A Detailed Historical Examination Of Numbers 31:18

awesome piece!

Discover The Truth

Kaleef K. Karim

Content:

1. Introduction
2. The Hebrew word “taph” (children)
3. The Hebrew word “lachem” (“for yourselves”)
4. The Ancient Interpretation of Numbers 31:18
5. Contemporary Interpretation of Numbers 31:18
6. “Forced” – Deuteronomy 21:14
7. Conclusion

1. Introduction

The details that are given in Numbers 31:18 about the female captives caught and distributed to Moses’s men is disturbing for many reasons, as we read the verse closer. I have written about this verse before, however, I think we need to look at the Hebrew words closer and see how the verse was interpreted by classical ancient scholars.

Now, this article by no means is to bash or disrespect those who believe and follow the Bible. My intention is to analyse Numbers 31:18, on whether this verse is historical, came from God or was it inserted by men to satisfy their own lusts. I am leaning towards the…

View original post 7,682 more words



Categories: Islam

22 replies

  1. Yes very detailed. 😉

    http://christianthinktank.com/midian.html

    http://answeringislam.net/Responses/Osama/pedophilia.htm

    The guy is a joke whose “articles” make the Quran sound coherent by comparison, which is why he will never debate his garbage.

    Glory to the Lord Jesus, I am almost done with my decimation of his garbage piece on 9:29 and Tabuk, and I am nearly done with my multi-part response to Brown’s defense of Muhammad having sex with a minor. Will let you know when it’s done.

    Like

    • oh sammy all your articles are a joke that lack substance..and refute nothing…

      Sammy you continuously and falsely misconstrue verse 9:29, that Muslims are commanded to attack all non-Muslims until they pay money. In fact, such an interpretation is completely false and contradicts authentic Islamic teachings. Commenting on this verse, Shaykh Jalal Abualrub writes:

      These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State. (Abualrub, Holy Wars, Crusades, Jihad)
      Likewise, the following fatwa points out that Muslims cannot attack a peaceful non-Muslim country:

      Question: Is it an obligation of an Islamic state to attack the neighboring non-Muslim states and collect ‘jizya’ from them? Do we see this in the example of the rightly guided Caliphs who fought against the Roman and Persian Empires without any aggression initiating from them?

      Answered by Sheikh Hânî al-Jubayr, judge at the Jeddah Supreme Court

      If the non-Muslim country did not attack the Muslim one nor mobilize itself to prevent the practice and spread of Islam, nor transgress against mosques, nor work to oppress the Muslim people in their right to profess their faith and decry unbelief, then it is not for the Muslim country to attack that country. Jihâd of a military nature was only permitted to help Muslims defend their religion and remove oppression from the people.

      The Persians and Romans did in fact aggress against Islam and attack the Muslims first.

      The Chosroe of Persia had gone so far as to order his commander in Yemen specifically to kill the Prophet (peace be upon him). The Romans mobilized their forces to fight the Prophet (peace be upon him), and the Muslims confronted them in the Battles of Mu’tah and Tabûk during the Prophet’s lifetime.

      May Allah guide us all. And May peace and blessing be upon our Prophet Muhammad. (SOURCE, emphasis added)

      The above fatwa refers to the historical context in which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) fought against other nations. The Prophet Muhammad did not initiate agression against anyone, rather he and his followers were under attack from all who sought to crush the new Islamic state. The first hostilities between the Muslims and the Roman empire began when the Prophet Muhammad’s messenger to the Ghassan tribe (a governate of the Roman empire), Al-Harith bin Umayr Al-Azdi, was tied up and beheaded (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 383). The killing of a diplomat was an open act of war, and the Prophet Muhammad sent an armed force to confront the tribe, but the Roman empire brought in reinforcements and the resulting conflict, known as the Battle of Mut’ah, was a defeat for the Muslims. Only after this did subsequent battles between the Muslims and the Roman Empire occur, and the Muslims emerged victorious. Likewise, as mentioned in the above fatwa, hostiltiies between the Muslims and the Persians only began after the Persian emperor Chosroe ordered his governor in Yemen Badham, to kill the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, although his efforts were thwarted when the latter accepted Islam. Other non-muslim groups, such as those in Madinah, also initiated hostilities against the Muslims despite peace treaties as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:

      As for fighting the Jews (People of the Scripture), they had conducted a peace pact with the Messenger after he migrated to Madinah. Soon afterwards, they betrayed the peace pact and joined forces with the pagans and the hypocrites against Muslims. They also fought against Muslims during the Battle of A`hzab , then Allah revealed…[and he cites verse 9:29] (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 80)
      In light of the historical context of this verse, it becomes very clear that the verse was revealed in connection with agression initiated against Muslims. As Dr. Jamal Badawi very accurately concludes with regard to verse 9:29 and similar verses:

      All of these verses, without exception, if studied carefully, address aggression and oppression committed against Muslims at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whether by idolatrous Arabs, some of the Jewish tribes in Madinah, or by some Christians. (SOURCE)
      Therefore, the command to fight in verse 9:29 relates to those non-muslims who commit agression and not those who are committed to live in peace. The verse is subject to certain conditions that were apparent when it was implemented in the time of the Prophet Muhammad pbuh, as Shaykh Sayyid Sabiq writes:

      What we have stated makes it clear that Islam did not allow the initiating of hostilities, except to: 1. repel aggression; 2. protect Islamic propagation; 3. deter Fitnah and oppression and ensure freedom of religion. In such cases, fighting becomes a necessity of the religion and one of its sacred ordainments. It is then called, ‘Jihad’. (Sayyid Sabiq, Fiqhu as-Sunnah, Vol. 3, p. 81)

      The verse then proceeds to mention some issues relating to the Islamic state, and governing non-muslim citizens of the Islamic state. Dr. Maher Hathout comments on the regulations in verse 9:29:

      Freedom of religion is an essential aspect in an Islamic state. One of the five pillars of Islam is zakat (almsgiving). The People of the Book (Christians and Jews) are not obliged to pay the Islamic zakat that is spent by the state for social necessities and state affairs as defined in the Quran (see 9:60). But they must pay other taxes to share in the state budget. If they refuse to pay this tax to the state and rebel against the state, then it is the obligation of the state to confront them until they pay it. This is what Caliph Abu Bakr did after the death of the Prophet, when some people refused to pay zakat. (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, p.53)
      The verse mentions Jizya, which is unfortunately misunderstood by some people. Like any nation, the Islamic government requires its citizens to pay taxes in return for its services. Since Muslims pay the Zakat, the non-muslim citizens are required to pay Jizya (for more information on Jizya, please refer to Jizya in Islam and Jizyah and non-muslim minorities). Dr. Monqiz As-Saqqar writes concerning the Jizya tax:

      The sum of jizya was never large to the extent that the men were unable to pay. Rather, it was always available and reasonable. During the reign of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, jizya never exceeded one dinar annually and it never exceeded four dinars under the Umayyad rule. (SOURCE)
      Shaykh Abu’l-Hasan Al-Mawardi (d. 1058CE) explicitly points out that the Jizya should be exacted in accordance with the means of the people, and the Imam should judge the conclude the amount to the satisfaction of the leaders of those being taxed:

      The fuqaha (Jurists) differ as to the amount of the Jizya. Abu Hanifa considers that those subject to this tax are of three kinds: the rich from whom forty-eight dirhams are taken; those of average means from whom twenty four are taken, and the poor from whom twelve dirhams are taken: he thus stipulated the minimum and maximum amounts and prohibits any further judgement on behalf of those responsible for its collection. Malik, however, does not fix its minimum and maximum amount and considers that those responsible should make their own judgement as to the minimum and maximum. Ash-Shafi’i considers that the minimum is a dinar, and that it is not permitted to go below this while he does not stipulate the maximum, the latter being dependant on the ijtihad (judgement) of those responsible: the Imam, however, should try to harmonise between the different amounts, or to exact an amount in accordance with people’s means. If he has used his judgement to conclude the contract od jizyah to the satisfaction of the leaders of the people being taxed, then it becomes binding on all of them and their descendants, generation after generation, and a leader may not afterwards change this amunt, be it to decrease it or increase it. (Al-Mawardi, al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyyah, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. 1996, pp. 209-210)
      Hence, the laws of Islam forbid Muslims from opressing non-muslims and command them to treat others with justice and compassion. In fact, the Prophet Muhammad pbuh himself forbade Muslims from harming non-muslim citizens of an islamic state or any non-muslim with whom there was an agreement of peace, as he said,

      “The one who wrongs a covenanter or impairs his right or overworks him or forcibly takes something from him, I will be his prosecutor on the Day of Judgment. (Sunan Abi Dawud 170/3 no. 3052, Sunan an-Nasa’i 25/8 no. 2749, and verified by Al-Albani no. 2626).

      In conclusion, verse 9:29 commands Muslims to fight against only those who initiate agression as illustated by its historical context. Muslims may only fight under strict conditions, and are commanded to live peacefully with peaceful non-muslim neighbors.

      Similar Narration

      Bukhari: God’s Apostle said, I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say, None has the right to be worshipped but God. (Volume 4, Book 52, Number 196)

      With regards to the narration, only part of it has been quoted, and the full text reads:

      And the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer, and pay zakat, and if they do this, then their blood and money shall be protected from me, except by an Islamic right, and their account will be with Allah.

      This narration lists some of the pillars of Islam that Muslims must adhere to. The fighting being ordained here refers to the enforcement of laws and regulations within an Islamic state. Just as modern governments enforce their legal policies, so to does the Islamic state. These legal policies refer to Muslims paying their Zakat (charity tax) and abiding by the laws in an Islamic state. Those who understood the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) the best, were his companions, and we can examine their application of the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to derive a better understanding. We find that after the death of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), many hypocrites who had pretended to be Muslim began to turn away and leave their religious duties, one example was Zakat (the charity tax). They wanted to compromise the commands of God. It was then that Abu Bakr, the First Caliph and the Caliph of that time, cited this narration to make it clear that a compromise would not be tolerated and he would fight them until they agreed to follow Islam in full. The fighting that resulted was known as the Riddah wars. Similarly, we can see that today’s governments would not tolerate it if a citizen refused to pay tax or abide by the laws of the country. If one lives in a state or country they must abide by the regulations to ensure a secure and healthy society. We should note that the ‘people’ referred to in this narration does not refer to all of humanity. As Shaykh Ahmed Ibn Taymiyyah says:

      “It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfill our covenant.” (Majmu` al-Fatawa 19/20)

      Clearly, this narration does not refer to imposing Islam upon non-Muslims, since the Qur’an explicitly states:

      2:256 There is no compulsion in religion…
      Also, we have already dealt with the claims that this verse was abrogated under our discussion of verse 9:5. Once understood in their correct context, these verses and narrations become clear

      http://www.islamnewsroom.com/news-we-need/329-yusuf-estes-correcting-quran-misquotes

      Like

    • Shammy-shammy-sham, while you were busy scratching your belly, we produced another three articles on Tabuk and “blonde women” claim:

      1,
      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/26/surah-949-and-the-blonde-women/

      2,
      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/30/muhammed-blonde-women-and-quran-949/

      3,
      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/01/banu-asfar-jadd-b-qays-and-the-blonde-women-claim/

      I am really excited to see your “so-called” refutation of my 9:29, I can’t wait to refute you point by point. Make sure to link my article to your site, so more readers can see the truth from Discover The Truth, and let the readers see what a waste/deceptive of a writer you are 🙂 :p

      BTW, you didn’t refute anything in regards to the new piece on Numbers 31:18, tell your pals to update that 1970s article 😉 🙂 :p

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Excellent articles and website by brother Kaleef. I posted a link of it on my blog:

    http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2016/08/recommended-website-discover-truth.html

    Keep up the good work!

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Discover the bias and shoddy argumentation.

    Like

    • LOL, this coming from a moron whose entire blog is simply re-blogged articles from pseudo-scholarly websites like “Jihad-Watch”!

      But seriously, madman, do you have an actual intelligent argument to make for once? Or will you do your usual thing and offer your own idiotic opinions?

      Like

    • Moses never told his people to rape anyone. Especially as the law of Moses forbids it. Neither was Dinah raped and also we don’t know how old she was. The idea that she was seven is ridiculous. These are just examples of the hogwash at this website. Yes, these are my opinions but that’s what blogs are for I would have thought. I’m open to be persuaded otherwise but there is only one scholar in my universe and that is me.

      Like

    • Madmanna’s claims that Moses forbade rape. Deuteronomy 21:14 clearly states that YHWH’s soldiers raped women and this was legal, allowed by Jesus god:

      Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT)
      “10 When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 TAKE HER to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE (ANAH) WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.”

      And then you claim that Dinah was not raped, these translations tell us that she was raped:

      Translations for Genesis 34:2

      Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
      “2 and Sh’khem the son of Hamor the Hivi, the local ruler, saw her, grabbed her, RAPED HER and humiliated her.” – Genesis 34:2

      Contemporary English Version (CEV)
      “2 She was seen by Hamor’s son Shechem, the leader of the Hivites, and he grabbed her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
      “2 She was seen by Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, who ruled that area. Shechem took Dinah and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      Good News Translation (GNT)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, who was chief of that region, saw her, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, a prince of the region, saw her, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      International Children’s Bible (ICB)
      “2 Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that land, saw Dinah. He took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      International Standard Version (ISV)
      “2 When Hamor the Hivite’s son Shechem, the regional leader, saw her, he grabbed her and RAPED HER, humiliating her.” – Genesis 34:2

      Lexham English Bible (LEB)
      “2 And Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her. And he took her and lay with her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      The Message (MSG)
      “1-2 One day Dinah, the daughter Leah had given Jacob, went to visit some of the women in that country. Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite who was chieftain there, saw her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      Names of God Bible (NOG)
      “2 When Shechem, son of the local ruler Hamor the Hivite, saw her, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      Living Bible (TLB)
      “2 but when Shechem, son of King Hamor the Hivite, saw her, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
      “2 When Shechem, son of the local ruler Hamor the Hivite, saw her, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      New International Reader’s Version (NIRV)
      “2 Hamor, the Hivite, was the ruler of that area. When his son Shechem saw Dinah, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      New International Version (NIV)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      New International Version – UK (NIVUK)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of that area, saw her, he took her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      New Living Translation (NLT)
      “2 But when the local prince, Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, saw Dinah, he seized her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      Tree of Life Version (TLV)
      “2 When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and lay with her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      The Voice (VOICE)
      “2 But when Shechem (son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the region) saw Dinah, he grabbed her and RAPED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      New American Standard Bible (NASB)
      “2 When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he took her and LAY WITH HER [A]BY FORCE.” – Genesis 34:2

      New Century Version (NCV)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, the ruler of the land, saw her, he took her and FORCED HER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HIM.” – Genesis 34:2

      New English Translation (NET Bible)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, who ruled that area, saw her, he grabbed her, FORCED HIMSELF ON HER, and SEXUALLY ASSAULTED HER.” – Genesis 34:2

      New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the region, saw her, he seized her and LAY WITH HER BY FORCE.” – Genesis 34:2

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the region, saw her, he seized her and LAY WITH HER BY FORCE.” – Genesis 34:2

      New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the region, saw her, he SEIZED HER AND LAY WITH HER BY FORCE.” – Genesis 34:2

      New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the region, saw her, he seized her and LAY WITH HER BY FORCE.” – Genesis 34:2

      Wycliffe Bible (WYC)
      “2 And when Shechem, the son of Hamor (the) Hivite, the prince of that land, had seen her, he loved her, and he ravished her, and (he) slept with her, and OPPRESSED THE VIRGIN BY VIOLENCE (and he oppressed the virgin with violence).” – Genesis 34:2

      Amplified Bible (AMP)
      “2 When Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince (sheik) of the land, saw her, he KIDNAPPED HER AND LAY [INTIMATELY] WITH HER BY FORCE [humbling and offending her].” – Genesis 34:2

      Expanded Bible (EXB)
      “2 When Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite [C one of the tribes that inhabited Canaan], the ·ruler [prince] of the land, saw her, he took her and FORCED HER TO HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH HIM [lay with her and humiliated/violated her].” – Genesis 34:2

      New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
      “2 When Shechem, son of Hamor the Hivite,[a] the leader of the region, saw her, HE SEIZED HER AND LAY WITH HER BY FORCE.” – Genesis 34:2

      In the link there are many Christian scholars who say she was raped:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/07/30/hebrew-word-anah-inna-carries-the-meaning-of-rape/

      Furthermore, the calculations that Dinah was 7-years-old at the time, comes from your scripture. In fact there are TWO scholars who say the exact say thing, that she was 7.

      Read all the verses from Genesis 29 to 34 and I bet you will come to the same conslusion that she was NO more than 8 years old at the time she was gven in marriage to Shechem:

      https://discover-the-truth.com/2016/08/02/bible-how-old-was-dinah-when-she-was-married-to-shechem/

      Like

  4. I only recognize the KJV translation as the inerrant words of God. You cannot prove rape from this translation.

    Your conclusion that Dinah was seven years old is based on the erroneous assumption that the bible records a continuous time line of history.

    Like

  5. That’s not the point. The transmission has been preserved. The kjv translators were guided providentially and the manuscripts they had were preserved providentially from the originals.

    Deut 21 v 13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. 14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

    The captive woman becomes a free woman and must change her appearance.

    If she is divorced she no longer has the status of a virgin. She is a castoff woman. In this sense she is humbled.

    If someone is raped she is humbled perforce but that does not mean the reverse must also be true.

    Like

    • The Hebrew words for Deuteronomy 21:14 is VERY clear, it was rape. You can check the exact word used in another verse and ALL the scholars translate the word as rape.

      Like

  6. It can’t be rape because they haven’t slept with each other until the wedding night as was the custom and the law.

    “And after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.”

    Like

    • Whether the warrior raped her before he married or after it does not matter. Rape is rape. The text tells us that she was raped:

      Deuteronomy 21:10-14 Good News Translation (GNT)
      “10 When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 TAKE HER to your home, where she will shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her. 14 Later, if you no longer want her, you are to let her go free. Since you FORCED HER TO HAVE INTERCOURSE (ANAH) WITH YOU, you cannot treat her as a slave and sell her.”

      Like

    • That is determined by the context. If it was simply a case of the right to rape then there would be no need for Moses to mention marriage. I repeat the law of Moses forbade rape and this was the same for everyone.
      Also Exekiel 22 does not imply that rape must always occur although it is a definite possibility:
      10In thee have they discovered their fathers’ nakedness: in thee have they humbled her that was set apart for pollution. 11And one hath committed abomination with his neighbour’s wife; and another hath lewdly defiled his daughter in law; and another in thee hath humbled his sister, his father’s daughter.

      Like

  7. madmanna

    Don’t you know wives and girlfriends reporting their husbands and boyfriends for rape? and the husbands and boyfriends sentenced?

    There is no rape in Islam. There must be dowry and consent before sex. In the Bible there is rape from men of God to women without marrying them.

    You said the law of Moses forbade rape and you also said “It can’t be rape because they haven’t slept with each other until the wedding night as was the custom and the law.”

    I say;
    Why do you call the son of Abraham as bastard? and he does not have covenant with God? So Abraham the man of God committed rape and adultery from the Bible.

    According to the Bible David slept and rape so many women he did not marry. There is incest, rape, murder in the Bible commanded by Jesus Christ(God according to you certainly not me)

    Thanks.

    Like

  8. LOL,madman cannot provide any evidence except his own foolish opinions. What a shock!

    But what can you expect from a brainwashed thug who defends the horror of the Bible while simultaneously criticizing Islam?

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. A discussion on Paul Williams blog, bloggingtheology.net, in which I got involved about half-way down the comments | Badmanna's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: