The qur'an

[Bismillah]

Furthermore I would like to add that to all your claims of religion hindering its followers, after Jews and their own admirable success in the United States, Muslims have the highest averages in a higher education and income.

 

[England my lionheart]

or Us army or or .....

Morality of the thread, Don't throw stones on others if you live in a house made of glass.

Arabs 75—80%, Kurds 15-20%, Turkmen 5%,[5][6][7] Assyrian/Chaldean 5%.[8]

Languages
Further information: Languages of Iraq
Arabic, Kurdish, Persian, Turkish, Azerbaijani, Neo-Aramaic Languages, Mandaic, Armenian, Adyghe

Religions
Muslim 95% (Shi'a 65%, Sunni 35%), Christian and others 3%-5% (Yezidi, Mandian, Kakai, Yarisan, etc.) 1-2%.[1]

 

[Autodidact]

O.K., I'll grab a few.

O.K., we start with statistics on happiness, admittedly subjective and hard to measure. (we'll look at prosperity etc. next.) Here's the 2005 World Values survey info.

# 1 Iceland: 94%
= 2 Sweden: 91%
= 2 Denmark: 91%
= 2 Netherlands: 91%
# 5 Australia: 90%
= 6 Ireland: 89%
= 6 Switzerland: 89%
# 8 Norway: 88%
= 9 United Kingdom: 87%
= 9 Venezuela: 87%
# 11 Belgium: 86%
# 12 Philippines: 85%
= 13 United States: 84%
= 13 France: 84%
# 15 Finland: 83%
# 16 Austria: 81%
# 17 Canada: 75%
# 18 Poland: 74%
# 19 Japan: 72%
# 20 Turkey: 71%
# 21 Bangladesh: 70%
# 22 Spain: 68%
# 23 Italy: 64%
# 24 Uruguay: 60%
= 25 Brazil: 59%
= 25 Argentina: 59%
# 27 Azerbaijan: 56%
# 28 Chile: 52%
# 29 China: 49%
= 30 Mexico: 48%
= 30 Portugal: 48%
# 32 Dominican Republic: 47%
= 33 Hungary: 46%
= 33 Nigeria: 46%
# 35 Ghana: 43%
# 36 India: 40%
# 37 Slovenia: 32%
# 38 Croatia: 31%
= 39 Georgia: 27%
= 39 Latvia: 27%
# 41 Estonia: 26%
# 42 Romania: 23%
# 43 Armenia: 14%
# 44 Lithuania: 10%
# 45 Slovakia: 4%
# 46 Russia: 2%
# 47 Ukraine: -4%
# 48 Belarus: -8%
# 49 Moldova: -12%
# 50 Bulgaria:
As you can see, of the these 50 countries, no Muslim countries appear in the top ten for happiness. The first to make an appearance is Turkey, the most secular Muslim country, at #20. the top 19 are all secular democracies.

Here's a map:

Those broad swaths of yellow that cover most of the Muslim world = human misery. Looks like there's a little joy in Suadi Arabia and outright contentment in Brunei, bur overall, it's a bleak, yellow picture.

Here's a really nice resource with an excellent interactive map. I can't import it--you have to click the link. Basically, most happiness = Europe, North America, Australia, Japan. Least happiness = Dar al Islam, with an exception for Saudi Arabia, which manages to match Eastern Europe.

 

[Bismillah]

Look at that look at that. You argue for Qur'anic evidence and I refute that we take our evidence from the Qur'an Hadith and Sunnah, since none of us are Qur'anists.

And you go and portray a picture that pertains nothing with religion and more with the fact that each of those yellow countries were raped by the secular governments of the West.

The irony is too much.

 

[Autodidact]

You would wish for it to be irrelevant, yet Islamic society rejected the racist connotations that held every other part of the world in ignominy. Quite relevant indeed when you look at the history of cherished secular societies that justified their continual repression of others based on a false sense of superiority.

It's irrelevant because we're not discussing racism, we're discussing slavery. You're right though, throughout history Muslim slaver traders have captures slaves from every nation they conquered, whether white, black or brown.

I have no business talking to people who ignore my posts. Reread what I said, reread what I said of slave traffickers. Do not come to me with a snide attitude and for me to take your ignorance in stride.

What did you post that I ignored?

My position on slavery is the same as that of Islam's which has proven to be both more forthcoming and understanding on the matter. Secular law is by nature flawed by the humans who create them.

O.K., so I take it that you believe that slavery should be legal? You disagree with secular law that prohibits it? Just trying to be sure I understand you.

And you represent the worst that I see in the West a blind eye towards their years of colonialism. How pathetic, that one would deny their role in the destruction of so many communities, Islamic, Christian, and Polytheistic they all suffered under your cherished secular law.

The point is, what are Muslim nations going to do about that? Are they going to continue to wallow in povery, ignorance and misery, while blaming their colonial past? Or are they going to take their destiny into their own hands and move into the modern world? Or, are they going to take their destiny into their own hands, but decide instead to retreat to the medieval world of Sharia?

From here on out you lose any shred of credibility you once had. Anyone with a partial knoweldge of Islamic jurisprudence knows that the application of Islamic law and Shariah ended with the death of Ali and only briefly resurfaced under the most pious of Caliphs.

I only wish this were true. I wish that the people of Iran and Saudi Arabia were not suffering under the yoke of Sharia law.

Muslim states with blended sources of law: Muslim countries including Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Nigeria, Sudan, Morocco and Malaysia have legal systems strongly influenced by Sharia, but also cede ultimate authority to their constitutions and the rule of law. These countries conduct democratic elections, although some are also under the influence of authoritarian leaders. In these countries, politicians and jurists make law, rather than religious scholars. Most of these countries have modernized their laws and now have legal systems with significant differences when compared to classical Sharia.[38]
Muslim states using classical Sharia: Saudi Arabia and some of the Gulf states do not have constitutions or legislatures. Their rulers have limited authority to change laws, since they are based on Sharia as it is interpreted by their religious scholars. Iran shares some of these characteristics, but also has a parliament that legislates in a manner consistent with Sharia.

Do not lecture me on India and Pakistan I know full well the history of both. And I know that you are speaking from an untenable position that holds no regard to the actual history of Pakistan and that in your attempts to slander Islam you negate the responsibility of the people who are responsible for the deaths and destruction there.

Remember, you need to make arguments, not mere assertions. You need to show us that Islam has nothing to do with why India is doing so much better than Pakistan.

How is Islam working for me? Islam is working for me perfectly and I cannot imagine my life without it. I do not drink, I do not pursue girls for hookups, and I have never encountered the need for the word "sober" in my lexicon.

Not Islam, but placing responsibility for the problems of Muslims on colonialism, rather than empowering Muslims to take control of their own destinies.

Of course you have empty accusation and hate to fill the way to your judgments pitiful.

Please quote any part of my post that expressed hate for anyone. I do hate supersition, ignorance and oppression, I agree with that. I don't hate Muslims; I feel compassion for them.

 

[Badran]

Sure, here's what it says:

In the case that the husband is at fault and the woman is interested in divorce, she can petition a judge for divorce, with cause. She would be required to offer proof that her husband had not fulfilled his marital responsibilities. If the woman had specified certain conditions that are Islamically accepted in her marriage contract, which were not met by the husband, she could obtain a conditional divorce.[emphasis added] As you can see, from your source, a husband can divorce his wife any time, for no reason. The wife, OTOH, must ask a judge and prove that the husband is at fault. The two cases are not the same. They are different. It is not equal.

Thanks for replying to my angry post in a calm manner.

I don't understand why You missed the first part of the quote:

The divorce initiated by the wife is known as Khul' (if the husband is not at fault) and requires that the wife return her dowry to end the marriage because she is the 'contract-breaker'. In the instance of Talaaq, where the husband is the 'contract-breaker', he must pay the dowry in full in cases where all or part of it was deferred, or allow the wife to keep all of it if she has already been given it in full.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2328082-post158.html

If this is still not obvious for anybody, go ahead and ask.

Abibi tried to present a ridiculous concept that Allah really intended to outlaw slavery eventually, when Muslims became perfect and obeyed the law, but since that has never happened and obviously never will, then under Islam slavery remains legal to this day. I note that under Abibi's scenario, which has not a shred of support in the qur'an (the subject of this thread) Allah is either not all-powerful, not all-knowing or not all-merciful. That is, according to Abibi, He chose a plan that would not work, and which He should have known would not work.

I hope you can bare with me, because i'll refrain from further discussing anything, until we clarify a couple of things.

Oh, o.k., what subject in the qur'an would you like to cover? Did you want to talk about slavery some more, and how it is permitted in the qur'an, or what subject exactly did you want to discuss? I am happy to discuss the second-class status of women. What subject would you like to talk about?

I almost thought you were serious, and that we're actually going to carry on with discussing your claims without the irrelevant stuff (which i clarified that i won't discuss anything further until you stop posting), yet to be instantly proven wrong:

O.K., we start with statistics on happiness, admittedly subjective and hard to measure. (we'll look at prosperity etc. next.) Here's the 2005 World Values survey info.

# 1 Iceland: 94%
= 2 Sweden: 91%
= 2 Denmark: 91%
= 2 Netherlands: 91%
# 5 Australia: 90%
= 6 Ireland: 89%
= 6 Switzerland: 89%

..........................


As you can see, of the these 50 countries, no Muslim countries appear in the top ten for happiness. The first to make an appearance is Turkey, the most secular Muslim country, at #20. the top 19 are all secular democracies.

May be when you're through making a joke out of this thread, we can have a serious discussion.

Rather than just declare my conclusions wrong, it is incumbent on you to actually make an argument by using the qur'an (the one you say I'm ignorant of) to show that I'm wrong.

Actually, other Muslims and i have made plenty of arguments, its not my fault that you failed to address them. May be its because you're too busy with your irrelevant points trying to convince everyone that Islam makes your life miserable.

I don't hate Muslims; I feel compassion for them.

I wish you meant that. I don't think so though:

Apparently Muslims think an appropriate way to deal with criticism is murder.

Apparently your compassion for Muslims, didn't stop you from slandering them.

Neither has your compassion for them stopped you from trying to take advantage of their misfortunes, and the poor conditions they experience today on various levels due to various reasons, to promote secularism and attack their religion, in a thread thats supposed to be addressing their holy book.

 

[Bismillah]

It's irrelevant because we're not discussing racism, we're discussing slavery. You're right though, throughout history Muslim slaver traders have captures slaves from every nation they conquered, whether white, black or brown

No it is highly relevent because racisim has been the validation to the Wests slavery and is instrumental in the fact that Islamic lands and Muslims never descended into the barbarity of the Europeans.

Remember, you need to make arguments, not mere assertions. You need to show us that Islam has nothing to do with why India is doing so much better than Pakistan.

No so sorry, you made the claim you defend it. Because there is an apt idiom that describes this situation in America it's called pulling facts out of one's ***.

Let me give you an embarrassing fact Muslims in India live by Islamic law.

What did you post that I ignored?

Obviously if you ask such a simplistic question you have ignored my post. I am not going to sit here while an adult screws their ears shut and asks questions that I've answered.

O.K., so I take it that you believe that slavery should be legal? You disagree with secular law that prohibits it? Just trying to be sure I understand you.

That isn't the statement that Islam clearly makes and furthermore I have concluded that there never was such a thing as slavery under the Rashidun.

The point is, what are Muslim nations going to do about that? Are they going to continue to wallow in poverty, ignorance and misery, while blaming their colonial past? Or are they going to take their destiny into their own hands and move into the modern world? Or, are they going to take their destiny into their own hands, but decide instead to retreat to the medieval world of Sharia?

So sorry to tell you but it is quite irrelevant what the Muslim world will do, the puppets of the West are quite happy to reenact their pantomime.

I only wish this were true. I wish that the people of Iran and Saudi Arabia were not suffering under the yoke of Sharia law.

You clearly lack the basic knowledge of what Shariah law is.

Not Islam, but placing responsibility for the problems of Muslims on colonialism, rather than empowering Muslims to take control of their own destinies.

Please petition your government to stop funding and sending military supplies to despotic regimes in the Mid East if you would desire such a thing.

 

[nameless]

Juwayriya belonged to a tribe that secretly took actions to wage war against the Muslims. The armies converged and the Prophet appealed for peace and instead they chose to fight.

When the Muslims emerged victorious her husband was killed in the fighting and her tribe was captured.

She found herself enslaved and declared her mukatabah and appealed to the Prophet. The Prophet was so moved by her case that he offered to pay her ransom in full if she agreed to marry him. She was so shocked and moved by the kind response that she agreed in full.

In time her father and the rest of her tribe also converted to Islam.

the question is, why muhammad gave Juwayriya to his companion Thabit b. Qays b. Al-Shammas as a slave when her family was alive? and before Muhammads proposed Juwayria, her father requested muhammad to release her, but muhammad was not ready .....

 

[Bismillah]

the question is, why muhammad gave Juwayriya as a slave to his companion Thabit b. Qays b. Al-Shammas when her family was alive? and before Juwariah marrying muhammad, her father requested muhammad to release her, but muhammad was not ready .....

No she issued her Makataba at her free will and would have been able to free herself whenever she raised enough funds.

The Prophet only offered to pay her ransom when she pleaded her case.

Her father and her family had participated in a treacherous war against the Muslims even when sued for peace. They weren't in a position to demand anything.

Regardless, when their intentions of peace and wish to integrate in society were shown they were released and the tribe in time converted to Islam.

 

[nameless]

No she issued her Makataba at her free will and would have been able to free herself whenever she raised enough funds.

i dont understand...... what is makataba?
why she need money to free herselves? pls explain ..

 

[Autodidact]

No it is highly relevent because racisim has been the validation to the Wests slavery and is instrumental in the fact that Islamic lands and Muslims never descended into the barbarity of the Europeans.

I don't think slavery based on religion is any better than slavery based on race, do you? In any case, most slaves owned by Muslims historically came from Africa, and it was principally Arab Muslims who captured and sold African slaves.

No so sorry, you made the claim you defend it.

I did. India and Pakistan share an identical colonial history, yet India is prospering, while Pakistan remains mired in discord, illiteracy and poverty. Do you disagree?

Because there is an apt idiom that describes this situation in America it's called pulling facts out of one's ***.

You need me to document the relative economic growth of India vs. Pakistan?

Let me give you an embarrassing fact Muslims in India live by Islamic law.

Yes, that is embarassing. I would be embarassed too, if I lived by a law that recognized slavery and treated women as second class citizens.

Of course, the Indian Constitution grants all citizens freedom of religion. This contrasts sharply with Pakistan, where non-Muslims are persecuted and even executed.

Obviously if you ask such a simplistic question you have ignored my post. I am not going to sit here while an adult screws their ears shut and asks questions that I've answered.

O.K., Well if I ever neglect to respond to a question, please bring it to my attention. Bear in mind that reading and understanding your posts does not imply that I agree with them, and conversely, disagreement does not imply failure to read.

That isn't the statement that Islam clearly makes

Did you want to argue that the qur'an does prohibit slavery? That Muhammad did not own slaves? Please, go ahead.
So, would you answer my question: Slavery--are you for, or against?

and furthermore I have concluded that there never was such a thing as slavery under the Rashidun.

So what you're saying is that Muhammad and his companions owned slaves, then suddenly the Rashidun prohibited it? On what do you base that odd conclusion?

Do you agree with wiki:

The Qur'an includes multiple references to slaves, slave women, slave concubinage, and the freeing of slaves. It accepts the institution of slavery. It may be noted that the word 'abd' (slave) is rarely used, being more commonly replaced by some periphrasis such as ma malakat aymanukum ("that which your right hands own"). The Qur'an recognizes the basic inequality between master and slave and the rights of the former over the latter.

In Islamic jurisprudence, enslavement was sanctioned by God as punishment for unbelief
Shaun E. Marmon, ed. Slavery in the Islamic Middle East, Markus Wiener Publishers, Princeton (1999), page vii.

Do you disagree?

"It began in the middle of the seventh century and survives today in Mauritania and Sudan. With the Islamic slave trade, we're talking of 14 centuries rather than four."
Ronald Segal, Islam's Black Slaves.

 

[Bismillah]

I don't think slavery based on religion is any better than slavery based on race, do you? In any case, most slaves owned by Muslims historically came from Africa, and it was principally Arab Muslims who captured and sold African slaves.

I disagree one is inherently more evil, but good thing no such thing is prescribed in Islam for either case.

I did. India and Pakistan share an identical colonial history, yet India is prospering, while Pakistan remains mired in discord, illiteracy and poverty. Do you disagree?

Maybe it would be more appropriate to look at their post-colonial history...

Yes, that is embarassing. I would be embarassed too, if I lived by a law that recognized slavery and treated women as second class citizens.

Of course, the Indian Constitution grants all citizens freedom of religion. This contrasts sharply with Pakistan, where non-Muslims are persecuted and even executed.

No it's embarrassing because it aptly shows you know absolutely nothing of the claims you make. It is embarrassing because Shariah law is implemented in India and yet you try and paint the picture as if Islam hindered Pakistan. It is embarrassing that such a person would openly reveal their ignorance.

O.K., Well if I ever neglect to respond to a question, please bring it to my attention. Bear in mind that reading and understanding your posts does not imply that I agree with them, and conversely, disagreement does not imply failure to read.

Asking a question I clearly answered IS an explicit admission that you did not read my post.

Did you want to argue that the qur'an does prohibit slavery? That Muhammad did not own slaves? Please, go ahead.
So, would you answer my question: Slavery--are you for, or against?

Are you really this thick?

Do you disagree?

Of course I do. So why don't you go through my post and tell me where the hadith and verses are wrong.

 

[kai]

What do you mean except warfare? The only time it is permitted to hold slaves is when it is a necessary strategic decision. Anything less than that would have resulted in the absolute collapse of the Ummah period.

These aren't even slaves we are talking about. Tell me where else a slave can petition and demand his freedom? Tell me where else a slave can insult and threaten to assassinate a Rashidun and in turn is not harmed nor harassed. Tell me where else those who use deciet and war unprovoked are given such mercy and the chance to integrate in their new society as they wish.

No where and most definitely not in Europe which clung to slavery until it was no longer economically viable and even then held former slaves as substandard beings.

There were no slave raids during the time of the Prophet or the Rashidun Caliphates. Only when we forsake Shariah did we revert to the barbarism that was so common in the world though never ever to the degree of the Europeans.



And yet the Prophet and the Caliphs agreed with you, in this progressive style of thinking they agreed with you, centuries before Europe took the tentative steps to abolish slavery.

Abibi its a pity that the enlightenment only lasted a few decades. Its a little overshadowed by the millions of slaves taken by the Islamic Empires over centuries. I think its a little odd that Muslims found justification for slavery from around 650AD up to and including the present day, if what you say is true how did they miss it? I mean its a little rich to expect non Muslims to understand it if Muslims have been misunderstanding the Quran and Hadith on purpose or otherwise and taking millions of slaves over a 1300 year period don't you think?

 

[SLAMH]

Arabs 75—80%, Kurds 15-20%, Turkmen 5%,[5][6][7] Assyrian/Chaldean 5%.[8]

Languages
Further information: Languages of Iraq
Arabic, Kurdish, Persian, Turkish, Azerbaijani, Neo-Aramaic Languages, Mandaic, Armenian, Adyghe

Religions
Muslim 95% (Shi'a 65%, Sunni 35%), Christian and others 3%-5% (Yezidi, Mandian, Kakai, Yarisan, etc.) 1-2%.[1]

 

[SLAMH]

I think its a little odd that Muslims found justification for slavery from around 650AD up to and including the present day, if what you say is true how did they miss it?

I thought the thread is about Qura'n, and not about what mistakes Muslims have done for centuries.
I do agree that Muslims had done miserable and unprovoked acts, but what this has to do with Qur'an or Islam. It is not odd that Muslims find justification for it, it is the fact that some of them wanted to do it. Parallel to this, they could manipulate the meaning of verses to fit and rationalize their own interest, in addition do not forget that Islamic scholars during that time were hindered and not permitted to say the truth. If they tried to point to the leaders that what they were doing is wrong and not allowed in Islam, they would end up in prison if they were lucky. Otherwise, they would be beheaded certainly.

I mean its a little rich to expect non Muslims to understand it if Muslims have been misunderstanding the Quran and Hadith on purpose or otherwise and taking millions of slaves over a 1300 year period don't you think?

I agree, but I don't think its Muslim's problem if non-Muslims do not want to understand. They should look around them to see that these things happened everywhere, not only in Islamic history.

 

[A-ManESL]

Thats okay.
That our knowledge today, must contribute to how we approach the Quran. Logic must be in the process. I don't believe in strictly thinking like this neither. I understand that there are many things we can't understand, are these the things you're referring to which we should think about in the way you explained (which i would appreciate it if you explained again)?

I hold that the method of the Quran is simple and direct. Its appeal is to the elemental imaginative feeling of Man, to try to invoke the natural feelings of Godliness inside him. I do not hold that the Quran employs dialectical devices or dense arguments. It has an approach so that a simple person stripped of all philosophical and logical theory can understand its primary message of "Believe and do righteousness". Its essential motive is to appeal to each person's heart and not to their brains.

As such, it is a tragedy that after the early generation of Quranic commentators, the understanding of the Quran got mired in dense theology. Influenced partly by Greek thought, the theologians started dialectical disquisition of the Quran which imparted a meaning of the Quran which was never meant to be. A reverse reaction to this was the limits to understanding set up by the later Quranic commentators. In all this, the approach of the Quran which was really a heart to heart talk between God and man was lost and the allegories and metaphors were either set up in stone or in meaning entirely alien to the Quran (by way of reaction).

Hence I hold that the knowledge needed to understand the Quran is inherently already present inside man since time immemorial. This knowledge is invoked by the inherent urge towards the Absolute which each one of has in some measure.

Regards

 

[kai]

I thought the thread is about Qura'n, and not about what mistakes Muslims have done for centuries. It is about the Quran and the fact that Muslims justify their actions with the same Quran.
I do agree that Muslims had done miserable and unprovoked acts, but what this has to do with Qur'an or Islam. It is not odd that Muslims find justification for it, it is the fact that some of them wanted to do it. Parallel to this, they could manipulate the meaning of verses to fit and rationalize their own interest, in addition do not forget that Islamic scholars during that time were hindered and not permitted to say the truth. If they tried to point to the leaders that what they were doing is wrong and not allowed in Islam, they would end up in prison if they were lucky. Otherwise, they would be beheaded certainly.
For 1300 years?


I agree, but I don't think its Muslim's problem if non-Muslims do not want to understand. They should look around them to see that these things happened everywhere, not only in Islamic history.

Sure thing but when people say the Quran says this the Quran says that. non believers kind of expect believers to do what it says and according to them they do.

 

[Badran]

I hold that the method of the Quran is simple and direct. Its appeal is to the elemental imaginative feeling of Man, to try to invoke the natural feelings of Godliness inside him. I do not hold that the Quran employs dialectical devices or dense arguments. It has an approach so that a simple person stripped of all philosophical and logical theory can understand its primary message of "Believe and do righteousness". Its essential motive is to appeal to each person's heart and not to their brains.

As such, it is a tragedy that after the early generation of Quranic commentators, the understanding of the Quran got mired in dense theology. Influenced partly by Greek thought, the theologians started dialectical disquisition of the Quran which imparted a meaning of the Quran which was never meant to be. A reverse reaction to this was the limits to understanding set up by the later Quranic commentators. In all this, the approach of the Quran which was really a heart to heart talk between God and man was lost and the allegories and metaphors were either set up in stone or in meaning entirely alien to the Quran (by way of reaction).

Hence I hold that the knowledge needed to understand the Quran is inherently already present inside man since time immemorial. This knowledge is invoked the inherent urge towards the Absolute which each one of has in some measure.

Regards

I think i understand. Does this mean that you think the knowledge that is not inside us, or inherent in us, doesn't play any factor in this? Or do you mean that both do, but that people undermine what you just explained?

 

[A-ManESL]

I think i understand. Does this mean that you think the knowledge that is not inside us, or inherent in us, doesn't play any factor in this? Or do you mean that both do, but that people undermine what you just explained?

I think that the knowledge that is not inherent in us does not really play the primary factor in understanding the Quran. Such knowledge does have secondary role to play in certain case for it may supplement or reaffirm what we read in the Quran. However since already has there is a huge historical bias in using outward knowledge for understanding (so much so that this approach is already ingrained in us and creeps in silently anyway), I feel that requirement at the moment is to focus on the primary mode of understanding which is through the heart.

Badran if you have a few hours to spare I would suggest you read Imam Ghazali's autobiography available here. (It is not very long). Imam Ghazali in his quest to understand the true nature of things turned to theology, philosophy and to authoritarianism and after finding them all inadequate (and also after demolishing some of their ideas through books: Islamic philosophy for example never truly recovered after Imam Ghazali's attacks) finally turned towards Sufism. This was what which finally clarified his thoughts.

Regards

 

[England my lionheart]

Just trying to spot the Aliens