lies.

I have repeatedly refuted Shamoun and Katz in articles I post on my website: WWW.IslamLife.Com. By Allah’s help, I have refuted them in various efficient ways to convince those who may still be blinded by their lies to open their eyes, discover the deceit and abandon the deceivers and liars. I encourage everyone who reads this article to realize that if this is how Shamoun lies in this one article, then his other articles are even bigger and more substantial in the art of lying. If this is how efficiently Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") can expose the lies of Shamoun, Katz and their cohorts, then, the liars should be abandoned and ignored, their articles never read. They are dying for fame, and thus, should be deprived of it.

All thanks and praises are due to Allah, Creator of every thing, and may Allah’s peace and blessings be on Muhammad, the Last and Final Messenger and Prophet from Allah, and on all of Allah’s Prophets and Messengers, especially Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus.”

Jalal Abualrub

2- Did baby Jesus, the so-called Creator of the Universe, ever get wrapped in his mother's garment?

"It is common for mothers to wrap their babies in their garments in order to protect them from getting cold, so it wouldn’t surprise us that Mary decided to wrap Jesus with her clothing. But Muhammad wasn’t a baby when he asserted that the so-called divine inspiration came to him while in the garment of Aisha, his child bride, and not of the other wives. We, therefore, have to ask what was a grown man of over fifty doing wearing a young prepubescent girl’s clothes?"

As I mentioned in my AUDIO rebuttal, the so-called women's clothes that we're dealing with here are not bikins, skirts, bras, and women's under-wears! We are talking about GARMENTS (survival clothes) that were made from animal skins, which also included using the wool that was detached from the skin.

Since it is only natural for mothers to cover their breasts by wrapping a garment or a piece of clothes (especially back then) when they breast feed their babies, and it is only natural for mothers (especially back then) to wrap their sons with their own garments or any other garments in the house to keep them warm, then therefore, it is safe to say that Mary wrapped baby Jesus with her garment at least once when she was alone with him. No diapers were mentioned by me. It's only in their deceived and deceiving heads.

Since the two cowards here are accepting that Jesus was wrapped by Mary's clothes (garment) as their quote above clearly says, and since Jesus is considered by them THE ALMIGHTY CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE, then whether he was 1 day old, 100 years old, or -1000 years old (just being sarcastic here), this still does not justify for Him to violate His own Divine Command! We're certainly not talking about my baby son when he was born here! We're talking about the supposed Creator of the Universe Himself!

And as I also demonstrated in my AUDIO rebuttal, it is quite possible and actually more than likely that men in the Bible were prohibited from putting on THE SAME LOOKING GARMENTS that the women wear not due to moral reasons, but rather because women in the Bible are clearly and indisputably considered defiling to men and to everything around them! Let us look at the following examples:

In the Bibles:

Jesus considers women as dirt that defiles men (since Jesus, the GOD, is the one who supposedly inspired the New Testament as Christians claim):

Revelation 14:4 "Those are those (men) who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb."

My rebuttal to some Christian responses: Some Christians emailed me and said that Revelation 14:4 is referring to those sinless men who stayed away from fornication and adultery, and it is not meant at all to be degrading or insulting to women. My response to them is: The verse does not say "those who did not defile themselves with fornication or adultery". Have the verse said that, then it would've included both males and females and there would be nothing to disagree about. But the verse clearly and irrefutably says: "those who did not defile themselves with women", which means (1) No females will be among those men; and (2) Women are defiling to men.

Continuing with the article...

Women are not only spiritually defiling to men as Jesus put it, but they're also physically defiling when they have their menses. Anything they touch becomes unclean: Leviticus 15:19-30 "And if a woman have an issue (her period/menses), [and] her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it [be] on [her] bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she [shall be] unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe [himself] in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one [for] a sin offering, and the other [for] a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness."

I think it is safe to say that Revelation 14:4 and Leviticus 15:19-30 are sister verses.

Birth of any female is a loss: Ecclesiasticus 22:3 "....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss" (From the New Jerusalem Bible. It's a Roman Catholics Bible).

If a woman gives birth to a baby boy, then she becomes unclean for 7 days. But if she gives birth to a baby girl, then she becomes unclean for 14 days. So in other words, the birth of any female causes double the pollution: Leviticus 12:2-5 "Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a MALE child: then she shall be unclean SEVEN DAYS; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying THIRTY THREE days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. But if she bear a FEMALE child, then she shall be unclean TWO WEEKS, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying SIXTY SIX days."

I think it's safe to say that Ecclesiasticus 22:3 and Leviticus 12:2-5 are sister verses.

If a woman tries to save her husband from a beating by grabbing the other man's private parts to lift him off her husband, then both her hands must get cut off: Deuteronomy 25:11-12 "And in case men struggle together (in a fight) with one another, and the wife of the one has come near to deliver her husband out of the striking one (to save her husband), and she has thrust out her hand and grabbed hold of his private (the other man's groin), she must then get both her hands cut off, and the eyes of the men must feel no sorrow."

Fathers can sell their daughters as slave girls: Exodus 21:7-8 "And in case a man should sell his daughter as a slave girl, she will not go out in the way that the slave men go out. If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master so that he doesn't designate her as a concubine but causes her to be redeemed, he will not be entitled to sell her to a foreign people in his treacherously dealing with her."

Daughters inherit nothing when there are sons: "If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. (Numbers 27:8)" So the American law of splitting everything equally is not Biblical.

Jesus himself in Revelation 14:4 considered women as dirt that defiles men. Even Jesus, the Christians' highest model, despised women in the Bible!! It is crystal clear that women in the Bible are nothing but a defiling dirt and trash to men. This is no insult to women by me. This is just simply the way the Bible views women. Ironically, Jesus confirmed this view.

3- The Jewish Law does not apply to Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") anyway:

We have to also never forget that the Bible's Old Testament does not apply to either Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") or Christians (in many instances)! The Jewish Law was specific for the Jewish people. I have clearly demonstrated this in great details in my rebuttal to Sam Shamoun on whether Camel meat should be allowed or not at: https://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/bloodatonement_rebuttal.htm#camels.

The article is far too large to post here. So please click on the link and read it.

Since the polytheist trinitarian pagans, liars and cowards insist on charging Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, with pedophilia for MARRYING a girl that was given to him by her parents and relatives, then let me those two double-faced hypocrites to justice and present some REAL PEDOPHILIA AND TERRORISM from their gospel of porn, the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste literally like "wine", to show the reader how these two cowards keep running away from this IRREFUTABLE piece that I keep shutting their mouths with every time I bring it up:

Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

As we clearly see, innocent baby and young boys along with every non-virgin girl were slaughtered by the thousands by Moses and his men according to these verses. Not only that, but according to the Jewish Talmud's elaborations and documentation on the events that took place in the history of Numbers 31:17-18, girls as young as 3 (THREE!!!!!!) had (sorry to get graphic) literally penises inserted in them by Moses' men:

**The Quotes and Proofs for Pedophilia**
Please pay attention to the bolded and underlined parts below: The following was taken from http://www../library/modern/guido_deimel/judaism.html regarding Numbers 31:17-18 in the Bibles: Numbers 31:17-18 "Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Children Sometimes one has to read a passage twice to believe what has been written in the Sacred Books of Judaism: what has been decreed the way to a holy life by the "sages of blessed memory... whose words are the natural sounds of Judaism" [131]: Said Rabbi Joseph, "Come and take note: A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And one can be liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating, to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer [of what lies beneath]. If she was married to a priest, she may eat food in the status of priestly rations. If one of those who are unfit for marriage with her had intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If any of those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her had intercourse with her, he is put to death on her account, but she is free of responsibility [M.Nid. 5:4]. Sanhedrin 7/55B [132] R. Nahman bar Isaac said. "They made the decree that a gentile child should be deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15], so that an Israelite child should not hang around with him and commit pederasty [as he does]." For said R. Zira, "I had much anguish with R. Assi, and R. Assi with R. Yohanan, and R. Yohanan with R. Yannai, and R. Yannai with R. Nathan b. Amram, and R. Nathan b. Amram with Rabbi [on this matter]: 'From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]'? And he said to me, 'On the day on which he is born.' But when I came to R. Hiyya, he said to me, 'From the age of nine years and one day.' And when I came and laid the matter before Rabbi, he said to me, 'Discard my reply and adopt that of R. Hiyya, who declared, "From what age is a gentile child deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [described at Lev.15]? From the age of nine years and one day."' [37A] Since he is then suitable for having sexual relations, he also is deemed unclean with the flux uncleanness [of Lev.15]." Said Rabina, "Therefore a gentile girl who is three years and one day old, since she is then suitable to have sexual relations, also imparts uncleanness of the flux variety." That is self-evident! Abodah Zarah 36B-37A [133] The basis for these rulings is the following Mishnaic passage of Tractate Niddah (filth): A girl three years and one day old is betrothed by intercourse. "A girl three years old may be betrothed through an act of sexual intercourse," the words of R. Meir. And sages say, "Three years and one day old." And if a Levir has had intercourse with her, he has acquired her. And they are liable on her account because of the law prohibiting intercourse with a married woman. And she imparts uncleanness to him who has intercourse with her when she is menstruating to convey uncleanness to the lower as to the upper layer. If she was married to a priest, she eats heave offering. If one of those who are unfit for marriage has intercourse with her, he has rendered her unfit to marry into the priesthood. If one of all those who are forbidden in the Torah to have intercourse with her did so, they are put to death on her account. But she is free of responsibility. If she is younger than that age, intercourse with her is like putting a finger in the eye. (Mishnah Niddah 5:4) [134] Thus, one "of the many important issues worked out in the Mishnah concerns proper conduct with women," [135] and the "entire society of Judaism – that is, the community formed by the Torah – found in the Talmud those modes of thought and inquiry, those media of order and value, that guided the formation of public affairs and private life as well." [136] While it is reassuring to see there was at least some limit as to what the sages would declare holy and moral, this ruling had severe implications on the interpretation of other topics as well. The Tannaïtic Midrash Sifre to Numbers in §157 comments on the above quoted commandment of Moses to kill the Midianite women as well as the male children: "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known a man by sleeping with him.(Num 31:17). [This] refers to her who has slept with a man as well as her who is suitable for intercourse, even when she has not slept with a man... But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves. From here R. Shimon b. Yohai used to say: a Proselyte girl who became a proselyte in the age of less than three years and one day, is rendered fit to marry into the priesthood." [137] According to the Tannaïte Rabbis, Moses therefore had ordered the Israelites to kill all women older than three years and a day, because they were "suitable for having sexual relations." [138] Bibliography: [131] Ibid., vol.XXI.A-D, Tractate Bava Mesia, Atlanta: Scholars Press 1990, p.ix-x. [132] Ibid., vol.XXIII.B, Tractate Sanhedrin 1984, 150. See also vol.XIX.A, Tractate Qiddushin 10a-b, 1992, 33. "Menstruating" here of course refers to the ritual "flux uncleanness" described in Lev.15. [133] Ibid., vol.XXV.A, Tractate Abodah Zarah, 1991, 168. Emphasis original. [134] J. Neusner, The Talmud of Babylonia. A complete outline, Part IV. The Division of Holy Things. B. Number 37. 1995, 704. [135] Neusner 1993, 41. [136] Neusner 1995, 7. [137] Kuhn 1959, §157, 652f. My translation. In general, proselytes are not allowed to marry into the priesthood. [138] Ibid., §157, footnote 86, 653.

Terrorism in Islam?! (click here)
Let's look at the real terrorism in the Bibles:

Pedophilia with 3-year old slave girls in the Bible!
Forcing 3-year old slave girls into sex during the Mosaic Law in the Bible! (click here)

Terror in the Bible by a number of Prophets! (click here)

Pregnant women will be ripped open! (click here)

The NT punishes children with death! (click here)

Terrorism: "kill all the boys and non-virgin women"!
Also under the Mosaic Law! (click here)

Another killing all men, women, children and animals by Moses! (click here)

Another taking all women and children as spoils of war by Moses! (click here)

Moses was a murderer before he became a Prophet! (click here)

Killing all of the "suckling infants" by the thousands by Saul! (click here)

Dashing little children against rocks in the book of Psalm!
Praising the dashing of little children against rocks as a form of revenge! (click here)

42 innocent children were killed using Wild Bears by Prophet Elisha!
Prophet Muhammad on the other hand loved children even those who threw stones at him in the city of Al-Ta'if. (click here)

Both equal: "Kill Righteous and the wicked"! (click here)

Maiming of the enemies' bodies under Moses' and David's Laws:
Cutting the hands and feet of the enemies in the Bible, and hanging their alive bodies on trees until they DIE. (click here)

David's Selective Murders!
David so carelessly killed an innocent man for only telling him news. (click here)

X-Rated Pornography in the Bible, by King Solomon!
Literally, women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine", and brothers can "suck" their sisters' and lovers' privates! (click here)

Fathers' fingers into their daughters' vaginas!
Under the Mosaic Law, fathers were allowed to do "Digital Defloration" to their daughters. (click here)

Shutting the loud mouths of those who unjustly attack Islam, with Truth.
Aisha in Islam: Let's discuss the age of Aisha being 9 when she married our Prophet (CLICK HERE): 1- See proofs, in the "Aisha being 9" article, from the Bible about little girls as young as 9 were married off and even sold off by their fathers as slave girls to men who were even older than their fathers. 2- See also irrefutable proofs that pedophilia and terrorism exist in the Bible. During the Mosaic times in the Bible's Old Testament, 3-year old slave girls were literally forced into sex under Moses' Orders and Command. You sometimes have to read things twice to believe them! See also: Maiming of the enemies' bodies in the Bible. Cutting the hands and feet of the enemies in the Bible, and hanging their live bodies on trees until they DIE. * Killing of innocent children in the Bible. * X-Rated Pornography in the Bible. * Fathers sticking their fingers into their daughters' vaginas before marriage in the Bible. 3- See also proofs how Aisha's parents were the ones who married her to our Prophet, and that no Muslim or even pagan objected to the marriage because it was widely practiced. The reason no one objected was: People used to have very short life-spans in Arabia. They used to live between 40 to 60 years maximum. So it was only normal and natural for girls to be married off at ages 9 or 10 or similar. Marriage for young girls was widely practiced among Arabs back then, and even today in many third-world non-Muslim and Muslim countries. Please visit: The age of Aisha, girls similar to her in the Bible, and unbelievable pedophilia against 3-year old slave babies in the pedophilic Bible. Also visit: Why Muta (temporary) Marriage was allowed and why it was discontinued.**

I openly challenge these two clowns, the toilet-mouth and the joker, to produce ONE, JUST ONE Noble Verse from the Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more")' Noble Quran that condones killing of innocent children, women or even hostile enemy men who drop their weapons before Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more") (surrender).

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our apostles with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land. (The Noble Quran, 5:32)"

"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors. (The Noble Quran, 2:190)"

"O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For justice, as witnesses To Allah, even as against Yourselves, or your parents, Or your kin, and whether It be (against) rich or poor: For Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (Of your hearts), lest ye Swerve, and if ye Distort (justice) or decline To do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted With all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 4:135)"

Yet, we see mass slaughters and even rape of 3-year old girls as seen above in the man-altered, man-fabricated and man-corrupted bible.

It is a simple fact that the New Testament nowhere states that Mary dressed her Divine Son in her garment. Abdallah has deliberately distorted what the Holy Bible teaches at this point since the inspired Scriptures say that Mary wrapped the newborn in swaddling cloths, which was the custom at that time:

First, it does not say that those were clothes, but cloths. This invalidates the challenge all by itself. Second, nowhere does it say these cloths were Mary’s anymore than they belonged to Joseph. Most probably she either got them as a gift from her relatives, or Mary and/or Joseph bought them on the market. These swaddling cloths were specifically for babies, and they were certainly not distinctively female in any sense.

Furthermore, even if Jesus had been wrapped in a garment of Mary, for which there is absolutely no evidence, it would still not violate the law in Deuteronomy 22:5 because this command forbids a man to wear women’s clothing. A baby boy is not a man. This law refers to adults who know what they do, and deliberately cross-dress. This answers Abdallah’s silly challenge even though there was no need to do so.

Abdallah's claim is actually a grave insult to one of the most honorable women of faith.

O. Abdallah apparently loves to embarrass himself by making challenges which only serve to expose his shoddy research skills together with evil intent. Let us provide the lexical meaning of the Greek word in question, taken from an online dictionary that Abdallah regularly uses himself, i.e. whenever he thinks it suits his purposes:

Just in case Abdallah still doesn’t get this we will show how this very word is used in the Greek version of the Hebrew Bible known as the Septuagint (LXX):

Ezekiel describes Judah as a newborn baby girl who hasn’t been washed and clothed, but abandoned to die.

This shows that there is nothing in the word itself which limits its application to women’s clothing. In light of this we now issue a challenge of our own, which simply demands from him to bring the evidence before making such false accusations:

The foregoing should expose Abdallah’s desperate attempt at justifying his prophet’s wearing the clothes of women. He is doing nothing more than comparing apples and oranges.

This is quite unlike what the Islamic narrations report since they describe what Muhammad was wearing as the clothing which women put on:

Here is the definition of mirt according to Al-Mu’jam Al-Waseet ("The Intercessory Dictionary"), second edition, 1972, part 2, p. 864:

In due time, and if the Lord Jesus permits, we will be producing a full length article documenting that Muhammad did indeed dress in women’s garments and will also seek to interact with the common Muslim objections to the contrary.

First of all, in regards to Luke 2:4-7, it doesn't specifically say "cloths". Here is Young's literal translation:

Luke 2:4-7 (Young's Literal Translation)
4 and Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, that is called Bethlehem, because of his being of the house and family of David,
5 to enroll himself with Mary his betrothed wife, being with child.
6 And it came to pass, in their being there, the days were fulfilled for her bringing forth,
7 and she brought forth her son -- the first-born, and wrapped him up, and laid him down in the manger, because there was not for them a place in the guest-chamber.

So she could've possibly have wrapped him up in her own garment as this was very normal and typical for mothers to do back then.

"Furthermore, even if Jesus had been wrapped in a garment of Mary, for which there is absolutely no evidence, it would still not violate the law in Deuteronomy 22:5 because this command forbids a man to wear women’s clothing. A baby boy is not a man. This law refers to adults who know what they do, and deliberately cross-dress. This answers Abdallah’s silly challenge even though there was no need to do so."

We're not talking about my next door neighbor's baby here. We're talking about the supposed Creator of the Universe! Yet, you say "who know what they do"? Your quote indisputably says the following:

1- Jesus was a naturally mindless and ignorant baby who couldn't think for himself as like any other human-baby.

2- Jesus didn't know what to do and didn't know any better because he was a baby.

3- Jesus was weak - weaker than a grown man, which is why it was ok for him to get wrapped up in his mother's garment.

It is indeed truly amazing how the polytheist trinitarian pagans and infidels are very quick to say that Jesus is GOD Almighty, but when their false god's weaknesses are exposed, they're quick to resort to saying the stupidest things to save face and do some damage control. Their false god, who ran to Egypt for his life from King Herod, and who said only GOD Almighty knows and no one else when he was asked about when the Hour will come [2], Jesus Christ, is now an ignorant baby who didn't know any better - so much so that even any grown up man during his time knew more than him.

Now to us Muslims (Isaiah 56:5: Muslim is the future believers' name. Sons and daughters titles will be "no more"), Jesus Christ is a Prophet from GOD Almighty just like all of the other Prophets, peace and blessings be upon all of them (that includes Prophet Muhammad also), but to the Christians, he is the Creator of the Universe despite this god's embarrassing weaknesses and the countless others that we mentioned on the site. Now it is also worth mentioning that Prophet Jesus said that he is not "good" and that only GOD Almighty "good" and no one else (Mark 10:18, Luke 18:19) [1]. This was his response when a person called him "good master".

Their crucifixion and resurrection lies not mentioned in the OT: Now it is also worth mentioning that the crucifixion and resurrection lies that form the entire christian belief, have no basis whatsoever in the Bible's Old Testament!

Aside from all of this, not much to be said here, because I have given Jalal Abualrub's article that literally DESTROYED Sam Shamoun's lie and mistranslation of the Arabic text, and proved that Sam Shamoun is suffering from the lying syndrome that his gospel of porn (the book of women's vaginas and breasts taste like "wine") is guilty of giving it to him through the Bible's lying spirits (this can also be seen from the fact that he has two faces: one in the audio world and one here in the text world), and I have already demonstrated above how Jesus was indeed wrapped by his mother's garment at least once, and how these two weasels even accepted this argument.

As I stated above, Sam Shamoun is badly possessed by the Bible's lying spirits (see more lying spirits here), that are clearly possessing him and causing him to lie and be a true trinitarian. Sam Shamoun is clearly suffering from lying syndrome and he should read his gospel of porn less, because it is turning him into an evil spirit and a porn star (calling for gay-rape and being "large"). Let's not get graphic here!! Click on his section-link and see the countless documentations of his filth for yourselves.

I also demonstrated above that the prohibition of putting on the same garment that the women put on is not for moral reasons, but rather because women are defiling to men and to everything else. Their birth, altogether, is even considered a loss in the Bible.

One last point to make, Sam Shamoun also tried to deceive his readers by telling them that I said that Mary wore Jesus' diapers.