Mohammed the borrower

Prove Islam is from God, why it is the 'One True Religion'.
Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

Of course the word dirham didnt exist in ancient Egypt, niether did "kilograms". So how does this affect the fact they used to have units of weights. Or do you mean Egyptians had to speak English and Arabic for them to express weight units in their language. Egyptians weighted their commodities, standardizied metals into bullions according to specific weights and qualities, which could then be counted. Dirham is used for weights
http://ejtaal.net/aa/#hw4=336,ll=919,ls ... =1,mis=651" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Nobody said the embarrassing blunder of Genesis 27 saying "20 silver" proves the Quran right or affects it in anyway. The above explanation, as to what dirham means and how Egyptians handled commodities, is what proves it right. And neither is the supposed "of" implied according the last minute grammar quick fix, which is why the reliable translations by actual Hebrew natives, like this one add an interpolation https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... rashi=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And its not about how or from whom the prophet Muhammad got his revelation from, but about ascertaining whether 2 texts containing a core truth necessarily implies copying from one another. And of course it isnt the case.

As to sura 12:9 it quotes the brothers, just like elsewhere the Quran quotes Pharao or Iblis. So there is no such thing as the Quran approving of their behavior. The brothers(not the One quoting them) thought that after killing Yusuf they would gain back all the attention from Jacob and would thereafter repent and be forgiven.

This innocent bit is interesting
apparently the PARENTS of Joseph went to see him in Egypt. But Rachel, the mother of Joseph, died when Benyamin was born.
The Quran recounts the story of the prophet Yusuf/Joseph with an impactful introduction whose reality will soon be understood in light of the above quote
12:3"We narrate to you the best of narratives, by Our revealing to you this Quran, though before this you were certainly one of those who did not know"
. His father Jacob gave him and his younger brother special care among his sons for not only were they the youngest and he had them at an old age, but he had discerned in Yusuf signs of righteousness as opposed to his other envious sons, about whom Jewish tradition attributes many strange and abominable acts. These acts were in fact, according to Midrash, rumored by Joseph who is also painted as a slanderer to whom God repayed his misbehavior through his ordeal.

The Quran on the other hand leaves the impression that Yusuf's brothers were not completely evil characters, although certainly guilty of sins and obviously lacking in God-consciousness, and this is seen at different stages of the story, including at the introduction, as they expressed their plan to rid themselves of Yusuf and then, once all honor is theirs to repent and straighten themselves spiritually. Jacob's intuition as regards Yusuf confirmed itself as the latter related his dream predicting his honoring by his entire family 12:4-5.

In the HB, this prophetic dream of Joseph is reduced to an insignificant anecdote. Not only didnt the dream come true at any point, but it was also defective if one takes the information that Joseph's mother Rachel had died while giving birth to his younger brother Benjamin in Gen35 as true. And yet the dream symbolically represented both Joseph's parents with the sun and moon, and his 11 brothers as 11 stars, all falling down to him in prostration
Gen37:9-10"And he told it to his father and to his brothers, and his father rebuked him and said to him "what is this dream that you have dreamed? will we come, I, your mother and your brothers to prostrate ourselves to you to the ground? So his brothers envied him, but his father awaited the matter"
. Jacob immidiately recognizes the correct interpretation of the dream, and awaits its unfolding, while trying to appease the jealous brothers through his rethorical questions.

An attempted but faulty harmonization in rabbinic comentaries is that the "prophet" Jacob slightly misunderstood the dream, since Rachel was dead "he did not know that the matters referred to Bilhah, who had raised him (Joseph) Gen. Rabbah 84:11".

This dream of Joseph never unfolds in the Bible, only in the Quran is the truth restored
"We narrate to you the best of narratives, by Our revealing to you this Quran, though before this you were certainly one of those who did not know..Then when they came in to Yusuf, he took his parents to lodge with him and said: Enter safe into Egypt, if Allah please. And he raised his parents upon the throne and they fell down in prostration before him, and he said: O my father! this is the significance of my vision of old; my Lord has indeed made it to be true; and He was indeed kind to me when He brought me forth from the prison and brought you from the desert after the Shaitan had sown dissensions between me and my brothers, surely my Lord is benignant to whom He pleases; surely He is the Knowing, the Wise. My Lord! Thou hast given me of the kingdom and taught me of the interpretation of sayings: Originator of the heavens and the earth! Thou art my guardian in this world and the hereafter; make me die a muslim and join me with the good. This is of the announcements relating to the unseen (which) We reveal to you, and you were not with them when they resolved upon their affair, and they were devising plans".
The Ishmaelite prophet could never have intricately copied and assorted among the plethora of sources allegedly at his disposal, dragging those books and scrolls and private counselors whom nobody saw and heard in that open desert tribal life, and come up with this alternate "bible version" that magically clears all the minutest discrepencies, like the one demonstrated above.

As to the reason to the scribes of the HB making such a blunder, no other rational reason can be given other than, either neglectfulness or purposeful character assassination as is so often the case throughout their books. The Benjamites were, according to them a treacherous tribe against whom other tibes of Israel were involved in bloody wars. What better way to villificate them further than by portraying their ancestor Benjamin, as the reason for the grand mother of the tribes of Israel's death.

So once again the Quran is right, and once again Genesis is wrong.

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

The story of Ibrahim, Lut and his mysterious guests is fully clear in light of the Quran alone.

It is related in 11:69-76,15:51-60,29:31-32,51:24-34 following the well established Quranic pattern of narrating the same story from different angles so as to provide each time different information relevant to the particular context and/or addressees, as well as providing with every repetition a fresh and renewed perspective to its audience.

Messengers from God visited Ibrahim in the shape of ordinary men. He received them in his home and offered them the best food he could offer as the noblest of hosts would do, preparing it without disclosing it to them prior lest they might request him to not make such arrangements 11:69 but upon their refusal to eat 51:27"Will you not eat?" he felt uneasy about them 11:70,51:28"So he conceived in his mind a fear on account of them" thinking their refusal of hospitality was due to evil intentions 15:52"Surely we are afraid of you". In the tradition of hospitality of those times, a stranger's refusal to partake of the food offered to him was an indication of unfriendly intent and Abraham who until then had not realized that his guests were messengers, let alone angels, became apprehensive of possible hostility on their part. To fend off his fear, they began by stating that their aim is Lut's people, meaning they have no interest in his household other than a temporary stop 11:70"Fear not, surely we are sent to Lut's people".

Ibrahim had remained in his guests' presence despite his initial fear while his wife had retreated nearby which is why he spoke for both himself and his wife "we are afraid of you". Since only Ibrahim was now facing the messengers, they only addressed him at first, but his wife who was standing nearby smiled as she overheard the conversation and realized that her household was not of primary interest to those guests who behaved so strangely 11:71"And his wife was standing (by), so she laughed".

The messengers proceeded by giving to Ibrahim the good news of "A" (a single) son 15:53"surely we give you the good news of a boy, possessing knowledge". The name of the boy was not directly divulged by the messengers but God informs us that it was Isaac who was meant 11:71. This was a reward from Allah for Ibrahim's patience and obedience, following the succeful passing of the trial with the binding and near sacrifice of Ismail

Then addressing Ibrahim's wife, the messengers 11:71"gave her the good news of Ishaq and after Ishaq of Yaqoub". Sarah was not only told that she would give birth, but also that her progeny will continue and this verse makes it clear that Jacob would come from Isaac, not from her 11:72"shall I bear "A" (a single) son.." which echoes 15:53"the good news of "A" (a single) boy" given moments before to Ibrahim. As was said concerning Ibrahim earlier, the text does not necessarily imply that Sara was informed of her future child's name. The verse 11:71 isnt a direct quote of the discussion that occured between her and the messengers, it is God informing us retrospectively of whom the messengers meant when they announced the birth of a child, followed by another. It can also be added that since no direct naming occured, the messengers were not concerned by citing all the great names among Sara's progeny (hence the stop at Jacob), just to establish that she would bear a child and that her progeny would carry on fruitfully, which is a reassurance and satisfaction, especially considering Sara's very late impregnation.

In contrast to his wife, Ibrahim's initial reaction to the good news was an astonishing reiteration of it as he knew that from the point of the natural laws, the birth of such a child by him was a remote matter 15:54"Do you give me this good news in my old age?". But from God's point, who had already displayed many miracles to him such as the manner in which he was saved from his people, and who in addition had already granted him a firstborn at an old age, Ibrahim knew that all is possible so could it hopefully be that this good news is from God, or was it from them "Of what do you give me good news". This is followed by a reassuring confirmation by the messengers 15:55 and a rhetorical question by Ibrahim 15:56"He said: And who despairs of the mercy of his Lord but the erring ones?" This implies "I am not of the erring-ones who despair of God's mercy and if this news is truly from God then i believe it".

Ibrahim's wife on the other hand, because she had despaired of one day conceiving, was overcome by grief because she thought that even to God, the realization of such a thing would be far off 11:72"This is a strange thing indeed" but she was reassured while at the same time rebuked for her skepticism 11:73"Do you deem Allah's command a strange thing? The mercy of Allah and His blessings are on you, O people of the house, surely He is Praised, Glorious".

As all fear had gone from Ibrahim and the good news conveyed entirely to both him and his wife 11:74, he began to inquire further on the messengers' mission to Lut's people which they initially aluded to 51:31-4"They said: Surely we are sent to a guilty people, That we may send down upon them stone of clay, Sent forth from your Lord for the extravagant" 29:31"Surely we are going to destroy the people of this town, for its people are unjust".

This dreadful news filled Ibrahim with fear and concern again, the 11:75"forbearing, tender-hearted" not only because of Lut, who was his earliest follower 21:71, and righteous people's presence in this town about to be annihilated 15:59,29:32 but also because he, who left the case of those who would eventually stray from among his offspring to God's forgiveness and mercy 14:36, thought Lut's nation could be given further respite to mend their ways 11:76"leave off this, surely the decree of your Lord has come to pass, and surely there must come to them a chastisement that cannot be averted". It is important to note here, Ibrahim isnt "arguing" with God's decision, as is reported in the Bible, just as he never "argued" when told in vision he should take his own son and prepare for his sacrifice, but pleading for mercy and forgiveness, being a tender hearted individual.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

Of course the word dirham didnt exist in ancient Egypt,
There. All fixed for you.
Good, so we a agree that this is an error in the Qur'an.
standardizied metals into bullions according to specific weights and qualities, which could then be counted.
But not standardised as "dirhams". And you would still need to weigh it because a piece of metal can be cut.


.
...handled commodities
The Egyptions "handled commodities" and there they used Dirhams, even though not yet invented. right... got it... :ermm:
And its not about how or from whom the prophet Muhammad got his revelation from, but about ascertaining whether 2 texts containing a core truth necessarily implies copying from one another. And of course it isnt the case.
So Mohammed's invisible friend told him this story .... right .... :shock:
The Ishmaelite prophet could never have intricately copied and assorted among the plethora of sources allegedly at his disposal, dragging those books and scrolls and private counselors whom nobody saw and heard in that open desert tribal life, and come up with this alternate "bible version" that magically clears all the minutest discrepencies, like the one demonstrated above.
And of course Mohammed didn't, he couldn't even if he tried, he cannot read. He merely retold stories he heard. And he could not distinguish between canonical and other sources because he lacked education.

And he clear up nothing at all. I hate to break it it to your in a DREAM, sometimes dead people are alive again. Everybody has such dreams. Hence the sun an moon, representing in Jacob's interpretation himself and his by then dead wife Rachel. In Genesis the dreams are a way to set the scene by explaining why Joseph was not liked by his brothers, initially, but also echoes the ending of the tale. He was a bit spoiled, he got special clothing, a neat and colourful coat, and he does not do as much work as the others, and he dreams that his family will be "ruled" by him. To top it all, he has to tell them all about his dreams, not the smartest of moves.

Why is his story not word for word the same? Because he could not read or copy a scroll, and he merely re-told thing he heard others discussing.

And how "intricate" his copying was, varies... the Joseph story is not too bad... But quality varied considerably... the Lot story is an example of that.

As to the dreams:

Qur'an
When Joseph said to his father, “O my father, I saw eleven planets, and the sun, and the moon; I saw them bowing down to me.”
4. When Joseph said to his father, “O my father, I saw eleven planets, and the sun, and the moon; I saw them bowing down to me.”

5. He said, “O my son, do not relate your vision to your brothers, lest they plot and scheme against you. Satan is man's sworn enemy.
Genesis
5 Joseph had a dream, and when he told it to his brothers, they hated him all the more. 6 He said to them, “Listen to this dream I had: 7 We were binding sheaves of grain out in the field when suddenly my sheaf rose and stood upright, while your sheaves gathered around mine and bowed down to it.”

8 His brothers said to him, “Do you intend to reign over us? Will you actually rule us?” And they hated him all the more because of his dream and what he had said.

9 Then he had another dream, and he told it to his brothers. “Listen,” he said, “I had another dream, and this time the sun and moon and eleven stars were bowing down to me.”

10 When he told his father as well as his brothers, his father rebuked him and said, “What is this dream you had? Will your mother and I and your brothers actually come and bow down to the ground before you?” 11 His brothers were jealous of him, but his father kept the matter in mind.
Mohammed just left bits out, because he did not remember everything. And where did Satan appear from in the Qur'an version and what does that add to the story? He is in the wrong play, it seems.

It should be obvious that Mohammed copied this passage though imperfectly.
The story of Ibrahim, Lut and his mysterious guests is fully clear in light of the Quran alone.
:lotpot:

Thus says eagle who them immediately follows it with a 1000 word convoluted explanation, and he does not see that this is very funny. I just put the text and what it would say to someone who never read the story in Genesis.

I also love this:
narrating the same story from different angles
That's what the Qur'an is doing? That is a wonderful way of saying it garbles up the story line.

I mean, just look at the text... an average 8 year old could do better than that.... It is not Mohammed at his best, maybe he had too much palm wine when he did this one, we know he was fond of a tipple...
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

Of course no standardized dirhams or kilos existed. Dirhams are the Arabic equivalent of the units of the time, the same way as 1kg = 2.2lbs.

And nobody was there at the time of the transaction, to know whether the standardized dirhams were weighted or not when the exchange took place. What is known is that the price was a paltry one as denoted with maadudatin meaning the sellers probably didnt even bother weighting the dirhams, any ammount was enough to them.

So how does the prophet Muhammad getting revelation from the angel Gabriel solves the issue as to whether 2 texts containing a core truth necessarily implies copying from one another.

The dream of the prophet Joseph was perfectly understood by his father the prophet Jacob as refering to the coming, in this very life, of both himself and his (dead) wife to Joseph in submission. His answer, after the dream is disclosed, does not include the proposed weak interpretation of yours and neither do the rabbinic comentaries agree, hence their amusing attempt at harmonizing the account saying that although Jacob understood the correct portents of the dream, and although he understood that both he and his (dead) wife were symbolically represented, he did not mean Rachel but Bilhah.

And the above faulty story isnt in the Quran because it reflects the confused and corrupt Israelite hands that wrote and transmitted it, while the Quran is clear and divine, free from errors and corruption and the more this thread goes on the more this reality is exposed. So keep going, you and the "we" alluded to that are using the account of "manfred".

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

Eagle I am not going to respond any more to the nonsense you keep repeating over and over about the dirham . It has been answered, many times, and is settled.

No dirhams in ancient Egypt. No coins at the time of Joseph. All the rest is irrelevant.
So how does the prophet Muhammad getting revelation from the angel Gabriel solves the issue as to whether 2 texts containing a core truth necessarily implies copying from one another.
The class get's an essay to write... "my best holiday adventure"

Jack hands in his essay. It is about being allowed to drive a tractor. The teacher, when reading it, thinks it is familiar. He looks at some essays from past years and finds the essay of Jack's brother who is 3 years older. It is also about driving a tractor, and not only that, almost all the details of the story are the same... the cat almost run over, the engine cutting out, not finding the brake right away...hitting the hey stack.... the home made lemonade at the end... all there. A few bits are in a different order, one or two details are missing, but other than that they are the same.

So the teacher concludes, (obviously, right eagle?) that Jack had an invisible friend called Gabriel who helped him with his essay and his older brother had nothing at all to do with the similarities... also, naturally, the teacher concludes that Jack's story is the most beautiful ever, and true word for word, but his brother's story is all false and wicked and corrupt. Obviously. Because that is how a normal human brain works. Is that right eagle?

Frankly, eagle, your proposal that old Mo go the story of Joseph from an "angel" and not from what he heard about him, is making me cringe with embarrassment, for your sake. Nobody apart from Mohammed, not one of his followers or family ever met this "Gabriel".... It seem you have some trouble seeing when you were sold snake oil....
And the above faulty story isnt in the Quran because it reflects the confused and corrupt Israelite hands that wrote and transmitted it, while the Quran is clear and divine
:lotpot:

Refer to the story of Lot, above for "clearness" of the Qur'an. As to being divine, well about as "divine" as this Divine:

Image
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

So essentially, without preconceived notions, nothing suggests that 2 texts copied from oneanother simply because they both contain similar information.
Read the story I left for you.

You are using a strawman argument. Nobody ever said Mohammed "copied" word for word. It is equally true that differences between two texts will not suffice to refute the charges of plagiarism. As similarity does not indicate sameness, some differences between two similar texts do not necessarily dismiss the possibility of one author’s borrowing material from the other, for it is probable that the borrower applied some changes to the texts during the process of plagiarism.

And because you keep interrupting, repeating the same nonsense about the dirham thing ad nauseam, I have not yet presented the full case.

I will not merely rely on showing that texts are similar. I will show that Mohammed, according to Muslim sources, had many contacts with Jews and mostly non orthodox Christians, and that he had opportunity to collect material from them. When you finally stop stalling, that is.

The types of errors Mohammed introduced lay bare his methods to a large extent, and deliberate changes he introduced also have a clear pattern, which reveals Mohammed's intentions in his efforts...

Overall, the case for Mohammed having plagiarised many sources is overwhelming.

gee, and I haven't even got to the Rabbinic texts and then the sources for the Quranic Jesus yet...
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

Nobody spoke of word for word copy either, but of similarities between 2 texts and until now zero proof has been shown that such similarities entail copying.

It could very well be that one of the 2 got the information from the primary source, and as shown with the intricate example which you brought up and backfired on you, the Quran, in every single alleged "faulty" copying from the Bible and other plethora of Books, scrolls, traditions, comentaries, seems to reappropriate the information sithout the minutest discrepency...

So where did "manfred" go on holiday? And who are the incompetent ones that have hijacked his account


User avatar
Fernando
Posts: 4949
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Fernando »

Eagle wrote:The word for 'touching' is laamastum from the root L-M-S that means skin feeling an object interactively. It is used to mean mainly sex, or at least some form of foreplay.
Ah, here come the roots again - and twice on one page. Humpty Dumpty rides again!
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
‘Hindus and Muslims belong to two different religious philosophies, social customs and literary traditions. They neither intermarry nor eat together, and indeed they belong to two different civilisations which are based mainly on conflicting ideas and conceptions.’ Muhammad Ali Jinnah

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

Nobody spoke of word for word copy either, but of similarities between 2 texts and until now zero proof has been shown that such similarities entail copying.
He we go again, extending something beyond the reasonable.not "zero proof", similarities amount to evidence that needs to be further examined.

similarities between two texts, one old one newer suggest that the older was used to produce the newer one. If an even older source than that exists, then this suggest two possibilities, either both of the newer texts used the oldest, or the tradition was passed in two (or more) steps.

An example are the four gospel texts: three of them share a lot of material. So it could be that the user two used the oldest (Mark) as a source, but there are also passages that Mark has and which are absent in the other two. So it is more likely that all three used a now lost, even older source, in addition to other sources.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

Mohammed’s contacts with Christians in Mecca.

This is to corroborate the claim that Mohammed used Christian texts as sources, as he was told them. Details will follow.
I will just place a few sources confirming this here, concentrating on the Mecca period, as much of the material about Jesus is from Mecca:
Narrated Anas:
There was a Christian who embraced Islam and read Surat-al-Baqara and Al-Imran, and he used to write (the revelations) for the Prophet. Later on he returned to Christianity again and he used to say: “Muhammad knows nothing but what I have written for him.” Then Allah caused him to die, and the people buried him, but in the morning they saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said, "This is the act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of our companion and took his body out of it because he had run away from them." They again dug the grave deeply for him, but in the morning they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. They said, “This is an act of Muhammad and his companions. They dug the grave of our companion and threw his body outside it, for he had run away from them.” They dug the grave for him as deep as they could, but in the morning they again saw that the earth had thrown his body out. So they believed that what had befallen him was not done by human beings and had to leave him thrown (on the ground). (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 814)
(And We know well that they say: Only a man teacheth him. The speech of him at whom they falsely hint is outlandish…) [16:103]. Abu Nasr Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Muzakki> Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Hamdan al-Zahid> ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz> Abu Hisham al-Rifa‘i> Ibn Fudayl> Husayn> ‘Abd Allah ibn Muslim who said: “We owned two Christian youths from the people of ‘Ayn Tamr, one called Yasar and the other Jabr. Their trade was making swords but they also could read the Scriptures in their own tongue. The Messenger of Allah used to pass by them and listen to their reading. As a result, the idolaters used to say: ‘He is being taught by them!’ To give them the lie, Allah, exalted is He, revealed (The speech of him at whom they falsely hint is outlandish, and this is clear Arabic speech)”. (‘Ali ibn Ahmad Al-Wahidi, Asbab Al-Nuzul)

He went on: “The Messenger of God used often to sit at al-Marwa near the shop of a young Christian named Jabr, a slave of the Banu al-Hadrami. People would say, ‘By God, it is merely Jabr who teaches Muhammad most of what he says!’” (Ibn Kathir, The Life of the Prophet Muhammad (Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya), translated by Professor Trevor Le Gassick, reviewed by Dr. Ahmed Fareed [Garnet Publishing Limited, 8 Southern Court, south Street Reading RG1 4QS, UK; The Center for Muslim Contribution to Civilization: First paperback edition, 2000], Volume II, p. 55)
Ibn Ishaq said, “In Mecca there was A COPT who was a carpenter and so they had available to them some of what was needed to repair it.
And verily (wa-laqad is for confirmation) We know that they say, ‘It is only a human that is teaching him, the Qur’ān’ — this was a Christian blacksmith whom the Prophet used to frequent. God, exalted be He, says: The tongue, the language, of him to whom they refer, to whom they incline, [with the accusation] that he is [the one] teaching him, is foreign’; while this, Qur’ān, is [in] a clear Arabic tongue, one of lucidity and clarity: so how can a foreigner be teaching him? (Tafsir al-Jalalayn_)
There is also ample evidence from Muslim sources, Qur'an, hadith and Muslim historians, that Jewish and Christian written texts were also around in Mecca, and if these references are wanted, I put them here,....so, I hope this sets the background to some more Qur'an analysis, looking at Mohammed's sources to the Qur'anic Jesus.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

If the first hadith refers to the Meccan period then it means this person remained Muslim for a long time, converting out of sincere faith during the hardest time for the nascent Muslim community, until late in Medina and the revelations of suras baqara and aal imran which he used to read, and subsequent revelations he used to write, all the while knowing it to be a lie, deliberately fabricating information to include into the Quran which he used daily in his supplications? How credible is his testimony and how appropriate is it for his story to be included in the chapter about lying..

As to 16:103. Not only was the accusation faulty from a linguistic perspective, his foreign tongue could never have inspired the matchless Arabic of the Quran, which the Arab masters of the language themselves recognized could not equal in eloquence, but also the accusation as quoted in the Quran is that this foreign person was actively interracting with the prophet, communicating and teaching him yet he was a non Arabic speaker so how could the two have such elaborate exchanges, in addition without ever being noticed? It was a calumny not grounded in any reality, like many other contradictory claims the prophet's opponents used in order to tarnish his well established integrity, in the same manner as prophets before him were unjustly targeted.

Furthermore, pay closer attention
(And We know well that they say: Only a man teacheth him. The speech of him at whom they falsely hint is outlandish…) [16:103]. Abu Nasr Ahmad ibn Ibrahim al-Muzakki> Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad ibn Hamdan al-Zahid> ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-‘Aziz> Abu Hisham al-Rifa‘i> Ibn Fudayl> Husayn> ‘Abd Allah ibn Muslim who said: “We owned two Christian youths from the people of ‘Ayn Tamr, one called Yasar and the other Jabr. Their trade was making swords but they also could read the Scriptures in their own tongue. The Messenger of Allah used to pass by them and listen to their reading. As a result, the idolaters used to say: ‘He is being taught by them!’ To give them the lie, Allah, exalted is He, revealed (The speech of him at whom they falsely hint is outlandish, and this is clear Arabic speech)”. (‘Ali ibn Ahmad Al-Wahidi, Asbab Al-Nuzul)
How did the prophet manage to translate what he occasionally overheard from these people and integrate it into the Arabic Quran

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

The first hadith is what it is. Yes, it appears, he followed Mohammed for some years, and then thought the better of it. The hadith frankly tells us why he left Islam, and it has nothing to do with "hardship". He left, after very careful consideration, he concluded Mohammed was a fraud. It is highly likely that the abrupt chance in the tone and contents of Mohammed's teachings after arriving in Medina, his much more aggressive stance, was a contributing factor to his decision to leave Mohammed and the "new" Islam behind. Hence he is specially hated by Muslims.
his foreign tongue could never have inspired the matchless Arabic of the Quran,
That old hat has been debunked many times. First of all, the Qur'an is not "matchless". In fact you only need to look at the story of Lot to see that. It is, to say it politely, basic. The story of Joseph was his best effort, much of the rest is garbled, fragmented and poorly told.

Also, it is not clear that the original Qur'an even was in Arabic. It has been proposed by several scholars that the original text was in reality in Syriac, and was later translated. They point at the many "loan words" the QUr'an usesm and at the "grapes" and "houri" thing.This belongs to another topic though.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica, under "Islam", page 6.

"Thus the Quran often gives the impression of having been produced by a rather haphazard method of composition, an impression that is further heightened by the fact that certain favorite phrases such as "but God is forgiving, compassionate," "God is knowing, wise," "most of them know nothing" often have little or no apparent connection with the immediate context. In fact, some skeptics claim that these additions served only to produce a needed rhyme. ..... Also the vocabulary of the Quran is overwhelmingly of Arabic origin, but there are, nevertheless, borrowed words, mostly from Hebrew and Syriac, bearing witness to Muhammad's debt to Judaism and Christianity. These loan words are primarily technical terms such as injil, "gospel", (Greek evangelion); taurat, "the law", or Torah", of Judaism, Iblis, "the Devil" (Greek diabolos); or translations or adaptations of theological terms such as amana, "to believe" (Hebrew or Aramaic); salat, "prayer" (probably Syriac). Such explanations are usually regarded with suspicion by Muslims, since orthodox doctrine holds that the language of the Quran is the purest Arabic."


The Encyclopedia continues on page 9....


"Western Scholars who have analyzed the contents of the various revelation have shown that much of the narrative material concerning biblical persona and events differs from the biblical account and seems to have come from later Christian and above all, from Jewish sources, (e.g. Midrash). Other motifs, such as the idea of the impending judgment and the descriptions of paradise agree with standard topics in the missionary preaching of the contemporary Syriac church fathers. THE DEPENDENCE NEED NOT, HOWEVER, BE OF A LITERARY KIND, BUT MIGHT BE DUE TO INFLUENCE FROM ORAL TRADITIONS."
As to the mechanics, this too has been explained in the hadith: people recited things and then translated them for any listeners. How good the translation was, I cannot say, but a man who lived in Mecca for a long time, he should have a good grasp of the language. Even if it was a bit wonky at times, what would stop Mohammed to "polish" things up in his own repetition.
How did the prophet manage to translate what he occasionally overheard from these people and integrate it into the Arabic Quran
And why would you assume that Mohammed would only speak one language? Because some say he could not read does that mean he was an idiot?

And how would he get it translated if he did not understand, after all?

Very simply: He would say to the boys "what was that you were talking about, I am curious?", and they would tell him.

All he really needed to do is ask, not rocket science.

And of course, there also was waraqa....
Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza bin Qusai. Waraqa was the son of her paternal uncle, i.e., her father's brother, who during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the Arabic writing and used to write of the Gospels in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to him, "O my cousin! Listen to the story of your nephew." Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" The Prophet described whatever he had seen. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 111)

We should by now, I think reach this stage:
1) The sources all agree that Muhammad learned via word of mouth. No one asserts that Muhammad read these other religious writings. That may have been a possibility, but because of the errors in the Quran, and the paucity of Quranic related material, it does not seem likely that was the norm.

2) They also agree that various opportunities occurred in Muhammad's life for him to learn about the other religions.

3) A Jew or Christian who knew the stories and speak Arabic could easily teach Muhammad the stories (as was the case in Mecca). Or a Christian slave from a Christian region could speak with Muhammad in Arabic and teach him his knowledge of Christianity, however imperfect it may have been. Even a pagan merchant could relate his knowledge. Muhammad, being generally ignorant of detailed Jewish and Christian teachings would be none the wiser.

4) There were no major seats of Christian or Jewish learning in Mecca at the time of Mohammed, (nor, thanks to him, ever since), but there were certainly a number of Christians and also Jews he could talk to. Most of the Jewish material is from Medina though, probably he had more Jewish contacts there.
https://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/borrowing.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

But he did not need "careful consideration" to uncover the lie, since according to his untrustworthy testimony appropriately placed in Bukhari's chapter on lies, he was the one making the revelations up

And you have to decide yourself, with evidence; did or did not Muhammad have any rudimentary knowledge of Syriac/Greek/Hebrew and how did he, with that basic knowledge, memorize what he overheard in those advanced foreign tongues then repeated them to his translating team? Who were these translators, any names or passing mention in history? How did these boys communicate with the prophet with according to the Quran, they are foreigners with a foreign language? Any proof they were knowledgable in several languages these slaves? And how did the prophet take those rudimentary Arabic translations back to his team of scribes which they then developed into this long and intricate discourse? Why did they play the game for so long, remaining Muslims with nothing to gain and everything to lose, including in those early days of Islam for more than 10 years
Last edited by Eagle on Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:47 am, edited 2 times in total.

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

On a passing note as regards the Arabic language, putting aside the discredited Syriac polemic, Arabic had several advantages as opposed to the dominant languages of commerce and intellectual discourse of the time; Latin, Greek, Persian, Hebrew. These were so interwoven as media for the communication of various religions and philosophies that they became unsuitable for the transmission of Islamic concepts, concepts that were in fact in majority the same ones as those belonging to those very religions but long forgotten and now rendered irrecuperable except through a virginal language. In addition, the Arabic of the Quraysh had developed to such a level that it could transmit any verbalized message, no matter how abstract the idea. The Quran therefore was in no need to borrow any word or concept to convey any of its themes.

Also in Arabic, like every other language, foreign words have been adopted as people have interracted. In some cases, as can be seen with every language, these words retain their cultural or theological baggage, and in others, a new meaning is assumed even to the point of complete departure from the original definition.

In the Quran's case, these words which the polemicists point to and that do not even amount to a fraction of all words in the whole Book, are either not even foreign at all (they have well established triliteral Arabic roots), have been part of Arabic vocabulary since before the emergence of the prophet, or were common to Arabic, Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew and Ethiopic, they being cognate languages and thus rendering the tracing of their origin very difficult. None of these words were adopted in the post islamic period.

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

discredited Syriac polemic,
Oh you poor Muslims, any and all work done about the Qur'an which is not done by Muslim "scholars" (there is no such thing) is an "attack"...

In Christianity we had free critical studies of biblical texts for centuries.... In Islam the usual response is not to address the findings but the researcher.... he/she is "discredited" because he is not a Muslim... and the general response is not a reasoned reply by a demand for his or her head.

I suppose you have the original copy of the Qur'an right in your house, the very one that was "handed down" to Mohammed, in a neat book, in Arabic, and Arabic script, with Allah's fingerprints still on it. Hence you know it is all "discredited", right?

untrustworthy testimony
:lotpot: Sahih Bukhari is only "trustworthy" if it helps an argument of a Muslim. Just as the bible is not "corrupt" when it suits them for a specific point.
did or did not Muhammad have any rudimentary knowledge of Syriac/Greek/Hebrew and how did he, with that basic knowledge, memorize what he overheard in those advanced foreign tongues then repeated them to his translating team?
Mohammed most likely knew some Syriac, but not Greek or Hebrew, at least that is unlikely.

And I already explained that... The Jews and Christians living in Mecca would know Arabic, so all he needed to do is to ask for a translation, no mystery or difficulty at all. You are trying to pretend the simplest of things is impossible.
And how did the prophet take those rudimentary Arabic translations back to his team of scribes which they then developed into this long and intricate discourse?
Once he had heard a story , he eventually retold it to be written down, probably usually some time after he had already "recited" it as a "revelation".

So the Qur'an is rather like a tea bag that has been used several times... First a "potted" version from his source in Arabic, a rough and ready translation, with some details missing. Then whatever Mohammed remembered of that, after some time had passed, and then whatever he chose to commit to writing, not to mention it was edited after the death of Mohammed.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Eagle
Posts: 2093
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2009 5:37 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by Eagle »

Nobody spoke of "attack" but of a polemic, and a discredited one. It can be shown why easily, as with every single attempt against the immovable integrity of the Quran and its noble carrier, but that is not the subject of the thread.

It isnt that particular bukhari hadith that is unreliable, but the testimony of the supposed inventor of revelations, and it was explained why.

So who are those Christian and Jewish translators readily teaming up with the prophet of God to make up this elaborate discourse? Why were they never identified and why did they never come out and discredited him especially knowing the climate of war between the comunities and the Quran's unforgiving attacks on Jewish and Christian corruptions in religion.

Throwing around a vast array of "possibilities" hoping that some will stick doesnt amout to anything, especially if one considers the context in which the Quran was revealed

Waraqa by the way died before the Quran was revealed, any evidence he was secretely reciting and teaching previous scriptures to the prophet of God?

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

πόλεμος ("polemos") = "war", and a "polemic" is a usually fierce and irrational attack.
immovable integrity of the Quran
That is your problem, not mine, If you decide you block out all rational discussion on the Qur'an, what are you doing on this site?
It isnt that particular bukhari hadith that is unreliable, but the testimony of the supposed inventor of revelations, and it was explained why
.
No it wasn't. you just dismissed the inconvenient, as usual.
So who are those Christian and Jewish translators readily teaming up with the prophet of God to make up this elaborate discourse?
Mohammed is not a prophet, and he certainly has nothing whatever to do with "God". We have already shown how he operated, and while we don't know ALL the people by name he got his stories from, we know some of them, and some of those have been given, by way of example.

And they did not as such "cooperate" with Mohammed, the warlord, murderer, liar, rapist and false prophet, they merely gave him the courtesy of answering his questions. Later in Mahammed;s life, fewer and fewer people were prepared to even do that, because it had become clear that he passed on what was told him as his own "revelation", as the sources show. That is why the last surahs do not have stories, but merely consist of rants of naked hatred.
Waraqa by the way died before the Quran was revealed,
The Qur'an was not "revealed", don't be silly. And I only mention waraqa to show that Mohammed had access to Christian people in Mecca.And whatever waraqa told Mohammed, why would his death make any difference. What matters is only what Mohammed remembered of it and he could obviously use material from people already dead. In fact, it would be convenient for him to do that, because the cannot complain.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

frankie
Posts: 2608
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 6:10 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by frankie »

Eagle wrote:As to the issue of the sperm..

Linguistically, when the Quran addresses the themes of sex or sexual organs, its eloquence necessitates that it does not directly speak of testicles, penis or vagina. There are ample examples, such as 2:222 where it refers to sexual intercourse by using the imagery of the farmer cultivating his tilth with tenderness and deep consideration aforehand, or as "touching" the mate 2:236,237,4:43,5:6,33:49etc. The word for 'touching' is laamastum from the root L-M-S that means skin feeling an object interactively. It is used to mean mainly sex, or at least some form of foreplay.

Other terminologies used in the Quran to refer to sexual intercourse is "covering" the mate 7:189 or in the context of refraining from sex it says "guarding the private parts" 23:5,33:35.
In some instances where the Quran refers to women's sexual organs it literaly speaks of 60:12"what lies between their legs and hands" among other apellations.

86:5-7 speaks of the fluid "coming out", ie exits and all people know from where seminal fluid gushes out from. The determination of the location where the fluid is formed is irrelevant to the point of the verse that is about pointing to man's humble and simple origins despite him growing into a highly complex creature, and how he will inevitably be humbled once again to simple elements then recreated and brought forth to render account. The rejecters of resurrection saw it as a far fetched thing, an impossibility for a human being to be grown back after its death, decay, and return to the earth

So instead of stating that the fluid exits from the penis, it says "from between the sulb and the taraaib".
Sulb stems from S-L-B, implying strength, hardness, firmness, uprightness. Words like the backbone or the saleeb/crucifix (because of standing firmly upright) are derived from it.
Taraaib stems from T-R-B, implying some sort of resemblence, uniformity, harmony, symetry. It is used for example for turab/soil or dust, because dust grains are resembling and corresponding. Elsewhere it denotes how the mates of paradise match oneanother in many aspects 56:37,78:33 and it can similarily describe how certain body parts like the eyes, the hands, the legs, or the ribs etc. are matching. The statement "coming out from between the sulb/backbone and the taraaib/legs or ribs" refers to man's sexual organ just like "what lies between their legs and hands" subtely alludes to women's sexual parts.
Eagle

The Quran claims that the “sexual fluid “of a man, proceeds from the between his backbone, and the “sexual fluid” of a woman proceeds from her ribs/chest, both of which are wrong.

The “sexual fluid “of a man is produced in the testes, found in the genital area, not the backbone of a man.
The “sexual fluid “of a woman, is formed within the vagina, during sexual intercourse, and plays no part in reproduction, it is there only for lubrication.

“Sexual fluid” is not produced between the backbone (of the man) and the ribs,(of the woman) the Quran is in error, making the Quran a man made book, not a god made book.

What does play a part in reproduction in a woman is the ovum, which is formed in the ovaries, found on each side of the lower abdomen, nowhere near the chest/ribs.

Allah got this wrong, making Allah fallible, meaning Allah cannot be God, as no God worthy of the name would make such fundamental errors about his own creation.


Quran 86.6-7
6. He is created from a drop emitted-

7. Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi - Tafhim al-Qur'an

"Sulb" is the backbone and "tara'ib"the breast- bones, i.e. the ribs. Since the procreative fluid in both man and woman is discharged from that part of the body which is between the back and the breast, it is said that man has been created from the fluid issuing out froth between the back and the breast.”


Ibn kathir
“(Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) meaning, the backbone (or loins) of the man and the ribs of the woman, which is referring to her chest. “

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... Itemid=142
http://quranx.com/Tafsirs/86.6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ibn Kathir
Swearing by the Existence of Humanity surrounded by the Organized System of Allah
Allah swears by the heaven and what He has placed in it of radiant stars. Thus, He says,
وَالسَّمَآءِ وَالطَّارِقِ
(By the heaven, and At-Tariq;) Then He says,
وَمَآ أَدْرَاكَ مَا الطَّارِقُ
(And what will make you to know what At-Tariq is) Then He explains it by His saying,
النَّجْمُ الثَّاقِبُ
(The star of Ath-Thaqib.) Qatadah and others have said, "The star has been named Tariq because it is only seen at night and it is hidden during the day.'' His view is supported by what has been mentioned in the authentic Hadith that prohibits a man to come to his family Taruq. This means that he comes to them unexpectedly at nighttime. Concerning Allah's statement,
الثَّاقِبُ
(Ath-Thaqib.) Ibn `Abbas said, "The illuminating.'' `Ikrimah said, "It is illuminating and it burns the Shaytan'' Then Allah says,
إِن كُلُّ نَفْسٍ لَّمَّا عَلَيْهَا حَافِظٌ
(There is no human being but has a protector over him.) meaning, every soul has a guardian over it from Allah that protects it from the calamities. This is as Allah says,
لَهُ مُعَقِّبَـتٌ مِّن بَيْنِ يَدَيْهِ وَمِنْ خَلْفِهِ يَحْفَظُونَهُ مِنْ أَمْرِ اللَّهِ
(For Him, there are angels in succession, before and behind him. They guard him by the command of Allah.) (13:11)
How Man is created is a Proof of Allah's Ability to Return Him to Him
Allah says,
فَلْيَنظُرِ الإِنسَـنُ مِمَّ خُلِقَ
(So, let man see from what he is created!) This is alerting man to the weakness of his origin from which he was created. The intent of it is to guide man to accept (the reality of) the Hereafter, because whoever is able to begin the creation then he is also able to repeat it in the same way. This is as Allah says,
وَهُوَ الَّذِى يَبْدَأُ الْخَلْقَ ثُمَّ يُعِيدُهُ وَهُوَ أَهْوَنُ عَلَيْهِ
(And He it is Who originates the creation, then He will repeat it; and this is easier for Him.) (30:27) Then Allah says,
خُلِقَ مِن مَّآءٍ دَافِقٍ
(He is created from a water gushing forth.) meaning, the sexual fluid that comes out bursting forth from the man and the woman. Thus, the child is produced from both of them by the permission of Allah. Due to this Allah says,
يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ الصُّلْبِ وَالتَّرَآئِبِ
(Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) meaning, the backbone (or loins) of the man and the ribs of the woman, which is referring to her chest. Shabib bin Bishr reported from `Ikrimah who narrated from Ibn `Abbas that he said,
يَخْرُجُ مِن بَيْنِ الصُّلْبِ وَالتَّرَآئِبِ
(Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs.) "The backbone of the man and the ribs of the woman. It (the fluid) is yellow and fine in texture. The child will not be born except from both of them (i.e., their sexual fluids).'' Concerning Allah's statement,
إِنَّهُ عَلَى رَجْعِهِ لَقَادِرٌ

User avatar
manfred
Posts: 11617
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:29 pm

Re: Mohammed the borrower

Post by manfred »

Thank you for all that Frankie..

Perhaps we can move the argument on a bit further now.

We have seen that Mohammed had Christian contacts in Mecca. But Mecca, as all of Arabia, was not a place were orthodox Christianity was prominent. Because if it's remoteness, it was a haven for various sects, and it clearly is these that Mohammed used as his sources, as his version of Jesus in the Qur'an is very different from that of the canonical gospels and the teachings of the Church.

In fact, Jesus is very sketchy in the Qur'an, and very little detail is given overall. But what is there can be traced to apocryphal texts, collections of fables and stories, and not considered authentic by Christianity generally, because they were written centuries after Jesus and in parts contradict the canonical texts. It is also clear that the canonical gospels have specific aims and theological teachings that the authors set out carefully. By contrast, the apocryphal test really seem to be more like a Hollywood version of the life of Jesus... pack in an many miraculous things as possible and got go heavy on the message.

Still this kind of Christian story books is was Mohammed overheard or was told about, and buts from these were added to the Qur'an.

Here is one:
Carrying the child, she came to her people, who said to her: 'Mary, this is indeed a strange thing! Sister of Aaron, your father was never a whore-monger, nor was your mother a harlot.' She made a sign to them, pointing to the child. But they replied: 'How can we speak with a babe in the cradle?'Whereupon he spoke and said: 'I am the servant of God. He has given me the Book and ordained me a prophet. His blessing is upon me wherever I go, and He has exhorted me to be steadfast in prayer and to give alms as long as I shall live. He has exhorted me to honour my mother and has purged me of vanity and wickedness. Blessed was I on the day I was born, and blessed I shall be on the day of my death and on the day I shall be raised to life.'
Qur'an 19, 28-33

We have done the "sister of Aaron many times, so this is about where Mohammed got his storyline from. Jesus is speaking from the cradle.

He defends his mother against accusation of being a loose woman.

Jesus speaking in the cradle is also found in the Arabic fable called the "Arabic Infancy Gospel":
"We find what follows in the book of Joseph the high priest, who lived in the time of Christ. Some say that he is Caiaphas. He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world."
J. K. Elliot speaks about of the Arabic Infancy Gospel, in "The Apocryphal New Testament", page 100:
"This is another collection of material that has made use of the Protevangelium of James (PJ) and Infancy Thomas. Chapters 1 - 10 are based up PJ, and 36-55 shows many similarities with Thomas... In between (i.e. chapters 11-35) the author has drawn on a large collection of fantasies, the origin of which is likely to be Egyptian.
"...the Arabic is likely to go back to a Syrian archetype, which could be of he fifth - sixth century."
What is interesting is that in Mohammed's version Jesus says something clearly manufactured to fit in with Islam. He is not the logos, the son of God. Mohammed re-tells the story to suit his agenda. Jesus becomes a "prophet" very alike to Mohammed, and the reason he speaks is not not reveal himself, as that would contradict Islam, but another reason. And trust Mohammed to come up with defending Mary's honour, of all things.

There are a great many more "borrowed" ideas from the apocrypha, I put some more later.
Jesus: "Ask and you will receive." Mohammed: "Take and give me 20%"

Post Reply