The Shiite Tafsirs and Hadiths seem to agree with you. I was wrong about this. I always thought it was Khaybar due to "stronghold" emphasis.
I checked on altafsir.com, it seems you are right all tafsirs say the same.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Quran has the best guidance about war and peace.
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
The Shiite Tafsirs and Hadiths seem to agree with you. I was wrong about this. I always thought it was Khaybar due to "stronghold" emphasis.
I checked on altafsir.com, it seems you are right all tafsirs say the same.
Ah, back to mind reading again. Okay, what assumptions am I making?
Exactly! My studies of the Quran focus mostly on those people who just read the book and seek their own understanding.
Well I think that's an open question. My best guess is that it was written by people who wanted to create an army and conquer other lands. And if I'm correct, then the book has done a good job of supporting those goals.
Not at all. I'm assuming we're all equal human beings. Do you claim that you and your Imams have some supernatural powers that the rest of us do not have?
To be clear, as I've said before, I'm mostly a secular humanist. That means I have FAITH that we can solve our own problems and create a wonderful world without the help of supernatural beings. (Which is good, since evidence of supernatural beings is scarce as hen's teeth.)
If we want to get philosophical for a moment, then I'm happy to acknowledge that I cannot prove that the faith I have in humanity is true. It's faith.
As for psycho-analytics, I've never claimed expertise in that domain.
Okay, so you have FAITH that a couple of hundred years ago, the word of god was revealed to Baha’u’llah. There's nothing wrong with FAITH, but I think we should be honest about it. In a recent post I just admitted an article of faith that I have.
The thing about faith is that so far most faith claims are unfalsifiable. In other words they cannot be proven or disproven. That means arguing about the veracity of faith claims is mostly a waste of time.
@KWED, the word is not enslaved here, but taken as captives. There's a difference. The Quran says captives are only allowed if there is a huge killing in the land. Was the tribe even that numerous or is this hadiths contradicting Quran injunction that Mohammad (s) will only take captives if there is a huge slaughter?
It also shows to free captives either by ransom or generosity till war ceases, which means, at that point no more ransom but free them. (See start of Surah Mohammad (s)).
Do you know the population of the tribe? They were not many from what I see in the hadiths, but you might know more sources.
Seems things are not adding up. The verse you quoted seems to about all of people of the book that fought them with polytheists, not a particular of people of the book who were on side of Prophet but betrayed him in battle. That would be an important thing to emphasize if it happened, but we do not see this mentioned in the verse or anywhere in Quran.
It also shows to free captives either by ransom or generosity till war ceases, which means, at that point no more ransom but free them. (See start of Surah Mohammad (s)).
Do you know the population of the tribe? They were not many from what I see in the hadiths, but you might know more sources.
Seems things are not adding up. The verse you quoted seems to about all of people of the book that fought them with polytheists, not a particular of people of the book who were on side of Prophet but betrayed him in battle. That would be an important thing to emphasize if it happened, but we do not see this mentioned in the verse or anywhere in Quran.
firedragon
Veteran Member
No it's not an open question nor is it just guess work. It's very specific. You just have not done any study of the book though you claim so.
This is a tafsir:
{ (67) مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَى حَتَّى يُثْخِنَ فِي الأَرْضِ } يكثر القتل ويبالغ فيه حتى يذل الكفر ويقلّ حزبه ويعزّ الإِسلام ويستولي أهله من أثخنه المرض إذا أثقله { تُرِيدُونَ عَرَضَ الدُّنْيَا } حطامها بأخذ الفداء { واللهُ يُرِيدُ الأَخِرَةَ } يريد لكم ثواب الآخرة { وَاللهُ عَزِيزٌ } يغلب أولياءه على أعدائه { حَكِيمٌ } يعلم ما يليق بكل حال ويخصّه بها قيل كان هذا يوم بدر فلمّا كثر المسلمون نزل{ فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَآءً } [محمد: 4] وقد مضى لهذه الآية وما بعدها بيان في قصة بدر.
But it emphasizes it is a lot of killing required to take captives. Also, it talks about the verse in Surah Mohammad (S):
فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا أَثْخَنْتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَاءً حَتَّىٰ تَضَعَ الْحَرْبُ أَوْزَارَهَا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ وَلَوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّهُ لَانْتَصَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَلَٰكِنْ لِيَبْلُوَ بَعْضَكُمْ بِبَعْضٍ ۗ وَالَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَلَنْ يُضِلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ | When you meet the faithless in battle, strike their necks. When you have thoroughly decimated them, bind the captives firmly. Thereafter either oblige them [by setting them free] or take ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. That [is Allah’s ordinance]. Had Allah wished He could have taken vengeance on them, but that He may test some of you by means of others. As for those who were slain in the way of Allah, He will not let their works go fruitless. | Muhammad : 4
{ (67) مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَى حَتَّى يُثْخِنَ فِي الأَرْضِ } يكثر القتل ويبالغ فيه حتى يذل الكفر ويقلّ حزبه ويعزّ الإِسلام ويستولي أهله من أثخنه المرض إذا أثقله { تُرِيدُونَ عَرَضَ الدُّنْيَا } حطامها بأخذ الفداء { واللهُ يُرِيدُ الأَخِرَةَ } يريد لكم ثواب الآخرة { وَاللهُ عَزِيزٌ } يغلب أولياءه على أعدائه { حَكِيمٌ } يعلم ما يليق بكل حال ويخصّه بها قيل كان هذا يوم بدر فلمّا كثر المسلمون نزل{ فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَآءً } [محمد: 4] وقد مضى لهذه الآية وما بعدها بيان في قصة بدر.
But it emphasizes it is a lot of killing required to take captives. Also, it talks about the verse in Surah Mohammad (S):
فَإِذَا لَقِيتُمُ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا فَضَرْبَ الرِّقَابِ حَتَّىٰ إِذَا أَثْخَنْتُمُوهُمْ فَشُدُّوا الْوَثَاقَ فَإِمَّا مَنًّا بَعْدُ وَإِمَّا فِدَاءً حَتَّىٰ تَضَعَ الْحَرْبُ أَوْزَارَهَا ۚ ذَٰلِكَ وَلَوْ يَشَاءُ اللَّهُ لَانْتَصَرَ مِنْهُمْ وَلَٰكِنْ لِيَبْلُوَ بَعْضَكُمْ بِبَعْضٍ ۗ وَالَّذِينَ قُتِلُوا فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ فَلَنْ يُضِلَّ أَعْمَالَهُمْ | When you meet the faithless in battle, strike their necks. When you have thoroughly decimated them, bind the captives firmly. Thereafter either oblige them [by setting them free] or take ransom, until the war lays down its burdens. That [is Allah’s ordinance]. Had Allah wished He could have taken vengeance on them, but that He may test some of you by means of others. As for those who were slain in the way of Allah, He will not let their works go fruitless. | Muhammad : 4
Decimated is a translation but it means killed a lot of them, a huge slaughter, its the same word used in the verse:
مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَىٰ حَتَّىٰ يُثْخِنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ ۚ تُرِيدُونَ عَرَضَ الدُّنْيَا وَاللَّهُ يُرِيدُ الْآخِرَةَ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ | A prophet may not take captives until he has thoroughly decimated [the enemy] in the land. You desire the transitory gains of this world, while Allah desires [for you] [the reward of] the Hereafter, and Allah is all-mighty, all-wise. | Al-Anfaal : 67
The tafsir explaining the word "يُثْخِنَ" translated as decimated means a huge amount of killing and defeating them (both is implied) and overtaken them, the tafsir explains the word:
يكثر القتل ويبالغ فيه حتى يذل الكفر ويقلّ حزبه ويعزّ الإِسلام ويستولي أهله من أثخنه المرض إذا أثقله
Start with the implication a lot of killing and then other things such as overcoming them and that they are defeated and belittled and Islam is strengthen over them (total victory is implied), but it cannot be without a huge amount of killing.
This is why I am saying the small tribe thing who betrayed Rasool (s) contradicts this verse. He cannot take them as captives, any of them, per this verse.
In both the verses in Surah Mohammad (s) and this one, the same word appears, but there is no direct translation. But it includes huge slaughter and totally overcoming the enemy.
مَا كَانَ لِنَبِيٍّ أَنْ يَكُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَىٰ حَتَّىٰ يُثْخِنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ ۚ تُرِيدُونَ عَرَضَ الدُّنْيَا وَاللَّهُ يُرِيدُ الْآخِرَةَ ۗ وَاللَّهُ عَزِيزٌ حَكِيمٌ | A prophet may not take captives until he has thoroughly decimated [the enemy] in the land. You desire the transitory gains of this world, while Allah desires [for you] [the reward of] the Hereafter, and Allah is all-mighty, all-wise. | Al-Anfaal : 67
The tafsir explaining the word "يُثْخِنَ" translated as decimated means a huge amount of killing and defeating them (both is implied) and overtaken them, the tafsir explains the word:
يكثر القتل ويبالغ فيه حتى يذل الكفر ويقلّ حزبه ويعزّ الإِسلام ويستولي أهله من أثخنه المرض إذا أثقله
Start with the implication a lot of killing and then other things such as overcoming them and that they are defeated and belittled and Islam is strengthen over them (total victory is implied), but it cannot be without a huge amount of killing.
This is why I am saying the small tribe thing who betrayed Rasool (s) contradicts this verse. He cannot take them as captives, any of them, per this verse.
In both the verses in Surah Mohammad (s) and this one, the same word appears, but there is no direct translation. But it includes huge slaughter and totally overcoming the enemy.
If so, then why do the various Islamic sects disagree with each other so vehemently?
That is linked to this issue. And Quran discusses it and links it to the issue, but it's also itself a whole topic that can spiral into many topics.
From a logical perspective, my question is a first order question, unless you constrain your entire set of claims to a particular sect. In other words, you can't put my question off, it needs to be answered soon, or your entire discussion is without basis.
The Quran shows disputes occur despite knowledge and clear proofs in the past. What you have to keep in mind is Ahlulbayt (a) were meant to be Kings and Masters and Leaders of Muslims. Their position was usurped from one perspective, but from another, they continue to rule the hearts and be true leaders and anointed kings (more of Jesus is king anointed by God and his authority pertains to the next world type perspective).
They are an essential component to understanding Quran.
However, Shiites copy pasted following scholars, Ilmel Rijaal and other things from Sunni methodology, and so we too are divided, rather then following Ahlulbayt (a) advice on how to approach Quran and Sunnah.
@icehorse
A previous post on this:
I wrote the following in a book I was trying to publish (and it still might be)
Chapter 3 – The disparagement of the differences of clergy attributed to Imam Ali
There is an important sermon as far as this paradox goes, found in Nahjul Balagha. Again, our concern is not the authenticity of the chain or sermon, but giving words if they are words of guidance, a chance to guide and provide insights.
The sermon we will be looking at in this chapter is as follows
When a problem is put before anyone of them he passes judgement on it from his imagination. When exactly the same problem is placed before another of them he passes an opposite verdict. Then these judges go to the chief who had appointed them and he confirms all the verdicts, although their Allah is One (and the same), their Prophet is one (and the same), their Book (the Qur’an) is one (and the same)!
Is it that Allah ordered them to differ and they obeyed Him? Or He prohibited them from it but they disobeyed Him? Or (is it that) Allah sent an incomplete Faith and sought their help to complete it? Or they are His partners in the affairs, so that it is their share of duty to pronounce and He has to agree? Or is it that Allah the Glorified sent a perfect faith but the Prophet fell short of conveying it and handing it over (to the people)? The fact is that Allah the Glorified says:
We have not neglected anything in the Book (Qur’an) . . . (6:38),
and in it is a ‘clarification of everything’ And He says that one part of the Qur’an verifies another part and that there is no divergence in it as He says:
.And if it had been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found in it much discrepancy. (4:82)
Certainly the outside of the Qur’an is wonderful and its inside is deep (in meaning). Its wonders will never disappear, its amazements will never pass away and its darkness (plural form) cannot be cleared except through itself.
This sermon shows the differences arose and Imam Ali comments on them. First condemnation is passing a judgement not on knowledge but imagination. The Quran also forbids attributing God what we do not know. Another person placed with another, they come with an opposite verdict. This means they can’t all be correct. Then the chief that appointed them confirms all their verdicts. This is exactly how Taqlid is done today. They differ but it’s accepted that we can follow any of them. Obviously the chief appointing them didn’t want to say both judgments are true, rather, he is saying which ever one you follow it doesn’t matter, for they are “attempting” to follow God and his Messenger.
Then Imam Ali begins with some rhetorical questions. God didn’t order them to differ rather we see in Quran, unity upon Quran and Sunnah is the advice, and not to differ. The notion that God wants us to differ and accepts the differences, is a notion we hold today. But the Quran has in fact commanded the opposite and said without understanding (Fiqh) our hearts will be divided even if people may think we are united.
The rope of God is meant to be a source of unity, but when it becomes a source of conflict and division, it’s obviously not guiding. So that poses the next question.
Or is it that God sent an incomplete faith? Certainly, God has sent a guidance and way to unite on guidance, so if we aren’t following that guidance, it’s due to rebellion and insincerity on our part.
The Imam shows then a more sinister intention in all this. He asks, that if they are in fact partners with God in the affair, and this goes to a verse in the 42nd chapter of Quran. The leader and guide Ali is showing that people who follow such leaders in fact, are associating with God heedlessly.
The Imam continues and then advices on the role of the Sunnah, he says or is it God sent a perfect religion, but the Prophet didn’t convey it and fell short of manifesting it?
He then refutes all these rhetorical questions and shows in fact, the Quran has an amazing quality of guiding humans through all their differences and it’s implied with the last reference to the Prophet, that the Sunnah compliments it and provides insight to it.
The Captain and Navigator of the ship of Salvation, Imam Ali, explains, that different parts of Quran explain different parts.
The last line is the most significant phrase for the purposes of the paradox. Its darkness which is in plural form, mean all the type of darkness which is a hint to the verse 3:7 and what is meant by ambiguity from it is to be cleared through itself.
And the Quran clarifies itself, but through the help of Ahlulbayt (as). The Sunnah of the Messenger was complimenting the Quran as it was dynamically built.
And here while we should provide hadiths to clarify Quran, we have to prove at the end Quranic signs and insights by Quran insights, since hadiths can always be denied.
But as anyone can talk a bunch of nonsense about Quran any right interpretation must be supported by hadiths as well. When hadiths are shown there is weight to the words and explanation, and it becomes easier to see it in Quran.
Without hadiths to support, there is no reason to give weight to the words. We can see this in the notion, did the Prophet fall short of conveying. Similar rhetorical question, did Ahlulbayt (as) leave any aspect of the religion aside and not protected?
A previous post on this:
I wrote the following in a book I was trying to publish (and it still might be)
Chapter 3 – The disparagement of the differences of clergy attributed to Imam Ali
There is an important sermon as far as this paradox goes, found in Nahjul Balagha. Again, our concern is not the authenticity of the chain or sermon, but giving words if they are words of guidance, a chance to guide and provide insights.
The sermon we will be looking at in this chapter is as follows
When a problem is put before anyone of them he passes judgement on it from his imagination. When exactly the same problem is placed before another of them he passes an opposite verdict. Then these judges go to the chief who had appointed them and he confirms all the verdicts, although their Allah is One (and the same), their Prophet is one (and the same), their Book (the Qur’an) is one (and the same)!
Is it that Allah ordered them to differ and they obeyed Him? Or He prohibited them from it but they disobeyed Him? Or (is it that) Allah sent an incomplete Faith and sought their help to complete it? Or they are His partners in the affairs, so that it is their share of duty to pronounce and He has to agree? Or is it that Allah the Glorified sent a perfect faith but the Prophet fell short of conveying it and handing it over (to the people)? The fact is that Allah the Glorified says:
We have not neglected anything in the Book (Qur’an) . . . (6:38),
and in it is a ‘clarification of everything’ And He says that one part of the Qur’an verifies another part and that there is no divergence in it as He says:
.And if it had been from any other than Allah, they would surely have found in it much discrepancy. (4:82)
Certainly the outside of the Qur’an is wonderful and its inside is deep (in meaning). Its wonders will never disappear, its amazements will never pass away and its darkness (plural form) cannot be cleared except through itself.
This sermon shows the differences arose and Imam Ali comments on them. First condemnation is passing a judgement not on knowledge but imagination. The Quran also forbids attributing God what we do not know. Another person placed with another, they come with an opposite verdict. This means they can’t all be correct. Then the chief that appointed them confirms all their verdicts. This is exactly how Taqlid is done today. They differ but it’s accepted that we can follow any of them. Obviously the chief appointing them didn’t want to say both judgments are true, rather, he is saying which ever one you follow it doesn’t matter, for they are “attempting” to follow God and his Messenger.
Then Imam Ali begins with some rhetorical questions. God didn’t order them to differ rather we see in Quran, unity upon Quran and Sunnah is the advice, and not to differ. The notion that God wants us to differ and accepts the differences, is a notion we hold today. But the Quran has in fact commanded the opposite and said without understanding (Fiqh) our hearts will be divided even if people may think we are united.
The rope of God is meant to be a source of unity, but when it becomes a source of conflict and division, it’s obviously not guiding. So that poses the next question.
Or is it that God sent an incomplete faith? Certainly, God has sent a guidance and way to unite on guidance, so if we aren’t following that guidance, it’s due to rebellion and insincerity on our part.
The Imam shows then a more sinister intention in all this. He asks, that if they are in fact partners with God in the affair, and this goes to a verse in the 42nd chapter of Quran. The leader and guide Ali is showing that people who follow such leaders in fact, are associating with God heedlessly.
The Imam continues and then advices on the role of the Sunnah, he says or is it God sent a perfect religion, but the Prophet didn’t convey it and fell short of manifesting it?
He then refutes all these rhetorical questions and shows in fact, the Quran has an amazing quality of guiding humans through all their differences and it’s implied with the last reference to the Prophet, that the Sunnah compliments it and provides insight to it.
The Captain and Navigator of the ship of Salvation, Imam Ali, explains, that different parts of Quran explain different parts.
The last line is the most significant phrase for the purposes of the paradox. Its darkness which is in plural form, mean all the type of darkness which is a hint to the verse 3:7 and what is meant by ambiguity from it is to be cleared through itself.
And the Quran clarifies itself, but through the help of Ahlulbayt (as). The Sunnah of the Messenger was complimenting the Quran as it was dynamically built.
And here while we should provide hadiths to clarify Quran, we have to prove at the end Quranic signs and insights by Quran insights, since hadiths can always be denied.
But as anyone can talk a bunch of nonsense about Quran any right interpretation must be supported by hadiths as well. When hadiths are shown there is weight to the words and explanation, and it becomes easier to see it in Quran.
Without hadiths to support, there is no reason to give weight to the words. We can see this in the notion, did the Prophet fall short of conveying. Similar rhetorical question, did Ahlulbayt (as) leave any aspect of the religion aside and not protected?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Irrelevant.
Fact is, you have not studied the book while claiming otherwise. No clue whatsoever.
Your mind reading skills are very weak, don't quit your day job.
I'll say this one more time and then I'm done with this point:
I acknowledge that I have not studied the book the way you have. I'm also happy to acknowledge that it appears that you've studied the book in a way consistent with many religious scholars. And that's fine.
But I've studied the book from a different perspective. AFAIK, my perspective is somewhat unique. That doesn't make mine better or worse than yours, just different.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Then answer a simple question. Since you have studied the Qur'an so well, what does the book say about its audience? Who is it addressing?
It's such a simple question asked from someone who claims to have studied it.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Nah. You are just making conjecture about me based on your bias. Bigotry.
You have studied it differently you claim. No problem. In any way you study the book, it says in plain language who it's addressing. Just a simple sentence.
So who is it. It's written in the book. One just has to read it a little. But since you claim to have studied it, you should know better than most. Since you don't know, just say so.
firedragon
Veteran Member
Those Shiite scholars must have been total heedless to the secrets in it, for example in the Tafsir:
The Holy Prophet (S) said: When the Jews prayed through the medium of Muhammad and Aale Muhammad, Allah helped them to win over the polytheists. O people of the Ummah of Muhammad (S), beware, when you face any difficulty, invoke through the right of Muhammad and Aale Muhammad, so that Allah may make your angels victorious on those satans who want to harm you.
Each of you has an angel at the right who records your enemy’s wickedness and two shaitaans from Iblees also remain with everyone, who give evil suggestions. When they put doubt in the mind of a person and he says: Laa H’awla Walaa Quwwata illaa billaahil A’lyyil A’z’eem wa S’allallaahu a’laa muh’ammadin wa aalihit’ t’ayyibeenat’ t’aahireen, (There is no strength except by Allah, the High and the Mighty, and may Allah bless Muhammad and his purified progeny) both the Shaitans are disgraced and they go back and complain to Iblees the accursed, saying:
We have become helpless in their case, help us with your other shaitaans; and that reprobate helps them. So much so, that finally he sends a thousand devils to help them. They come together to this believer and when they intend to harm him, he invokes Allah’s name and recites durood on Muhammad and Aale Muhammad (a.s.).
For this reason, they became disappointed and cannot subdue him and at last they go back to Iblees and say: None, except you, is capable, go to him with your army and mislead him from the right path. So he takes his army, is about to set out when Allah calls to His angels: My angels, see, the accursed Iblees is going, along with his army, to such and such servant or maidservant of Mine. You all go and fight with them.
Thus Allah sends a hundred thousand angels for every shaitaan. They ride on horses of fire carrying swords, bows and arrows and knives of fire. They wound and kill the accursed ones and arrest Iblees and hold him beneath their weapons. Iblees says: O my Lord, You promised to keep me alive till Qiyamat. Allah says to His angels: I promised not kill him; but not that I will not involve him in difficulties and wrath.
Injure him with your attacks, I will not allow him to die. The angels wound him and leave him shedding tears for his dead children and for himself and his wound does not heal till the cries of infidelity of the polytheists do not reach his ears. If the believer continues to remember Allah and recites durood on Muhammad and Aale Muhammad (a.s.), the wounds of Iblees do not heal and if a believer becomes careless, his wounds heal up and he brings him under his control and puts a bridle on his mouth like a horse, then rides on his back.
Then he dismounts and makes another Shaitan ride on his back. He tells his disciples: Do you remember how much disgrace we suffered for this man? Now he has become so obedient to us that we ride on him.
Then His Eminence (S) said: If you want to involve Shaitan in sorrow and pain, you must always remain busy in Allah’s obedience and divine remembrance; and recite durood on Muhammad and Aale Muhammad (a.s.). If you become careless, you will become a prisoner of Iblees and some of his disciples will ride on your back.
Amirul Momineen (a.s.) said: It was a well known fact in ancient times, that whenever you invoke Allah for the sake of Muhammad and his purified progeny, your prayer would be accepted and all your needs will be fulfilled. So much so, that whenever a person’s affliction prolonged, they said he has forgotten to pray to Allah through the medium of Muhammad and Aale Muhammad.
My comment: Those aware of this secret, will know these are indeed words of a luminous heart. Not a fabricator.
We've covered this ground before. And after a few months, I give you another chance. I have not lied once in this discussion. And, as you have done in the past, you ultimately resort to calling me a liar. I don't have time for you.
Perhaps someday you'll learn to be a better apologist for Islam. As it stands, you behave like the poster child for why Islam has a bad reputation with so many people.
firedragon
Veteran Member
So who is it. It's written in the book. Don't avoid the question.
Since you claim to have studied it.