In this verse (62:9) of the Quran we find it saying to stop all kinds of business activities once the call for Jummah worship is given out. We need to have a clear understanding regarding this.

Some people let their businesses be carried on by children or women on whom there is no obligation of worshipping on that particular day, while they attend the Jummah worship. They seem to believe this is what is expected of them by God.

This is totally wrong. Verse (62:9,10) of the Quran says ‘: O you who have believed, when [the adhan] is called for the prayer on the day of Jumu'ah [Friday], then proceed to the remembrance of Allah and leave trade. That is better for you, if you only knew.

And when the worship has been concluded, disperse within the land and seek from the bounty of Allah , and remember Allah..

There are two commandments embedded in these verses.

If it is merely said ‘Proceed to worship immediately on hearing the call for worship is given, business can be left in the care of others.

But here one of the commandments of Providence is violated, because in the same verse it says once the worship of the Almighty has concluded, disperse to seek the bounties of Allah meaning to go in search of livelihood.

When it is being mentioned in the same verses here is to seek livelihood after Jummah worship is over, here some businesses are active during the Jummah worship means utter disregard for the words of the Almighty.

The argument, the person by himself was not present at the spot of business, wreaks of delusion and lack of fear in God, and against one’s conscience.

Can these people argue with the government saying they are not ready to pay the tax for transactions done through their subordinates, will the government accept their arguments or will they refuse the income out of these transactions.

Can anyone with the right conscience disown omissions and commissions of subordinates. We are to take responsibility for the actions of our subordinates.

Any transaction done, carried, out by establishments owned by us is considered to be carried out by us, hence when the the call for Jummah worship is given we are required to proceed and remain in places of worship (Masjids) from the beginning to the end of the worship, and no business be transacted during the intervening time

465. Married couples are clothing for each other.

In this verse (2:187) of the Quran Allah by comparing a married couple to their clothing to each other, conveys many disciplines of life.

By not portraying one as the clothing and the other as the user of the clothing and referring to them as clothing for each other, the Almighty talks about the equal responsibility of both.

The clothes of man protect him from heat and cold, likewise one should share the burden of happiness and difficulties of the other, is the message conveyed here.

The clothes of a person conceal the inadequacies in him, and also protects his honor, likewise here is a message in this verse to conceal the misgivings of each other and arrive at a compromise by talking to each other.

There is a need to talk to each other regarding intimate matters and not to divulge the same to third persons.

Right from the days unknown man always remained dressed up. Likewise, a married couple should feel the need for each other.

When clothes get soiled, we get them cleaned by washing, or we mend them when they are ripped. Similarly, a couple should sort out the difference between them and live unitedly.

There are many messages conveyed here regarding living a peaceful united life of married couples.

391. No legal heirs for properties belongings left behind by prophets.

Verse (19:5) of the Quran talks of Prophet Zakariyah’s prayer to God, for grant of a legal heir.

We are given to understand, a person who enjoys the properties and belongings is termed as the legal heir of the deceased.

But the word legal heir used in this verse should not be taken to mean in the same context as stated above.

Because Prophet Muhammad has said the offspring of prophets are not to claim properties left behind by them. (Bukhari 2862, 2863, 3435, 3730, 3913)

Since no one can become a legal heir for the properties left behind by prophets, the reason Prophet Zakariyah prayed for a legal heir is to carry on the spiritual tasks after him. He prayed asking for a legal heir to hand over the responsibility of spiritual tasks.

And it is being said in the message as ‘that legal heir would be the legal heir of my family as well as that of the family of Yacoob, suggesting the legal heir aspect is not regarding left behind properties, because Prophet Zachariya's son cannot become an inheritor of the property of Prophet Yacoob.

368. Monkey not precursor to man.

These verses (2:21, 3:59, 4:1, 5:18, 6:2, 6:98, 7:189, 15:26, 15:28, 16:4, 18:37, 18:51, 19:67, 21:37, 22:5, 23:12, 25:54, 30:20, 32:7, 35:11, 36:77, 37:11, 38:71, 39:6, 40:57, 40:67, 49:13, 50:16, 51:56, 53:45, 55:3, 55:14, 70:19, 76:2, 86:5, 87:2, 90:4, 92:3, 95:4, 96:1) of the Quran say man is not the resultant product of evolutionary development from monkey, but a direct creation of God. These verses talk of the first human being made out of clay and the subsequent one from seminal fluid.

No one can deny the fact that humanity multiplied by means of seminal fluid.

But rationalists argue the initial stages of mankind developed by evolutionary process.

They argue that unicellular organisms evolved to become multicellular ones ultimately resulting in monkeys that further developed into humans. This argument of theirs in refusing man was created by God stems from the fear that such belief would sound the death knell to atheism they believe in.

. But we do not get any response from them for the question, from where did the unicellular organism come from?

Some seem to support the theory that man came from monkeys, because they use it as a ruse to establish the ideology of atheism, and we do not find any scientific basis for their belief. It is just based on an assumption.

The ideology of Darwinism is, with the development of time, some organisms kept on evolving for a long period and the resultant species were known as monkeys which further evolved and developed into human beings.

Did any Darwinist conclude this theory after having observed a monkey evolving into a man? Not at all. It can be said, the reason for these people to come to such an assumption, is the similarities that are found in the appearance of man and monkey. To portray the theory of evolution as a real happening they have released imaginary pictures on theory of evolution as proof of evidence. These are imaginary portraits, and do not form the evidence to prove principles of evolution.

It is surprising to see people in these scientific modern days falling prey to such kind of blind beliefs. Like their counterparts did in those dark ages.

Maybe the out-ward appearance of man and monkey exhibit similarities but the inner structure is not that similar.

We are living at a time where blood transfusions are carried out from man to man.

At times when availability of human blood for transfusions became scarce, scientists tried to find an alternate source in other organisms, and found the blood of pig was the closest compatible.

In the future, if the scientists do or do not conclude that pig blood of pig can be transfused to man, it has been confirmed for now the blood of pig is close to that of man.

If the belief, man evolved from a monkey is true, then blood of monkey should be found to be more compatible to that of man, whereas the same degree of incompatibility (that is seen between the blood of man and blood of other animals) is also found in the case of monkeys.

This discovery of the nature of blood between man and monkey is the strongest evidence to suggest man could never have evolved from monkey. It is better to conclude the origin of man based on the much more scientific methods than doing it on the basis of outward appearances.

Even today, when the appearances of a son and a father do not match, it is decided on the basis of a DNA test, and does not take into consideration the outward appearances.

We can forgive Darwin for the erroneous assumptions on evolution because, during his time he was unaware about the components of blood, but to continue the same fallacy even today is unforgivable. Man has progressed to a stage where heart transplants are the order of the day, and to an extent where artificial hearts are a reality.

Researches are being undertaken to study replacement of human heart with that of an animal, to rehabilitate many heart patients.

It was found that none of the hearts of animals including monkeys was incompatible.

Surprisingly the heart of a pig was found to be close to that of man. This is an established fact. And if the question of evolutionary developments of man needs to be decided based on an animal, a pig stands a better chance to take that place than a monkey. Relying on science to decide on the origins of humans based on internal organs is more appropriate.

Man has now made rapid advancements in the field of genetics and has decoded genomes.

We can believe in the theory of evolution to some extent, had there been a confirmation of similarities in the genome of monkey or any other animal and man, but no such things have been brought to light till now.

Furthermore, before genomes could be discovered, it was found out that the entire humankind was from a single pair of African parents.

Darwin did not say a particular pair of monkeys evolved into humans that multiplied into the present numbers. The philosophy of Darwin was that a particular group of monkeys at a particular period evolved into humans. The discovery that a single African couple gave rise to the present population demolishes the theory put forth by Darwin.

The concept, humans are from a single set of parents creates a philosophy of universal brotherhood, and would stop discriminations in humanity based on caste, clan, color etc. Holding on to Darwinism would spell disaster to mankind.

Darwinism would justify discrimination in mankind based on class, creed, color, clan etc, by easily differentiating and citing origins of birth.

Another most important factor that needs to be taken note of here is that man does not earn pride through his bodily features but through his rationalistic ability.

Dawin cites only the changes in bodily features of man and completely ignores the necessity or the reason for a change from an irrational being to a rational human.

According to Darwinism, the giraffe was initially with a short neck that elongated gradually with its search for food that was available at a much higher reach on trees. Darwin’s theory postulates, as a result of reaching out to the trees in search of food the giraffe ended up with an elongated neck as we find them today. Taking into consideration the giraffe needed a long neck to survive, was there a compulsion for rationalism in living beings at any point of time for survival. There is no need for rationalism to survive in this world.

But was there a compulsion in living beings at any time of history that made them require rationalism for survival? There is no need for rationalism for one to survive in this world

Was there a compulsion that rationalism is a necessity for survival. There was no compulsion from any quarters at any point of time for a change from irrational being to a rational human.

When it is concluded rationalism is not required for survival of living beings, the result is there might be a change in the physical features of the beings, but does not change the being into a rational one.

We cannot accept the theory of evolution regarding the giraffe, because there is no explanation for the elongation of the elephant’s trunk, and the presence of a pouch in kangaroos. There is no answer in Darwin’s theory of evolution regarding the elephant’s trunk and the presence of an external pouch in kangaroos, are they going to explain that the trunk in elephants is the result of the elongation of its nostrils?

If the evolutionary development of monkeys is man, why did it stop?

As per these people’s theory, every day in some part of the world a change from monkey to man should be taking place, or some monkeys on a regular basis are giving birth to human babies. It did not take place nor continue to take place. There is no explanation to this from Darwinists.

If as per the theory of evolution, man evolved from monkey, there should have been an intermediary between monkey and man with a few differences. But there should be thousands of creatures in between monkey and man with differences in a gradual manner, proving evolution. But the presence of thousands of differences between monkey and man proves man did not evolve from monkey. There is no explanation as to why man did not evolve to a better being.

And studies conducted on human blood, heart, liver, kidney, prove man is a unique being and did not evolve from any other creature.

To know more about every one is equal by birth and only deeds differentiate one from the other and also to know about equality and brotherhood in Islam please refer to explanation points 11, 32, 49, 59, 141, 168, 182, 227, 290, 508.

242. Pairs found in all creations.

In these verses (13:3, 20:53, 36:36, 43:12, 51:49) of the Quran we find the declaration of pairs in all his creations of plants and organisms.

When the message of the existence of pairs in plants was revealed, men did not have knowledge about it. The scientists discovered it at a later stage. This revelation many centuries about the existence of pairs in plants is yet another proof that Quran is God’s word.

Verse 36:36 talks of creations by God from what existed which men were not aware of.

Man has today discovered many pairs in creations that were not found those days .

We find in electricity the existence of positive and negative charges as a pair, likewise protos and electrons as a pair in atoms. This mention in the Quran about the existence in pairs of many things that man was unaware of is yet another proof that the Quran is God’s word.

515. Can we follow the footsteps of faithful Muslims?

In verse (4:115) of the Quran Allah says to follow the way of the faithful Muslims.

Some are trying to create a third authority in Islam to be emulated, from faithful Muslims in addition to other than Quran and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad.

There is no place for this argument from this verse, which can be interpreted to have two meanings.

The phrase ‘the path of the faithful Muslims’ gives space for two meanings to be alluded to.

One is ‘to understand the ways of the faithful Muslims’ and follow them.

And the other is to follow the path in which Allah has commanded the faithful Muslims to tread.

Though there are two ways of explaining the verse as (1) the way in which the faithful Muslims went and (2) The path the faithful Muslims should follow.

We cannot take it to mean as quoted in (1) because the basic tenets of Islam is challenged.

If it is meant as permission to follow the footsteps of the faithful, we should possess the ability to identify the faithful. because faith is something connected with the heart of a person.

We have not been granted the power to identify such people. Because faith or belief is something connected with the heart of a person, and one cannot fathom into another’s heart to find out the extent of faith in it. One can never know the faith of another, Allah alone has the knowledge about such things. Hence when it is not possible to identify a faithful person, how to follow one? One can be identified as a faithful person by his external appearance and manifestations, and not in the sense that he is considered faithful by the Almighty.

Then who are the faithful.

Based on worldly requirements we can consider a person faithful and pious; we may lend money taking him to be faithful, or get our girl married to him in the same sense. But in reality, he may or may not be so, and the power to know the entire truth is not vested with us.

The criteria of being known as a faithful in this world are different from that of being the same with the Almighty.

Allah did not say in this verse, to go in search of the faithful to follow them, and neither is it possible for men to do it.

The path of the faithful means, the path that is chosen by them to fulfill the fundamentals of what is laid down by God. This path can be identified by us.

Go through the below quoted two verses.

When Allah and His Prophet decide on a certain act, the faithful men and women do not have their own choice over it. The one who contradicts Allah and His messenger is certainly led astray.

The Quran 33:36

Once when Allah and His messenger have decided on a certain act the faithful do not have their own preference, but follow it, this is the path of the faithful.

Below given is another verse:

When called by Allah and His messenger for a verdict to be delivered among them, the submission by the faithful should be we ‘perceive and obey’. They are those who are victorious.

The Quran 24:51.

When Allah’s verses are being indoctrinated, their stance is ‘we perceive and we obey.  

It is absurd to understand this as to mean the faithful will arrive at a consensus (ijma) and we are needed to follow them.

514. Is it appropriate for the Quran to speak about female genitals?

The Christian missionaries all over point out these two verses (66:12, 21:91) of the Quran as inappropriately talking about female genitals.

Though we have translated the phrase as ‘We breathed into her’ the word Farjad refers to the female genital. The question by the Christian missionaries is ‘Is this appropriate for a religious text to mention this?

Is it wrong to talk about male or female genitals, is it objectionable and disgusting? Generally, not so, but when there is a necessity, we do need to mention the same.

When there is an injury or other issues in the genitals of male or female it has to be discussed with the physician.

But there are decent as well as vulgar words that are used to denote the same, we are to make use of the decent words.

When we need to disclose to a physician about a small inflammation in our private parts, no one would find the mentioning of the ‘private parts’ objectionable. When a necessity arises to mention, it will not be considered an obscenity.

We will find the absurdity of this question by the Christain missionaries when we try and whether, there was a necessity to use the word, and was it a decent word that was being used,

The word Farjad is not an indecent word , it is a common word used to refer to the private parts of men and women.

This word can be uttered in public gatherings and no one would frown over it.

Is it obscene to call upon men and women to clean their genitals with water after urination. No one would say so.

But we would call it obscene when a filthy word is used to denote the same.

The word Farjad is similar to ‘private parts’ referring to the genitalia of male and female.

We can find the same word being used by Prophet Muhammad in the hadiths recorded in Bukhari: 367, 6284, 5819, 5820, 5821, 582

In this hadith we find Prophet Muhammad saying men not to wear a garment that does not conceal the Farjad, here it is made clear Farjad refers to the private parts of men and women, it is confirmed this word is not obscene as accused by the Christian missionaries.

This word can be found in the hadith book Bukhari: 249, 259, 260, 266. 274, 276, 281, 288.    

We find in these hadiths as quoted by the wives of Prophet Muhammad- Ayisha, and Maimuna, the prophet while fulfilling the need to mandatory wash himself gave a thorough cleansing to his (Farjad) private parts

They declare this while talking about the law requiring men to thoroughly wash their private parts while bathing.

The word Farjad is used normally by civilized women.

Asking men and women to clean thoroughly their private parts while bathing, does not amount to obscenity.

Hence there is absolutely no obscenity expressed in the Quran.

And the term is made use of at the appropriate place.

If a woman needs to be impregnated, the male sperm should reach the female womb is the norm set by the Almighty. He decides to impregnate Maryiam known as Mary without a male counterpart. The Almighty did not send a fully formed baby into Maryiam’s womb. But was blessed with a baby that developed in stages as in a normal woman.

A baby cannot be formed without a sperm or any other cell entering the womb, and the only way for the sperm to enter is the private part of the female, and a sperm cannot be sent through the mouth of the female to reach the womb.

It is possible for the Almighty to do the same in numerous other ways, but Allah chose to give her a baby by sending Jibreel (AS) the archangel, to blow life creating matter into her womb.

For example, if it were to be taken as a man blowing life into her it would mean, he did it by removing the clothes. But the angels who have been bestowed with power to intrude the hearts of men could do without even removing the clothes. They can blow just by standing next to them and the impregnation is accomplished.

Teaching the biology of creation of a baby does not amount to obscenity. Today surrogation and artificial insemination is done by implanting the sperm into the womb of women through their private parts. Is this a description or obscenity?

There is no justification for the Christian missionaries to pose such a question.

There is some kind of a justification that the questions are from people of other faiths than Christianity. Because the same thing can be seen in their scripture.

18. The details of the birth of Jesus: While his mother Maryam was fixed for Joseph before they could come together, she was impregnated by the Holy Spirit.

Matthew 1

20. While he was pondering, the messenger of the Lord appeared in his dream: Oh! The son of David, do not doubt your wife, to take with you, what is within her is the creation of the holy Spirit. What does it mean when it is said a woman was impregnated by some? It is the result of a sperm being introduced; a baby is created. When it is said she became pregnant because of the introduction of a sperm, by the holy spirit, means the sperm was sent by the holy spirit. What do the missionaries have to say?

34. Maryam asked the messenger of God; how can this happen? I do not know a husband.

35. The messenger replied saying: the holy spirit will be over you; The power of the noble will be a shadow you; Hence the immaculate will be born of you and be called the son of God.

Luke1

What does it mean when it is said a holy spirit will be over a woman and as a result, she becomes pregnant, suggesting a sexual intercourse having taken place, but the Quran says in a civilized manner the angel blew life into her. At the same time these missionaries should come forward to face questions about abundant obscenities found in the Bible.