Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Concubines in Quran are not slaves (ma malakat aymanukum)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Concubines in Quran are not slaves (ma malakat aymanukum)

    23:5 And they keep covered their private parts.
    23:6 Except around their spouses (azwaaj), or those who are maintained by their oaths (ma malakat aymanukum, Right hand posses), they are free from blame.
    23:7 But whoever seeks anything beyond this, then these are the transgressors.



    Among the Israelites, men commonly acknowledged their concubines, and such women enjoyed the same rights in the house as legitimate wives.[8] The principal difference in the Bible between a wife and a concubine is that wives had dowries, while concubines did not.

    The concubine may have commanded the same respect and inviolability as the wife. The Hebrew word used in the Levitical rules on sexual relations, which is commonly translated as "wife", is distinct from the Hebrew word that means "concubine". (However, on at least one other occasion it is used to refer a woman who is not a wife - specifically, the handmaid of Jacob's wife.[9]) In the Levitical code, sexual intercourse between a man and a wife of a different man was forbidden and punishable by death for both persons involved.[10][11] The Bible notes several incidents of intercourse between a man and another man's concubine, and none of them result in capital punishment for either party,[12][13][14] although the man to whom the concubine belonged was dishonored by such a relationship.[8] For instance, David is portrayed as having been dishonoured when his concubines had a sexual relationship with his son Absalom.[15] However, this instance is as likely dishonoring to David because it involves a form of incest, as David's concubines would have been somewhat like step-mothers to David's children.[16]

    Since it was regarded as the highest blessing to have many children, legitimate wives often gave their maids to their husbands to atone, at least in part, if they were barren, as in the cases of Sarah and Hagar, Rachel and Bilhah.[8] The children of the concubine had equal rights with those of the legitimate wife;[8] for example, King Abimelech was the son of Gideon and his concubine.[17] Later[8] biblical figures such as Gideon, David, and Solomon had concubines in addition to many childbearing wives. For example, the Books of Kings says that Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines.[18]

    [edit] In Judaism

    In Judaism, concubines are referred to by the Hebrew term pilegesh. The term is a non-Hebrew, non-Semitic loanword deriving from the Greek word pallakis, Greek παλλακίς,[19][20][21] meaning a mistress staying in house. Or the Aramaic phrase palga isha, meaning half-wife.[citation needed]

    According to the Babylonian Talmud,[22] the difference between a concubine and a full wife was that the latter received a marriage contract (Hebrew:ketubah) and her marriage (nissu'in) was preceded by a formal betrothal (erusin), neither being the case for a concubine. But, one opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud argues that the concubine should also receive a marriage contract, but without including a clause specifying a divorce settlement.[8]

    Concubinage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    So in this sense, asking for permisiion from the families and giving them dowries makes since this is what seperates a wife from a concubine. Many prophets we know had concubines but in the end both are legitimate partner with equal rights. One has more financial protection than the other.

    Also note that in the Bible concubines were not punished the way a wife was if she did commit sexual misconduct, precisely what the Koran said when it said that if any MMA commits a sexual misconduct she should get half of whatever punishment for the non MMA. So basically MMA is a relationship between a man and woman that is based on oath, but does not have the same criteria that is usually accompanied in a proper marriage and that makes them socially vulnerable. This may explain why the Koran talked about MMA as somewhat of an inferior arrangement.

    004.024
    Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.


    But nowhere in the Bible did it ever connected concubines with slavery. Slavery deprives one partner the right of choice and is not a mutual agreement but rape one party by another. Completely unacceptable.

    If you look at the wikipedia article about concubinage, the only mentioning of concubines with slavery is concerning Islam. A damn shame. And even worse its often associated with prisoners of war. So a bad situation became even worse

  • #2
    Egyptian woman shatters social taboo amid sex scandal
    Published March 9th, 2005 - 17:49 GMT

    In Egypt, a real-life soap opera has come to life.


    It all started when a pious soap star has been hit with a very public paternity suit by a young woman who claims she bore the actor’s child after having a relationship with him. Subsequently, the mother filed the paternity suit, stirring an unprecedented scandal and prompting national debate over the issue of secret marriage contracts young people are using in order to have sexual relations in a religious society.


    Hind el-Hinnawy, 27, says she and Ahmed al-Fishawy, a 24-year-old TV star, met on a television set and entered into an Urfi marriage, an unregistered contract often used as cover for affairs. This unofficial arrangement has become popular as a way to evade Islam’s ban on premarital sex.


    To make things even juicier, Fishawy is a public moralist and follower of Amr Khaled, a charismatic Muslim televangelist. Al-Fishawy is an actor known for public piety. Son of actor Farouq al-Fishawy, he is famous for his role in soap Amma Nour, sitcom Shabab Online and host of Yalla Ya Shabab, in which he gave advise to Muslim youth. It seems, however, that this time around he is in need of some good advise…


    Hind el-Hinnawy's story might have provoked little more than gossip in other places. But in Egypt with its widespread taboo on sex talk and deep respect for family values, she generated a full-blown scandal when she went public with her decision to bear a child as a single mother and try to prove a popular young actor was the father. Almost nine months after she sued, a judge has ordered DNA paternity tests.


    Urfi marriages have no official contract and are often kept secret. Although a document is signed in front of witnesses, the marriage can be broken simply by destroying that paper. Such marriages have become more frequent, often for poor Egyptians who cannot afford to marry or as temporary unions for people who want to legitimize their sexual activities in a Muslim society, which has restrictions on premarital sex.


    In an Urfi marriage, couples repeat the words, "We got married" and pledge commitment before Allah. Usually a paper, stating that the two are married, is written and two witnesses sign it. The Egyptian government did not recognize Urfi marriages until 2000 and the paper could be used only to prove the relationship in court. A woman could not get a divorce since the government did not recognize the marriage in the first place. Under the new personal status law passed in January 2000, however, divorces from Urfi marriages are now recognized.


    Undocumented Urfi marriages are increasingly popular among Egyptian youth. The skyrocketing costs of marriage force many young couples to wait several years before they actually tie the knot. Egyptian society forbids sex before marriage, so many young people consider the Urfi marriage an ideal solution.


    Urfi marriages are conducted by a Muslim cleric in the presence of two witnesses, however, they are not officially registered and are not financially binding on the man. Couples married in this way often meet in secret and avoid the expense of renting an apartment.



    The Urfi marriage, however, can be problematic for the wife. If the husband leaves her without granting her a divorce, she had no legal right to seek a divorce since Urfi marriage was considered illegal under the old status law. Her husband could remarry. The wife is in a more difficult position. If the wife remarries, she can be accused of polyandry which is punishable by seven years in prison in Egypt, or she could remain single for the rest of her life.


    The new Egyptian law, passed in 2000, recognizes the woman's right to seek divorce from an Urfi marriage. However, the law denies her alimony and child support.


    There are also controversial, unofficial Urfi marriages, where a couple signs documents declaring themselves married. The couple does not inform their families of the marriage. Many Egyptian clerics are against this type of Urfi marriage calling it a mere cover for pre-marital sex.


    El-Hinnawy, a costume designer, said when she told the actor she was pregnant, he refused to admit he was the father of the child or even that the marriage arrangement existed - so she hauled him into court. In February, a judge ordered DNA testing to prove whether el-Fishawy is the father of four-month-old Leena.

    http://www.albawaba.com/news/egyptia...id-sex-scandal

    This story says it all. This is what is meant by "ma malakat aymanukum" the Koran uses. It is a relationship established by oath only. Notice the parents were not aware and notice the lack of dowry or engagment. The Koran recognizes the legitimacy of this arrangement since its a mutual agreement by oath. However it does not recognize it as a marriage, since marriage requires financial protection and a place to settle


    4.24. Also (prohibited are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess: Thus hath Allah ordained (Prohibitions) against you: Except for these, all others are lawful, provided ye seek (them in marriage) with gifts from your property,- desiring chastity, not lust, seeing that ye derive benefit from them, give them their dowers (at least) as prescribed; but if, after a dower is prescribed, agree Mutually (to vary it), there is no blame on you, and Allah is All-knowing, All-wise. 25. If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

    This translation uses free believing women and owners, the Koran never said that and actually said families not owners. The translation reads "free believing women", the Koran actually uses chaste women(Muhsinat)This is because the Sunni authroities understood MMA as slaves. And this has opened the door for vast amounts of slavery and abuse in Islamic history. These interpretation are wrong.

    Slavery is prohibited in the Koran and it was one of the accusation Moses accused the Pharaoh of. Also Joseph's brothers wanted to sell him into slavery out of envy and spite.

    Moses would not have reminded the Pharoah of his enslavement of the Israelites if nothing was wrong with slavery, and the Koran would not encourage freeing slave if it did not see the practice as evil and oppressive.

    All of this because of a misunderstanding of the term"ma malakat aymanukum" usually translates as right hand possess. Right hand meaning oath.

    MMA is a concubine and not a slave. They are worlds apart. One is an agreed arrangement, the other is rape.

    The Koran understood that MMA arrangement can carry risk since its an agreement that can easily be denied by one party. It warned against enetering such arrangement desiring lust only and encouraged elevating that agreement to a proper marriage by dowry and informing family. The above case shows us why.MMA therfore is exactly what is commonly understood as urfi marriages, marriages established by oath only between and man and woman to be husband and wife and be marries. That explains why the Koran sees that arrangment, thought legitimate, as an inferior arrangment that can pave the way for abuse. Its only to be done if there is no other way to marry.

    Comment


    • #3
      the word malakat means possessions, owned possessions, if you don't think owning a person is slavery, you're either deluded or a really messed up moron.
      [QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]

      2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by RevolutionThroughReason View Post
        the word malakat means possessions, owned possessions, if you don't think owning a person is slavery, you're either deluded or a really messed up moron.
        I think you are missing aymanukum. The Quran actually used that word as an oath in surat almujadila

        16. Ittakhathoo aymanahum junnatan fasaddoo AAan sabeeli Allahi falahum AAathabun muheenun
        16. They have made their oaths
        A screen (for their misdeeds):
        Thus they obstruct (men)
        From the Path of God:
        Therefore shall they have
        A humiliating Penalty.

        Its what you possess by oath.

        Also

        109. They swear their strongest oaths by Allah, that if a (special) sign came to them, by it they would believe. Say: "Certainly (all) signs are in the power of Allah. but what will make you (Muslims) realise that (even) if (special) signs came, they will not believe."? Chapter 6

        And

        38. They swear their strongest oaths by Allah, that Allah will not raise up those who die: Nay, but it is a promise (binding) on Him in truth: but most among mankind realise it not. Chapter 16.

        These verses uses aymanukum as an oath.
        Last edited by Bigmo; 06-03-2012, 11:14 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          aymanakum just means "your right hands" , this doesn't change the meaning of malakat


          You should go learn arabic.
          [QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]

          2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by RevolutionThroughReason View Post
            aymanakum just means "your right hands" , this doesn't change the meaning of malakat


            You should go learn arabic.
            So what are you saying? The Quran does not know Arabic?

            Comment


            • #7
              No, I'm saying you don't; that's why you seem confused when the Qur'an uses "aymanahum" in one verse when people make oaths (aymanahum doesn't mean oath, the verse is saying they're making an oath with their right hand). and when people possess something by their right hand (malakat aymanakum).

              So yes once again go study Arabic
              [QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]

              2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by RevolutionThroughReason View Post
                No, I'm saying you don't; that's why you seem confused when the Qur'an uses "aymanahum" in one verse when people make oaths (aymanahum doesn't mean oath, the verse is saying they're making an oath with their right hand). and when people possess something by their right hand (malakat aymanakum).

                So yes once again go study Arabic
                Which what I said, it means what your right hand possess. You don't posses a slave by an oath, you possess them by money or kidnapping. unless of course you mean the verse means what you possess, then why the use of right hand?

                Comment


                • #9
                  when you say malakah this means ownership in Arabic it's referring to owning. for example

                  in the Qur'an it says

                  alladhina hum li furujihim hafethoona illa 'ala azwajihim aw ma malakat aymanuhum fa innahum ghairo malumeena (Surah 70:29-30)


                  it says azwajihim (spouses) aw (OR) ma malakat aymanuhum (what your right hands possesses i.e. those who you own).

                  Here it's talking about sex, it's not saying " 'ala azwajihim allati ma malakat aymanuhum"

                  it's contrasting between a wife over women who you own (malakat)
                  [QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]

                  2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by RevolutionThroughReason View Post
                    when you say malakah this means ownership in Arabic it's referring to owning. for example

                    in the Qur'an it says

                    alladhina hum li furujihim hafethoona illa 'ala azwajihim aw ma malakat aymanuhum fa innahum ghairo malumeena (Surah 70:29-30)


                    it says azwajihim (spouses) aw (OR) ma malakat aymanuhum (what your right hands possesses i.e. those who you own).

                    Here it's talking about sex, it's not saying " 'ala azwajihim allati ma malakat aymanuhum"

                    it's contrasting between a wife over women who you own (malakat)
                    Then it would have just said malaktum, meaning whom you own. It used malakat AYMANUKUM, whom you possess by your right hand, anotherwords whom you posses by oath.

                    "In an Urfi marriage, couples repeat the words, "We got married" and pledge commitment before Allah. Usually a paper, stating that the two are married, is written and two witnesses sign it."

                    Thats a relationship established by oath alone. There is no dowry exactly what the Quran wanted to encourage. Its a legitimate relationship but its not the proper form of marriage.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      How are prisoners of war treated in Islam?

                      Praise be to Allaah.

                      Islam is the religion of mercy and justice; it commands us to call others to the religion of Allaah in a kind and good manner, and to encourage people to enter this great religion. If some people persist in rejecting the religion of Allaah and stand in the way of ruling by that which Allaah has revealed on earth, or they fight against the call to Allaah, then we give them the choice of three things:

                      Either they become Muslim; or if they refuse they pay the jizyah (whereby they pay a specified amount to the Muslims in return for being allowed to remain their land, and the Muslims undertake to protect them); or, if they refuse that, there is nothing left but the way which they themselves have chosen, which is fighting and dealing violently with those who have persecuted the Muslims and put obstacles in the path of the Islamic da’wah. In this way the Muslims will gain the upper hand and the enemies will be humiliated; then when we have killed and wounded many of them and gained the upper hand over them, we may take prisoners and bind a bond firmly on them [cf. Muhammad 47:4], because in that case it is more in tune with the idea of mercy by choice (not because we are afraid of them); at that point war should not continue any longer than is necessary. War in Islam should not be waged for the sole purpose of shedding blood or seeking vengeance. If the Muslims capture them and take them to a place that has been prepared for them, they should not harm them or torture them with beatings, depriving them of food and water, leaving them out in the sun or the cold, burning them with fire, or putting covers over their mouths, ears and eyes and putting them in cages like animals. Rather they should treat them with kindness and mercy, feed them well and encourage them to enter Islam.

                      Detaining prisoners


                      Prisoners should be detained until it is decided what is the best move. The ruler of the Muslims should detain prisoners until he decides what is in the Muslims’ best interests. He may ransom them for money, or exchange them for Muslim prisoners, or release them for nothing in return, or distribute them among the Muslims as slaves, or kill the men, but not the women and children, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade killing the latter. The purpose behind detaining prisoners is so that the Muslims may be protected from their evil. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to enjoin the Muslims to treat prisoners well, whereas the Romans and those who came before them the Assyrians and Pharaohs, all used to put out their prisoners’ eyes with hot irons, and flay them alive, feeding their skins to dogs, such that the prisoners

                      Ahkaam al-Sijn wa’l-Sujana’ wa Mu’aamalat al-Sujana’ fi’l-Islam by Hasan Abi’l-Ghuddah, 256



                      The red part is Quranic. The others are not. Anyways the cleric here obviously got defensive in the end. He compared what Islam had to say with the Romans. H should have compared that with the Quran and not the Romans. This is the kind of things that makes my blood boil. Muslims of course are not aware of all this. They think, as I did, that Islam believes in good treatment of prisoners. After all that is what they read in the Quran. This is not the stuff they will hear in Jumu'a prayers. This is one of the reasons why we see many Islamic groups execute their captives. The ruler here has life and death authority.

                      But whats important here is what the Quran had to say:

                      O Prophet! Tell the captives you have, "If God knows goodness in your heart He will give you better rewards than have been taken from you and forgive you. He is forgiving, merciful ".And if they intend to be treacherous to you, they have been treacherous to God in the past and He has put them into your hands. 8:70-1

                      When you have fully overcome the enemy in the battle, then tighten their bonds, but thereafter set them free either by an act of grace or against ransom. 47:4


                      And they feed, for the love of Allah, the indigent, the orphan, and the captive. (Saying),"We feed you for the sake of Allah alone: no reward do we desire from you, nor thanks 76.8-9

                      How these Quranic verses ended up being ignored and prisoners can now be sold as slaves and even executed is beyond me. But this is what we are facing. That is why the terrorist can not be stopped.

                      But anyways this is what showed me that ma malakat aymunum can not be what they claimed. Muslim authorities tell us that MMA are actually female prisoners of war that can be sold as slaves to Muslims. Some Sunni translations actually added that to the Quran text:


                      "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee; and daughters of thy paternal uncles and aunts, and daughters of thy maternal uncles and aunts, who migrated (from Makka) with thee; and any believing woman who dedicates her soul to the Prophet if the Prophet wishes to wed her;- this only for thee, and not for the Believers (at large); We know what We have appointed for them as to their wives and the captives whom their right hands possess;- in order that there should be no difficulty for thee. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

                      Notice how they simply added prisoners of war and captives in the translation even thogh there is no such term in the Arabic text the Quran came down on.

                      Here we see a combination between slaves and prisoners over the word ma malakat aymunukum

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bigmo View Post
                        Then it would have just said malaktum, meaning whom you own. It used malakat AYMANUKUM, whom you possess by your right hand, anotherwords whom you posses by oath.

                        "In an Urfi marriage, couples repeat the words, "We got married" and pledge commitment before Allah. Usually a paper, stating that the two are married, is written and two witnesses sign it."

                        Thats a relationship established by oath alone. There is no dowry exactly what the Quran wanted to encourage. Its a legitimate relationship but its not the proper form of marriage.


                        You mean Malaktikum, not Malaktum, this doesn't mean Anything in Arabic; Actually Malakat aymanukum and malaktikum are just two different ways to say the same thing in Arabic so you're not showing any difference here. The only thing is the emphasis on "aymanukum" is to imply formality. It is just formal way to say malakatikum.



                        Seriously , learn Arabic because you make typical mistakes of someone who has no experience in Arabic.
                        [QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]

                        2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by RevolutionThroughReason View Post
                          You mean Malaktikum, not Malaktum, this doesn't mean Anything in Arabic; Actually Malakat aymanukum and malaktikum are just two different ways to say the same thing in Arabic so you're not showing any difference here. The only thing is the emphasis on "aymanukum" is to imply formality. It is just formal way to say malakatikum.



                          Seriously , learn Arabic because you make typical mistakes of someone who has no experience in Arabic.
                          I speak Arabic and what you say really does not make sense. What you are trying to say is that malakat aymanukum is the same as malakat. You want to marginalize the aymanukum part as if its just there for emphasis. Yet the Quran used the same term elsehwere for oath but somehow here its only emphasis. Sounds desperate.

                          Anyways enslaving prisoners of war is forbidden in the Quran and slavery was condemned by Moses and the Quran would not encourage freeing slaves only to order the prophet himself to own slaves.

                          Can you imagine the prophet reciting verses about the virtues of freeing slaves while he himself owns slaves? The pagans would tell him first free the slaves you got then tell us about freeing slaves. Unless of course you mean the Quran orders the believers to free slaves but not their own. Completely unrealistic.

                          In fact all the verses in the Quran about freeing slaves is speaking about third party slaves, slaves owned by others, thats because the believers never owned slaves themselves.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I haven't studied this touchy subject much, Quran may have allowed slavery but, it also clearly discourages it and says to treat the slaves with respect.

                            But here is another dilemma, why was it allowed to begin with? and how are we suppose to monitor which slaves owner are treating their slaves right or wrong

                            These are the sort of issues, there are no answers too. we really just have to use common sense

                            Also again,over all Islam has discouraged slavery, so living in current times, all muslims should abandon this practice in my opinion, the reason I say this is, there are still some people who are practice it in some countries
                            Last edited by Karachi; 06-03-2012, 02:06 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bigmo View Post
                              I speak Arabic and what you say really does not make sense. What you are trying to say is that malakat aymanukum is the same as malakat. You want to marginalize the aymanukum part as if its just there for emphasis. Yet the Quran used the same term elsehwere for oath but somehow here its only emphasis. Sounds desperate.

                              Anyways enslaving prisoners of war is forbidden in the Quran and slavery was condemned by Moses and the Quran would not encourage freeing slaves only to order the prophet himself to own slaves.

                              Can you imagine the prophet reciting verses about the virtues of freeing slaves while he himself owns slaves? The pagans would tell him first free the slaves you got then tell us about freeing slaves. Unless of course you mean the Quran orders the believers to free slaves but not their own. Completely unrealistic.

                              In fact all the verses in the Quran about freeing slaves is speaking about third party slaves, slaves owned by others, thats because the believers never owned slaves themselves.


                              3an gad, inti tata7adeth 3arabi kaman? 6ayb, i3a6ani w7d tafsir sa7 3ala allati 2ayat. fi 3younik yidhahr

                              Kaif 3ando tan8ad 3andem hada fa 8ad munasaw7a wa maa 2amr?
                              [QUOTE=Afghanistan2010;658085][B]He is no different [COLOR="Red"]than us[/COLOR][/B],[B]he[COLOR="Red"] blindly believes [/COLOR]in the words [COLOR="Red"]of other men[/COLOR][/B],:[/QUOTE]

                              2010 Admitting he's a blind believer not in God, but what other men says.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X