--- In [email protected], "Jusfiq HADJAR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bagi yang mau memperluas cakrawala... >
Silakan bagi yang mau lebih luas lagi cakrawalanya. The Qur'�n, Jeffery & Missionaries: What Does Jeffery Actually Say? M S M Saifullah, Mans�r Ahmad, Muhammad Ghoniem & Khalid al-Khazaraj� � Islamic Awareness, All Rights Reserved. Last Updated: 11th November 1999 http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Gilchrist/GilJeffery.html Introduction Before we begin it is a nice idea to introduce Arthur Jeffery. He was an Australian-American Orientalist who conducted research on various aspects of the Qur'�n. Among his works the most celebrated is his Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'�n: The Old Codices. Along with his important work on Biblical studies, he pursued his research on the Qur'�n while serving in Cairo, Egypt, as the director of the American Research Centre, as a Professor of Semitic languages at Columbia University, and as an adjunct Professor at the Union Theological Seminary. Besides his studies on variant readings, he wrote on topics such as foreign vocabulary in the Qur'�n (The Foreign Vocabulary Of The Qur'�n: 1938, Arthur Jeffery, Oriental Institute, Baroda). He also translated selected surahs of the Qur'�n and devised a new arrangement to establish 'development in Muhammad's thought' (The Koran - Selected Suras: 1958, Arthur Jeffery, Heritage Press, New York). Professor Jeffery belongs to that section of Orientalists who, in post-colonial times, shifted from textual and philological studies and, unlike their predecessors, had no chance to act as advisor to the colonial masters of Muslim Asia and Africa. Arthur Jeffery also holds the dubious distinction of calling Muhammad(P) a robber chief, second only to Professor David Margoliouth.[1] Jeffery says: At Medina, he was what might justly call a robber chief, just as David, King of Israel, was in his early days.[2] All this was done to compare and contrast Muhammad(P) with the "life of our Lord."[3] Hallmark of a true Christian indeed! If he has so much hatred for the Prophet(P) of Islam, how is that one can expect him to be objective in his criticism of what was revealed to him? This chapter will deal with Professor Arthur Jeffery's work on the Qur'�n and would also discuss what Gilchrist would not like the readers of his book to know, i.e., how Arthur Jeffery reaches the conclusion about the rival Codices and variants in his book as well as other issues on the collection of variant readings. Jeffery published the book Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'�n: The Old Codices in 1937 which contains an impressive body of material dealing with the variant readings of the Qur'�n in the Companion codices. A part of the work was taken from Kit�b al-Mas�hif of Ibn Ab� D�w�d. The most striking feature of this book is the regularity with which the reader encounters expression of Jeffery's scepticism concerning the reports of the variant readings. This is due to the fact that sufficient material ... has not survived to enable us to get a real picture of the text of any of the pre-cUthm�nic codices. [4] Jeffery On The First Collection Of Ab� Bakr: The Art Of Juggling Words Orientalism and juggling of words are synonymous. Jeffery is no exception to this. The evidence that we have concerning the first collection of the Qur'�n by Ab� Bakr is authentic and strongly supported by the Islamic history. In spite of this evidence, the image of the Christian ecclesiastical history, with which the Christian missionaries are much more familiar, seems to have obsessed Jeffery to such a degree that he has, in his book, transposed it almost entirely to the Islamic terrain. In fact, he has tried to show that in the Qur'�nic text there is a certain evolution resembling in many ways the evolution in the text of the Gospels. The first one to start off with is denying the official character of the first collection of the Qur'�n by Ab� Bakr: That Ab� Bakr was one of those who collected the revelation material was doubtless true. He may possibly have inherited material that the Prophet had stored away in preparation of the Kit�b. That he ever made an official recension as the orthodox theory demands is exceedingly doubtful. His collection would have been a purely private affair, just as quite a few number of Companions of the Prophet had made personal collections as private affairs.[5] A simple reminder here would be that Ab� Bakr was a Caliph at the time he ordered the first collection after the loss of reciters on the day of Yamamah. As was the case with his predecessor Richard Bell, Jeffery failed to camouflage his prejudiced against Qur'�n when dealing with its compilation. Like Bell, he declares that the recension of Ab� Bakr was his own purely private affair. [6] It is interesting to note that he accepts all the variants indicated in Kit�b al-Mas�hif as valid but ignores (without explaining why!) these same sources assertion about Ab� Bakr's official collection of the Qur'�n! The second one is more absurd than the first. Jeffery repeated says: ...it is quite clear that the text which cUthm�n canonized was only one out of many rival texts, and we need to investigate what went before the canonical text.[7] There can be no doubt that the text canonized by cUthm�n was only one among several types of texts in existence at the time.[8] It is a well known fact that Ab� Bakr's first collection was the basis of the second one by cUthm�n. cUthm�n did not do any special collection of the Qur'�n except faithfully reproducing the copy which was with Hafsah. Needless to add: Zaid Ibn Thabit was involved with the collection during Ab� Bakr's time as well as cUthm�n's time. So, in depicting the cUthm�n's collection as a new one, Jeffery conveniently introduced the concept of rival Codices to the cUthm�nic Codex. Now, it is interesting to know that Ibn Ab� D�w�d nowhere uses the word rival Codex (to cUthm�nic Codex) in his work Kit�b al-Mas�hif. Hence it is purely an invention of Arthur Jeffery to push his hypothesis. Jeffery & The Seven Ahruf It is not very surprising that after the introduction of the concept of rival Codices and to push this hypothesis, Jeffery went on to negate the the evidence that the Qur'�n was revealed in seven ahruf as the hadiths given below state: >From Ab� Hurairah: The Messenger of God(P) said: "An All-knowing, Wise, Forgiving, Merciful sent down the Qur'�n in seven ahruf." [9] >From cAbdull�h Ibn Mascud: The Messenger of God(P) said: "The Qur'�n was sent down in seven ahruf. Each of these ahruf has an outward aspect (zahr) and an inward aspect (batn); each of the ahruf has a border, and each border has a lookout." [10] Jeffery shows his dubious scholarship by making a cheap excuse that: This number Seven was connected with the well known tradition about the Qur'�n having being revealed according to the seven ahruf, a tradition which itself had obviously been invented to explain the variant readings of the text known to exist.[11] Jeffery does not know that he is contradicting his own stance. On one hand, he is willing to believe whatever Ibn Mascud has to say concerning the variant readings. On the other hand he is rejecting Ibn Mascud's own testimony that the Qur'�n was revealed in seven ahruf! It is also interesting to see the traditional sources which Jeffery uses to gather the variant readings and they themselves say that the Qur'�n was revealed in seven ahruf (for the full bibliography of the sources which Jeffery uses, please see the next section). In other words, the use of evidence by him is extremely selective, i.e., negate the evidence which does not suit the hypothesis. Jeffery & The Sources Of Variant Readings Concerning Kit�b al-Mas�hif of Ibn Abi D�w�d Jeffery says: The number of actual variants given in this text is very small and obviously represents only those happened to be found in his particular collection of traditions.[12] Jeffery's primary source of collecting the variant readings was Kit�b al-Mas�hif of Ibn Abi D�w�d. He also collected variant readings from the books dealing with commentary (Tafs�r), linguistics (Lugah), literature (Adab) and reading styles (Qir�'�t). According to Jeffery [13]: The material which follows is taken from the writer's collections made with a view to a critical text of the Qur'�n..... The main sources from which the variants have been drawn are: Ab� Hayy�n, al-Bahar al-Muhit, 8 Volumes, Cairo 1328. Alus�, Ruh al-Macani Fi Tafs�r al-Qur'�n Wa Sab' al-Mathani, 30 Volumes, Cairo, n.d. Baghaw�, Macalim at-Tanzil, 7 Volumes, Cairo 1332. Baidaw�, Anw�r at-Tanzil Wa Asrar at-Tawil, 5 Prints, Cairo, 1330. Balawi, Kit�b Al�f Ba', 2 Volumes, Cairo, 1287. Banna, Ithaf Fudala al-Bashar Ai'l-Qir�'�t al-Arba'ata 'Ashar, Cairo, 1317. Fakhr ad-D�n ar-R�z�, Mafatih al-Ghaib, 8 Volumes, Cairo, 1327. Farra', Kit�b Macani al-Qur'�n, Ms. Stambul, Nuru Osmaniya 459. Ibn al-Anbar�, Kit�b al-Insaf, Ed. Gotthold Weil, Leiden, 1913. Ibn Hisham, Mughni al-Lab�b, 2 Prints, Cairo, 1347. Ibn Hisham, Tahdhib at-Tawadih, 2 Prints, Cairo, 1329. Ibn Jinn�, Nichtkanonische Koranlesarten im Muhtasab des Ibn Ginni, von G Bergstrasser, Munchen, 1933. Ibn Khalawaih, Ibn Halawaihs Sammlung nichtkanonischer Koranlesarten, Herausgegeben von G Bergstrasser, Stambul, 1934. Ibn Manzur, Lis�n al-cArab, 20 Volumes, Cairo, 1307. Ibn Ya'ish, Commentary To The Mufassal, Ed., Jahn, 2 Volumes, Liepzig, 1882. Khafaji, 'Inayat al-Qadi wa Kifayat ar-Radi, 8 Volumes, Cairo, 1283. Marand�, Qurrat 'Ain al-Qurra, Ms. Escorial, 1337. Muttaq� al-Hind�, Kanz al-'Ummal, Volume 2, Hyderabad, 1312. Nasafi, Madarik at-Tanzil wa Haqa'iq at-Ta'wil, 4 Volumes, Cairo, 1333. Nisabur�, Ghara'ib al-Qur'�n (On The Margin Of Tafsir at-Tabari). Qunaw�, Hashia cal� l-Baidawi, 7 Volumes, Stambul, 1285. Qurtub�, al-J�mic li Ahkam al-Qur'�n, 2 Volumes (All So Far Published), Cairo, 1935. Shawkan�, Fath al-Qadir, 5 Volumes, Cairo, 1349. Sibawaih, Le Livre de Sibawaih, Ed. Derenbourg, 2 Volumes, Paris, 1889. Suy�t�, al-Itqan f� cUl�m al-Qur'�n, Ed. Sprenger, Calcutta, 1857. Suy�t�, ad-Durr al-Manthur f� 't-Tafs�r al-Ma'thur, 6 Volumes, Cairo, 1314. Suy�t�, al-Muzhir, 2 Volumes, Cairo, 1282. Tabar�, al-J�mic al-Bay�n f� Tafs�r al-Qur'�n, 30 Volumes, Cairo, 1330. Tabarasi, Majma' al-Bay�n f�-cUl�m al-Qur'�n, 2 Volumes, Tehran, 1304. 'Ukbar�, Imla' fi 'l-I'rab wa 'l-Qir�'�t fi J�mic al-Qur'�n, 2 Parts, Cairo, 1321. 'Ukbar�, Icrab al-Qir�'�t ash-Shadhdha, MS Mingana Islamic Arabic, 1649. Zamakhshar�, al-Kashsh�f, Ed. Nassau Lees, Calcutta, 1861. It is to be noted that Jeffery's list of variant readings are surprisingly devoid of proper isn�d or chain of transmission. So, it is very difficult task to determine from where the variant readings were taken. Jeffery On Isn�d Of Variant Readings There are numerous problems which Jeffery mentions and overlooks. For example, the problem of isn�d of the readings attributed to various Companions of the Prophet(P). Concerning the book Kit�b al-Mas�hif of Ibn Abi D�w�d, Jeffery admits that: The greatest difficulty has been with the isn�ds quoted by the author, and although all available controls were applied to them, there may still be some that will not stand the scrutiny of isn�d critics. The assistance of Muslim savants in this matter was not helpful for we could not overcome the principle that every isn�d that led to a statement at variance with orthodoxy was ipso facto condemned.[14] Much of the material given by Ibn Ab� D�w�d regarding the history of the text of the Qur'�n, though extremely unorthodox, yet agrees so closely with the conclusions one had reached from quite other directions that one feels confident in making use of it, however weak orthodoxy may consider its isn�ds to be. [15] Two points are to be made here. The first one which Jeffery's claim "that every isn�d that led to a statement at variance with orthodoxy was ipso facto condemned" is a lie. And he contradicts himself further by saying that: Modern Muslim savants almost invariably set aside the variants recorded from the Old Codices on the grounds that they are Tafs�r, or as we would say, explanatory glosses on the cUthm�nic text, and they roundly condemn such ancient scholars as Ibn Khalawaih and Ibn Jinn� for not knowning the difference between Qir�'�t and Tafs�r. It is clear, however that only such Qir�'�t as were of the kind that could be used for tafs�r had any likelihood of being preserved.[16] The orthodoxy took into consideration various factors for accepting a recitation authentic. It had to fulfill three conditions and if any of the conditions were missing such a recitation was classified as Sh�dhdh (unusual). * The first condition was that the recitation have an authentic chain of narration in which the chain of narrators was continuous, the narrators were all known to be righteous and they were all knwon to possess good memories. It was also required that the recitation be conveyed by a large number of narrators on each level of the chain of narration below the level of Sahaabah (the condition of Tawaatur). Narrations which had authentic chains but lacked the condition of Tawaatur were accepted as explanations (Tafseer) of the Sahaabah but were not considered as methods of reciting the Qur'�n. As for the narrations which did not even have an authentic chain of narration, they were classified as Baatil (false) and rejected totally. * The seond condition was that the variations in recitations match known Arabic grammatical constructions. Unusual constructions could be verified by their existence in passages of pre-Islamic prose or poetry. * The third condition required the recitation to coincide with the script of one of the copies of the Qur'�n distributed during the era of Caliph 'Uthman. Hence differences which result from dot placement (i.e., ta'lamoon and ya'lamoon)are considered acceptable provided the other conditions are met. A recitation of a construction for which no evidence could be found would be classified Shaadhdh. This classification did not mean that all aspects of the recitation was considered Shaadhdh. It only meant that the unverified constructions were considered Shaadhdh.[17] Where does the orthodoxy condemn any statement of variance? What the orthodoxy rejects is the false chain of narrations not the lack of taw�tur. It is not clear from anything that Jeffery has said in his specialist work on the Qur'�n why anyone should feel this degree of confidence. According to Jeffery, Islamic scholars have considered that isn�d of reports in Kit�b al-Mas�hif weak, yet he wants to push it because it is 'extremely unorthodox'. Neither he has bothered to check the isn�d of the had�ths nor has he commented on any of the had�th probably assuming that the had�ths were forgeries. Later while talking about the authenticity of the readings ascribed to the Old Codices, Jeffery says: The question arises, of course, as to the authenticity of the readings ascribed to these Old Codices. In some cases it must be confessed there is a suspicion of readings later invented by grammarians and theologians being fathered on these early authorities in order to gain prestige of their name. This suspicion is strongest in the case of distinctively Shi'a readings that are attributed to Ibn Mascud, and in readings attributed to the wives of the Prophet. It is felt also in regard to the readings attributed to Ibn cAbb�s, who as Ubermensch des Tafsir, tended to get his authority quoted for any and every matter connected with Qur'�nic studies. On the whole, one may feel confident that the majority of readings quoted from any Reader really goes back to early authority. [18] And again it is still unclear from where does his confidence comes from? Some of the had�ths are reported to be weak and now Jeffery says that it is unclear whether some of the readings are genuine!! So what we essentially have is a big problem in dealing with the book Kit�b al-Mas�hif. Jeffery again comments on the had�ths: The more difficult question is that of defective transmission. Occasionally in reading the Commentaries one finds a reading that is commonly known as coming from a certain early Reader attributed to quite another source. Where authorities can be weighed it is generally possible to decide which attribution is correct, but in cases where a variant is quoted by only one source which is otherwise known for the carelessness of its citation of authorities, one can never be sure that that particular variant is correctly attributed to the Reader given. [19] and went on to say: A similar problem of accurate transmission naturally attaches to variants themselves. Being uncanonical variants there was none of the meticulous care taken over their transmission such as we find for the canonical readings, and we not infrequently have various forms of the variants attributed to the same Reader in different sources. In such cases nothing can be done but to give them all hope that further information may enable us to decide between them.[20] Well, Jeffery would have been better off if he had checked the isn�d of the had�th. It appears that some of the so called readings are linguistically impossible because of the defect in the transmission. Some of the variants in the form in which they have survived to us seem linguistically impossible, and in certain cases this has been noted in the source which quote the variant. The defect is doubtless due to faulty transmission, and it is possible that some of the scholars may even now spot where the corruption lies and restore us to original reading. [21] A feature that would strike any Muslim reader of Jeffery's book Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'�n is that the variants listed there are supplied without the isn�d. Ahmad von Denffer in his book cUl�m al-Qur'�n comments about Jeffery's work: ...all the variants - or probably most of them - listed in the classical works from which Jeffery has drawn the information, must be supplied with an isn�d, showing how the information about the particular variant reading has been obtained and transmitted. Perhaps, Jeffery might have thought it is useless to study the isn�d - since the Orientalists usually assume that they are fabricated anyway. But if this is so, from where then does the confidence arise that his collection can be of any use for a critical text of the Qur'�n? [22] And he went on to say: However, in my view the isn�d needs to be scrutinised carefully in each and every case to see which of the reports on variant readings are indeed probable or improbable, and among the probable ones, which are sound and which are not. All this, it is true, can still be done, but Jeffery's collection is only of limited use for such a study.[23] Jeffery & Manuscript Evidence Elsewhere Jeffery while mentioning various Codices, hints the lack of textual variations in the manuscripts that lead him to 'pursue' the information in rival Codices: It is of course obvious that all the information we can gather regarding the text of these early Codices is of the utmost importance for the textual importance of the Qur'�n. This in the absence of any direct manuscript evidence gives us our sole witness to the types of the text which cUthm�n's standard text superseded.[24] Talking about the Archive of Professor Bergstrasser, Jeffery says: Meanwhile Dr. Pretzl, Bergstrasser's successor at Munich, has begun to organize the Archive for the Korankomission set up by the Bavarian Academy at Bergstrasser's initiation, and has already assembled a goodly collection of photographs of early Kufic Codices and early unpublished Qir�'�t works.[25] Regarding the work of Bergstrasser, he admits: Bergstrasser in his preliminary collection of the uncanonical readings of Ibn Mascud and Ubai made an attempt to estimate the value of these two texts as compared with the cUthm�nic text. With the increase of material one feels less inclined to venture on such a judgement of value.[26] It is interesting to note that Jeffery concedes the lack of textual differences in the rival Codices attributed to Ibn Mascud and Ubayy Ibn Ka'b when compared to cUthm�nic 'text'. This basically means that the assumption of rival Codices itself was wrong to start with. Further he went on to 'explain' the variants found in the uncanonical Codices as being 'improvements' on the cUthm�nic text. Jeffery further 'suggests' that these Companions may have suggested such variants out of piety.[27] We have also seen above the conclusions arising from Professor Bergstrasser's preliminary collection of the uncanonical readings that the textual differences in the Qur'�n are lacking. It is worthwhile mentioning the work of Nabia Abbott too. In her book The Rise of The North Arabic Script & Its Kur'�nic Development, she presents some Qur'�n parchments and manuscripts dating from 1st, 2nd and 3rd century AH as well later ones.[28] It is interesting to note that she did not mention any textual differences except for a scribal error in one of the manuscripts.[29] If Jeffery was selective in using his sources to formulate a nice hypothesis of rival Codices to cUthm�nic recension, John Burton took a step ahead and assumed that the had�ths were forgeries only to reach a marvellous conclusion that: What we have today in our hands is the mushaf of Muhammad.[30] Later on he retracted the view on the rejection of had�ths and said: Some Western scholars, too, have expressed reservations about the hypotheses of Goldziher and Schacht. My own position is that the wholesale rejection of the had�ths as mere invention and fabrication misses the point that many of the had�ths can be shown to spring from an ancient source in the primitive exegeses.[31] Adrian Brockett in his article The Value of Hafs and Warsh Transmissions For The Textual History of The Qur'�n deals with various issues of the orally transmitted traditions and the seven Qir�'�t in which the Qur'�n can be recited. His conclusions regarding the oral side of Qur'�n's transmission is: The transmission of the Qur'�n after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in. This is applied even to the early Caliphs. The efforts of those scholars who attempt to reconstruct any other hypothetical original versions of the (written) text are therefore shown to be disregarding half the essence of Muslim scripture.[32] William Muir, echoed clearly that there is only one Qur'�n in the last century: The recension of cUthm�n has been handed down to us unaltered. so carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, - we might almost say no variations at all, - amongst the innumerable copies of the Koran scattered throughout the vast bounds of empire of Islam. Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of cUthm�n himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Muhammad have ever since rent the Muslim world. Yet but ONE KORAN has always been current amongst them.... There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text.[33] So, the Oriental scholarship ranging from the likes of Muir and Jeffery to Burton and Brockett, adopting a different methodology, have come to a conclusion that the Qur'�n does not contain textual differences and what the Qur'�n that we have today is what the Prophet(P) recited. Summary Summarizing the views on the book Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'�n we can say that lack of verification of isn�d can result in the following problems which Arthur Jeffery has already mention: * Some of the isn�d of the had�ths in Kit�b al-Mas�hif of Ibn Abi D�w�d are considered to be weak. Jeffery himself admits that. It is therefore not advisable to take any material for quotation unless the isn�d is verified. The authenticity of the readings in the Old Codices are, therefore, questionable. * It is unclear what Jeffery means by variants. Does he mean the seven Qir�'�t in which the Qur'�n can be read or ahruf in which the Qur'�n was revealed or variants which are not approved by the Prophet(P) or his Companions? * The problem of falsification of readings of the Qur'�n can not be addressed unless the had�ths are meticuluously verified. * The question of defective transmission of the readings in Old Codices is very crucial. This has lead to linguistically impossible variants. This again takes us back to the problem of isn�d. * While creating doubts and making insinuations about the cUthm�nic recension and despite his acceptance that the transmission of variants is through weak chains of transmission, Jeffery is nevertheless hesistant to admit the reality of the Muslim world consensus ('Ijma) on it. * Jeffery has utterly failed to produce any statement from Ibn Mascud (or Ubayy Ibn Ka'b) implying that what was in the cUthm�nic recension was not from the Prophet(P). After Ibn Mascud, Ubayy Ibn Ka'b is the second companion to whom a bulk of variant readings have been ascribed. * From the manuscript evidence shown by his collegue Bergstrasser, Jeffery concedes the lack of textual differences in the 'texts' attributed to Ibn Mascud and Ubayy Ibn Ka'ab when compared to cUthm�nic 'text'. What Is Gilchrist's Position? Now, has John Gilchrist looked into all the above mentioned problems? The answer is , No. Gilchrist did not takes the views of the Jeffery seriously and tried to quote the contents of book Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'�n blindly. This is especially true for the Christian missionaries, who have an axe to grind. Some of the examples of this sort are available at the missionary site. Gilchrist extensively makes use of Kit�b al-Mas�hif of Ibn Abi D�w�d and we have seen some of the problems with the book already. Like Arthur Jeffery, Gilchrist did not bother to check the isn�d of the reports and quotes from this book without verification. Consider the following in the Chapter 3 of Gilchrist's book discussing about the codices of Ibn Mascud and Ubayy Ibn Ka'b: When we come to the rest of the Qur'�n, however, we find that there were numerous differences of reading between the texts of Zaid and Ibn Mas'ud. As mentioned already the records in Ibn Abi Dawud's Kit�b al-Mas�hif fill up no less than nineteen pages and, from all the sources available, one can trace no less than 101 variants in the Suratul-Baqarah alone. [34] The extent of the variant readings between all the codices in existence at the time of 'Uthman before he singled out that of Zaid to be the preferred text at the expense of the others is so great - they fill up no less than three hundred and fifty pages of Jeffery's Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur'�n - that one can understand why the others were ordered to be destroyed. [35] For a quick recapitulation, Jeffery said about the Old Codices: The question arises, of course, as to the authenticity of the readings ascribed to these Old Codices. In some cases it must be confessed there is a suspicion of readings later invented by grammarians and theologians being fathered on these early authorities in order to gain prestige of their name.[36] Is this the only flaw in Gilchrist's book? Let us go further..... Related Articles Orientalism, Misinformation & Islam ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease? Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts! http://us.click.yahoo.com/rkgkPB/UOnJAA/Zx0JAA/uTGrlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe : [EMAIL PROTECTED] List owner : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
