I didn't call him gay, now think about the post and stop giving him cash...

Sad Cross Dresser
 

Right, just in case other Christians and Muslims are deceived by Islamophobic Christian rabble-rousers on the internet who are propagating the cross dressing lie I think it’s time for another post on this issue.

Some Islamophobic Christian apologist donned his wife’s pink dress and put forward a video on YouTube in which he claimed Prophet Muhammed (p) wore his wife’s (Aisha’s clothing).

 This lie has already been refuted here in article form, however I did decide to pour scorn on this missionary’s cross dressing and deceptive antics via video. After producing this video I noticed Ayaman1 had already made a more thorough and comprehensive video (Did Prophet Muhammad wear his wives' clothes? another missionary lie) in which he highlights this cloth seems to refer to 'house'. I'd recommend, if you want to be educated on this issue you view Ayaman1's video

 

 Rebuking a Cross Dresser




 

Recommended and Thorough Video Refutation by Ayaman1: Did Prophet Muhammad wear his wives' clothes ? another missionary lie

 

Notes and Summary of Ayaman1's Video
 

 Ayaman1 in his video (~4.30) brings forward a hadith from Musnad Ahmed which doesn’t use thawb or mirt (or any word related to a cloth) but uses the words (in the) HOUSE  (fi bayt…).
 

For me it does appear the narration refers to a house. Ayaman1 does mention the word cloth (used in the other narrations already discussued) is a metaphor for ‘house’ as well. Whatever the case may be, we are all certain NONE of the narrations refer to women’s dresses/clothing.

As for the word ‘mirT’, Ayaman1 highlights that it’s an unsewn cloth which can be worn by men and women. It’s not a dress or garment of a woman. I guess facts are what these Christian mischief-makers dislike.

In all reality, I’d imagine even the most ardent Christian fundamentalist feels these claims of cross-dressing to be false but out of sheer mischief-making and attention-seeking we see a handful of internet Christian missionary characters propagating such absurd claims. May Allah guide them. Ameen.

The ‘abomination’ that is David Wood of Acts 17 Apologetics

 This cross dresser who is collecting cash for his ‘Christian’ missionary efforts is actually an abomination according to the Bible he is claiming to preach. I wonder what his financial supporters make of this as well as Bassim Gorial (ABN), Samuel Green, James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries):

“A woman shall not wear a man’s garment, nor shall a man put on a woman’s cloak, ^ufor whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. [Deuteronomyt 22:5 ESV]

Perhaps this creepy rabble-rouser will like to explain his open defiance of the Bible he is supposedly advocating…

Stupidity and Desperation

 If you are going to seek donations for your internet activities (Christian fundamentalist rabble-rousing) then surely you wearing your wife’s pink dress on camera is only going to further tarnish your credibility as an apologist (if you had any remaining)? Surely propagating a lie which you borrowed from your missionary side kick (Sam Shamoun) is hardly going to do you any favours – especially considering the lie is old, tired and refuted?

I really think Christian fundamentalists think their donors are stupid? Why else would they constantly regurgitate the same refuted absurdities over and over and present it to their financial donors as something convincing…

Further reading:

Article from let me turn the tables refuting and exposing one of the original propagators of this lie:

 Did Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) cross-dress? Sam Shamoun exposed!