Hadith Hadith Exegesis

The Sto­ry of The Goddesses

Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr
Repro­duced from The Life of Muham­mad” by M.H. Haykal, trans­lat­ed by Isma’il Raji al-Faruqi.

The Emi­grants Return from Abyssinia

The emi­grants resided in Abyssinia three months dur­ing which Umar ibn al Khat­tab con­vert­ed to Islam. In their exile, they heard that upon Umar’s con­ver­sion the Quraysh had stopped their per­se­cu­tion of Muham­mad and his fol­low­ers. Accord­ing to one report a num­ber of them had returned to Makkah, accord­ing to anoth­er, all. On reach­ing Makkah they real­ized that the Quraysh had resumed per­se­cu­tion of the Mus­lims with stronger hatred and renewed vig­or. Unable to resist, a num­ber of them returned to Abyssinia while oth­ers entered Makkah under the cov­er of night and hid them­selves away, It is also report­ed that those who returned took with them a num­ber of new con­verts to Abyssinia where they were to stay until after the emi­gra­tion to Mad­i­nah and the estab­lish­ment of Mus­lim polit­i­cal power.

We may ask what incit­ed the Mus­lims of Abyssinia to return to Makkah three months after their emi­gra­tion. It is at this stage that the sto­ry of the god­dess­es is told by ibn Sa’d in his AL Tabaqat al Kubra, by al Tabari in his Tarikh al Rusul wa al Muluk, as well as by a num­ber of Mus­lim exegetes and biog­ra­phers. This sto­ry arrest­ed the atten­tion of the west­ern Ori­en­tal­ists who took it as true and repeat­ed it ad nau­se­am. This sto­ry tells that real­iz­ing how alien­at­ed the Quraysh had become and how intense­ly they had per­se­cut­ed his com­pan­ions, Muham­mad expressed the wish that a rev­e­la­tion might come that would rec­on­cile his peo­ple rather than fur­ther alien­ate them. When, one day, he was sit­ting with the Quraysh in one of their club hous­es around the Ka’bah, he recit­ed to them surah al Najm.” After read­ing the vers­es, Would you con­sid­er al Lat and al Uzza ? as well as Man­at, the third god­dess?” [Qur’?n, 53:19 – 20] he con­tin­ued the recita­tion with the state­ment, They are the god­dess­es on high. Their inter­ces­sion is wor­thy of being sought.” He then pro­ceed­ed with his read­ing of the surah as we know it. When he fin­ished he pros­trat­ed him­self, and all the Quraysh like­wise fol­lowed him. At this moment, the Quraysh pro­claimed its sat­is­fac­tion with what the Prophet had read and said, We have always known that God cre­ates and gives life, gives food, and resus­ci­tates. But our gods inter­cede for us with Him. Now that you have allowed for them a place in your new reli­gion, we are all with you.” Thus the dif­fer­ence between Muham­mad and the Quraysh was dis­solved. When the news of this rec­on­cil­i­a­tion reached Abyssinia, the Mus­lims there decid­ed to return to their beloved coun­try and peo­ple. As they reached the approach­es of Makkah, they met some Kinanah tribes­men who informed them that Muham­mad allowed the gods a good posi­tion in his reli­gion, rec­on­ciled the Quraysh, and was now fol­lowed by every­one. The sto­ry then relates how Muham­mad revert­ed by blas­phem­ing those gods and the Quraysh revert­ed to per­se­cu­tion. It fur­ther adds that the returnees stopped to con­sid­er what their next course should be. They longed so much to see their rel­a­tives and next of kin that they went ahead and entered Makkah.

Oth­er ver­sions of the same sto­ry give detailed descrip­tions of Muham­mad’s atti­tude toward the gods of Quraysh. They claimed that Quraysh’s plea that if he but grant their gods a share in his reli­gion the Makkans would all sup­port him trou­bled the Prophet. They relate how Muham­mad one evening reviewed surah al Najm” with Gabriel when the lat­ter made a time­ly appear­ance. When he arrived at the sen­tence in ques­tion, Gabriel asked where it came from. Muham­mad answered ; I must have attrib­uted to God that which He did not say.” God then revealed the fol­low­ing vers­es : They have almost suc­ceed­ed in induc­ing you, under promise of their friend­ship, to attribute to Us, against Our com­mand, that which We did not reveal to you. Had We not con­firmed you in your faith, you might have been tempt­ed and hence fall­en under the inescapable punishment.”[Qur’?n, 17:73 – 75]. There­after, Muham­mad returned to his con­dem­na­tion of the gods, and Quraysh returned to their persecution.

Inco­her­ence of the Story

Such is the sto­ry of the god­dess­es report­ed by more than one biog­ra­ph­er, point­ed to by more than one exegete of the Qur’?n, and sin­gled out and repeat­ed by a num­ber of west­ern Ori­en­tal­ists. It is a sto­ry whose inco­her­ence is evi­dent upon the least scruti­ny. It con­tra­dicts the infal­li­bil­i­ty of every prophet in con­vey­ing the mes­sage of his Lord. All the more won­der, there­fore, that some Mus­lim schol­ars have accept­ed it as true. Ibn Ishaq, for his part, did not hes­i­tate at all to declare it a fab­ri­ca­tion by the zindiqs [Non-Mus­lims con­ceal­ing their unbe­lief, false­ly pre­tend­ing that they are mem­bers of the ummah ; most­ly Zoroas­tri­ans and Manicheans — Tr.]. Those who were tak­en in by it ratio­nal­ized it fur­ther with the verse, Every prophet We sent before you was such that when­ev­er he pressed for rev­e­la­tion to come, Satan would has­ten to inspire him with some­thing sat­is­fy­ing his wish and thus neces­si­tate God’s abro­ga­tion of it if scrip­ture is to be kept absolute­ly pure and true. God is all wise and all know­ing. That which Satan had giv­en is a lure for those who are sick of mind and hard of heart. Sure­ly the unjust are deep in error.” [Qur’?n, 22:52 – 53]. Some explain the word taman­na” in the fore­go­ing verse as mean­ing to read;” oth­ers give it the usu­al mean­ing of to press wish­ful­ly.” Mus­lim and West­ern schol­ars who accept the sto­ry explain that the Prophet suf­fered heav­i­ly from the per­se­cu­tion the unbe­liev­ers direct­ed at his com­pan­ions. They tell how the unbe­liev­ers killed some Mus­lims, exposed oth­ers to burn­ing by the sun while pinned down to the ground with heavy stones (as was the case with Bilal), and how these suf­fer­ings pres­sured Muham­mad to per­mit his com­pan­ions to migrate to Abyssinia. They under­score Quraysh’s alien­ation and the psy­cho­log­i­cal effect of their boy­cott upon the Prophet. Since Muham­mad was very anx­ious to con­vert them to Islam and to save them from idol wor­ship, they claim that his think­ing ; of rec­on­cil­ing them by adding a few vers­es to Sura’ al Najm” is not far­fetched. Final­ly, they allege that Muham­mad’s jubi­la­tion was all too nat­ur­al when, com­ing to the end of his recita­tion and pros­trat­ing him­self, the Quraysh joined in, show­ing their prepa­ra­tion to fol­low him now that he had giv­en a share to their gods with God.

To these tales of some books of biog­ra­phy and exe­ge­sis, Sir William Muir adds what he thinks is a final and con­clu­sive proof. He says that the emi­grants to Abyssinia had hard­ly spent three months there dur­ing which the Negus had tol­er­at­ed as well as pro­tect­ed them when they decid­ed to return to Makkah. Had they not heard news of a rec­on­cil­i­a­tion between Muham­mad and Quraysh noth­ing would have caused them to return so soon. But, rea­sons Muir, how could there be rec­on­cil­i­a­tion between Muham­mad and Quraysh with­out a deter­mined effort to that effect on the part of Muham­mad ? In Makkah, the Mus­lims had then been far few­er and weak­er than the Quraysh. They were still inca­pable of pro­tect­ing them­selves against the injuries which the Quraysh had been inflict­ing upon them. Why, then, should the Quraysh have tak­en the ini­tia­tive in such reconciliation ?

Refu­ta­tion of These Arguments

These are the argu­ments on which stands the claim for verac­i­ty of the sto­ry of the god­dess­es. They are all false, inca­pable of stand­ing any scruti­ny or analy­sis. Let us begin with the argu­ment of the Ori­en­tal­ist Muir. The Mus­lims who returned from Abyssinia did so for two rea­sons. First, Umar ibn al Khat­tab was con­vert­ed to Islam short­ly after their emi­gra­tion. With him, he brought to the Mus­lim camp the same bold­ness, deter­mi­na­tion, and the trib­al stand­ing with which he had been fight­ing the Mus­lims before. He nev­er con­cealed his con­ver­sion nor did he ever shun the Quraysh oppo­nents. On the con­trary, he pro­claimed his con­ver­sion pub­licly and chal­lenged the Quraysh open­ly. He did not approve the Mus­lim’s con­ceal­ment of them­selves, their secret move­ment from one end of Makkah to the oth­er, and their hold­ing of prayers at a safe dis­tance from any Quraysh attack. Umar began to fight the Quraysh as soon as he entered the faith of Islam, con­stant­ly pressed his way close to the Ka’bah, and per­formed his prayer there in com­pa­ny with what­ev­er Mus­lims that decid­ed to join him. It was at this new chal­leng­ing turn of events that the Quraysh came to the real­iza­tion that any fur­ther injury inflict­ed upon Muham­mad or his com­pan­ions would hence­forth cre­ate a civ­il war of which nobody knew the con­se­quences. By this time, a great num­ber of men from the var­i­ous clans of Quraysh had joined Islam. To kill any one of these would nec­es­sar­i­ly imply the rise to war not only of his fel­low Mus­lims but of all the clans of which the var­i­ous Mus­lims or allies were mem­bers, even though the rest of the clan or the tribe were still of a dif­fer­ent reli­gion. After the con­ver­sion of Umar and the entry of so many mem­bers of oth­er clans into the faith, it became impos­si­ble to fight Muham­mad in the same way as before. Such a course could eas­i­ly expose the whole of Quraysh to ter­ri­ble per­il. It was nec­es­sary to find a new way which did not incur such risks, and until such way was found, the Quraysh thought it advan­ta­geous to enter into an armistice with Muham­mad and the Mus­lims. It was this news which reached the emi­grants in Makkah and prompt­ed them to return home.

Two Rev­o­lu­tions in Abyssinia

The emi­grants would have hes­i­tat­ed to return to Makkah were it not for anoth­er rea­son. A rev­o­lu­tion broke out against the Negus in which his per­son­al faith as well as his pro­tec­tion of the Mus­lims were under attack. For their part, the Mus­lims had prayed and wished that God would give the Negus vic­to­ry over his ene­mies. But they could not par­tic­i­pate in such a con­flict since they were for­eign­ers who arrived there too recent­ly. When, at the same time, they heard of the news of an armistice between Muham­mad and Quraysh favor­able to the Mus­lims and pro­tect­ing them from injury, they decid­ed to escape from the Abyssin­ian rev­o­lu­tion and return home. That is exact­ly what all or some of them did. They hard­ly reached Makkah, how­ev­er, when Quraysh decid­ed upon a course of action against the Mus­lims and entered into a pact with their allies to boy­cott Banu Hashim com­plete­ly in order to pre­vent any inter­mar­riage with them and to stop any pur­chase by or sale to them. As soon as this new alliance was con­clud­ed, open war broke out again. The return­ing Mus­lims sought imme­di­ate­ly to re-emi­grate and take with them all those who could man­age to go. These were to meet greater dif­fi­cul­ties as the Quraysh sought to impede their move. What caused the Mus­lims to return from Abyssinia, there­fore, was not, as Ori­en­tal­ist Muir claims, the rec­on­cil­i­a­tion of Muham­mad with Quraysh. Rather, it was the armistice to which the Quraysh was com­pelled to resort fol­low­ing the con­ver­sion of Umar and his bold sup­port of the reli­gion of God with his trib­al rela­tions. The so-called rec­on­cil­i­a­tion, there­fore, con­sti­tutes no evi­dence for the sto­ry of the goddesses.

Invert­ed Evi­dence of the Qur’an­ic Text

As for the argu­ment of some biog­ra­phers and exegetes that the vers­es, They had almost suc­ceed­ed in induc­ing you …”[Qur’an, 17:73 – 75] and Every prophet We sent before you was such that, when­ev­er he pressed for rev­e­la­tion …”[Qur’an, 22:52 – 53] con­sti­tute evi­dence for the sto­ry of the god­dess­es, it is yet more inco­her­ent than that of Sir Muir. It is suf­fi­cient to remem­ber that the first group of vers­es include the state­ment, Had We not con­firmed you in your faith, you might have been tempt­ed.” This group shows that even if Satan had actu­al­ly has­tened to inspire Muham­mad with some­thing sat­is­fy­ing his wish and thus induced him to favor the unbe­liev­ers, God had con­firmed the Prophet in his faith and pre­vent­ed him from falling to the temp­ta­tion. Had Muham­mad real­ly fall­en, God would have inflict­ed upon him inescapable pun­ish­ment. The point is, pre­cise­ly, that he did not fall. Hence, these vers­es prove the oppo­site of what these advo­cates assume them to prove. The sto­ry of the god­dess­es asserts that Muham­mad did indeed incline toward the Quraysh, that the Quraysh had indeed induced him to add to the divine word, and that he indeed did attribute to God that which God had not said. The text,[“Muhammad saw some of his Lord’s great­est signs. Would you con­sid­er, after al Lit and al Uzza, Man­at, the third god­dess ? But would you give God the females and keep for your­selves the males ? That is indeed an unjust divi­sion. But they are all mere names which you and your ances­tors have named and for which God gave no author­i­ty. In this claim of yours you fol­lowed naught but con­jec­ture and your own wish­ful think­ing, while true guid­ance has arrived to you from your Lord” (Qur’?n, 53:18 – 23)] on the oth­er hand, tells us the exact oppo­site, name­ly that God con­firmed him in his faith and that he did not add to the divine word. More­over, we should well bear in mind the fact that the books of exe­ge­sis and the books deal­ing with the caus­es and cir­cum­stances of rev­e­la­tion regard­less of whether or not they sub­cribe to the sto­ry in ques­tion affirm that these vers­es had been revealed at a time oth­er than that dur­ing which the sto­ry of the god­dess­es had pre­sum­ably tak­en place. To resort to the sto­ry of the god­dess­es in order to dis­prove the infal­li­bil­i­ty of the prophets in their con­veyance of divine mes­sages not only runs counter to the whole his­to­ry of Muham­mad but con­sti­tutes a fal­la­cy of inco­her­ent rea­son­ing and, hence, a futile and per­verse argument.

As for Every prophet We sent before you…” these vers­es are utter­ly devoid of rela­tion to the sto­ry of the god­dess­es. More­over, they clear­ly affirm that God will abro­gate all that the dev­il may bring forth, that Satan’s work is only a lure to those who are sick of mind and hard of heart, and that God, the all wise and all-know­ing, would keep His scrip­ture absolute­ly pure and true.

Fal­la­cious Rea­son­ing of the Claim

Let us now turn to a crit­i­cal and sci­en­tif­ic analy­sis of the sto­ry. The first evi­dence which imputes sus­pi­cion to the sto­ry is the fact that it has been report­ed in many forms and ver­sions. First there is the report that the fab­ri­cat­ed vers­es con­sist of the fol­low­ing words : Tilka al gha­raniq al ula ; wa inna shafa‘atahu-nna latur­ta­ja.” Oth­ers report­ed them as con­sist­ing of, al gha­raniqah al ula : inna shafa?atahum tur­ta­ja.” Still oth­ers report­ed that they con­sist of the fol­low­ing words, Inna shafa‘atahunna tur­ta­ja” with­out men­tion­ing the word al gha­raniq” or al gha­raniqah” at all. Accord­ing to a fourth ver­sion, they were sup­posed to con­sist of the words : Inna­ha lahiya al gha­raniq al ula..” A fifth ver­sion reads, Wa innahun­na lahun­na al gha­raniq al ula wa inna shafa’atahun­na lahiya allati, tur­ta­ja.” The col­lec­tions of Hadith have giv­en us still more var­ied ver­sions. The mul­ti­plic­i­ty of the ver­sions proves that the report itself is fab­ri­cat­ed, that it had been fab­ri­cat­ed by the zindiqs-as ibn Ishaq had said ear­li­er and that the forg­ers had sought there­by to spread doubt into the mes­sage of Muham­mad and to attack his can­did­ness in con­vey­ing the mes­sage of his Lord.

The Sto­ry’s Vio­lence to the Con­tex­tu­al Flow of Surah al Najm”

Anoth­er proof of the fal­si­ty of the sto­ry, stronger and more con­clu­sive than the fore­go­ing, is the fact that the con­tex­tu­al flow of surah al Najm” does not allow at all the inclu­sion of such vers­es as the sto­ry claims. The Surah reads :

He has wit­nessed many of the great signs of his lord. Would you con­sid­er the case of al Lat, al Uzza, and of Man­at, the third god­dess ? Would you then ascribe to God the females and to your­selves the males ? Would­n’t that be a wretched ascrip­tion ? All these are noth­ing but names, mere names which you and your ances­tors had coined. Men are so prone to fol­low opin­ion ! They cred­u­lous­ly fall for the prod­uct of their own wish­ful think­ing. But true guid­ance has indeed come from the Lord.”

The log­i­cal and lit­er­ary flow of these vers­es is crys­tal-clear. Al Lat, and al Uzza are mere names devoid of sub­stance giv­en by the past and present unbe­liev­ers to works of their own cre­ation. There is no deity such as the word name. The con­text does not allow any such addi­tion as is here claimed. If, assum­ing such addi­tion, the text were now to read : Would you con­sid­er the case of al Lat, al Uzza, and of Man­at, the third god­dess ? These are the god­dess­es on high. Their inter­ces­sion is to be sought. Would you then ascribe to God the females and to your­selves the males ? Would­n’t that be a wretched ascrip­tion?” its cor­rup­tion and out­right self-con­tra­dic­tion become obvi­ous. The text would have praised al Lat, al Uzza„ and Man­at as well as con­demned them with­in the space of four con­sec­u­tive vers­es. Such a text can­not pro­ceed from any ratio­nal being. The con­tex­tu­al back­ground in which the addi­tion is sup­posed to have been made fur­nish­es unques­tion­able and final evi­dence that the sto­ry of the god­dess­es was a forgery. The forg­ers were prob­a­bly the zindiqs ; and the cred­u­lous whose minds are not nat­u­ral­ly repulsed by the irra­tional and the inco­her­ent, accept­ed the forgery and passed it as true.

The Lin­guis­tic Evidence

There is yet anoth­er argu­ment advanced by the late Shaykh Muham­mad Abduh. It con­sists of the fact that the Arabs have nowhere described their gods in such terms as al gha­raniq.” Nei­ther in their poet­ry nor in their speech­es or tra­di­tions do we find their gods or god­dess­es described in such terms. Rather, the word al ghur­nuq” or al gharniq” was the name of a black or white water bird, some­times giv­en fig­u­ra­tive­ly to the hand­some blond youth. The fact is indu­bitable that the Arabs nev­er looked upon their gods in this manner.

The Sto­ry Con­tra­dicts the Fact of Muham­mad’s Candidness

There is yet one more final argu­ment against the sto­ry of the god­dess­es that is based upon the nature of Muham­mad’s per­son­al life. Ever since his child­hood and through­out his ado­les­cence, adult­hood and matu­ri­ty, he was nev­er known to lie. So truth­ful was he that he had been nick­named al Amin” before he reached his twen­ty-fifth year of age. His truth­ful­ness was unques­tioned by any­one. He him­self once addressed the Quraysh after his com­mis­sion to prophet­hood : Sup­pose I were to tell you that an ene­my cav­al­ry was advanc­ing on the oth­er side of this moun­tain, would you believe me?” His ene­mies them­selves answered : Yes, indeed ! As far as we are con­cerned, you are inno­cent, for we have nev­er found you to lie at all.” How can we believe that such a man who had been known to be truth­ful in his rela­tions with his fel­low men from child­hood to matu­ri­ty, would be any less can­did in his rela­tion to God ? How could such con­stant truth­ful­ness allow him to lie and ascribe to his God that which He had not said ? How could we believe that such a man did so in fear of the peo­ple and defi­ance of Almighty God ? That is utter­ly impos­si­ble. Its impos­si­bil­i­ty is evi­dent to all those who have stud­ied these great ; strong and dis­tin­guished souls of the prophets and reli­gious lead­ers known for their ded­i­ca­tion to the truth pereat mundus. How can we rec­on­cile such an alle­ga­tion with Muham­mad’s great dec­la­ra­tion to his uncle that he will not adjure this cause even if his foes should put the sun in his right hand and the moon in his left ? How can we. accept such a claim when it imputes to the Prophet the heinous charge of attribut­ing to God that which God had not said, of vio­lat­ing the very foun­da­tion of the reli­gion he was com­mis­sioned to pro­claim and teach to mankind ?

Fur­ther­more, we may ask, when, accord­ing to the sto­ry, did Muham­mad turn to praise the gods of Quraysh ? Ten years or so after his com­mis­sion to prophet­hood, is the reply. But, then that is also after ten years of patient suf­fer­ance of all kinds of injury and harm, all kinds of sac­ri­fices, after God had rein­forced Islam with the con­ver­sion of Hamzah and Umar, and, in short, after the Mus­lims had begun to feel them­selves a sig­nif­i­cant pow­er in Makkah and the news of their exis­tence and exploits had begun to spread through­out Ara­bia, indeed to Abyssinia and oth­er cor­ners of the globe. Such a claim is not only unin­formed, it is pos­i­tive­ly sil­ly. The forg­ers of this sto­ry them­selves must have real­ized its inad­mis­si­bil­i­ty and sought to con­ceal its false­hood with the claim, ?Muham­mad hard­ly heard Quraysh?s words of rec­on­cil­i­a­tion once he grant­ed to their gods the hon­or of inter­ced­ing with God, when his com­pro­mise appeared to him objec­tion­able and he felt com­pelled to repent and to review the text of rev­e­la­tion with the angel Gabriel when he vis­it­ed him that same evening.??? This con­ceal­ment, how­ev­er, expos­es the forgery rather than hides it. As long as the com­pro­mise appeared objec­tion­able to Muham­mad no lat­er than he had heard Quraysh’s words of rec­on­cil­i­a­tion,” would he have not paused to recon­sid­er it imme­di­ate­ly and on the spot ? How nat­ur­al it would have been then for him instant­ly to recite the true ver­sion of the text ! We may, there­fore, con­clude that this sto­ry of the god­dess­es is a fab­ri­ca­tion and a forgery, authored by the ene­mies of Islam after the first cen­tu­ry of the Hijrah.

Attack Upon Tawhid 

The forg­ers must have been extreme­ly bold to have attempt­ed their forgery in the most essen­tial prin­ci­pal of Islam as a whole : name­ly, in the prin­ci­ple of tawhid, where Muham­mad had been sent right from the very begin­ning to make procla­ma­tions to all mankind in which he has nev­er accept­ed any com­pro­mise what­ev­er ; he was nev­er swayed by any­thing the Quraysh had offered him whether by way of wealth or roy­al pow­er. These offers had come, it must be remem­bered, at a time when Muham­mad had very few fol­low­ers with­in Makkah. Lat­er per­se­cu­tion by the Quraysh of his com­pan­ions did not suc­ceed in sway­ing Muham­mad away from the call of his God or away from his mis­sion. The zindiqs’ strat­e­gy to work their forgery around the first prin­ci­ple of the faith, where Muham­mad was known to be the most adamant, only points to their own incon­se­quence. Accep­tance of the forgery by the cred­u­lous only points to their naivet ? in the most con­spic­u­ous of cases.


The sto­ry of the god­dess­es, there­fore, is absolute­ly devoid of foun­da­tion. It is utter­ly unre­lat­ed to the return of the Mus­lims from Abyssinia. As we said ear­li­er, the lat­ter returned after the con­ver­sion of Umar, the strength­en­ing of Islam with the same trib­al sol­i­dar­i­ty with which he used to fight Islam hith­er­to, and the com­pul­sion of Quraysh to enter into an armistice with the Mus­lims. More­over, the Mus­lims’ return from Abyssinia was part­ly due to the rev­o­lu­tion which had bro­ken out in that coun­try and to their con­se­quent fear of los­ing the Negus’s pro­tec­tion. When the Quraysh learned of the Mus­lims’ return, their fears reached a new lev­el of inten­si­ty with the increase of Muham­mad’s fol­low­ers with­in the city, and, there­fore, they sought a new strat­e­gy. Their search for a new strat­e­gy was con­clud­ed with the sign­ing of a pact in which they and their allied clans and tribes resolved to boy­cott the Banu Hashim in order to pre­vent any inter­mar­riage with them, to stop all com­mer­cial rela­tions and final­ly, to seek to kill Muham­mad if they could only find the means.Endmark

Write A Comment