In response to the alleged internal contradiction by Jochen Katz
on the website answering-islam.orgÂ
PRIMARY CLAIM #1: Inheritance shares totaling more than 100%Â
Â
Katz claims that there is a contradiction in the matter of inheritance.
He says that the shares allotted to individual heirs in a particular
case would add up to more than 100% of the available estate. If a man
dies leaving behind three daughters, his parents, and his wife the allotments
total one and one-eighth. Surah 4, verses 4:11-12 shows that in this
case the three daughters together will receive 2/3, the parents together
will receive 1/3, and the wife will receive 1/8. Hence a numerical discrepancy.Â
REPLY: Adding two unknowns
Katz misunderstood what he read in the Quran. The verses he refers to
do not say what the parents will receive in this case. Nor does it say
what the wife will receive in this case. To arrive at his understanding,
Katz insists that he must take the Quranic statements in the most literal
sense. Yet the text even when taken in a literal manner does not support
his misunderstanding. The Quran does not literally prescribe what the
parents will receive in the case which Katz proposes. It is true that
the Quran literally prescribes that the parents will share 1/3 when
a man dies leaving one child (4:11). But the case which Katz proposes
is different. Katz’s case involves three daughters, and the literal
Quranic prescription involves only one child. Hence Katz’ proposed
numerical discrepancy is built on his confusing one case for another.
If we were to follow the Quranic prescriptions literally, in Katz's
case the wife’s share is also not specified. The Quran literally prescribes
a 1/8 share for the wife if the husband leaves only one child. But Katz's
case involves three daughters. And the number three happens to be more
than the number one.
Katz thinks that the stated shares in this case would be 2/3 + 1/3 +
1/8, whereas in fact since two of these shares are not actually stated
in the Quran, the shares are 2/3 + ? + ? = ?
Since the Quran does not make a statement on this specific case, it
is impossible for the Quran to be wrong. The details of this case is
left to the comprehensive nature of the Islamic Shariah which does not
depend on the Quran alone.
A note about the Islamic Law
My answer here does not enter into the details of the Islamic rules
governing inheritance for that is not what the objection is about. Katz
explains that his objection is only that if the Quranic statements about
inheritance are taken literally then they yield numerical discrepancies.
All we had to do here was to show that his objections are baseless.
Even if we take the Quranic statements literally we find that the numerical
discrepancies that Katz speaks of are not in the Quran but only in Katz's
mind.
The source of Katz's confusion
Katz's confusion apparently springs from his reliance here on the translation
of the Quran by Arthur Arberry. But Arberry in his translation of these
passages mistakenly
renders walad as "children" whereas walad is singular: "a
child" (4:11, 12).
CLAIM #1b: The man with no direct heirs
Katz claims that there is a further discrepancy in this matter in the
case of a man who leaves a mother, a wife, and two sisters. If the allotted
shares are added up the total exceeds the total estate. In this case
the mother gets 1/3 (4:11) the wife gets 1/4 ( 4:12) and the two sisters
together receive 2/3 (4:176). These shares altogether total 15/12, more
than the available estate.
REPLY: Dead mother gets no share
Katz is again mistaken. To arrive at the said allotted shares Katz refers
to the shares allotted in Surah 4, Ayah 176 of the Quran. But that ayah
refers to a man who leaves neither parent nor child. At the time of
his death his mother already lays in her own grave and as such can lay
no claim to a share of inheritance.
Katz's misunderstanding is again due to Arberry's translation. In the Quran in 4:176 the case
described is that of a man who is called in Arabic "kalalah"
which is correctly translated by Yusuf Ali as one who leaves "no
descendants or ascendants." More Objections
Answered
Wasting Words
Many of Katz's subsidiary objections fault the Quran for not providing
a complete list of all possible cases and every detail. Then, after
wasting many words on this, he concludes: "But since these cases
are just not stated, let us not speculate about it and only look at
the cases for which we are explicitly given instructions . . . ."
What then was the point of raising such an issue?
Islamic Law Not Based on the Quran Alone
Katz objects that in many cases the Quran does not allot the entire
estate to designated recipients. He thinks that the Quran ought to have
given more detailed instructions. But here he misses a key point about
the Quran. The book was sent along with its interpreter, the prophet,
sallallahu alayhi wa sallam. He came to teach us the details of what
the Quran lays out in general principles. After much discussion of his
need for details in the Quran, however, Katz concludes: "Anyway,
as long as the shares add up to less than one, things can be settled
still 'relatively easily.'" Again, why the wasted discussion?
The Question is not About Islamic Law
His persistent question in a number of cases is, "Who gets the
rest?" The text itself and the Shariah on the whole has ways of
dealing with this. In his response to Randy Desmond, Katz himself admits:
"I want to repeat again. Experts on Islamic law are just as intelligent
as everybody else and they have found ways to distribute inheritance
to the heirs in generally accepted ways."
The Rulings of Muslim Scholars
Often Katz objects that the Muslim scholars rule differently than what
the Quran prescribes. This is a different objection that proving a contradiction
or numerical discrepancy in the Quran itself. This matter he should
take up with the said Muslim scholars themselves. Then such scholars
will either have to correct themselves or teach Katz the details of
Quranic interpretation. To deal with this is not my expertise. Nor is
it required here. Keeping to a Consistent Frame of Reference
Katz failed to remain consistent on his basic frame of reference. On
the one hand he thinks of the prophet Muhammad as an intelligent man
who wrote the Quran; on the other hand he cannot assume a basic level
of intelligence for the prophet.
Katz writes:
"Even if one
would not put standards of perfection on these rules as is fitting for
a revelation from God but only think it to be from Muhammad, it is strange
that this successful business man, in charge of whole caravans for a
number of years, was not able to correctly add up a few fractions."
Contrary to Katz's ambivalence between attributing intelligence and
ignorance to the prophet, it is established practice that as we read
a work we assume for the author a reasonable degree of intelligence
consistent with our knowledge of the author's biography. Since we know
from history that the prophet was a successful business man in charge
of whole caravans for a number of years we have to assume that he had
more than a child's intelligence.
Yet in order to attribute error to the Qur'an, Katz pretends that its
author has not even a child's intelligence. On this basis Katz objects
to 4:11 which prescribes that a daughter will get half of the entire
estate available for inheritance. Since the same verse also prescribes
that a son gets twice the share of a daughter, Katz thinks that in the
case of one son and one daughter the shares of inheritance would be
50% for the daughter and 100% for the son thus totaling 150% of the
available estate. Then he wonders how the parents and spouse will inherit
when more than the whole is already allotted. He does not here allow
for the author of he Quran to know that if a daughter gets half of the
whole thing only the other half will remain for a son. Yet every child
knows that if they have to share a cake and one person gets half the
other person cannot get twice as much from the same cake. If Katz is
to assume that the prophet is the author of the Quran and Katz admits
at least a basic level of intelligence for him, how does Katz imagine
such an idiotic explanation for the Quran? Does Katz want to have his
cake and eat it? Here Katz's method has gone beyond even his admitted
intention to approach the Quran with hostility.
"Daughters Only" Implies "No Sons"
Actually, again, there is no problem in the scripture itself, only in
Katz's approach. The passage (4:11) first mentions the general principle
that a son gets twice what the daughter gets. Then it goes on to prescribe
in cases when only daughters remain. Only when there is no son, and
only one daughter, does the verse prescribe half the estate for the
daughter. So Katz's goings on about the double share for the son is
mistaken. In this case there exists by definition a total number of
zero sons and one daughter, and no other children.
The fact that this is a case of no son can be immediately seen from
the Quranic text. Speaking of the children, the
Quran moves over to a use of the feminine plural pronoun "kunna"
which by definition cannot include males.
Arberry’s translation again did not sufficiently emphasize this reference
to females alone. Yet the translation is not alone to blame here. The
problem rests with Katz. On the one hand he calls the prophet a successful
businessman and the author of the Quran. Surely such a man would know
that if you put half of the camels on one side the other side cannot
have twice the number. Or, that if he already paid for half his merchandise
he should not again pay for the remainder twice what he paid for the
first half. Such a man would know that if he gave half his wealth to
his daughter he cannot also give twice as much to his son.
The Author Must Have Some Intelligence
Katz ought to here align himself with the world in this matter. When
we read a work we assume for the author a level of competence consistent
with his biography. Those who believe that the Quran came from Muhammad
and know anything about his biography cannot justifiably take the words
of he book in the most silly meaning possible. Even a person like Katz
who decided to use the approach of a hostile critic must have his limits.
It is due to his own such misunderstandings that Katz in his response
to Al-Kadhi repugnantly states that "the author of the Quran shows
incompetence at a very basic level." On the other hand, both Katz
and I have to recognize our own incompetence. I cannot claim competence
in fully understanding either the Bible or the Quran, and I am willing
to be corrected if I overstep my competence in dealing with both books.
Similarly, if Katz does not know the Arabic language, and if he is dependent
only on English translations he should judge whether or not he is competent
to be a justifiable hostile critic of the book. Hostile critic yes --
but justifiable?
Katz's Excessive Diligence in the Wrong Direction
Credit goes to Katz for his excessive diligence in searching for errors
in the Quran. The allotment of inheritance shares involves a very detailed
system. It itself is an area of specialization within Islamic studies.
To sort through all the prescriptions in the Quranic text and decide
individual cases based on the general Quranic principles takes much
careful study. To invent hypothetical cases which would result in the
apparent numerical discrepancies as Katz has done requires tremendous
zeal. Yet Katz did not stop at that. He generally uses Yusuf Ali's translation
of the Quran to analyze the difficulties he deals with. But in the matter
of inheritance he turned to Arthur Arberry’s translation. Why? Katz
explains: "because
Yusuf Ali was even more difficult to follow."
Yet my review of the two translations convinced me that whereas the
inheritance law is itself complex, the two translations were roughly
similar in their level of persistence needed to comprehend the subject.
Why Arberry's Translation?
The key difference between the translations, however, was that whereas
the discrepancies Katz sought could be pressed on with the help of Arberry's
translation, this often was not true for Yusuf Ali's translation. Though
not itself perfect, Yusuf Ali’s translation is in the relevant verses
closer to the original Arabic. Katz may have turned to Arberry's translation
not only because he found it easier to follow, but because he also found
it easier to use in support of claimed contradictions. What Katz needed
to do was to channel his diligence in the search not for error but for
truth. He should have compared the translations to make sure that the
one translation on which he relies should not itself prove erroneous
on this issue. This way he would have avoided skewering his results
in the erroneous direction he took. But, then again, perhaps here again
Katz did not put a reasonable limit on his diligence for locating internal
Quranic errors.
Comparing Translations
Normally in Biblical studies it is demanded that studies be based on
the texts in the original languages. Students who have no access to
the original languages are advised to compare translations so as to
ensure that a particular mistaken slant of one translation does not
affect the general understanding. Moreover, a particular emphasis may
be captured well in one translation but not in another.
If Katz had used this principle in studying the Quran he would have
suspected that some of the discrepancies he points to are found in Arberry's
translation but not in Yusuf Ali's. Then he might have sought clarification
from the original text to find out the source of the apparent discrepancy.
But Katz's excessive diligence was apparently not in the direction of
establishing truth.
Even a Hostile Critic Needs Limits
We do not expect Katz to take an overly friendly approach to the Quranic
text. Yet he ought not to take such a hostile approach either. Surely
there is a happy medium between these extremes. How about an unbiased
reading of the Quran? Apparently Katz abandoned Yusuf Ali's translation
precisely because in this case Arberry's translation was more useful
to the extreme hostile approach.
Katz Knew the Solution
In fact, Katz was aware that Yusuf Ali's translation and notes if followed
would remove one of the problems cited above. We have already shown
how Katz in one case due to his misunderstanding counted a share for
an already dead mother. His misunderstanding depended on Arberry's translation
which did not make sufficiently clear that the prescription in 4:176
dealt with a person who left neither a parent nor a child. While Katz
was busy establishing that the total share including the mother’s
share would exceed the available inheritance, he showed no awareness
of the possibility that the mother is no longer around. Only later,
when Katz was dealing with a different problem, did he show that he
had this knowledge. He wrote that 4:176 deals with the situation when "there are no direct heirs
(i.e. parents or children according to Muslim understanding – see
Yusuf Ali’s translation and footnote)."
If Katz knew of this understanding why did he not suggests that if the
Muslim understanding is based on the Arabic reading then the claimed
discrepancy disappears?
CLAIM: Brothers can inherit if only no direct heirs remain
Katz thinks that according 4:12 and 4:176 the siblings of the person
who died only then share in the inheritance if there are no direct heirs (i.e. parents or children . . . ). Thus he concluded that a brother
cannot inherit if a mother is alive. But he finds this conclusion to contradict 4:11 which seems to allot a brother a share along with the mother.
REPLY
: Searching for the word "only"
Here Katz misunderstands both 4:12 and 4:176. Neither of these verses state that a sibling can inherit "only" if there are no parents or children. Hence Katz’s contention is without basis. This time his contention is not even based on Arberry’s translation.
CLAIM: Sibling share suddenly doubled
Katz claims that 4:12 contradicts 4:176. According to 4:12 when there
is no direct heir a brother or a sister would receive 1/6 each; thus
1/3 altogether. But "4:176 says in the same situation that 'they
shall receive two-thirds of what he leaves' [double of what 4:12 says]."
REPLY: Read Carefully
Contrary to what Katz claims, there is a key difference in the two situations. The pronoun "they"
in 4:176 refers to two sisters whereas 4:12 refers to a brother and
a sister. Since a brother and a
sister is not the same thing, a brother plus a sister is not the same
as two sisters.
The Arabic text
clearly says, "in kanataa ithnatayn" which literally means
"if they are two--females."
Hence Yusuf Ali renders it: "if there are two sisters." Even
Arberry's translation renders the passage: "if there be two sisters
they shall receive two-thirds of what he leaves (4:176)." So the
translation also made the matter clear. But in order to press home his
claim of contradiction, Katz wrenched a phrase out of its context hence
giving it a different meaning. He skipped the conditional "if there
be two sisters" and quoted only "they shall receive two-thirds
of what he leaves." Then Katz went on to argue as though the pronoun
"they" refers to a brother and a sister. A quick review of
the text, however, reveals that Katz's point is based on a misrepresentation
of the Quran.
Lest You go Astray
I am struck by Allah’s mention in the same verse: "Allah makes
clear to you, lest you go astray." I wonder now, by Katz's muddying
the verse how many internet browsers may have gone astray. I pray that
my humble effort here may become the means by which Allah may guide
many.
To be sure, 4:176 then goes on to prescribe for the case of more than
two siblings including brothers and sisters. But then the verse does
not prescribe the specific shares to be allotted them except to reiterate
a general principle that the males get twice what their sisters receive.
Since the specific shares are not allotted they cannot be said to be
different from the allotted shares elsewhere. Either way you look at
it, Katz is very wrong.
The Commentators
Katz goes on to report the commentary of Razi to show how Razi got around
the perceived problem with the assumption that the two verses speak
of two different sets of brothers and sisters. Whereas 4:12 refers to
a brother or a sister from the mother, 4:176 refers to full siblings
or siblings from the same father. If Razi is right, then of course there
is no problem. Katz thinks that Muslim commentators simply invented
this explanation to get around the problem.
But even if Razi is wrong, there is still no problem. My clarification
above does not depend on any commentary. I have just simply shown that
if we took the verse literally as Katz wants to do then it speaks of
two different things. Whether we take the verse literally or we take
Razi’s commentary as correct, either way Katz is wrong.
CLAIM: One year’s maintenance not same as 1/8
Katz claims a contradiction between 4:11 and 2:240. A man leaves an
eight of his estate to his widow if he also leaves a child. But 2:240
prescribes "one year’s maintenance for her." And this, except
for some remarkable coincidence, will always be different from a 1/8
share.
REPLY: Why should they be the same?
Katz failed to distinguish between the inheritance shares and a bequest.
In 2:240 the maintenance for one year is prescribed as a bequest (Arabic:
wasiyyah). On the other hand 4:11 prescribes the 1/8 share to be given
only after debts and bequests (wasiyyah) are settled. Even Arberry’s
translation on which Katz depends says that men leave to their widows
"an eight after any bequest they may bequeath, or any debt (4:11)."
Selective Recall
It is sad to notice again that the problem is not Katz's lack of knowledge
of the terms. Elsewhere he acknowledged "the rule that at most
1/3 can be given as a bequest to a person which is usually not an heir."
Then he even goes on to provide links to sites which deal with Islamic
inheritance law. So the problem is not that Katz does not know. The
problem is that while he is concentrating on establishing one contradiction
at a time he forgets anything he knows that could possible demolish
the very claimed contradiction.
CLAIM: See Yusuf Ali's footnote
Katz claims that since many commentators recognized that they cannot in practice make a year’s maintenance for a widow equal to a 1/8 share of inheritance, they saw here a contradiction between 2:240 and 4:12. To support this claim, he writes: "According to Yusuf Ali’s footnote
on 2:240, many commentators for this reason consider 2:240 abrogated by 4:12."
REPLY: It does not say what you say
The support for that claim is based on a false allegation. I have checked
more than one editions of Yusuf Ali’s translation for the opinion
which Katz attributes to Yusuf Ali. And I could not find it. Katz’s
claim is that according to Yusuf Ali many commentators deemed the two
verses to be mutually contradictory, and that "for this reason"
they consider 2:240 to be abrogated by 4:12.
On the contrary, Yusuf Ali’s footnote on 2:240 reads:
"Opinions
differ whether the provision ( of a year’s maintenance, with residence)
for a widow is abrogated by the share which the widow gets (one eighth
or one-fourth) as an heir (Q. iv. 12). I do not think it is. The bequest
(where made) takes effect as a charge on the property, but the widow
can leave the house before the year is out, and presumably the maintenance
then ceases."
That is the full extent of Yusuf Ali’s note #273 on 2:240 (American
Trust Publications, 1977). Notice that the quoted words from Yusuf Ali
do not imply anything about contradiction, only about abrogation. Yusuf
Ali does not say that the commentators recognized here a contradiction
and that "for this reason" they consider 2:240 to be abrogated.
Here Katz’s enthusiasm overshadowed his caution, and he attributed
to Yusuf Ali an opinion which Yusuf Ali did not hold.
Katz harbours the idea that abrogation means contradiction. But abrogation
is not the same as contradiction. The difference is explained under
the next head.
CLAIM
Katz claims that 4:7 contradicts 4:11. In 4:7 daughters are given an
equal share with their brothers whereas in 4:11 they are given only
half what their brothers get. This is clear from the parallel construction
in 4:7 which says "to the men a share . . . and to the women a
share."
REPLY
It seems that Katz is willing to go to desperate lengths to keep making
more claims. Why does he think that 4:7 awards an equal share to daughters?
He thinks "the parallel construction makes that obvious."
On the contrary, the only thing it makes obvious is that sons and daughters
each get a share. Where does it say that the shares are equal?
On the other hand, it is reasonable to see that both statements are
correct. One says that the son and daughter will each get a share. Another
says that the share which the son gets will be double what the daughter
gets. Putting the two statements together, we have this final instruction:
Both the son and the daughter will have a share, the son’s share being
twice that of the daughter. Where is the contradiction?
Katz
supports his finding of a contradiction here by referring to Muslim
commentators. He noted that all commentators recognized 4:7 to be abrogated
by 4:11. This pair of verses is listed as pair #20 in the book Itqan.
According to Katz, then, 4:7 was recognized by all commentators as an
abrogated verse. This to him means that its content is contradicted
by another verse, in this case 4:11. Hence he can claim the following:
"That this was a contradiction was recognized by all commentators
. . . ."
REPLY
But surely here Katz misunderstands what an abrogation is in the view
of Muslim commentators. Many used the term abrogation in the sense of
specification. Hence if one verse gave a general instruction and a later
verse gave a more specific instruction the latter is called an abrogating
verse and the former is called an abrogated verse. However, this does
not mean that the commentators recognized here a contradiction as Katz
alleges. It only means that they recognized the later verse as being
more specific where the former was more general. We have already seen
that this is the case with the verses being discussed. Whereas the former
verse 4:7 said in general that the son and daughter both inherit, the
latter verse 4:11 specified that the share of the male would be twice
that of the female. There is hence no contradiction between the two
verses.
Moreover, even if commentators think that there is a contradiction that
does not help Katz. His method was, as he stated, to ignore the commentators
and take the Quranic statements in their most literal sense. If he cannot
show a contradiction using this method, it is pointless to appeal to
the commentators in desperation.
Furthermore, all commentators are not agreed that this is a case of
abrogation. According to Shah Waliullah of Delhi, there are only five
pairs of abrogated and abrogating verses, and this pair is not one of
the five (Ahmad Von Denver, Uloom al-Quran, UK: Islamic Foundation,
1994; p. 108). So what does that prove? The crux of the matter here
is not what the commentators said but what the verses actually say.
Since the verses themselves do not contradict each other, Katz’s claim
is ruined.
CLAIM
Katz complains that the Quran often does not provide for the estate
to be exhaustively distributed. When the allotted shares are added they
amount to less than 100%. His persistent question, therefore, is "Who
gets the rest?" Since the Quran claims to be a complete guidance,
it should provide instructions on such details.
REPLY
The Bible is a much larger book than the Quran. Yet it contains less
on inheritance than the Quran. And it too claims to be a complete guidance.
How does Katz regard this?
The Quran is said to be about 4/5 the length of the New Testament. The
Old Testament is much longer than the New Testament. And the Bible is
made up of both testaments. Why is it that a book of such size include
so little on a subject that Katz considers so important?
CLAIM
Katz feels that the allowance in Islamic Law for a person to bequeath
up to 1/3 of his property "can lead to gross injustices."
One can theoretically bequeath away his property thus leaving his elderly
parents with no support. He further complains that the limit of 1/3
is not prescribed in the Qur’an.
REPLY
Katz would be on better ground here if he took into consideration the
entire Quran. The Quran does in fact prescribe that charity is first
to one's parents, then to one's near relatives, then to others. If anyone
disinherits his parents he would be going against this important directive.
Moreover, Katz should be able to demonstrate that the Bible is better
at ensuring justice. On the contrary, the Bible in the Gospel of Luke
shows that when a matter of injustice involving inheritance was brought
to Jesus, on whom be peace, he refused to settle the matter (Luke 12:13).
Muslims of course believe that Jesus stood for justice. Muslims would
question any detail of the gospels which contradict this noble portrait
of Jesus. But how does Katz feel about this gospel report?
CLAIM
Katz devoted an entire page complaining about how it is "very unjust"
to allot a man twice the share of his sister as Islamic law does. His
complaining may lead a reader to expect that his Bible teaches differently.
REPLY
On the contrary, according to the Bible if there are sons they should
take everything and the daughters should get nothing. Only if there
are no sons can the daughters inherit (Numbers 27:8-11). However, such
a daughter is required to marry into a family of her father’s tribe
(Numbers 36:6, 11).
Katz complains of injustice because the Quran gives the woman only half
of what her brother gets. How does he react to the Biblical prescription
that the woman gets nothing if she has a brother?
Moreover, the Quran prescribes for a woman to inherit as a daughter,
as a mother, as a sister, and as a wife. The Bible offers no such prescription.
Rather, the Bible allots the entire inheritance to male relatives where
such exist, leaving nothing for wife or mother. So why do Bible believers
complain about the Quran?
CLAIM and REPLY
In his reply to Randy Desmond, Katz comments on an interpretation of
a hadith which directs us to give the allotted shares as designated
and then to give the undistributed remainder to the nearest male relative.
Katz stretches this to mean possibly a male cousin of an uncle. Then
he concludes that if he dies leaving a daughter as his only child his
daughter would get half the estate and such a remote male relative would
get the other half. Then comes his expression of incredulity:
". . . this
remote male relative would get half the inheritance? As much as my daughter?
That is what the hadith would suggest."
Aside from his misunderstanding of the said hadith and of Islamic inheritance
law, Katz should be advised that if he follows the Bible on this matter
his daughter may get nothing and the male relative would take all if
the daughter marries outside her father’s tribe. Katz may think this
law no longer applies today, but that does not help his position. Since
Katz believes that this prescription came from God in the first place,
and Katz thinks it incredible, then by implication he thinks that God’s
prescription in the Bible is incredible.
Based on his misunderstanding of the hadith and of Islamic law, Katz
is able to remark:
"According
to my taste, this is not justified. [Neither do I know of any country’s
civil or religious law where things are dealt with that way.] But then,
maybe I am not the one to define what is justice."
Neither is it done that way in Islamic law. On the other hand, has Katz
read his Bible lately? According to the Bible, if a man has no kids
his property goes to his brothers, or to his father's brothers (Numbers
27:8-11). How does Katz feel about this? Wife and mother are not mentioned
in the list of inheritors. According to this list we should pass over
a man’s wife and mother and give his entire property to his father’s
brother. Perhaps Katz will explain to us how this fits his taste of
what is justified.
Anything Left
Unanswered?
I have in the foregoing discussion answered every significant point
raised by Katz regarding the matter of inheritance. If there is anything
left unanswered I would like to know. Then I can get to work on it right
away.
by Shabbir Ally
Posted by: admin on Tuesday, September 19 @ 13:24:22 MDT
Stumble It!
