Seeing behind like infront

Discussion in 'Seerat ar-Rasul' started by sherkhan, Nov 13, 2008.

Draft saved Draft deleted
  1. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

    respected brother,

    two things:

    1. the operation of the heart to take out a physical part that was 'part of shaytaan in thee' (from sahih muslim english translation). Prior to this operation. Rasul Allah(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wassallam) had that shaytaan X in Him(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wassallam). you agree to that as anyone can understand. your argument or whatever it is, is based on AFTER the REMOVAL of that Shaytaan X . eventhough Prophet before/after birth and epitome of perfection yet He(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wassallam) still had to have an operation to have had Shaytaan X removed! think!

    also, muhaddithin you mention & others who wrote commentries on the hadith hold that 'it was part of shaytaan in thee' after the removal/operation then they comment of its benefits as Qadhi ayyadh had done in ikmaal. none of them say that 'it was not part of shaytaan in thee'...if they have, such as qadhi ayyad, nawawi, sanusi, ali qari etc then write it here in arabic?

    all the arguments are once the satanic part was removed then it had benefits.

    2. imam muslim qushairi's madhab was muta had been abrogated so he wrote the chapter. many sahaba did not agree, for instance, jalal suyut in tarikh al khulafa says that first person to make muta haram was hazrat Umer bin khattab. however, the point is that in the text of the hadith as reported by the 'sahih rijaal' no where it says the thngs you are understanding! all it is saying precisely is that ' we used to do muta n times of Prophet(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wassallam) and Abu Bakr and Umer' NOTHING else.

    so how do you deduce all that you have? sahih rijaal have reported nothing in this instance. nothing more nothing less. that is the point. for the same reason that you add/delete information to this report is the same way we are arguing to delete that 'portion'.

    in sharah of sanusi under this hadith he says that suhaili said that Eesa and Maryam(alayhuma assalaam) were exempt from this 'part of shaytaan' so you see what i am trying to argue for?
  2. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    and you talk about logic? you should probably take a course in fallacies.

    the argument started somewhere but you keep introducing new elements generating fallacy after fallacy. moreover, there has been not a single reference other than your own fanciful calculations and inferences. i would like to see the opinion of any of the respectable muhaddithin in this matter.

    instead of picking and choosing arbitrarily like you do, we still stand by our assertion.

    the hadith is sahih. we cannot reject this hadith. as you have said already, it IS sahih. however, is it acted upon or used as evidence? that is a different matter and not relevant to this discussion. probably you haven't heard of something known as nasikh-mansukh.

    you talk about relevance but still seem to think that all hadith are homogeneous without any classification! comparing events/qasas with ahkam - a hukm can be abrogated, but how can you abrogate a historical event?

    in this case, these hadith allowing mutáh were abrogated by final prohibition on hijjah al-wadāá [the farewell pilgrimage]; as for those who continued mutáh even in the time of abu bakr and úmar, the news of final prohibition had not reached them. and the beauty is that imam muslim HIMSELF labeled the chapter in which these hadith are found:
    باب نِكَاحِ الْمُتْعَةِ وَبَيَانِ أَنَّهُ أُبِيحَ ثُمَّ نُسِخَ ثُمَّ أُبِيحَ ثُمَّ نُسِخَ وَاسْتَقَرَّ تَحْرِيمُهُ إِلَى يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ
    chapter: temporary marriage [mut-áh] and the description that it was permitted earlier and its permission was then abrogated; and then it was permitted once again and then the permission was abrogated [the second time] and its prohibition stays until judgement day.
    now tell me how can we abrogate the event of shaqq-e-sadr?

    you talk about objectiveness, but throw things at random. i would like you to write your position in objective points. or at least answer questions objectively, instead of being elusive.

    you talk about logic but still pepper your proposition with fallacies.

    the point YOU seem to miss is that you are hanging to a misunderstanding. you have already decided that this is the absolute meaning of the hadith and therefore willing to alter the fundamental principle of hadith. whereas, we say [actually the muhaddithin, i am copying their opinion] that there has to be a ta'wil instead of rejecting the hadith.

    it is obvious that you don't understand arabic or its complexities nor the challenges of translation; but still hold on to some translation as indelible and revealed waHy. not only that but one can argue on the english translation of 'of' itself. also hazz means far more deeper than the shallow english word 'part'. a synonym for hazz is naşīb which can be understood by urdu/hindi folk and can be loosely translated as 'stake'.

    irrelevant to you probably, because it does not suit your opinion. i could ask you how is it irrelevant? even if i translate
    - the sharh of [ikmal]
    - that specific and problematic part [hazz]
    - of very hadith [261]
    - from that very source [muslim]
    - and from a respectable muhaddith? [qadi iyad]
    still irrelevant? so you want us to just take your word for it?

    very objective, indeed.
    1. which muhaddith or muhaddithin?

    2. agreed to which statement?

    3. did the muhaddithin agree that my translations are irrelevant?

    4. or did the muhaddithin agree that the translation in english is absolutely and irrevocably correct?

    5. or did the muhaddithin agree that i have missed the point of 'part in thee'?

    6. or did the muhaddithin agree that i have missed the point that the translation is correct?
    the first thing you can do, is probably learn to write inambiguous and coherent sentences. unless of course, you are googling to write a mashup here.

    if it is already not a burden:
    7. any references?

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2008
    Umar99 likes this.
  3. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

    the point that you seem to miss, respected brother, is ' that was the part of shaytaan in thee'. all your lengthy translations are irrelevent. muhaddithin have agreed to this statement.

    and also if a hadith has to ONLY have thiqa rijaal then the following has unanimous sahih rijaal from sahih muslim:

    15 - ‏(‏1405‏)‏ وحدثنا الحسن الحلواني‏.‏ حدثنا عبدالرزاق‏.‏ أخبرنا ابن جريج‏.‏ قال‏:‏ قال عطاء‏:‏ قدم جابر بن عبدالله معتمرا‏.‏ فجئناه في منزله‏.‏ فسأله القوم عن أشياء‏.‏ ثم ذكروا المتعة‏.‏ فقال‏:‏ نعم‏.‏ استمتعنا على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم‏.‏ وأبي بكر وعمر‏.

    we used to do muta in times of Rasul Allah(sallalhu alay wa aalihi wassallam) and in the times of Hazrat Abu Bakr and Hazrat Umer.

    there is nothing in the words that can be added or taken away. rijaal are sahih. but surely just rijaal are not enough here. there is something else which i am trying also to argue for.
  4. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    more mistakes and general cluelessness in your latest response; but, i will leave this matter here with you with an afterword. the issue seems to be closed because you don't use any reference, you don't give any evidence except your own words and opinion.

    the hadith of muslim is sahih because it's rijal/narrators are thiqat/trustworthy. we might not understand it properly if we disregard contexts and usage, but regardless we cannot reject it solely on this basis (that it is problematic; as it is subjective). this is not the only hadith that appears problematic. if we keep rejecting hadith that seem problematic to US based on OUR understanding, then anybody can keep rejecting hadith claiming that it is problematic. in fact, that is the central argument of the hadith-deniers. also, we must not be haughty and stick to our deformed opinion even when a mountain of evidence stares us in the face.

    coming back to this specific hadith, if we start with a preconceived notion that shaqq-e-sadr is flaw, naturally a fallacious argument will follow.

    qadi iyad al-maliki [476-544 AH] raDiyallahu anhu was an outstanding scholar. he is well-known as the author of kitab ash-shifa bi ta'arifi huquq al-mustafa, a biographical work on the Prophet SallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam.
    kulluhum ĥāwalu'd dawāyi walākin
    mā atā bi'sh shifā illā íyāđu

    everybody attempted [to find] a medicine but,
    nobody came up with a cure like iyad did
    [shifa=cure, also name of his book]*
    ibn khallikan, the famous historian writes about him: "he was the imam of hadith scholars in his time, the most knowledgeable scholar [of his age] in various branches including grammar, lexical sciences, the idioms and usage of arabic language [kalam al-arab], history of arabs and genealogy."

    indeed, all his other works are eclipsed by shifa even though the value of these books in their respective fields is inestimable. the most exceptional among them is his exegesis of muslim, titled ikmāl al-múlim bi fawāyidi muslim which is the completion of al-mu'lim by al-māzari.

    this is such a reference that other exegetes like nawawi, ibn Hajar and ayni refer to it and it is a treasure trove for problem resolution in hadith or lexical analysis or the juridical opinions related to the hadith. as if 'he had the fiqh of previous imams on the tip of his tongue and his fingertips...'**

    mashāriq al-anwār álā şiĥaĥ al-āthār is a compendium of uncommon, arcane and archaic words in the three hadith books: muwatta of imam malik, bukhari and muslim. but it is more than just a dictionary; it is a mini-exegesis of hadith and fiqh among other things.

    it is this imam of hadith who has explained the meaning of hadith without rejecting it outright and i suppose we should follow him.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.

    *dhahabi however, in siyar is cynical about shifā of qadi iyad, and grudgingly acknowledges that it is an outstanding book (with a: 'if only it were not filled with baseless narrations'). dhahabi who has been unfair with other imams as well, rebukes qadi iyad for what he calls as 'not having an interest in critical analysis and propounding far-fetched explanations.'

    **dr.yahya ismayil's preface to ikmāl.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2008
    Umar99 likes this.
  5. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

    the argument is very simple to grasp.
    Rasul Allah(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wassallam) is PERFECT.
    the haidth suggests in physical-operation sense that part of shaytaan was taken out or satanic element was removed. this whilst believing that He(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wassallam) is Prophet before/after birth and epitome of perfection.
    therefore the hadith which casts doubt on perfection is instead doubful.

    when we try to qualify this one hadith then we also need identical reporters to fix its meaning, which not available unlike the Quran.

    all other questions are irrelevent. you may look up relevence!
  6. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    how do you explain this verse of the qur'an:
    wa imma yanzaghannaka mina'sh shayţāni nazghun
    [al-aárāf 7:200]
    i have not translated it because you will then complain of a mistranslation.

    how do you explain this verse of the qur'an?
    li yaghfira laka Allāhu mā taqaddama min dhanbika wa mā ta-akh'khara [al-fat'ĥ 48:2]
    is the prophet not vouchsafed from being whispered by the devil?
    is the prophet not vouchsafed from sin, being ma'asum?

    then why these verses? and how can we reconcile (ahem! does it work?) them?
    Umar99 likes this.
  7. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    as usual, you are not specific. you say something - whatever - and assume that you have answered the questions. don't do a palin, please.

    my point is simple: nobody can reject a sahih hadith on the basis of their own (mis)understanding of hadith.

    as you said someone ought to get out of the well. your judgement is based on an assumption which is not what muhaddithin think. and remarkably, you don't have any references - we just have to respect your dirayah.

    my translation is based on qadi iyad's explanation. unlike your methodology of arbitrarily choosing and rejecting sahih hadith that are compatible with your own understanding, we do not reject sahih hadith. we just say that, probably, we have not understood it correctly.


    yeah, tell me about it.

    4a. why can't shaqq-e-sadr be justified in a physical sense?

    4b. are you a mu'tazili who denies miracles?

    5a. what are your justifications for rejecting 'reconciliations'? can you prove them unsound or is it just a matter of suiting one's fancy?

    5b. can you think of any major muhaddithin who have attempted reconciliation of this seemingly problematic hadith?

    5c. assuming you have your justifications, and assuming that some major muhaddith/scholar has his justification - which should we give preference?

    you are derailing the topic with a not related issue. my point was that nobody can reject a sahih narration based on whims. and a sahih narration is classified as sahih on the basis of its chain of narration (isnad) NOTHING to do with dirayah in this context.

    also, which usul book can you suggest?

    don't tell me it has to be something about the umbrella of job creation.
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2008
    Umar99 likes this.
  8. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

    sahih has two aspects. riwayah and dirayah. only one has been argued for above. consult usul literature and it will become clear.

    framing your own rhetorical quetions then answering them would not work unless it is to the gallery!

    Prophethood before/after birth and Perfection of dhaat/sifaat are two qualities that negate any flaws. part of shaytaan is a flaw. its existence in the first place.

    incorrect translations are not acceptable like you have tried to do.

    however, here is an independent translation and see how this person translates it hence our rejection of the whole idea.

    Book 1, Number 0311:
    Anas b. Malik reported that Gabriel came to the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upo him) while he was playing with his playmates. He took hold of him and lay him prostrate on the ground and tore open his breast and took out the heart from it and then extracted a blood-clot out of it and said : That was the part of Satan in thee. And then he washed it with the water of Zamzam in a golden basin and then it was joined together and restored to it place. The boys came running to his mother, i.e. his nurse, and said: Verily Muhammad has been murdered. They all rushed toward him (and found him all right) His color was changed, Anas said. I myself saw the marks of needle on his breast.
    i am sorry to say but one needs to step out of the well sometimes! to have an objective look at things!
  9. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    sparing you the suspense: here it is.

    Allah ta'ala knows best.
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2008
  10. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    dirayah? who gets to decide whether a particular hadith is sahih according to dirāyah?

    pardon my ignorance. because i am a student, i will quote a basic book students read in usul/mustalah: imam nawawi's taqrib. the imam says:
    the framework of sahih: that hadith whose chain of narration goes through upright and fastidious narrators who are exceptionally careful about anomalous and defective reports.[1] [2][3]

    when it is said [that a hadith is] sahih, this is what it means [that it is handed down by a chain of trustworthy narrators]; not that it is absolute [in its meaning]; and when it is said that it is not sahih it means that its chain of narration is not rigorously authenticated.

    1. it is not a verbatim translation but i have tried to convey the meaning with help from suyuti's sharĥ tadrib ar-rawi. suyuti says that the word thiqah is more appropriate because it combines both ádl [justness, uprightness] and đabt [exactness, preciseness] can be conveyed with it.

    2. suyuTi: a better way to say it is that [sahih is that hadith] which is narrated by a chain of thiqah [or trustworthy] narrators.

    3.shudhūdh, plural of shādh - being anamolous, irregular;
    íllah - being defective, flawed. (lit. basis)
    it is your dirayah. i don't know if any muhaddith has rejected this hadith on the basis of fanciful dirayah.

    noble intentions, but this statement doesn't know the potholes that it is running into.

    we know that being a slave is a flaw [as it is humiliation]; imam a'azam's son is reported to have said: 'we have not been touched by the humiliation of slavery.'

    so is it a flaw to say Muhammadan ábduhu wa rasuluhu? sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam? a foolish man might see this as a flaw, but the accomplished ones consider it as a matter of merit. the gnostics have said that úbūdiyyah is the highest rank a man should aspire for. and if one decides it to be a flaw, should we reject all the sahih narrations where RasulAllah referred to himself with those words?

    take the word ummi. brash and heedless folk [without adab] translate this as illiterate even when referring to RasulAllah sallAllahu alayhi wa sallam. if some person races his dirayah and concludes that it is a flaw; and a flaw cannot be in RasulAllah sallAllahu `alayhi wa sallam. therefore he was not ummi.

    what? there is a verse in the qur'an that describes him as ummi? well, because of this hapless dirayah we might have to reject this verse of the qur'an. see al-aáraf 7:157.

    slippery slope, here we come at breakneck speed...

    not only do you demonstrate ignorance of hadith but unfortunately, your overconfidence in 'understanding' hadith or your dirayah falls pitifully short in linguistic ability.

    you have decided on your own whim that it is an imperfection. but muhaddithin have other ideas.

    sure. unlike you whose dirayah permits to see things and label them at will, i rather prefer to refer to ulama. and our scholar for the day is the outstanding shaykh, qađī íyād al-maliki whose love and respect of the prophet is unquestionable. and nobody with any dirayah has ever questioned least until now.

    wa billahi't tawfiq.

    ps: you have not answered any questions, but just harping at the hawashi as usual.
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2008
    Umar99 likes this.
  11. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member


    1. Rasul Allah(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wassallam) was born a Prophet.

    2. Rasul Allah(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wassallam) is epitome of perfection.

    therefore, having had a part of shaytaan هذا حظ الشيطان منك is inconsistent with both 1 & 2. as it would necessitate an element of imperfection etc.

    now, it is for you to justify satanic-part whilst believing in 1 ^ 2.


    also you have misunderstood usul al-hadith. here is the missing link in your entire argument.

    "isn't a hadith classified 'sahih' on the basis of rijal or its narrators? if you reject one hadith of this chain, all the hadith in which these narrators figure will become questionable"

    no. it is not only rijaal that determine authenticity of a hadith but it must justify two essential properties, namely, riwayah and dirayah. we are arguing here on the basis of dirayah as it conflicts with 1 & 2.

    also we accept even a da'if hadith when it is in praise of Rasul Allah(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wassallam) and reject a sahih chain when it states a flaw in the dhaat or sifaat of Al-Mustafa(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wassallam).

  12. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    because questions have been pushed further down, here is a recap with a few more additional questions for clarity:

    1. what is the major premise?
    2. and, what is my 'conclusion'?
    3. and, where is the invalidity in my 'conclusion'?

    4a. why can't shaqq-e-sadr be justified in a physical sense?
    4b. are you a mu'tazili who denies miracles?

    5a. what are your justifications for rejecting 'reconciliations'? can you prove them unsound or is it just a matter of suiting one's fancy?

    5b. can you think of any major muhaddithin who have attempted reconciliation of this seemingly problematic hadith?

    5c. assuming you have your justifications, and assuming that some major muhaddith/scholar has his justification - which should we give preference?

    incidentally, you have proved part of my accusation right [that you snip at the hawashi] when you answered a side note and ignored the main course:

    Umar99 likes this.
  13. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    would you look at the tip of the iceberg and emphatically assert that it is just a little piece of ice sticking out of water? would you look out at the horizon as far as your eyes can see and then conclude that the earth ends at the horizon?

    i may remind you that you have not answered other questions; i will assume that you have an issue with my p's and q's. let me clear that confusion and inshaAllah, i hope to see some answers from your side.

    indeed i disagree. because of the hadith: 'i was a prophet and adam was still [in the state] between soul and body' [kuntu nabiyyan wa ādamu bayna'r rūĥi wa'l jasad; this has been reported by ahmed, imam bukhari in his tarikh, baghawi, abu nuaym in hilya, and ĥākim affirmed that it is saĥīĥ; tirmidhi and others have also reported it in slightly different words narrating from abu hurayrah]

    so, i believe that RasulAllāh sallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam was a prophet even before he was born. which then invalidates your argument because it is based on a false premise and hasty assumption.

    i am sorry to say this but your next para is also nonsense - indeed, the p/q statements far below have absurdities [how can you make an inference from an arbitrary condition that is not stated in the premiss?] but it not important now.

    indeed, RasulAllah sallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam WAS and IS an epitome of perfection. that is the fundamental premiss which we all agree.

    the wahabis and other heretics discard/ignore any document which is not compatible with their established beliefs or their viewpoint. and you are doing no different: you assume that a certain hadith does not fit perfection of the Master sallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam, so you are ready to doff it. which is very dangerous if you are not careful. because it undermines consistency, integrity and throws the argument into a mine field of shifting mines.

    the fundamental principle that we follow runs thus:
    a. RasulAllah sallAllāhu álayhi wa sallam is an epitome of perfection.

    b. Hadith that is categorized as SaHiH cannot be rejected on mere whims or misunderstanding or shortsighted opinions of individuals. [a muhaddith can however evaluate and cite reasons for his rejection, however]

    c. a and b should always be true.

    d. consider a case that is congruent with 'b' but apparently conflicting with 'a': we must try to reconcile them because of 'c'.

    e. if we cannot reconcile them for some reason, we ought to be humble and confident that a reconciliation exists but we do not know.
    rejecting c would bring up many other problems that would hack at the basis of a great many things. because it would then cause us to question the very classification of hadith itself. a hadith-denier happily chirps that he never believed in hadith but one who accepts hadith as evidence will have to ask, what is the basis of 'sahih'?

    isn't a hadith classified 'sahih' on the basis of rijal or its narrators? if you reject one hadith of this chain, all the hadith in which these narrators figure will become questionable - anas ibn malik included [but you can have another axiom stating that all sahaba are trustworthy, which makes the argument a little more complex.]

    we simply cannot reject a hadith arbitrarily and just because it conflicts with our understanding or which is beyond our knowledge.

    from what i can gather from your incoherent writing is that you are saying that the hadith from muslim quoted, is invalid. correct me if i am wrong but please use plain english to answer this simple question:

    what is your stand regarding this hadith in sahih muslim.
    [hints: do you think it is invalid, inaccurate, mawdu'u, đayif? should be it be rejected?]

    please don't be evasive and pretend that you have answered my questions.

    wa billahi't tawfiq.
    Umar99 likes this.
  14. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

    disgreement: p = Rasul Allah(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wassallam) is Prophet from birth.

    [agreement (assuming): Rasul Allah(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wassallam) is epitomy of perfection].

    as a consequence of above it is impossible for Rasul Allah(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wassallam) to have had a 'part, portion' from shaytaan.

    sahih muslim:

    ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏شيبان بن فروخ ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏حماد بن سلمة ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏ ‏ثابت البناني ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أنس بن مالك ‏
    ‏أن رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏أتاه ‏ ‏جبريل ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏وهو يلعب مع الغلمان فأخذه ‏ ‏فصرعه ‏ ‏فشق عن قلبه فاستخرج القلب فاستخرج منه ‏ ‏علقة ‏ ‏فقال هذا حظ الشيطان منك ثم غسله في طست من ذهب بماء ‏ ‏زمزم ‏ ‏ثم ‏ ‏لأمه ‏ ‏ثم أعاده في مكانه وجاء الغلمان يسعون إلى أمه ‏ ‏يعني ‏ ‏ظئره ‏ ‏فقالوا إن ‏ ‏محمدا ‏ ‏قد قتل فاستقبلوه وهو ‏ ‏منتقع ‏ ‏اللون قال ‏ ‏أنس ‏ ‏وقد كنت أرئي أثر ذلك المخيط في صدره
  15. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    i am glad that you have shown a willingness to engage in a logical analysis; let us do it together. but also we must remember that it is all very fine to keep making vague and generic statements and claim emphatically that a specific case has been proved.

    i have been asking you pointed questions and it would save us time if we are direct instead of - you know, beating around the POTUS.

    what is the major premiss?
    and, what is my 'conclusion'?
    and, where is the invalidity in my 'conclusion'?

    also the questions you seem to have ignored:
    why not?

    why doesn't it work? and, what do you mean by 'work'?

    and as a sidenote:
    how do we differ in p? but prior to that, what is 'p' in our argument here?
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2008
  16. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

    if p then q, p, therefore q.

    if p then q, q, therefore not-p.

    we differ in p so what is logical consequence for me is not for you.

    we have different frame of reference, which means either we go about establishing material validity of our major premise or invalidity of your conclusion. what would you like to do?
  17. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator


  18. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member

    I believe that Rasul Allah al-Mustafa(sallalahu alayhi wa aalihi wassallam) was a Prophet from birth. do you?
  19. abu Hasan

    abu Hasan Administrator

    good. because now we can expect an answer:

    i repeat: why not?

    i repeat: doesn't work for who or how? what constitutes a report that 'works'? or a reconciliation that works?
  20. Ubaid

    Ubaid Active Member


Share This Page