|
DISTORTION IN THE KORAN
The stage of collecting the Koran into a book was one of the most serious stages the Koranic text ever was subjected to. The Koran was revealed in seven ways (or dialects) Muslims sanctioned reciting it by the meaning and not necessarily verbatim.
"Companions" at first were opposed to the idea of collecting the Koran in one book, which they regarded as a heresy, which the Messenger did not do while he was still alive. But as soon as the idea was brought into existence, many copies were in circulation and each Companion had his own Mus-haf (copy of the Koran), for which he would not accept a substitute!
Ikrima reported that Ali Ibn Abi Taalib stayed at his home after the election of Abu Bakr, and it was told Abu Bakr that he resented his election! Therefore he sent for Ali saying, "Do you resent my election?" For which he answered, "No, by God!" Abu Bakr asked him, "What caused you to stay away from me?" He answered, "I saw the Book of God being added to, so I said to myself, 'I shall not wear my mantle, except (to go) to pray, till I have collected it.'" Abu Bakr said, "Such is a most wonderful thought."
As for the copy of Ubayy Ibn Ka'b, it was widespread in Syria. It differs from the copy of Othman in that it has two more Suras - Al-hafd and Al-Khal'. Al-Baihaqi reported that Omar Ibn Al-Khattaab prayed them, that Ali taught them to the people, and that people used to recite them before king Al-Malik Ibn Marwaan!! (That is till the Ommiad era.)
Also Ubayy's copy differs from other copies in that it combines Sura 105 and Sura 104, as well as Sura 93 and Sura 94, in one Sura. While in Othman's copy they are two separate Suras.
There is another copy named after Ibn Mas'uud, who was one of the leading reciters of the Koran recommended by Muhammad himself. Al-Suyuti reported, on the strength of Jaabir, that the prophet said, "Receive the Koran from four: Abdullaah Ibn Mas'uud, Mu'aaz Ibn Jabal, Saalim, and Ka'b."
The difference between Ibn Mas'uud's copy and the others' is that it does not contain Suras 1, 113, 114. It was also reported that he said, "The two charm-Suras (namely Suras 113, 114) are not of the Book of God."!
Zaid's copy, however, was collected and written down by an order from caliph Abu Bakr, after Omar Ibn Al-Khattaab's advice to him. Zaid collected it from what the Companions memorized, and from bones, tree-leaves, tree-bark, and palm-leaves!!
Othman between unification and distortion!
The stage of collecting the Koran had evident effects on the history of the written Koran. Many different and variant texts of the Koran were in evidence. Muslims were divided among themselves and each group held to a certain text. The disagreement came to the crunch when they started killing one another and claiming one another to be infidel. They exchanged different accusations, on top of which came the accusation of distortion.
Seeing what befell the Muslims, caliph Othman Ibn Affaan resolved to unify the dialects of the Koran into one dialect. Anas Ibn Maalik reported that the people disagreed concerning the Koran at the time of Othman, so that disciples and teachers killed one another. Othman heard about it and said, "Do you lie about it and commit solecisms in it (speaking of the Koran) in my presence? What about those who are far away from me? They surely tell more lies and commit more solecisms! Companions of Muhammad, gather yourselves and write a leader (i.e. the Koran) for the people."
After forming a committee to supervise the writing of the Koran, Othman commanded oil to be boiled and had the other copies that differed from his cast into it. This should arouse suspicion among the researchers about the creditability of the text, which we have in our hands. For Ali Ibn Abi Taalib bears witness that the Koran was added to! They say that Ali wrote in his copy of the Koran the abrogating and the abrogated verses, while Othman omitted the abrogated ones from his. Yet the copy we now have still has several abrogating and abrogated verses!
One of the historical facts, which will continue to arouse suspicion about the history of the written copy of the Koran, is the difference of Ibn Mas'uud's copy from those of the other Companions. He denies Sura 1, Sura 113, and Sura 114, and even declared anyone who considers them as belonging to the Book of God as infidels!! It's noteworthy that Ibn Mas'uud was one of the four people Muhammad recommended as trustworthy reciters of the Koran. It was reported that he claimed to know everything in the Koran, whether big or small. When Zaid was assigned to collect the Koran, and he was left out, he was so sullen and angry at the assignment of someone less than twenty years of age to such a mission, for which he was more qualified than anyone else. He repudiated the assignment of Zaid to collect the Koran and said, "By God, I have converted to Islam while he was yet in the groins of an infidel!" As for Ubayy's copy, it contains verses and Suras that are not in Othman's copy.
Why was this difference and disagreement, even though the people were still closely related to their leader's life?! We again wonder, why did those responsible for the collection of the Koran ignore the significant Companions, such as Ali Ibn Abi Taalib, Ubayy Ibn Abi Ka'b, Ibn Mas'uud, and Ibn Abbaas? We also have the right to ask, "why did Othman form a committee to collect and arrange the Koran, and removed the abrogated verses from it? Why didn't he or those with him accept the copy of Zaid, although Abu Bakr, Omar, Ali, and the senior Companions accepted it under Abu Bakr and Omar?
What Othman did to the Koran will always be under suspicion and accusation, since he burnt all the other copies that were existent at the time. Why were the copies prior to Othman's copy, which included Zaid's copy, destroyed, if they were consistent with the unified text of Othman? And if it was at variance with it and ought to be burnt, how can we trust Othman's copy, while he himself did not trust the work of Abu Bakr, Omar, And Ali?
The Shiites and the distortion of the Koran
All that we said previously represent the sayings and opinions of the reliable Sunni scholars, which call the impeccability of the Koran in question and accuse it, explicitly and implicitely, of being added to, taken from, changed, and substituted. The Shiite scholars, likewise, hold that the Koran has been added to and taken from. Their scholars of the Tradition and exposition, such as Ali Ibn Ibrahim, his disciple Al-Kalleeni, Al-Ayyaashi, and Al-Tubrusi, are of one opinion that the Koran circulated now between the hands of the Muslims is not the whole Koran!
Imam Muhammad Ibn Ja'far emphasized in his book "Al-Imamah" that God never said in the Koran, "The second of two, when the two were in the Cave, when he said to his companion, 'Sorrow not; surely God is with us.'" (Sura 9:40)!
There are many books written by the most significant leaders of the Shiite sect that confirm the fact that the Koranic texts were distorted. The most famous among them is "THE ABRIDGMENT ON THE DISTORTION OF THE BOOK OF THE LORD OF LORDS" by Imam Al-Nuri. The writer said in the preface, "This is a kind book and a creditable treatise, which proves the distortion of the Koran and brings to light the shameful deeds of the injurious and the unjust." The book consists of three introductions and two parts.
In his first introduction, the writer emphasizes the need to discard all that took place during the collection of the Koran, its collector, and the reason for collecting it. He touched upon the incompleteness and the differences in the Koran in relation to the way it was collected, supporting his argument by the reports of many Imams, among whom were Al-Saduuq, Al-Tubrusi, Al-Sighaar, Al-Kalleeni, Ibn Shahr Ashuub, Al-Ayyaashi, Al-Majlisi, and Al-Nu'maani. Here is a synopsis of these reports: Ali collected the Koran with neither adding a letter to it nor taking a letter from it, but he was refused and spurned. The three caliphs assigned the compilation and the composition of the Koran to whomever was in agreement with them against the holy men of God. So they omitted everything that implied eulogy to the Imams, as well as the manifest text concerning the office of the prince of the believers. Whence none, except the prince of the believers Ali Ibn Abi Taalib, can claim he collected the whole Koran. Imam Al-Nuri adds that "There were different collectors; the prince of the believers was the first among them, whose collection was at variance with all the other collectors. There are other three copies of the Koran collected by the caliphs, beside the copies of Ibn Ka'b, Ibn Mas'uud, which are four copies by themselves."
He then sums up what said by the following: "When these general and particular accounts are considered closely, we learn, from both their literal or suggested meaning, that the Koran now existing between the hands of the Muslims in the east and the west as it is bound by two jackets, and according to its collection and arrangement, was not so during the life of the Messenger."!
As for the second introduction of Imam Al-Nuri's book, it's written for the purpose of pointing out the groups of differences and changes that may have happened to the Koran. The examples of addition and reduction are numerous; the addition has been pointed out previously, and the reduction includes the Suras of Al-Hafd and Al-Khal'. As for the substitution, it includes that of words, letters, and vowels."
Imam Al-Nuri confirmed his argument by quotations from sayings of the Shiite scholars proving that the Koran was distorted and changed. He reported the sayings of more than twelve fundamentalist scholars who admit the distortion of the Koran, such as Al-Kalleeni and Al-Majlisi, in his book "THE MIRROR OF MINDS", Muhammad Ibn Hasan Al-Sairafi in his book "DISTORTION AND SUBSTITUTION", and Ahmad Ibn Muhammad in his book "THE DISTORTION".
In the first part of his book, Al-Nuri furnishes evidences indicating the occurrence of such changing and reduction in the Koran, supporting his evidences by reports and accounts:
1- There are accounts that denote the omission of many verses, such as the verse of Al-Rajm (stoning), as well as many Suras. For Sura 33 was as long as Sura 2, and Sura 98 once listed seventy persons from Kuraish, by their names and their fathers' names. It was also as long as Sura 2!
2- Ali Ibn Abi Taalib had a copy of the Koran, which he himself collected. This copy differs from that of Othman. It has verses not in Othman's copy, and vice versa. Among the verses it has, which are not in Othman's copy:
"Am I not your Lord, and Muhammad is My Messenger, and Ali the prince of the believers?"
"... and his parents were believers, while he was an unbeliever."
"... and We have sent before thee, neither a Messenger, nor a Prophet, nor a speech-carrier."
"... and their mothers' husbands, and he is a father unto them ..."
"Surely man is in a loss, and in it he shall remain till the end of the age ..."
3- There is a copy of the Koran named after Abdullaah Ibn Mas'uud that does not agree with the present copy. It is at variance also with the copy of Ali. Al-Nuri listed some of the verses that were found in Ibn Mas'uud's copy only:
"For surely God chose Adam, Noah, the house of Abraham, and the house of Muhammad above all beings."
"Did We not expand thy breast fro thee and lifted from thee thy burden? Did We not exalt thy fame by Ali thy son-in-law?"
Here are some of the sixty places the Shiites believe have been distorted, according to the studies of Professor Muhammad Mallallaah. The phrases they consider as authentic, though not existent in the copies we have now, are enclosed between two brackets.
Abi Baseer reported, on the strength of Ubayy Abdillaah: "Whosoever obeys God and His Messenger (in the rule of the Imams) has won a mighty triumph." (Sura 33:71). The Shiites believes that Muhammad's Companions omitted "in the rule of the Imams."
Abu Baseer reported, on the strength of Ubayy Ibn Abdillaah: "So We shall let the unbelievers (who forsook the rule of the prince of the believers) taste a terrible chastisement, and recompense them with the worst of what they were working." (41:27).
Al-Husain Ibn Mubaah reported that a man recited in the presence of Ubayy Ibn Abdillaah "Say: 'Work; and God will surely see your work, and His Messenger, and the believers.'" (9:105). For which Ubayy answered, "It is not so. it is rather "... and the trusted ones," which we are.
Abi Hamza reported, on the strength of Abi Ja'far: Gabriel, peace be upon him, revealed this verse after this manner - "Surely the unbelievers, who have done evil (by depriving the house of Muhammad from their right), God will not forgive them, neither guide them on any road but the road to Gehenna, therein dwelling for ever and ever." (Sura 4:168).
Abu Hamza also reported: "Yet most men refuse (the rule of Ali) all but unbelief." (Sura 17:89).
They also reported that Sura 2:106: "And for whatever verse We abrogate or cast into oblivion, We bring a better or the like of it" did not originally have "or the like of it."
Some notes on textual criticism of the Bible and the Qur'an
Many Muslims try to capitalize in their debates on the fact that there are variant readings of Biblical text in the many manuscripts we have of it. This is natural for handcopied texts and nothing else can be expected. Just try yourself to copy down by hand twenty pages of any book, then let a friend proofread it and see how many mistakes he finds. It is humanly nearly impossible to copy by hand without any error. In a certain sense Muslims have the "advantage" that Christians have carefully documented these variants in scholarly journals and monographs. Christian and secular scholars are openly discussing these problems in the discipline of textual criticism.
On the other hand, Muslim have the well known propaganda statement that there are no variants in the Qur'an at all and the Qur'an has been the same text even to the detail of each single letter and that this was so from the very beginning. More educated Muslims know that this is not true, but the average Muslim is made to believe this objectively wrong claim.
In particular, let us ask why some of the oldest manuscripts are not photographically reproduced and made available to the public and the scholars. Why not start with the Topkapi manuscript in Istambul, the Taschkent manuscript, and the two old manuscripts in Cairo and Damascus. They are not Uthmanic manuscripts as some believe, but they are quite old. And then, publish them together in a format that makes it easy to compare them, or even beter, listing all the differences between the texts, like it is done for the critical editions of the Bible text.
Until Muslim scholarship will become serious and honest about a critical investigation of the old Qur'anic manuscripts, we are mainly left with guessing, apart from a few documented facts some of which are collected here under the title Variant Readings of the Qur'an. But making access to the Qur'an manuscripts difficult is not inspiring much confidence in the claims of textual preservation of the Qur'an.
Different verse numbering systems in the Qur'an
In the Hafs reading, the first surah includes "Bismillahi-rraHmani-rraHeem" as a verse. In the Warsh reading the basmala is not counted, and only used "voluntarily" as an extra statement (like the basmala is not counted as a verse in all of the other suras in the Hafs reading either).
There are many more places where the numbers differ between the Hafs reading and the Warsh reading of the Qur'an.
But there are also other differences. In 1834 G. Fluegel published his edition of the Qur'an text with many changes (improvements?) to the numbering, and his system has been adopted by many Western / European / Orientalist translators (including the very good translation by Arberry). On the other hand, most Muslim translations use the Egyptian numbering system. This explains that often between several Qur'an translations there is a difference in numbers for respective verses - usually one or two verses, but sometimes up to five. But this system by Fluegel does not correspond to any of the Muslim editions and (being quite late) is not of great interest for understanding the history of this topic, even though Fluegel's text was the Arabic text of the Qur'an (Hafs?).
Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Volume V, 1986, page 411 gives the following information [and much more], confirming that there are different verse numberings in Muslim translations of M. Pickthall and Yusuf Ali.
M. Pickthall followed an Indian Text tradition. In particular, this traditions differs from the (by now) standard Egyptian verse numbering in these cases:
6:73 is divided into two verses and therefore 6:74-165 becomes 6:75-166
18:18 18:19-110 18:20-111
36:34,35 are combined into one verse, therefore 36:36-83 becomes 36:35-82
Furthermore, Pickthall [based on this Arabic text tradition from India] counts the mysterious letters (initials) as separate verses not only in those suras the Egyptian system does it, but additionally in Sura 10 and 38, i.e. these suras become one verse longer.
Yusuf Ali follows the Egyptian system most of the time but not always.
Some Indo-Pakistani Arabic texts always count the basmala as the first verse, not only in Fatiha. Actually, there are manuscripts/traditions which don't have the basmala at all in the first sura [details/references in the above mentioned article.]
These above informations are about the Arabic text, not only the text of the translations.
The above encyclopaedia article sadly does not make any comment on whether the Indian text tradition is a hafs reading or another one. But given that they don't mention that it is a different reading and only talk about different numbering, I assume it is hafs, but this is a guess which I cannot substantiate at this time.
The encyclopdia article also shows that the titles of suras are later, and actually, many more different titles have been in use earlier than are today. And it states that probably the earliest manuscripts have not had any verse numbers at all.
All this is no critique on the Qur'an, but I have been puzzled sometimes that references in books didn't match the Qur'an text I had in front of me and I imagine that this information might be helpful to others who also are asking similar questions.
P.S. I just saw that an Arabic Quran edition (with Farsi translation) produced in Iran has for example as verse 5:17 which is 5:19 in the Egyptian system used by Yusuf Ali. (My Iranian friend pulled out his Qur'an and said: "I can't find this verse ..." - but we found it eventually.) The Iranian Qur'an is a reprint of the "Sultani edition".
Shabir Ally:
"It doesn't matter if the Qur'anic manuscripts are corrupted, or have evolved, as long as we have a picture of the true Jesus..." (Televised Debate in Atlanta, Oct. 19, 2000)
Ibn Khaldun:
"Arabic writing at the beginning of Islam was, therefore, not of the best quality nor of the greatest accuracy and excellence. It was not (even) of medium quality, because the Arabs possessed the savage desert attitude and were not familiar with crafts.
One may compare what happened to the orthography of the Qur'an on account of this situation. The men around Muhammad wrote the Qur'an in their own script which, was not of a firmly established, good quality. Most of the letters were in contradiction to the orthography required by persons versed in the craft of writing.... Consequently, (the Qur'anic orthography of the men around Muhammad was followed and became established, and the scholars acquainted with it have called attention to passages where (this is noticeable).
No attention should be paid in this connection with those incompetent (scholars) that (the men around Muhammad) knew well the art of writing and that the alleged discrepancies between their writing and the principles of orthography are not discrepancies, as has been alleged, but have a reason. For instance, they explain the addition of the alif in la 'adhbahannahU "I shall indeed slaughter him" as indication that the slaughtering did not take place ( lA 'adhbahannahU ). The addition of the ya in bi-ayydin "with hands (power)," they explain as an indication that the divine power is perfect. There are similar things based on nothing but purely arbitrary assumptions. The only reason that caused them to (assume such things) is their belief that (their explanations) would free the men around Muhammad from the suspicion of deficiency, in the sense that they were not able to write well. They think that good writing is perfection. Thus, they do not admit the fact that the men around Muhammad were deficient in writing." (Muqqadimah, ibn Khaldun, vol. 2, p.382).
M. Hamidullah:
"Lastly I must bring into relief the case of the word la ( ), which in four or five cases is only l ( ) without the final alif.The word la means no, and the word l means certainly. It is horrible to think when it is meant "the believers certainly shall assemble unto God" and "the unbelievers certainly shall assemble in the hell", and the unfortunate ignorant reader unintentionally says "not" instead of "certainly". We will point out these passages in our second list" (Orthographical Peculiarities In The Text Of The Qur'an, M.
Hamidullah, Islamic Order (Karachi), Vol. 3, no. 4, 1981, p.78; article received from Islamic Foundation U.K. as per citation in Ulum al-Qur'an, p.60; emphasis added).
Ibn Khallikan:
"Abu Amr states that he received the following revelation from Katada as-Sadusi: "When the first copy of the Qur'an was written out and presented to [the khalif] Othman Ibn Affan, he said: 'There are faults of language in it, and let the Arabs of the desert rectify them with their tongues." (Biographical Dictionary, Ibn Khallikan, p. 401)
One of the reasons that Muslims give for the perfection of the Qur'an is that Muhammad had a perfect memory. It is said that God gave Muhammed not just the words to speak but also the ability to remember these words perfectly. This understanding is seen in the following Islamic scholar:
Still further, and perhaps most significantly, so long as the Prophet lived, the Community had in him an infallible guide as to the correct recitation of the Koran. The Prophet was granted special protection against forgetfulness, as the Koran itself indicates: By degrees shall we teach thee to declare (the message), so thou shalt not forget, except as God wills (Sura 87:6-7). (Labib as-Said, The Recited Koran - A History of the First Recorded Version. Princeton, New Jersey: The Darwin Press, 1975. p. 20. Bold added)
Now is this claim true? For the rest of this article we will consider what the Qur'an and Hadith say about Muhammad's memory and that of his Companions.
1. WHAT DOES THE QUR'AN SAY ABOUT MUHAMMAD'S MEMORY?
The verse referred to by Labib as-Said is an interesting verse to look at for it actually says the exact opposite of Labib as-Said is claiming. Labib as-Said says that the verse shows that Muhammad, "was granted special protection against forgetfulness". Labib as-Said has missed the word, "except" in the verse. Let us have another look at this verse:
By degrees shall we teach thee (Muhammad) to declare (the message), so thou shalt not forget, except as God wills (Sura 87:6-7).
This verse is not saying that Muhammad will never forget any of the Qur'an. It is saying that he will only forget what God wills. So the verse is actually saying that Muhammad did forget some of the Qur'an. This interpretation is also the interpretation found in the Hadith. Consider the following.
2. WHAT DOES THE HADITH SAY ABOUT MUHAMMAD'S MEMORY?
SAHIH BUKHARI: book 61; volume 6. (pp. 507-509)
556. Narrated Aisha: The Prophet heard a man reciting the Qur'an in the mosque and said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such a Surah."
557. Narrated Hisham: (The same Hadith, adding): which I missed (modifying the Verses).
558. Narrated Aisha: Allah's Apostle heard a man reciting the Qur'an at night, and said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was caused to forget."
559. Narrated Abdullah: The Prophet said, "Why does anyone of the people say, 'I have forgotten such-and-such Verses (of the Qur'an)?' He, in fact, is caused (by Allah) to forget."
562. Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet heard a reciter reciting, the Qur'an in the mosque at night. The Prophet said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such and-such Suras, which I missed!"
SAHIH MUSLIM: book IV; volume I, pp. 378-379
Chapter CCLXXIV
CONCERNING THE CAREFUL REMEMBERING OF THE QUR'AN
(1720) 'Aisha reported that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) heard a person reciting the Qur'an at night. Upon this he said, "May Allah show mercy to him; he has reminded me of such and such a verse which I had missed in such and such a surah.
(1721) 'Aisha reported that the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) listened to the recitation of the Qur'an by a man in the mosque. Thereupon he said: May Allah have mercy upon him; he reminded me of the verse which I had been made to forget.
(1724)'Abdullah reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: What a wretched person is he amongst them who says: I have forgotten such and such a verse. (He should instead of using this expression say): I have been made to forget it. Try to remember the Qur'an for it is more apt to escape from men's minds than a hobbled camel.
(1726) Ibn Mas'ud reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Wretched is the man who says: I forgot such and such a sura, or I forget such and such a verse, but he has been made to forget.
SUNAN ABU DAWUD: book 3, number 1015; volume I, pp. 260-261 (Also Bukhari, vol.1, hadith 394, pp. 238-239)
Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas'ud: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) offered prayer. The version of the narrator Ibrahim goes: I do not know whether he increased or decreased (the rak'ahs of prayer).
When he gave the salutation, he was asked: Has something new happened in the prayer, Apostle of Allah? He said: What is it? They said: You prayed so many and so many (rak'ahs). He then relented his foot and faced the Qiblah and made two prostrations. He then gave the salutation. When he turned away (finished the prayer), he turned his face to us and said: Had anything new happened in prayer, I would have informed you. I am only a human being and I forget just as you do; so when I forget, remind me, and when any of you is in doubt about his prayer he should aim at what is correct, and complete his prayer in that respect, then give the salutation and afterwards made two prostrations.
Thus from the above hadiths that there were occasions when Muhammad forgot parts of the Qur'an.
3. WHAT DOES THE HADITH SAY ABOUT THE MEMORY OF THE COMPANIONS?
SAHIH MUSLIM: book V, hadith 2286; vol II, p. 501
(2286) Abu Harb b. Abu al-Aswad reported on the authority of his father that Abu Musa al-Ash'ari sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Qur'an and he said: You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bar'at. I have forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust." And we used so recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgetten it, but remember (this much) out of it: "O people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise: (lxi 2.) and "that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection" (xvii. 13)
Here we see one of the Companions testifying the existence of part of a surah that is no longer in the Qur'an because it had been forgotten by them.
4. CONCLUSION
The evidence from the Qur'an and Hadith clearly teach that Muhammad and his Companions had normal memories and did forget parts of the Qur'an. Rather than make the exaggerated claim that Muhammad had supernatural memory we should listen to what he said about himself: I am only a human being and I forget just as you do. (Bukhari, Abu Dawud)
Bible Headquarters
|
|
|
|