Explanation for the Parental Resemblance Hadith

Yes this Hadith seems to be concerning genetics. The Arabic terms literally mean ‘water/liquid/fluid of the father’ and ‘water/liquid/fluid of the mother’. The immediate audience was not familiar with the concept of genes. In 7th century Arabia, an over-arching term like that is understandable in that it carries the meaning of genes in everyday understandable language.

وَأَمَّا الْوَلَدُ، فَإِذَا سَبَقَ مَاءُ الرَّجُلِ مَاءَ الْمَرْأَةِ نَزَعَ الْوَلَدَ، وَإِذَا سَبَقَ مَاءُ الْمَرْأَةِ مَاءَ الرَّجُلِ نَزَعَتِ الْوَلَدَ

Above is the part of the Hadith we are focussing on, translated; as for the child, if the fluid of the man SABAQA (beats) the fluid of the woman then the child resembles the man. And if the woman’s fluid SABAQA (beats) the man’s fluid then the child resembles the mother.

If a child is to have a phenotype of one of his/her parents then it means the genes of that parent SABAQA (beat) the other parent as in a competition. Both parents have genes which compete against one another. Remarkably, the word SABAQA does have the connotation of winning a competition.

Gene versions can be dominant, recessive and co-dominant. We must also remember that for most observable physical characteristics there’s more than one set of genes at play (multiple genes) – this is an area in which geneticists have little understanding (such as nose shape).  So for a child to share a trait from the father or mother it’s literally a case of whose genes beat the other.

One thing that is of interest for the seekers of truth, the Prophet (p) made a statement which is in conformity with our modern day understanding of genetics, namely if a child is to share a particular phenotype with the mother it means the mother’s genes ‘beat’ the father’s genes in that instance (the same applies vice versa). Looking at the overall picture, if the child resembles one parent more than the other it means that parent’s genes won or beat the other parents genes.

When the news of the arrival of the Prophet at Medina reached `Abdullah bin Salam, he went to him to ask him about certain things, He said, “I am going to ask you about three things which only a Prophet can answer: What is the first sign of The Hour? What is the first food which the people of Paradise will eat? Why does a child attract the similarity to his father or to his mother?” The Prophet replied, “Gabriel has just now informed me of that.” Ibn Salam said, “He (i.e. Gabriel) is the enemy of the Jews amongst the angels. The Prophet said, “As for the first sign of The Hour, it will be a fire that will collect the people from the East to the West. As for the first meal which the people of Paradise will eat, it will be the caudate (extra) lobe of the fish-liver. As for the child, if the man’s discharge proceeds the woman’s discharge, the child attracts the similarity to the man, and if the woman’s discharge proceeds the man’s, then the child attracts the similarity to the woman.” On this, `Abdullah bin Salam said, “I testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah, and that you are the Apostle of Allah.” and added, “O Allah’s Apostle! Jews invent such lies as make one astonished, so please ask them about me before they know about my conversion to I slam . ” The Jews came, and the Prophet said, “What kind of man is `Abdullah bin Salam among you?” They replied, “The best of us and the son of the best of us and the most superior among us, and the son of the most superior among us. “The Prophet said, “What would you think if `Abdullah bin Salam should embrace Islam?” They said, “May Allah protect him from that.” The Prophet repeated his question and they gave the same answer. Then `Abdullah came out to them and said, “I testify that None has the right to be worshipped except Allah and that Muhammad is the Apostle of Allah!” On this, the Jews said, “He is the most wicked among us and the son of the most wicked among us.” So they degraded him. On this, he (i.e. `Abdullah bin Salam) said, “It is this that I was afraid of, O Allah’s Apostle.

A response to 33 so called errors in the Quran

A refutation of 45 alleged historical/scientific errors in the Quran

Does the Quran say the Sun orbits the Earth?

AntiMuslim Sun Set Arguments Refuted by That Muslim Guy

Numerical miracle in Quran

British Muslims Protested to Defend Jesus p

Sharia Law against terrorism

Christians having dreams and converting to Islam

Conversions to Islam

Learn about Islam

Email: yahyasnow@yahoo.co.uk 


Dishonest Christian Missionaries Claim Islam to be Racist!

There is a deceptive ploy on the internet which suggests Islam is racist against black people.

Those who propagate such a claim use the two narrations in Ash-Shifa of Qadi Iyad which highlights the opinion of Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman concerning those who call the Prophet Muhammad (p) black. Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman was of the opinion whoever does so should be put to death [1]

Sadly, these rabble rousers fail to mention this was the opinion of Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman and NOT of the Prophet (p).

Their deception is worse still

However, their deception gets worse as the context of the statement is omitted (though it is in the SAME segment of the book) as this statement would have been made within the back-drop of ANYBODY who alters the description of the Prophet being considered a disbeliever and even liable to execution:

Habib ibn ar-Rabi’ said that it is disbelief to alter his description and its details. The one who does that openly is an unbeliever. He is asked to repent. The one who conceals it is a heretic and is killed without being asked to repent. [2]

So we see the problem was not racism but the problem could have been that of altering the description of the Prophet.

To highlight their deception further we can look at the quote they use:

Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, Sahnun’s companion, said that whoever says that the Prophet was black is killed. The Prophet was not black [1]

However, they do not quote the paragraph immediately below which further shows the issue was not racism but the issue being, stating falsehoods which constitute denial:

Abu ‘Uthman al Haddad said something similar and said that if someone said that the Prophet died before his beard began to grow or that he was in Tahart (Morocco) and not Tihama, he is killed because this constitutes denial. [2]

Let’s be realistic

During such a time there may have been a racist undercurrent amongst the ignorant/hypocrites who used this as a slur (i.e. calling people “black”), thus Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman would have recognised the INTENT was to disparage the Prophet (p) hence his calling for the death of such folk. It is not racist on the part of Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman and it certainly has NO bearing upon Islam!

Sadly, the rabble rousers are not willing to scratch the surface or attempt to be intellectually honest – they work agendas to mud sling at Muslims and Islam.

I feel this attack against Islam is simply a devious design to stem the conversion to Islam amongst our brothers and sisters in African communities as Islam has resonated well amongst Afro-Caribbean communities in the West (and beyond) and many are leaving Christianity for the Truth of Islam.

Obviously Islam is against racism

Islam does not condone racism at all. In fact, the real criteria for judgement (in Islam) is that of conduct, NOT skin colour – this is learned through the holy Quran [3]

Muslims believe there were black Prophets (in fact Prophets of every skin colour) as Allah (God) sent warners to every nation. [4]

Muslims respect and love ALL Prophets (p). In addition, some companions of Prophet Muhammad (p) were indeed black in skin colour (the most well-known is Bilal), thus some of our saintly predecessors are indeed black!

Obviously Islam is not racist.

The Prophet considered racism as “ignorance”

When his Arab Companion Abu Dharr called Bilal ‘son of the black woman’, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) got angry and told him: ‘You are a man who has ignorance in him.’ Abu Dharr felt such a great remorse that he put his cheek on the ground and asked Bilal to tread on his other cheek if he’d like to. [5]

Imam Shabir Ally on racism

Discover Islam

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

[1] The citations Islamophobic rabble rousers are using:
Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, the companion of Sahnun, said, “Anyone who says that the Prophet was black should be killed.” (p. 375)

Ahmad ibn Abi Sulayman, Sahnun’s companion, said that whoever says that the Prophet was black is killed. The Prophet was not black. (p 387)

[Both from Muhammad Messenger of Allah, Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad, Qadi ‘Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Madinah Press Inverness, Scotland, 2004]

[2] Muhammad Messenger of Allah, Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad, Qadi ‘Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley, Madinah Press Inverness, Scotland, 2004 p387.

[3] O mankind! Lo! We have created you from male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware. [Pikthal’s English translation of Quran, 49:13]

[4] Dr. Muzammil Siddiqi writes:

Allah has mentioned in the Qur’an that He sent Messengers and guides among all people. Allah Almighty says: “ And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming): Serve Allah and shun false gods. Then some of them (there were) whom Allah guided, and some of them (there were) upon whom error had just hold. Do but travel in the land and see the nature of the consequence for the deniers!.” (An-Nahl: 36) He Almighty also says, There was not any community except a Warner who lived among them.” (Fatir :24).

In his Musnad, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal has stated that Allah sent 124, 000 Prophets, and from among them 315 were Messengers.

Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543348#ixzz1CzTlNmhX

[5] In his famous Farewell Pilgrimage sermon, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) declared: “O people! You are all to Adam and Adam was made of dust. No Arab is to be preferred over a non-Arab except by virtue of his piety.” In another hadith, he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Allah does not look at your images or your colors but He looks at your hearts (intentions) and your deeds. Creatures are the dependants of Allah and the closest among them to Allah are indeed the most useful to His dependants.”

Read more: http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503543240#ixzz1CzbfZQdL

Reply to Negeen Mayel

Negeen Mayel’s Inconsistent Attack on Lauren Booth’s Conversion

Who is Negeen Mayel?

Negeen Mayel is a Christian convert and has blogged about Lauren Booth’s conversion. Negeen operates in an inconsistent fashion in attempting to suggest further study of Islam will deflate Lauren Booth’s feelings of “absolute bliss and joy”.

Aside from Negeen’s misunderstanding with regards to the Islamic source material she quotes, Negeen operates a double standard as the Bible contains teachings which would have to be a concern for Negeen if she was consistent with her standard of judgement.

Predictably, Negeen writes:

Ms.Booth said she had so far only read up to page 60 in the Quran, which makes sense since if she had gone any further she would have hit Surah Al-Nisa, at which point her “absolute bliss and joy” feelings towards her recently accepted beliefs would undoubtedly be confronted with Surah 4:34.

Beating Wives “Surah 4:34”

I’m pretty confident Negeen is already aware of the explanation with regards to this Verse but just in case she has not had it explained to her (o heard/read an explanation) I will point her to Yusuf Estes’ explanation. I hope Negeen stops using this as a hit piece as it is inconsistent and she has now had it clarified for her. Yusuf Estes explaining this issue:

Bible-believing Ladies are not easily shocked

Negeen feels this Verse to be “deflating” and perhaps even shocking. However, Negeen must remember she is a “Bible-believing Christian” so a Verse which allows the beating of wives is hardly going to be shocking for a “Bible-believing lady”.

Has Negeen Mayel Read the Bible?

It appears Negeen has not read the Bible and thus operates from a secular standpoint. If Negeen has read the Bible then she is operating in a deliberately inconsistent fashion. Nothing in Islamic teachings should shock Negeen Mayel if she uses the Bible as her standard. If Negeen uses American (secular) law as her standard then both Christianity and Islam will be incompatible with her worldview.

Forget About Beating Women…how About KILLING women, Negeen?

Was Negeen not shocked to realise her biblical and Christian teachings show God (according to Christianity this includes the Holy Spirit, Jesus and the Father) supporting the killing of WOMEN and CHILDREN as well as taking the virgin girls as slaves.

5 Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! 6 Kill them all—old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. 7 “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with corpses. Go!” So they went and began killing throughout the city. (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

As a Muslim; we do not know whether this story is accurate. However, we go by God’s standard so IF God did order something of this nature then we as BELIEVERS are not going to criticise it.

Negeen should NOT have been presenting Surah 4:34 for shock effect based on her BIBLICAL standards as she believes God ordered the KILLING of women and children. Be consistent, Negeen!

[Negeen should also Read Numbers 31:7-18 as Moses commands the killing of women and boys. Our Negeen has no problem believing Moses to be a Prophet despite this Biblical passage. Be consistent, Negeen!]

The NIV and Rape

Did Negeen Read the NIV translation of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New International Version – UK)?
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Now Negeen may say other translations don’t use the word “rape”; the MSG uses the word “rape” and other translations suggest rape too!

Was Negeen Mayel not shocked by Deuteronomy?

Negeen Mayel’s book does not support sex before marriage either. We see true Bible-believing Christians will not have criticism for the stoning of girls who are found out to be non-virgins on their wedding night (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)

Killing or beating?

Non-virgin girls are killed but Negeen Mayel is more shocked by Surah 4:24? This is inconsistent to an extreme. If Negeen is really this champion of women’s rights then what in the world is she doing claiming to be a Bible believing Christian whilst using secular standards to have a dig at Islam? Has she even read the whole Bible? Really?

Surely, if she was consistent she would have rejected the god of the Bible based on the standard she uses to shock and discourage Lauren Booth.

God does not love all

Sadly, Negeen is very much in the clutches of the extremist brigade. Perhaps they sold “Christianity” to her based on the misappropriated claim that “Jesus loves everyone”. Anybody who is intellectually honest and seriously informed with regards to Christianity will certainly tell you this is unbiblical rhetoric that “preachers” use as a sound bite. The Bible does not support their sound bite.

Therefore, the proud may not stand in your presence, for you hate all who do evil. Psalm 5:5 (New Living Translation)

Negeen Mayel’s Cabal

Recently we caught Negeen’s mentor, David Wood, presenting the most sick sex lie I have ever come across. He presented it as a fact despite knowing it was untrue. The latest development in this sorry saga gives it an even more desperate twist; a colleague of mine has pointed me to evidence David Wood’s mentor (the infamous Mr Shamoun) used the SAME sick sex hoax in 2008. This, my friends, is the type of sheer nastiness are up against. Have a re-read of Psalm 5:5 (above); rest assured we are opposing evil designs!

We are opposing extremist Christians who want to demonise Muslims, the Prophet (p) and Islam for their own ends under the guise of the “church”.

Negeen Mayel has decisions to make

I have personally communicated with Negeen and she did reassure me she does not hate Muslims. I actually believe her and I believe her when she says she is an ex-Muslim (despite some discrepancies being pointed out on YT vis-à-vis her conversion video).

Mr Shamoun as a mentor?

The problem Negeen faces is that she has thrown her lot in with a rag-tag group of bigots/haters and charlatans. Their group is very much in league with the charlatan Sam “Islam allows sex with animals” Shamoun. This is a man who has left a trail of vile all over the net spanning years. Recently we captured Shamoun’s unedifying assault on a Muslim imam in a pal talk chat room:

Mr Wood as an example?

Then there is Mr Wood; his bag of tricks includes sick sex lies. Quite how Negeen can tandem with somebody with such a mindset is beyond me. Rest assured, our David was indeed motivated by hatred when he presented the infamous sex hoax. It sends shudders down my being when thinking about it. Yuck!
Absolutely disgusting! See here for Mr Wood’s despicable sex hoax:

Mr Wood should hang his head in shame, instead he moves on without a care in the world and his latest post is him bashing Michelle Obama for wearing a hijab! I guess Mr Wood is tearing down all those hijabified picture of Mary on church walls…I guess he is also wrenching 1 Corinthians from the Bible as we speak.

Don’t forget Mr Qureshi

There is Mr Qureshi, well he seems to be the less outspoken and controversial. However, do not let this befool you into believing Mr Qureshi (the self-styled “exMuslim”) is intellectually honest. He is STILL featuring material which he KNOWS to be inaccurate and subsequently is misleading people. See here to learn more:

Does Negeen Believe Jesus Supported the Killing of Females Found Out to be Non-Virgins?

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 (New International Version)
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death

Perhaps Negeen was just playing “sensitive” in order to have a dig at Lauren Booth’s conversion. Others could use the same “sensitivities” and apply them in an attack against Negeen’s conversion with GREATER force using the BIBLE. Negeen, be consistent!

Calling Negeen Mayel to Drop her Failed Argument

So Negeen, which is more shocking; God allowing the killing of kids and women or the allowance of beating of wives (see explanation above)? Negeen, we ALL know the answer and we ALL call you to consistency as inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

Negeen using the words of a Prophet (p) for shock purposes

Negeen writes: For starters here are the words of Muhammad himself:

[Muhammad said]: O womenfolk, you should give charity and ask much forgiveness for I saw you in bulk amongst the dwellers of Hell. A wise lady among them said: Why is it, Messenger of Allah, that our folk is in bulk in Hell? Upon this the Holy Prophet observed: You curse too much and are ungrateful to your spouses. I have seen none lacking in common sense and failing in religion but (at the same time) robbing the wisdom of the wise, besides you. Upon this the woman remarked: What is wrong with our common sense and with religion? He (the Holy Prophet) observed: Your lack of common sense (can be well judged from the fact) that the evidence of two women is equal to one man, that is a proof of the lack of common sense. (Sahih Muslim, Abdul Hamid Siddiqi, tr., Number 142)

Are women the majority in Hell?

These women are NOT simply sent to Hell based on gender. Sadly, missionaries like to leave it there so people are misdirected into thinking this way.. There is a context and explanation! This is explained here:

Common Sense

Furthermore, the issue of women lacking in common sense is not as shocking as Negeen believes it to be. Muslim women can hold the position of scholars and have held positions of narrators of ahadith; thus the hadith is not claiming women to be half-wits. It refers to women being more naturally guided by emotion and the failing in religion refers to them praying and fasting less due to natural reasons [see pg 340 of Moustafa Zayed’s book response to Robert Spencer]

Now we have explained this issue we can concentrate on Negeen Mayel’s double standards.

Does Negeen not know the Bible teaches men are in charge of women?

Ephesians 5

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior (Ephesians 5:23 NIV)

Does Negeen Support the Kojak look?

Forced to wear a hijab? I wonder if Negeen and other Christian ladies follow the example of Mary and other Muslim ladies by wearing the head covering or whether Negeen supports the Kojak look.

If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head (1 Corinthians 11:6 NIV)

I believe Britney Spears and the lady in the Alien movies went down the “Kojak” route. Sinead O Connor too? However, none of them sheared their locks for Biblical reasons as far as I am aware.

If I was a woman faced with those choices I would just wear the hijab as it is something Mary wore (can’t be a bad thing then) and I would want to safeguard my locks Negeen, be consistent!

Quoting Prophets

Negeen quotes the Prophet Muhammad (p) (see above) and we shall quote another Prophet, Moses (p). According to her Bible, Moses orders the killing of women and children. For some reason Negeen finds the above statement by Prophet Muhammad (p) shocking but has nothing to say about this passage in the Bible; perhaps she has not read Numbers 31

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man (Numbers 31:17)

I take it Negeen is off to tell her Christian pals she has renounced Christianity. She will have to do this IF she wants to maintain consistency. Either that or she will have to apologise for the shoddy shock-seeking article she produced. I call Negeen Mayel to public repentance and a public apology to Lauren Booth.

Liberal Christians?

I’m not entirely sure if Negeen is a liberal Christian who believes in homosexuality, dating and women church leaders. If she is I really wonder how she circumnavigates the anti-gay stance her book takes.

[Leviticus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 22:20-21 teach against homosexuality and sex before marriage respectively]

Of course fornication and homosexuality is allowed in America. I guess, if Negeen is a liberal Christian, this is all rather shocking to her too.

Negeen, what do you think of burning people alive?

This must be extremely shocking for Negeen if she is really taking issue with Surah 4:34.

“‘If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.. (Leviticus 21:9 NIV)

I guess the stuff about Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit loving everybody is simply sales pitch rhetoric especially in light of Psalm 5:5-6 and some of the verse we have showcased within this rebuke

Negeen: god of the Bible does not love everybody

Do you still believe Jesus, Father and the Holy Spirit love everybody? You see, in Islam we do not have an issue with God not loving the evil-doers. Why should God love the evil-doers? In Christianity it is clear god does not love the bad folk BUT for some reason Christians try to sell Christianity to us by telling us “Jesus loves everyone”.

The truth is; your Christian teachings teach non-Christians are doomed. St Augustine condemned non-baptised babies to Hell.

I guess it is easier to market Christianity in liberal America by changing its teachings; some have allowed gay marriages in order to appeal to liberal America.

After all we do find many women in church leadership positions nowadays. It would never have happened in the days of Paul. Changing your faith to a form of liberalism is up to you but to malign Islam because it stands firm to the teachings of God is problematic for Muslims. That is why I stepped in, just to make sure it does not happen again.

If you are intellectually honest you will make certain we do not see a repeat of this episode. Furthermore, I call you to holiness and righteousness and ask you to review your associations with your current company.


Negeen argues against Islam without a standard of consistency. She is either ill-informed with regards to the Bible or she is being deliberately inconsistent in order to wrack up the anti-Islamic sentiment her superiors expect of her.

Whatever happened to those peace loving Christians? Those Christians who try to be consistent, balanced and erudite?

The answer; some converted to Islam, some to secularism, and the rest have been drowned out by the fundamentalists who spend day and night traducing others and their respective faiths.

Christians: If Michelle Obama wants to wear a hijab, let her as it is BIBLICAL! There is no reason to go ballistic. Mary is certainly thought to have worn a head covering. Calm down with this ridiculous anti-Muslim rhetoric and you may just be taken seriously for a change and if you stop making sick sex hoaxes up about our faith we may just give you a tub of ice cream!

Negeen, if you cannot argue against Islam from a CONSISTENT standpoint then why leave Islam? I call you to the worship of the God which Jesus prayed to. Now, if Jesus is praying it is telling us he has a god. If that god is good enough for Jesus it is certainly good enough for you. Negeen, that god is none other than the One who created Jesus.

I invite Negeen Mayel to come to Islam by putting aside her inconsistencies and misconceptions.

Would you like to know more about the God of Jesus? If yes come to Islam today:

FEEDBACK: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

Jesus has Muslim Brothers and Sisters

The Bible Confirms: Muslims are the Brothers and Sisters (and Mothers) of Jesus by Yahya Snow

This may come as a surprise to those who are unaware of the contents of the Bible as well as unaware of whom the Muslims are but rest assured it comes as no surprise to those who are familiar with Prophetic Monotheism.

In order to explain the title let us look into the statement attributed to Jesus within the Gospel of Mark (3:35). Herein Jesus teaches us that his brothers, sisters and mothers are those who follow the Will of God.

Mark 3:35 says “For whoever does the will of God, he is my brother and sister and mother.”

The uninformed may ask; how does this relate to the Muslims? Well, the word ”Muslim” simply means one who has submitted to the Will of God, so we come to know that “whoever does the Will of God” is a Muslim.

Thus we realise that Jesus is referring to Muslims in this passage so we should pass on these glad tidings to the Muslims as Muslims are indeed the brothers, sisters and mothers of Jesus. We also realise from hadith literature that all Prophets are brothers [1], so essentially Jesus is confirming that he is the brother of all the other Prophets too as all Prophets do the Will of God, i.e. all Prophets are Muslims.

We should also acknowledge that this verse is from the Gospel of Mark, this Gospel is thought to be the most reliable of the four as it is the earliest but it is also clear that even this Gospel has been adulterated (or changed) by the scribes; this is seen through the footnotes in the NIV Bible (indicating manuscript differences) especially the last ten verses of the Gospel of Mark (16:9-19) which are forged additions by a scribe(s).

Nevertheless the statement attributed to Jesus in Mark 3:35 does have the ring of authenticity to it as it chimes well (agrees) with what another Prophet taught; Prophet Muhammed taught something similar [2], this also hints to us that this was a general Prophetic teaching.

Of course, it should also be said that the sincere companions and followers of Jesus are Muslims too. And all Prophets are Muslims. So indeed all those who have submitted to the Will of God are Muslims and are brothers and sisters. One big happy family!

As a side note, this verse from the Gospel of Mark does reinforce the view that the followers of Jesus thought of Jesus as a Prophet rather than God as God would not declare people to be his mothers, sisters or brothers. It also shows that Jesus did not view himself to be God as this is not a statement one would expect of God but one would have expected a statement like this from a Prophet, hence Jesus thought himself as a Prophet.

Note: All Biblical quotes are taken from the New International Version of the Bible


[1] Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 652

[2] Ramûzu’l-Ehadis p. 361, 4460


Taken from: http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2009/12/jesus-has-muslim-brothers-sisters-and.html

Jesus was Not Gay

Proof Jesus Was Not Gay by Yahya Snow

There is no evidence showing Jesus to be gay

The claim that Jesus was gay is based on no evidence whatsoever; hence is intellectually flawed from the beginning. Jesus never said he was gay, nor did he ever commit a homosexual act, the fact remains there is no evidence for Jesus being gay, none whatsoever.

Suffice to say, in academic circles it is the responsibility of the claimant to bring evidence for his claim; quite simply the one making such claims about Jesus has no evidence whatsoever. Therefore to claim he was gay would be a claim which lacks any evidence and thus is dismissed as unscholarly and essentially this claim is designed to incite reaction provoke and aggrieve those who hold Jesus as a holy individual (namely Muslims and Jesus) and ultimately challenge people’s attitudes towards homosexuality, especially those within conservative religious groups

This does lead to the question as to what basis they make their claim upon. Well, quite simply they build their claim upon the silence of Jesus, (i.e. he never claimed he was not gay) and the fact he never got married or had a relationship with a woman.
So from the outset you can see their claims are based on nothing but mere conjecture on their part, nothing substantial at all.

Nevertheless there is evidence that Jesus was not gay. To show this evidence I will employ a methodically rational approach in highlighting the fact Jesus was not gay.

Asking a man whether he is gay or not

If you see a person on the street and you want to ascertain whether he is gay or not you have a few routes you can take in order to find out what sexual persuasion the person is of.
The first route is the most direct and possibly the quickest; simply ask the man. Nobody asked Jesus this question. Jesus lived in a community, as well as during a time, in which homosexuality was not something which was discussed and frowned upon greatly, thus asking a man whether he was gay would have been an insult and even taboo. So, in order, to show Jesus was not gay we can use alternative reasoning.

Does the man have a wife?

The second way of finding out whether a man is gay or not is to check if he has a wife or girlfriend. If this is the case then this would surely show he is not gay. Now we know Jesus did not take a wife nor did he have any such relationship with a woman. So we must employ alternative reasoning as this method yields no benefit to out purpose.
However, before moving on to the next line of reasoning, as a way of side note; many people find it unusual that Jesus did not marry and the claimants try to use this to support their “gay” claim. This simply shows their lack of deep understanding concerning the life of Jesus.

Reasons why Jesus never married

Jesus was thought to have been amongst the Essenes who were strict Jews who practiced abstinence of all sexual relations or as Pliny described them as people who “abjure sexual love”. Thus they avoided sexual lust of any kind (i.e. avoided marriage etc) and focussed on spirituality and learning making them ascetics. Concerning Jesus; “it appears as if he was educated under the hard discipline of the Essene teachers” thus it is of no surprise that Jesus followed ways which avoided any sexual feelings and never married.

So this helps explain the lack of marriage on the part of Jesus, so it is unfair for the claimants to try and dishonestly capitalise on this and suggest homosexuality. Would they suggest homosexuality of the Pope or nuns due to their avoidance of marriage (abstinence), of course not, thus it is unfair to do this with the example of Jesus. The fact that Jesus was not a man of material means meant he could not support a wife coupled with the information of Jesus being similar to the Essenes in mindset concerning avoiding marriage provides powerful reasons behind Jesus not marrying.

The views of Jesus concerning gays and homosexuality

Going back to our methodology of reasoning, given that the man is single and we cannot ask him directly whether he is gay; what else can we do to find out whether the man is gay? Well we could always be indirect and ask him concerning his views on homosexuals and homosexuality. Thus any views opposing homosexuality would be enough to indicate the man is not gay as he must be taken at face value. Jesus he was anti-homosexuality.

Jesus did not agree with homosexuality and he opposed it and condemned it. As we know, Jesus was an honest man who was not afraid to stand up for his beliefs thus we know we can take Jesus at face value. Now, we must realise that Jesus could not have been gay as he did not support homosexuality. One may ask for references concerning Jesus’ views.

Jesus promotes marriage between man and woman as natural and as the only legitimate union. Jesus is reported to have said:

4″Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Matthew 19: 4-6)

If that is not sufficient then there is further (and even stronger) evidence of Jesus opposing the idea of homosexuality. Jesus is reported to have said:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. (Matthew 5:17)

So, we see through this quotation that Jesus was supporting the Law; we also know Jesus was an expert and a teacher of the Law. So what does the Law say about homosexuality? We can get the answer from Leviticus which reports:

” ‘Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. (Leviticus 18:22)

In fact Leviticus goes further by reporting:

” ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13)

Thus we realise that the Law teaches us that homosexuality is an abomination, it is a sin. As Jesus supported the Law we can clearly say Jesus did not support homosexuality at all. The Law also supports the death penalty for homosexual sex. Jesus hates the act of homosexuality and supports the death of those involved. Therefore Jesus could not have been a homosexual.

Further evidence shows Jesus not to be gay

Of course there is other evidence supporting this and showing to us that Jesus was not gay. Assuming you wanted to find out if an individual was gay but could not speak to that individual you could always ask his relatives and friends.

The relatives and friends of Jesus never claimed he was gay rather they considered him to be a holy man and wise. We must remember that people in those days did not consider homosexual people as pious, holy or wise thus we realise from this that Jesus was not gay as he was thought to be a holy and wise man. This is also shown by Josephus, the Jewish historian who described him as “a wise man” [1].

We can also note that the enemies of Jesus never accused Jesus of being homosexual despite their hatred towards Jesus and their desire to slander him and sway people away from his teachings. What we can infer from all this is that nobody who knew Jesus or knew of him thought he was gay even amongst those who hated him.

Based on all this overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that Jesus was not gay we can safely say that the “gay” claim against Jesus is unscholarly and untrue.

Christians and Muslims do not believe Jesus to be gay either

Finally it is important to mention those who believe in Jesus, the Christians (Trinitarians and Unitarians) and the Muslims. What do these groups believe concerning Jesus? Well, the Trinitarian Christians do not view Jesus as a homosexual, whilst the Unitarians and Muslims would have similar beliefs in believing he was a Prophet like all other Prophets, i.e. heterosexual and not homosexual. In fact Muslim sources teach us that Jesus will get married when he returns and even procreate (i.e. he will have children). [2] [3]

Summary of the evidence proving Jesus was not gay

1. There is no evidence of Jesus being gay.
2. Jesus never claimed to be gay.
3. Jesus opposed homosexuality. He did not agree with it and considered it a sin.
4. The friends and family of Jesus did not believe he was gay.
5. Even the enemies of Jesus never claimed he was gay despite their hatred of Jesus.
6. Christians (Unitarians and Trinitarians) and Muslims do not believe him to be gay
7. Muslims believe Jesus will marry and have children, thus he thought of as heterosexual.


In the light of such reasoning and evidence we can dismiss the “gay” claim as fanciful and based on mere conjecture as it lacks any truth or evidence to it whatsoever. The evidence in fact points to the fact that Jesus was not gay.

It is intellectually dishonest on the part of those who make the “gay” claims or use such claims to try and pursue their personal agenda. I would appeal to them to be factual and avoid such baseless claims; it reflects poorly upon them.


In the way of a disclaimer; this article was not written due to homophobia or to upset any gay people. This article sets out to do academic and intellectual justice to the memory of Jesus as it appears people with less than sincere intentions have began to use their claims concerning Jesus in order to pursue insincere personal agendas.

Note: all Biblical quotes are from the NIV Bible.


[1] Jewish Antiquities, Flavius Josephus, Wordsworth Editions Limited 2006 pg 780

[2] Mishkat al-Masabih, 3:47

[3] Ibn Al Jauzi in Kitab al Wafa

Alleged Contradiction Against the Quran is Wrong; How Long is a Day? 1000 or 50000 years?

The Critics Accuse The Quran of Contradiction Concerning The Length Of A Day.

 The critic says:

‘Sura 22:47 and 32:5 tell us that one day to Allah actually means 1,000 years, but Sura 70:4 says a day with Allah is 50,000 years’ [1]

 An unlearned individual may read the critic’s claim and feel it is a genuine contradiction. However closer scrutiny shows there is no contradiction and this claim is only borne out of the critic’s own misunderstanding of the text.

 The Arabic word for day is ‘yawm’. Now this can be translated as a day, long period or epoch. As we see from the context the translation would either be long period or epoch as the verses are not referring to 24 hour periods (i.e. the conventional day). So please keep this in mind when reading this article.

 As we further investigate we realise the reason why the length of these long periods or epochs are different (either 1,000 years or 50,000 years) is due to the verses referring to different events. In order to highlight this it is necessary to look at each of the verses individually:

 22:47 – And they ask you to hasten on the torment! And Allâh fails not His Promise. And verily, a day with your Lord is as a thousand years of what you reckon. [2]

 Tafsir Jalalayn tells us the day (long period/epoch) referred to in 22:47 is concerning a day in the Hereafter (in Hell) [5]. So we note that this verse is teaching us that the length of a regular day in Hell is equivalent to a thousand years.

 32:5 – He arranges (every) affair from the heavens to the earth, then it (affair) will go up to Him, in one Day, the space whereof is a thousand years of your reckoning (i.e. reckoning of our present world’s time) [3]

 Tafsir Jalalayn teaches us the Quranic verse 32:5 is referring to a day (long period/epoch) which is equivalent to a thousand years is referring to the affairs taking a day to go up to Allah [6]. This takes a thousand years of our (human) measure and it is described as a yawm (day, long period or epoch).

 70:4 – The angels and the Rûh [Jibrael (Gabriel)] ascend to Him in a Day the measure whereof is fifty thousand years, [4]

 Tafsir Jalalayn tells us this is concerning the Day of Resurrection [7], though this can also be obviously discerned by reading the verses by prior and after the verse in question (70:4). So essentially we realise that this verse tells us the Day of Resurrection is measured as 50,000 (fifty thousand) years. Tafsir Jalalayn does go further and mention it is of the perspective of the disbeliever; hence the Day will be different for the disbeliever (longer) and the believer (shorter). But for the purposes of this article it is sufficient to know this verse of the Quran (70:4) concerns the Day of Resurrection and is referring to a different event (not the same events mentioned in the two previous verses, 22:47 and 32:5)

 Thus we realise the Quran speaks of three different events which last a specific amount of time (days):


  1. Verse 22:47 concerns a day in the Hereafter (i.e. Hell) which lasts 1,000 years.
  2. Verse 32:5 concerns the length of time (a day/long period/epoch) for the affairs to go up to Allah which consists of 1,000 earth years.
  3. Verse 70:4 concerns the Day of Judgement which lasts 50,000 earth years for the disbeliever.

 All three of these events all take a set amount of time. Two of them take 1,000 years of our reckoning while the last one takes 50,000 years of our reckoning.

So to summarise we can say there is no contradiction as the Quran is not speaking of the same event in each verse. Therefore we realise there is no contradiction at all.

 The critic due to his/her lack of research conflates and confuses the three events into one and erroneously believes the three are all the same. This error on the part of the critics leads to their egregious and unscholarly claim which highlights the ignorance on the part of the critic.

 May Allah guide us all. Ameen

 And certainly Allah knows best.


Further Reading





[1] Anatomy of the Quran by G.J.O Moshay Chick Productions 2007 pg 117


[2] Translation and explanation of The Noble Quran In the English Language, A Summarized Version of At-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi and Ibn Kathir with comments from Sahih Al-Bukhari By Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D. and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan. Verse 22:47


[3] Ibid. Verse 32:5


[4] Ibid. Verse 70:4


[5] Tafsir al-Jalalayn, trans. Feras Hamza. Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought, Amman, Jordan. 2008. Concerning verse 22:47


[6] Ibid. Concerning verse 32:5


[7] Ibid. Concerning verse 70:4