rant 0002
i just read a post on medium dot com by a guy named gurwinder bhogal; it was the first of three parts ("The Hate Factory (Part 1)"). in this particular post, he spends quite a bit of time investigating "radical" muslims in luton in the UK. he made an honest attempt at investigation, but when he said that he spoke with an imam at the lution islamic centre named farasat latif, discussing his salafist beliefs, i began to fear that he would head down the usual path taken by islamic apologists. the luton islamic centre is reputed to be the hub of salafi activities in that benighted community, and mr. bhogal writes that mr. latif has a twenty-year history of fighting it. well, he has a twenty-year history of fighting it ... in *english* and in print. mr. latif claims that he is salafist, but says that means that the islam he practices, which he says is like that muhammed and his companions practiced, is purely spiritual.
at no point in the post does mr. bhogal, who seems like an honest and earnest journalist (one who journals; i don't know if he is paid to do so), speak of what he found for himself when he investigated islam. mr. latif, the imam whom mr. bhogal interviewed, also reviewed his article before he published it; mr. bhogal did not say if he had suggested any changes. the point, however, is that mr. bhogal did not write of investigating islam for this first part of his three-part article, nor did he explain what he knows of it. perhaps the next two installments will go there.
for the most part, people in the west don't know very much, if anything, about islam. if people of one religion, including, for the purpose of discussion, atheists and agnostics (whom i will treat as religious adherents since they are taking positions on religion), are ignorant of any religion not their own, they usually have little enthusiasm for learning more about it, since they have no intention of ever converting. there are exceptions, of course; one who is interested in religion as a concept or philosophy, or one who wishes to debunk a particular religion or religions, might investigate, but most people are not interested. as a born-again christian, i can vouch for this; although somewhat interested in islam as an "abrahamic" religion, i never seriously bothered to learn more about it than i had learned by reading history books. even 9/11 was not impetus enough to overcome the barrier to learning that is the mish-mash of islamic holy literature. i tried, but thought that the quran was the totality of islamic scripture, and saw nothing to indicate otherwise. i couldn't make sense of it, so i gave up. "everybody knows" that every religion is pretty much the same, so there is little point in learning how many spirits of any given religion can dance on the head of a pin. as far as most westerners are concerned, all religions usually have one or more gods, and the believers all strive to reach the divine in one way or another. it never occurs to non-muslims that other religions might teach otherwise, and it never occurred to me.
this use of common knowledge actually stems from a deep human adaptation to the world. we learn, and many thousands, if not millions, of years ago, we learned to learn from one another. when we learn something, we recognize a pattern of some sort, and adapt our behavior accordingly to take advantage of what we have learned. if one can learn from others, one can learn even faster and accomplish more in a shorter time, and get better results, if one applies what one has learned to the environment, rather than starting from first principles every time one begins to solve a problem. it is, if U will, an evolutionary adaptation; those who learn from others succeed in bringing up children more often than those who do not, so more and more of the human race (hupeople race? :-D) is made up of learners, and those disposed towards learning, especially from one another. our ability to learn grew exponentially once we invented writing, because now knowledge could be shared with others long after death took the original learner. of course, people used, and still use, what they had learned to their own advantage by keeping their knowledge from others (knowledge is power), but as civilization grew, it became apparent that sharing information is in almost all cases more advantageous to all than not.
so we all use this common knowledge to some extent, but sometimes, the knowledge of crowds is wrong. this will usually happen when there is little or no direct effect on he who believes this common knowledge due to his belief in it. one may learn something, think it true even though it is wrong, and pass it on. our "knowledge" is never corrected, either for us or for those to whom we pass it, because we rarely, if ever, actually use it. in some cases, the utility of a given nugget of knowledge can change, from worthless, because we never needed it, to vital, because the lack of that knowledge has suddenly acquired the potential to end our lives. if one is driving down a road on which all bridges are intact, we need not even think about the bridges; if, OTOH, a heavily-loaded barge has severely damaged an upcoming bridge over a river, we had *better* learn about it before we reach it. i propose that islam falls into this last category. it is *not* a religion like any other, and a general lack of knowledge about it can cause a society to make bad decisions regarding it that could very well end civilization. of course, i must admit that this is a radical statement, but i challenge *anybody* to study islam and show me the mistakes i have made.
first of all, the quran, as i mentioned above, is not the entirety of islamic scripture; rather, it is the word of allah as revealed to muhammed and written down by his "companions" (the first muslims) long after his death. muhammed is considered the perfect man (al-insan al-kamil), and allah says in the quran that muhammed's behavior should be emulated; thus, he is also the model of conduct (uswa hasana) for all muslims (men, anyway). the "sunnah" of muhammed is his teachings, commands, and behavior as recorded in sahih ("very reliable") collections of hadith (a short story of muhammed, from a sentence or two to several pages in length) which guide muslims in their behavior. several early muslim scholars put their hadith collections into chronological order and wrote "sira," or biographies of muhammed; this helps explain the quran, because the traditional order of the quran is not chronological, but roughly from longest to shortest surah (chapter). the sira also provide a context for what allah says in the quran, because there is literally nothing besides allah's words in it. the earliest and most respected sira is the "sirat rasul allah" of ibn ishaq; it was lost, but large extracts from it were preserved by ibn hisham and al tabari. along with the quran, the sira and the ahadith (plural of hadith) make up islamic holy literature.
muhammed's companions apparently caught him reciting contradictory revelations, because quran 2:106 says that if there is a conflict between revelations, the latter one tells muslims what to do:
2.106: none of our revelations do we abrogate or cause
to be forgotten, but we substitute something
better or similar: knowest thou not that allah
hath power over all things?
for whatever reason, the various translators of the quran have chosen to use a "king james" english rather than modern english, probably because they think that all westerners are christian, and will therefore be more likely to accept it as gospel; the quran had not been translated into english in the early 17th century when james was king of england. in any case, the doctrine of abrogation, which has been present in islam from the beginning, means that the last-revealed of any two conflicting revelations is the one by which muslims are to be governed. there is a duality in muslim logic, however, because since allah said both of the two conflicting things, both are necessarily true; fortunately for muslims, they just have to follow the later revelation.
since muslims need to model their conduct after muhammed's, we should take a look at how he behaved. for his first thirteen years as a prophet, he lived in mecca, where he savagely berated members of his tribe for their polytheism, and encouraged them to come to islam, the monotheistic religion that he (excuse me, allah) invented. his tribal family tried to get him to get along with them, but muhammed refused to do so, and was eventually driven from mecca (probably by death threats). he relocated 200 miles away in yathrib (now medina, meaning "the city of the prophet," IIRC). there he turned into a warlord, and began to rob caravans going to and from mecca. the meccans tried to stop him with armed guards, but the muslims finally started killing caravan members. he next turned to the jews of yathrib; he robbed some and drove them from the town, but in the end, even though they had not attacked him, he laid seige to the fortified sector of the last jewish tribe, and when they surrendered to him, he checked for pubic hair on all the males, murdering all who had any. the little boys, little girls, and women he kept as slaves; he and his companions then spent some time raping the women. he continued this type of behavior, even selling women and children as slaves to raise money for arms (after raping the women, of course). muhammed married his favorite wife when she was six, and consummated the "marriage" when she was nine, so we can be fairly certain that the rape victims could have been very young indeed.
perhaps U might think that i am making this up because i'm a racist. first of all, i would like to recommend that U get more information about me before U decide that i'm a racist. more importantly, i would like to point out that absolutely *nothing* is known about muhammed except what we learn from islamic scripture; i didn't make this stuff up in order to make muhammed or muslims look bad. this *all* comes right from islamic scripture (the quran, ahadith, and sira); worse yet, *THIS* is how muslims are supposed to behave. it turns out that IS, al qaeda, al shabab, and boko haram (not to mention the ulema from saudi arabia) are actually pious muslims who practice the same religion that muhammed and his companions did; they have been called salafists for hundreds of years, not just recently, and are basically fundamentalist muslims.
so why don't all muslims act like this? most are, after all, peaceful, and just want to go about their lives, right? well, maybe yes, and maybe no. it turns out that when the quran is read in friday khutbah at the mosque, it is always read in arabic, since that's the religion that allah speaks; it's not necessary for the attendees to understand it. the imams, who do know islam, are the ones who explain it in their sermons to the muslims attending, and tell them what to do; thus, they have a *very* big part in determining how muslims act. it may be that the "moderate" muslim U know just doesn't know his religion very well. it's also possible that he *does* know, but doesn't want to practice the evil parts because of the effects of exposure to western society (what pious muslims would call western corruption). muhammed would not like people from either of these groups, but he would have educated the former and murdered the latter.
few ideas are universally believed by all people; many may accept a belief, but each believer will accept it to a different degree, especially when the idea is abstract, as religions are. thus, we can assign every person who is aware of an idea a place on a scale of belief in it that ranges from total disbelief to total acceptance; when the idea is a religion, the scale ranges from atheism (for the religion in question) to total piety and acceptance. it is usually difficult to decide where a person falls on such a scale without detailed interaction with them; furthermore, the believer's behavior will not necessarily comply with the scriptures, or even with what the believer thinks that they command. thus, in order to learn what a religion teaches, it is best to go to the scriptures of the religion rather than to any particular believer, and interpret them as close to what is written as is possible, since that is what most believers will do when the reading the scriptures. once we understand what the scriptures teach, we can compare the commanded behavior to what is actually practiced by the majority of believers; if there is a discrepancy, there is usually going to be a reason for it that has been accepted, or that has at least been around, for some time.
when we look at muslims, most do not speak arabic, and most are very poor; they usually don't have access to the quran in their own language, nor to sahih hadith collections, nor to sira. like most people, they just want to live their lives as they see fit and be left alone; they don't want to die for allah. muhammed called such people hypocrites, because they neither fight in jihad (physical armed attacks on unbelievers) nor provide money to jihadis so that they can fight; his venom for them was almost as severe as it was for unbelievers. over most of the history of islam, the caliphs had little trouble raising armies, because the soldiers were encouraged to murder, rape, and kidnap citizens of the cities and countries they attacked by islam, their religion. the only math and science used in muslim-ruled lands was either the primitive practices of the invading arab tribes, or that already practiced by the victims of the invasion.
these invasion victims were not the only victims of islam; muslims themselves are victims of islam. when muhammed turned to being a warlord, he wanted troops to assist him with his pillaging, so he changed his religion to allow taking booty in this world, and to turn jannah (paradise, or heaven) into a whorehouse with 72 vigins for each jihadi who dies for allah. of course, the people most attracted to that sort of vision were thugs. needless to say, a gang culture evolved among them. those who are strong take advantage of the weak, even if they are muslim. women are treated like property, which is why they are forced to cover themselves; that way, a gang member's property is protected from other gang members. confrontation is seen as a virtue, and diplomacy as a weakness, since he who is strong can take what he wants, and needs not cede anything to those who are weaker than him. in muslim organizations, a strong man is usually the leader, and since knowledge is power, he usually keeps a tight control on information, stifling anything more than minimal cooperation among muslims. this happens in the family as well; a man's honor in society depends upon how he is viewed by other muslim men (fellow gang members). it is important that his family members not do anything that would cause him to be seen as weak. thus, a man can murder his wives, his children, and his grandchildren in "honor" killings; they are considered "honor" killings because they restore the damaged honor of a gang member so that he will not be attacked by fellow gang members. honor can be lost when a wife, a child, a son's wife, or a grandchild does something against sharia. when this happens, it is imperative that the offender be punished so that the gang member is seen as strong. love is not a concept with which the average muslim in muslim-run nations is familiar. westernized muslims, OTOH, usually live much different lives than their fellow believers in muslim lands, particularly when they live in westernized countries.
once the ulema (muslim clergy in general) decided that science was blasphemy because it questioned allah, all scientific inquiry other than the minimal efforts of conquered peoples ended. this navel-gazing caused islamic armies to begin to fall behind the armies of other nations technologically, and after the fall of constantinople and many of the states of the balkan peninsula, islam stopped its encroachments on civilization, because their troops were no longer able to keep up with european troops. on 1839-11-03, the edict of Gülhane proclaimed all subjects of the ottoman empire to be equal, regardless of religion, but this was only because the sultan wanted backing from the british empire in a conflict with muhammad ali pasha, ruler of egypt, and a former/current subordinate. on 1856-02-18, the ottomans needed british, french, and austrian help against the russians in the crimea, so they issued the hatt-i humayan, the reform edict of 1856, which ended the protection racket of the jizya, and allowed non-muslims to serve in the ottoman army. it has been a bit longer than 150 years since then, but already, non-muslims in the west have forgotten jizya and the dhimma. they - *WE* - don't know the history of islam, and *WE* will lose their freedom if *WE* don't learn it again, and soon.
but don't take my word for it; do your own research. the truth is the best argument, so search out the truth for yourself, and if U can prove that islam is safe, U should be fearless in showing others the truth. what better way to shut down a knuckle-dragging racist like me than by citing islamic scriptures and texts to disprove my thesis?
at no point in the post does mr. bhogal, who seems like an honest and earnest journalist (one who journals; i don't know if he is paid to do so), speak of what he found for himself when he investigated islam. mr. latif, the imam whom mr. bhogal interviewed, also reviewed his article before he published it; mr. bhogal did not say if he had suggested any changes. the point, however, is that mr. bhogal did not write of investigating islam for this first part of his three-part article, nor did he explain what he knows of it. perhaps the next two installments will go there.
for the most part, people in the west don't know very much, if anything, about islam. if people of one religion, including, for the purpose of discussion, atheists and agnostics (whom i will treat as religious adherents since they are taking positions on religion), are ignorant of any religion not their own, they usually have little enthusiasm for learning more about it, since they have no intention of ever converting. there are exceptions, of course; one who is interested in religion as a concept or philosophy, or one who wishes to debunk a particular religion or religions, might investigate, but most people are not interested. as a born-again christian, i can vouch for this; although somewhat interested in islam as an "abrahamic" religion, i never seriously bothered to learn more about it than i had learned by reading history books. even 9/11 was not impetus enough to overcome the barrier to learning that is the mish-mash of islamic holy literature. i tried, but thought that the quran was the totality of islamic scripture, and saw nothing to indicate otherwise. i couldn't make sense of it, so i gave up. "everybody knows" that every religion is pretty much the same, so there is little point in learning how many spirits of any given religion can dance on the head of a pin. as far as most westerners are concerned, all religions usually have one or more gods, and the believers all strive to reach the divine in one way or another. it never occurs to non-muslims that other religions might teach otherwise, and it never occurred to me.
this use of common knowledge actually stems from a deep human adaptation to the world. we learn, and many thousands, if not millions, of years ago, we learned to learn from one another. when we learn something, we recognize a pattern of some sort, and adapt our behavior accordingly to take advantage of what we have learned. if one can learn from others, one can learn even faster and accomplish more in a shorter time, and get better results, if one applies what one has learned to the environment, rather than starting from first principles every time one begins to solve a problem. it is, if U will, an evolutionary adaptation; those who learn from others succeed in bringing up children more often than those who do not, so more and more of the human race (hupeople race? :-D) is made up of learners, and those disposed towards learning, especially from one another. our ability to learn grew exponentially once we invented writing, because now knowledge could be shared with others long after death took the original learner. of course, people used, and still use, what they had learned to their own advantage by keeping their knowledge from others (knowledge is power), but as civilization grew, it became apparent that sharing information is in almost all cases more advantageous to all than not.
so we all use this common knowledge to some extent, but sometimes, the knowledge of crowds is wrong. this will usually happen when there is little or no direct effect on he who believes this common knowledge due to his belief in it. one may learn something, think it true even though it is wrong, and pass it on. our "knowledge" is never corrected, either for us or for those to whom we pass it, because we rarely, if ever, actually use it. in some cases, the utility of a given nugget of knowledge can change, from worthless, because we never needed it, to vital, because the lack of that knowledge has suddenly acquired the potential to end our lives. if one is driving down a road on which all bridges are intact, we need not even think about the bridges; if, OTOH, a heavily-loaded barge has severely damaged an upcoming bridge over a river, we had *better* learn about it before we reach it. i propose that islam falls into this last category. it is *not* a religion like any other, and a general lack of knowledge about it can cause a society to make bad decisions regarding it that could very well end civilization. of course, i must admit that this is a radical statement, but i challenge *anybody* to study islam and show me the mistakes i have made.
first of all, the quran, as i mentioned above, is not the entirety of islamic scripture; rather, it is the word of allah as revealed to muhammed and written down by his "companions" (the first muslims) long after his death. muhammed is considered the perfect man (al-insan al-kamil), and allah says in the quran that muhammed's behavior should be emulated; thus, he is also the model of conduct (uswa hasana) for all muslims (men, anyway). the "sunnah" of muhammed is his teachings, commands, and behavior as recorded in sahih ("very reliable") collections of hadith (a short story of muhammed, from a sentence or two to several pages in length) which guide muslims in their behavior. several early muslim scholars put their hadith collections into chronological order and wrote "sira," or biographies of muhammed; this helps explain the quran, because the traditional order of the quran is not chronological, but roughly from longest to shortest surah (chapter). the sira also provide a context for what allah says in the quran, because there is literally nothing besides allah's words in it. the earliest and most respected sira is the "sirat rasul allah" of ibn ishaq; it was lost, but large extracts from it were preserved by ibn hisham and al tabari. along with the quran, the sira and the ahadith (plural of hadith) make up islamic holy literature.
muhammed's companions apparently caught him reciting contradictory revelations, because quran 2:106 says that if there is a conflict between revelations, the latter one tells muslims what to do:
2.106: none of our revelations do we abrogate or cause
to be forgotten, but we substitute something
better or similar: knowest thou not that allah
hath power over all things?
for whatever reason, the various translators of the quran have chosen to use a "king james" english rather than modern english, probably because they think that all westerners are christian, and will therefore be more likely to accept it as gospel; the quran had not been translated into english in the early 17th century when james was king of england. in any case, the doctrine of abrogation, which has been present in islam from the beginning, means that the last-revealed of any two conflicting revelations is the one by which muslims are to be governed. there is a duality in muslim logic, however, because since allah said both of the two conflicting things, both are necessarily true; fortunately for muslims, they just have to follow the later revelation.
since muslims need to model their conduct after muhammed's, we should take a look at how he behaved. for his first thirteen years as a prophet, he lived in mecca, where he savagely berated members of his tribe for their polytheism, and encouraged them to come to islam, the monotheistic religion that he (excuse me, allah) invented. his tribal family tried to get him to get along with them, but muhammed refused to do so, and was eventually driven from mecca (probably by death threats). he relocated 200 miles away in yathrib (now medina, meaning "the city of the prophet," IIRC). there he turned into a warlord, and began to rob caravans going to and from mecca. the meccans tried to stop him with armed guards, but the muslims finally started killing caravan members. he next turned to the jews of yathrib; he robbed some and drove them from the town, but in the end, even though they had not attacked him, he laid seige to the fortified sector of the last jewish tribe, and when they surrendered to him, he checked for pubic hair on all the males, murdering all who had any. the little boys, little girls, and women he kept as slaves; he and his companions then spent some time raping the women. he continued this type of behavior, even selling women and children as slaves to raise money for arms (after raping the women, of course). muhammed married his favorite wife when she was six, and consummated the "marriage" when she was nine, so we can be fairly certain that the rape victims could have been very young indeed.
perhaps U might think that i am making this up because i'm a racist. first of all, i would like to recommend that U get more information about me before U decide that i'm a racist. more importantly, i would like to point out that absolutely *nothing* is known about muhammed except what we learn from islamic scripture; i didn't make this stuff up in order to make muhammed or muslims look bad. this *all* comes right from islamic scripture (the quran, ahadith, and sira); worse yet, *THIS* is how muslims are supposed to behave. it turns out that IS, al qaeda, al shabab, and boko haram (not to mention the ulema from saudi arabia) are actually pious muslims who practice the same religion that muhammed and his companions did; they have been called salafists for hundreds of years, not just recently, and are basically fundamentalist muslims.
so why don't all muslims act like this? most are, after all, peaceful, and just want to go about their lives, right? well, maybe yes, and maybe no. it turns out that when the quran is read in friday khutbah at the mosque, it is always read in arabic, since that's the religion that allah speaks; it's not necessary for the attendees to understand it. the imams, who do know islam, are the ones who explain it in their sermons to the muslims attending, and tell them what to do; thus, they have a *very* big part in determining how muslims act. it may be that the "moderate" muslim U know just doesn't know his religion very well. it's also possible that he *does* know, but doesn't want to practice the evil parts because of the effects of exposure to western society (what pious muslims would call western corruption). muhammed would not like people from either of these groups, but he would have educated the former and murdered the latter.
few ideas are universally believed by all people; many may accept a belief, but each believer will accept it to a different degree, especially when the idea is abstract, as religions are. thus, we can assign every person who is aware of an idea a place on a scale of belief in it that ranges from total disbelief to total acceptance; when the idea is a religion, the scale ranges from atheism (for the religion in question) to total piety and acceptance. it is usually difficult to decide where a person falls on such a scale without detailed interaction with them; furthermore, the believer's behavior will not necessarily comply with the scriptures, or even with what the believer thinks that they command. thus, in order to learn what a religion teaches, it is best to go to the scriptures of the religion rather than to any particular believer, and interpret them as close to what is written as is possible, since that is what most believers will do when the reading the scriptures. once we understand what the scriptures teach, we can compare the commanded behavior to what is actually practiced by the majority of believers; if there is a discrepancy, there is usually going to be a reason for it that has been accepted, or that has at least been around, for some time.
when we look at muslims, most do not speak arabic, and most are very poor; they usually don't have access to the quran in their own language, nor to sahih hadith collections, nor to sira. like most people, they just want to live their lives as they see fit and be left alone; they don't want to die for allah. muhammed called such people hypocrites, because they neither fight in jihad (physical armed attacks on unbelievers) nor provide money to jihadis so that they can fight; his venom for them was almost as severe as it was for unbelievers. over most of the history of islam, the caliphs had little trouble raising armies, because the soldiers were encouraged to murder, rape, and kidnap citizens of the cities and countries they attacked by islam, their religion. the only math and science used in muslim-ruled lands was either the primitive practices of the invading arab tribes, or that already practiced by the victims of the invasion.
these invasion victims were not the only victims of islam; muslims themselves are victims of islam. when muhammed turned to being a warlord, he wanted troops to assist him with his pillaging, so he changed his religion to allow taking booty in this world, and to turn jannah (paradise, or heaven) into a whorehouse with 72 vigins for each jihadi who dies for allah. of course, the people most attracted to that sort of vision were thugs. needless to say, a gang culture evolved among them. those who are strong take advantage of the weak, even if they are muslim. women are treated like property, which is why they are forced to cover themselves; that way, a gang member's property is protected from other gang members. confrontation is seen as a virtue, and diplomacy as a weakness, since he who is strong can take what he wants, and needs not cede anything to those who are weaker than him. in muslim organizations, a strong man is usually the leader, and since knowledge is power, he usually keeps a tight control on information, stifling anything more than minimal cooperation among muslims. this happens in the family as well; a man's honor in society depends upon how he is viewed by other muslim men (fellow gang members). it is important that his family members not do anything that would cause him to be seen as weak. thus, a man can murder his wives, his children, and his grandchildren in "honor" killings; they are considered "honor" killings because they restore the damaged honor of a gang member so that he will not be attacked by fellow gang members. honor can be lost when a wife, a child, a son's wife, or a grandchild does something against sharia. when this happens, it is imperative that the offender be punished so that the gang member is seen as strong. love is not a concept with which the average muslim in muslim-run nations is familiar. westernized muslims, OTOH, usually live much different lives than their fellow believers in muslim lands, particularly when they live in westernized countries.
once the ulema (muslim clergy in general) decided that science was blasphemy because it questioned allah, all scientific inquiry other than the minimal efforts of conquered peoples ended. this navel-gazing caused islamic armies to begin to fall behind the armies of other nations technologically, and after the fall of constantinople and many of the states of the balkan peninsula, islam stopped its encroachments on civilization, because their troops were no longer able to keep up with european troops. on 1839-11-03, the edict of Gülhane proclaimed all subjects of the ottoman empire to be equal, regardless of religion, but this was only because the sultan wanted backing from the british empire in a conflict with muhammad ali pasha, ruler of egypt, and a former/current subordinate. on 1856-02-18, the ottomans needed british, french, and austrian help against the russians in the crimea, so they issued the hatt-i humayan, the reform edict of 1856, which ended the protection racket of the jizya, and allowed non-muslims to serve in the ottoman army. it has been a bit longer than 150 years since then, but already, non-muslims in the west have forgotten jizya and the dhimma. they - *WE* - don't know the history of islam, and *WE* will lose their freedom if *WE* don't learn it again, and soon.
but don't take my word for it; do your own research. the truth is the best argument, so search out the truth for yourself, and if U can prove that islam is safe, U should be fearless in showing others the truth. what better way to shut down a knuckle-dragging racist like me than by citing islamic scriptures and texts to disprove my thesis?
Comments
Post a Comment