Scot Dutchy wrote:

Clive Durdle wrote:http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/66954/sec_id/66954

Historical Methodology and the Believer

by Ibn Warraq (July 2010)

Fascinating call here for institutes of koranic and syriac studies, and that open study of Islam in universities has already been corrupted by Saudi money.

Very fascinating. Thanks.

I agree money always works if spend enough. I think $233 million to British universities is more than enough to attain results.

Fuck, I'd say what they wanted me to for that much money. I'm a whore, so sue me.

An excellent if depressing article. I'd read that Crone and Cooke had watered down their views of the origin of the Koran and Islam but it's grim to see their post-modernist dismissal of their work's importance. On a brighter note, although Warraq says that Luxenberg's critical book has not been translated from the German, an English version is available through Amazon UK: http://tinyurl.com/32pgp6z and US: http://tinyurl.com/3ykmvyh (his remark seems to date from 2005 even though the article is dated 2010). A fair bit of it is also available on Google Scholar: http://tinyurl.com/356nad3 ISTR commenting on this earlier in the thread, but my head was reeling a bit at the time - it's heavy going.

Warraq also fails to mention the Corpus Coranicum project, which ought to be producing some preliminary results on the diversity of early Korans by now: http://www.ghostofaflea.com/archives/013852.htm and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_Coranicum Even so, I must have another look to see if I can find any copies of his books at a reasonable price.

Just been checking some history. If the koran didn't exist until the ninth century what caused the arabs to go to war, or was it that the Romans and Persians had fought each other to a stand still and it was thus a cake walk. No one had the energy to go on the offensive against these upstarts. Julian had labelled arabs as mostly useless mercenaries.

And I get the impression there may have been a significant difference in terms of equality and freedom that made people think hmm lets dump the empires, this isn't that bad.

But whether it was driven by the koran is doubtful. For example, Poitiers, why were Arabs there?

A puritanical lot might have had a lot going for them.

Clive Durdle wrote:Just been checking some history. If the koran didn't exist until the ninth century what caused the arabs to go to war,

I imagine the possibility of grabbing some grassland, away from all that sand, must have been quite an incentive!

or was it that the Romans and Persians had fought each other to a stand still and it was thus a cake walk. No one had the energy to go on the offensive against these upstarts. Julian had labelled arabs as mostly useless mercenaries.

I understand there was something of a vacuum, as you suggest, and the Arabs were experienced at fighting - each other. It seems at least possible that the Koran was cobbled together to help cobble together a nation out of squabbling tribes.

And I get the impression there may have been a significant difference in terms of equality and freedom that made people think hmm lets dump the empires, this isn't that bad.

I'd have thought that life for peasants was pretty much the same whoever was running things in those days so unless there was a revolt with peasants rushing to join the Arabs and pay dhimmi taxes, it was more likely a matter of a young upstart military nation ousting the worn out ancient regime. But I'm only guessing.

But whether it was driven by the koran is doubtful. For example, Poitiers, why were Arabs there?

Same as any conquering army I suppose - keeping going until they were stopped or ran out of steam.

I've just noticed that over on Debunking Creationism ( http://www.rationalskepticism.org/post700347.html?hilit=Mondher%20Sfar#p700347), Davian has pointed up the work of Mondher Sfar, who argues that while the first Muslims believed in the celestial "preserved tablet" they regarded Mohammed's revelations of its content as partial and fallible.

Synopsis

Orthodox Muslims venerate the Koran as the sacred word of God, which they believe was literally revealed by dictation from the angel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad. This fundamentalist attitude toward the Muslim holy book denies the possibility of error in the Koran-even though there are some fairly obvious self-contradictions, inconsistencies, and incoherent passages in the text. To justify the claim that the Koran is inerrant, the orthodox have simply pointed to centuries of hidebound tradition and the consensus view of conservative leaders who back up this interpretation. But does the very beginning of the Muslim tradition lend support to the orthodox view?
In this fascinating study of the origins of Islam, historian Mondher Sfar reveals that there is no historical, or even theological, basis for the orthodox view that Muhammad or his earliest followers intended the Koran to be treated as the inviolable word of God. With great erudition and painstaking historical research, Sfar demonstrates that the Koran itself does not support the literalist claims of Muslim orthodoxy. Indeed, as he carefully points out, passages from Islam's sacred book clearly indicate that the revealed text should not be equated with the perfect text of the original "celestial Koran," which was believed to exist only in heaven and to be fully known only by God.
This early belief helps to explain why there were many variant texts of the Koran during Muhammad's lifetime and immediately thereafter, and also why this lack of consistency and the occasional revisions of earlier revelations seemed not to disturb his first disciples. They viewed the Koran as only an imperfect copy of the real heavenlyoriginal, a copy subject to the happenstances of Muhammad's life and to the human risks of its transmission. Only later, for reasons of social order and political power, did the first caliphs establish an orthodox policy, which turned Muhammad's revelations into the inerrant word of God, from which no deviation or dissent was permissible. [my emphasis]
This original historical exploration into the origins of Islam is also an important contribution to the growing movement for reform of Islam initiated by courageous Muslim thinkers convinced of the necessity of bringing Islam into the modern world.

From Barnes & Noble's site http://tinyurl.com/5v2op7q re his In Search of the Original Koran: The True History of the Revealed Text, Prometheus Books 2008 $20 but available as a Nook ebook for half that.
Looks like a man to watch.

Looking for more stuff by or about Sfar, I found little or nothing in translation. However this site http://www.mehdi-azaiez.org/In-search-of-the-original-Koran while looking like nothing more than a bibliography, has a lot of stuff about early Islam that I was unaware of. For instance,

Materials for the History of the Text of the Quran ; The Old Codices (Arthur JEFFERY)

JEFFERY (Arthur), Materials for the history of the text of the Qurʾān : The old codices : the "Kitāb al-Maṣāḥif" of Ibn Abī Dāwūd, together with a collection of the variant readings from the codices of Ibn Ma˜sūd, Ubai, ˜Alī, Ibn ˜Abbās, Anas, Abū Mūsā and other early qur’anic authorities which present a type of text anterior to that of the canonical text of ˜Uthmān / Edited by Arthur Jeffery…, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1937, X-362-223 p.

(My bold) http://www.mehdi-azaiez.org/Materials-for-the-History-of-the
First German, now French, articles casting doubt on Mo and his alleged ramblings. Where's the English stuff, now that the works of Crone et al. have been smothered? Shurely we should be told!

I found this interesting:

http://www.islam-watch.org/Kammuna/Collection-of-Quran-3.htm

Also WikiIslam provides plenty of info:

http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Main_Page

How can a supposedly educated person find islam interesting or informative. Islam is a load of BS.

morpheus wrote:How can a supposedly educated person find islam interesting or informative. Islam is a load of BS.

Of course it is but it takes an educated person to demonstrate to its blinkered adherents that it is, indeed, a load of bullshit. Ditto all religions - very few blinkered adherents will work it out for themselves. Worse, the majority of people will shrug off the nonsense and make no attempt to shine a light on it. While all the time accommodating it.

Oeditor wrote:

morpheus wrote:How can a supposedly educated person find islam interesting or informative. Islam is a load of BS.

Of course it is but it takes an educated person to demonstrate to its blinkered adherents that it is, indeed, a load of bullshit. Ditto all religions - very few blinkered adherents will work it out for themselves. Worse, the majority of people will shrug off the nonsense and make no attempt to shine a light on it. While all the time accommodating it.

I agree. Only by reading about it and studying it can you find the way to show the followers that they are following crap.
The followers of any religion dont see the negative points or contridictions as they skim over the bits that call the confusion.

I am saddened by the fact that the majority of posters here preach rationality, skepticism and objectivity, while they themselves have an anti Islamic outlook on things and thus are in contradiction with the things they preach. This whole thread wasn't started with the intention of analyzing and concluding, but with the intention of presenting Islam as a bad thing. If you are biased to any side, you aren't qualified to do things like these, because, as it was clearly seen over the last 6 pages, the majority of the posters are searching for evidences and facts to support their way of thinking. Even if it means to be horrendously wrong.
The debate isn't about winning or losing, it's about arriving to the truth. So if you can't keep an open and rational mind (not open to the things you like, and closed to the things contrary to your beliefs) it's better to stay away from topics like these, because every post proves how ignorant, biased and brainwashed the majority of you are.
Another advice I can give you is to double check your sources. It's better to be blind than to believe everything you read. Islamwatch and Jihadwatch are terrible sources.

Using pure logic and common sense, the fact that 1,5 billion people in the world are Muslims, tells you something. I am sure that if Mohammad didn't bring good things with Islam, there wouldn't be as many followers and the religion itself wouldn't be the fastest growing. There has to be something in it that attracts humans from the West, East, North and South.
I agree that Islam isn't under a good light lately and do you know why? Because people tend to ''objectively analyze'' it and conclude that for example it is OK to not let women drive or that it is OK to kill non-Muslims. Everyone analyses for himself. Qur'an, itself, isn't an easy book. In fact to be able to analyze it you have to be knowledgeable. There are some verses pretty confusing and contradicting at the first glance. That's why to fully understand it you have to take hadith (Muhammad's sayings) and historic context into consideration. I don't have time to make examples now, but if anyone is interested I will do it in the future.

All in all, you can't take a stance and then start rationalizing, but you have to rationalize first and then take a stance. Those are the basics of debating and there is not a place for emotions in it.

Regarding Qur'anic origins, the book was revealed to Muhammad over the span of 23 years. The verses would be taught when there was a need for them, like during some happenings and so on. At first people simply memorized it and they took great care of it, they would organize meetings almost every day to recite and discuss the verses together. So it was hard for the verses to be changed at that time when few hundreds of people knew it by heart (Note that for Arabs knowing things by heart wasn't a big deal, because they were known for knowing their tribes genealogies by heart back to 10 generations and more, futhermore they were also known for poetry which they didn't write down but recite). Additionally they even wrote it down as it is known that Muhammad sent copies of Qur'an to different tribes. That proves that Qur'an was recorded during Muhammad's lifetime, however it wasn't massively done. That's all during Mohammad's lifetime. During the caliphate of Abu Bakr 700 people who knew the whole Qur'an by heart were killed in a battle. That's when Muslims realized that the Qur'an could be mutated because not everyone had a whole copy of it and there wasn't one in the capital Medina, and the majority of people still learned it by hearing. Someone had only fragments while in some parts people started changing the verses. So they decided to write it down and make an ''official'' version of it. Don't get me wrong they didn't change anything in it because every verse that entered the official version had to be verified by at least 2 people who knew it by heart. Abu Bakr compiled the Qur'an, while Uthman was the one who started to ''publish it massively''. Later they added the so called vowels because, Islam grew big and not everyone was a native Arab. Arabs don't need those vowels when reading, but it is helpful for those who don't know Arabic quite yet. They've done it so it becomes accessible to everyone.

So yeah, Qur'an was mutated during the time, but the message didn't change at all. I'll mention just one point regarding that. In Qur'an there are some verses that say that it is preferable not to do prayer after drinking alcohol and there are others that say that alcohol has some good in, it's just that the evil in it is bigger, and there are others that forbid drinking alcohol. Everyone should know that Muslim don't drink alcohol, so how come there verses who say that you can drink it, but it's better to not do it? It's because the prohibition of alcohol came gradually, at first only prayer was forbidden while intoxicated, then came the revelation that the good in it is very small and don't worth the risk and in the end came total seclusion of it.
At first those verses seem to be in contradiction so wouldn't it be better to remove them and only leave the ones who say that alcohol is forbidden as other ones weren't relevant to Muslims anymore. That way there would be no confusion. It is precisely that the reason that you have to take historical context and hadith into consideration. Same thing with slavery and that's because both alcohol and slavery were deeply rooted into pre-Islamic Arabia. If Qur'an was changed the most logical step would be to remove the verses that don't concern the Muslims anymore, but they are still there.

If you believe Qur'an was mutated, than you believe that it isn't a word of God therefore you believe that Islam is a man made religion. So how come back then in the Qur'an it was written that the seas don't mix their waters into one another or that there are 2 Easts and 2 Wests (the sun doesn't rise up/set down from/at the same spot every day) or the precise teachings about fetus. Those are just few things found in the Qur'an and if it was man made Muhammad couldn't have known all those things, especially not him, as he was illiterate from the desert, belonging to the backwards society of Quraysh. Their science was zero. How come Muhammad told his companions that they will win over Persia, that the caliphate would soon end, succeeded by dynasties (Umayyads, Abbassids, ...), which would be succeeded by military dictatorships (as it is today in the majority of Arab countries), that the people from Arabia will compete in constructing the tallest ''towers'' (implying all those skyscrapers built today)and so on. Google a bit about those things, especially the scientific ones. Those are all things that couldn't have been known by him, nor by anyone back then if it wasn't with the help of God.

Islam and science or rational thinking go perfectly together, in fact in Qur'an it is encouraged to think, rationalize and try to understand the creation of God.

Regarding Qur'anic origins, the book was revealed to Muhammad over the span of 23 years.

Really...

Did you know there is little evidence for the existence of this miraculous book 100 years after Mo's death? And what there is, that 100 years later, is fragmentary. Some argue that the Koran is as contrived as many say the Bible is.

Musk wrote:I am saddened by the fact that the majority of posters here preach rationality, skepticism and objectivity, while they themselves have an anti Islamic outlook on things and thus are in contradiction with the things they preach. This whole thread wasn't started with the intention of analyzing and concluding, but with the intention of presenting Islam as a bad thing. If you are biased to any side, you aren't qualified to do things like these, because, as it was clearly seen over the last 6 pages, the majority of the posters are searching for evidences and facts to support their way of thinking. Even if it means to be horrendously wrong.
The debate isn't about winning or losing, it's about arriving to the truth. So if you can't keep an open and rational mind (not open to the things you like, and closed to the things contrary to your beliefs) it's better to stay away from topics like these, because every post proves how ignorant, biased and brainwashed the majority of you are.
Another advice I can give you is to double check your sources. It's better to be blind than to believe everything you read. Islamwatch and Jihadwatch are terrible sources.

And of course you, being a Muslim, are entirely objective and unbiased on this matter, are you? Let's see...

Using pure logic and common sense, the fact that 1,5 billion people in the world are Muslims, tells you something. I am sure that if Mohammad didn't bring good things with Islam, there wouldn't be as many followers and the religion itself wouldn't be the fastest growing. There has to be something in it that attracts humans from the West, East, North and South.

It's a falsehood that Islam is the world's fasted growing religious belief. The fastest growing is actually "no religious belief."

Anyway, is that your idea of a logical argument? If a whole bunch of people believe something, it must be true? Well if 1.5 billion people believe in Islam, that means there are over 4.5 billion people who think it is a bunch of lies. Could they all be wrong? Well, yeah, they could. See how that works?

I agree that Islam isn't under a good light lately and do you know why? Because people tend to ''objectively analyze'' it and conclude that for example it is OK to not let women drive or that it is OK to kill non-Muslims. Everyone analyses for himself. Qur'an, itself, isn't an easy book. In fact to be able to analyze it you have to be knowledgeable. There are some verses pretty confusing and contradicting at the first glance. That's why to fully understand it you have to take hadith (Muhammad's sayings) and historic context into consideration. I don't have time to make examples now, but if anyone is interested I will do it in the future.

So the all-powerful, all-knowing God, creator of the universe, is not even capable of writing a book that is not open to misinterpretation, and requires knowledge of history, an ancient dialect and the reported sayings of someone from 1400 years ago in order to be understood? That's pretty inept.

All in all, you can't take a stance and then start rationalizing, but you have to rationalize first and then take a stance. Those are the basics of debating and there is not a place for emotions in it.

Agreed. Again, let's see how well you hold to this....

Regarding Qur'anic origins, the book was revealed to Muhammad over the span of 23 years. The verses would be taught when there was a need for them, like during some happenings and so on. At first people simply memorized it and they took great care of it, they would organize meetings almost every day to recite and discuss the verses together. So it was hard for the verses to be changed at that time when few hundreds of people knew it by heart (Note that for Arabs knowing things by heart wasn't a big deal, because they were known for knowing their tribes genealogies by heart back to 10 generations and more, futhermore they were also known for poetry which they didn't write down but recite). Additionally they even wrote it down as it is known that Muhammad sent copies of Qur'an to different tribes. That proves that Qur'an was recorded during Muhammad's lifetime, however it wasn't massively done. That's all during Mohammad's lifetime. During the caliphate of Abu Bakr 700 people who knew the whole Qur'an by heart were killed in a battle. That's when Muslims realized that the Qur'an could be mutated because not everyone had a whole copy of it and there wasn't one in the capital Medina, and the majority of people still learned it by hearing. Someone had only fragments while in some parts people started changing the verses. So they decided to write it down and make an ''official'' version of it. Don't get me wrong they didn't change anything in it because every verse that entered the official version had to be verified by at least 2 people who knew it by heart. Abu Bakr compiled the Qur'an, while Uthman was the one who started to ''publish it massively''. Later they added the so called vowels because, Islam grew big and not everyone was a native Arab. Arabs don't need those vowels when reading, but it is helpful for those who don't know Arabic quite yet. They've done it so it becomes accessible to everyone.

You're joking, right? You seriously think it's possible to have followed that process and not have errors included in the final written version? You admit that there were already differences and errors in how the Quran was recalled. Thousands of people have it memorized, but so long as only two people agree on something, it gets included?

Bottom line: We don't have the complete version of the Quran (or, more accurately, the seven versions) as it existed in the life of Muhammed, so we have no idea how many errors were made between then and the final compilation by Uthman. It's just a matter of blind faith to say the Quran was not changed.

So yeah, Qur'an was mutated during the time, but the message didn't change at all. I'll mention just one point regarding that. In Qur'an there are some verses that say that it is preferable not to do prayer after drinking alcohol and there are others that say that alcohol has some good in, it's just that the evil in it is bigger, and there are others that forbid drinking alcohol. Everyone should know that Muslim don't drink alcohol, so how come there verses who say that you can drink it, but it's better to not do it? It's because the prohibition of alcohol came gradually, at first only prayer was forbidden while intoxicated, then came the revelation that the good in it is very small and don't worth the risk and in the end came total seclusion of it.
At first those verses seem to be in contradiction so wouldn't it be better to remove them and only leave the ones who say that alcohol is forbidden as other ones weren't relevant to Muslims anymore. That way there would be no confusion.

Yeah, it would be better to do that. So why didn't the All Powerful All Knowing Creator of the Universe do that? Let's see your answer.

It is precisely that the reason that you have to take historical context and hadith into consideration. Same thing with slavery and that's because both alcohol and slavery were deeply rooted into pre-Islamic Arabia. If Qur'an was changed the most logical step would be to remove the verses that don't concern the Muslims anymore, but they are still there.

Umm, what? So Allah revealed verses to Muhammed that He knew would be incorrect, misleading and confusing, but left them in because otherwise it would mean changing the Quran? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. How about just not including them in the first place. Polytheism and idolatory were also "deeply rooted" in pre-Islamic Arabia, but the Quran doesn't say, "OK, you can worship, let's say, 5 gods, and keep some of your idols.... Alright, now you can worship only three gods, and one idol.... OK, this is the last rule: One God, no idols. That's final."

If you believe Qur'an was mutated, than you believe that it isn't a word of God therefore you believe that Islam is a man made religion. So how come back then in the Qur'an it was written that the seas don't mix their waters into one another

Sure, because no one knew of the difference between freshwater and seawater back then, did they? Note that, in this video, they quote from actual tasfir that demonstrates this is no scientific miracle:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAK6fQQALE4[/youtube]

or that there are 2 Easts and 2 Wests (the sun doesn't rise up/set down from/at the same spot every day)

OK, I have to admit that's a new one on me. Two easts and two west, eh? That sounds hilariously wrong. Why don't you give us some more details on that one. We could all use a laugh.

or the precise teachings about fetus.

This one, OTOH, is an oldie but goodie. There are no "precise" teachings about embryology in the Quran had not already been known for a long time. BTW, have you actually studied embryology yourself, to confirm what is claimed to be in the Quran? Or are you just repeating the claims of apologists that you accept because they confirm what you want to believe?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRBrl02tnnY[/youtube]

Those are just few things found in the Qur'an and if it was man made Muhammad couldn't have known all those things, especially not him, as he was illiterate from the desert, belonging to the backwards society of Quraysh. Their science was zero.

This has always intrigued me. Why do Muslims feel compelled to portray their Prophet as an ignorant fool who did not even the difference between seawater and freshwater? If a Kaffir said such a thing they would issue a fatwah. Yet they feel quite free to say it themselves.

How come Muhammad told his companions that they will win over Persia, that the caliphate would soon end, succeeded by dynasties (Umayyads, Abbassids, ...), which would be succeeded by military dictatorships (as it is today in the majority of Arab countries), that the people from Arabia will compete in constructing the tallest ''towers'' (implying all those skyscrapers built today)and so on. Google a bit about those things, especially the scientific ones. Those are all things that couldn't have been known by him, nor by anyone back then if it wasn't with the help of God.

Maybe you can provide some actual citations to support those claims. Not that there is anything remarkable about them. Every two bit tribal leader with delusions of grandeur probably predicted he would eventually conquer the world. A few of them happened to be right, just by luck.

BTW, do you believe Nostradamus was a prophet of Allah?

Islam and science or rational thinking go perfectly together, in fact in Qur'an it is encouraged to think, rationalize and try to understand the creation of God.

It's pretty obvious from the above that just the opposite is the case. The only way you could make the above arguments is to start from the assumption that Islam is correct then try to twist and misinterpret every piece of evidence to support that conclusion. A perfect example of someone who, in your own words "takes a stance, then starts to rationalize it."

Islam does not promote rational thought. Like all religions, it is the enemy of rational thought.

Musk wrote:This whole thread wasn't started with the intention of analyzing and concluding, but with the intention of presenting Islam as a bad thing.

Not at all - I started the thread with the intention of showing that the average muslim-in-the-street has a different perception of the Koran than have scholars. Reread my OP where I quote Khalid Mohammed, writing in the Middle East Quarterly

For most Muslims unaware of the evolution of Islamic scholarship, the Qur'an is immutable and uncreated, even though the Qur'an never makes such a proclamation, and theologians reached such a conclusion only after much debate. Immutability means that the seventh century values of some Qur'anic verses, rather than being placed in their seventh century Arabian context, are portrayed as the eternal divine mandate, giving rise, for example, to an argument that females must inherit half as much as males.{http://www.meforum.org/717/assessing-english-translations-of-the-quran}

and concluded by saying

I was hoping to start a discussion about defective scripts, burnt collections and hidden caches of ancient copies, but I may have cut the ground from under my own feet. Anyone interested?

Being no prophet, I was wrong to imagine that nobody would be interested. I will only go into one other point in your post at the moment, because it relates to the scholarship you think we all lack.

Musk wrote:Additionally they even wrote it down as it is known that Muhammad sent copies of Qur'an to different tribes.

Perhaps you would give us a source for this and explain the contradiction between this claim and the story that the Koran was not collected into a single work until after Mohammed's death?
Anyway, welcome to the forum.

I have a feeling this is a fly by merchant.

celestial Koran,

Now where have I heard ideas like that before? Plato?


Which raises all sorts of interesting question about the ecosystems Islam was born in.

We have commented on the possible Xian and Jewish roots of the koran. I wonder if there is a further major influence - Persia and Zarathustra.

It would explain the puritanical and astronomical streaks, and the love of angels and djinn. I would also propose that the Cathars and Bogomil are hybrids of xianity, gnosticism and islam.

The sufi as the true islamic tradition?

From a link from an earlier link

Quote from: billy on April 21, 2010, 11:09 AM


Come on Yusuf Islam etc etc, you know you want to do it too.




lol in YI's case that aint gonna happen.

This German guy was already criticising traditional Islam - it was coming. YI is a different chap entirely.

billy:

Yeah I know, but you can always dream O0

The thought of the trauma it would cause to the dawah-merchants is so funny ;D

SE-man:
Hassan, I seem to remember you commenting on his not being very well read on what Islam really stands for?
Can you expand a bit on what you know about his conversion and religious development? Since he has started playing music again, one wonders if perhaps he is on his way back to the real world?

billy:

He said he regrets how hardcore he was when he converted.

I really hope that one day Cat Stevens understands how much he was used by the dawah-merchants. How they brainwashed him to repudiate the gift he had for creating beauty, truly beautiful music, and was convinced that there was something hateful and un-godly about that gift of beauty he had. The amount of self-loathing it engendered was tragic. Islam does much to converts, to destroy such a precious talent is one of the more horrible things, and to be used as a poster boy for dawah. I'm sure at the very least he can understand and regret this, he has come back to his old self with the music again, at least.

Scot Dutchy wrote:I have a feeling this is a fly by merchant.

I think you blew his brainz out back then, Scott.