The Alleged Dogma Of Influence Of and Aramaic/ Syriac On

Arabic in general
and on 'Al Qur'a:n in particular.
(An analytic dicuion!
A number of OBJECTIONS upon Holy Quran is based upon the followin
S!""OSITIONS#
$They may be %alled the neati&e rules used by these ob'e%tionists(
a) Islami% Commentaries upon the Holy Arabi% S%ripture Al Quran are
!N*E+IAB+E#
B)Q!*AN ,!ST BE ST!-IE- IN-E"EN-ENT O. AH/A-IS0
%)Quran must be studied Not a%%ordin to Arabi% +a1iton but a%%ordin to
Hebrai% or Aramai% +a1itons#
These Objection Makers neither belie&e in Arabi% 2rammar nor belie&e in Arabi%
+a1itons#
The -O Try to understand AlQuran as a%%ordin to their O3N SET !"
"rin%iples and *ules#
They -O opine that Quran is borrowed from Hebrew4 Aramai% and some
distant Arabi% -iale%ts#
This is a &ery unusual way# To deny Islami% SENSIB+IT5 and Islami%
!N-E*STAN-IN2 Of Al Quran is almost to deny the 6ery Quran
ITSE+.#
The Alleed -oma Of In7uen%e Of Hebrew and Aramai%8 Syria% #
Itmay be noted that Hebrew and Aramai% both were used by Hebrews#
-urin the time of ,oses "#B#!#H Hebrew was used by Hebrews4 and -urin
the time of Iesus "#B#!#H Aramai% and its diale%t
Syria% was used by them# This is a shift of lanuae from one to another by
Hebrews#
This is a di9erent %ase from Sans%rit 4whi%h was ne&er a lanuae of %ommon
man 4but of s%holars#
Hebrew 4 Aamai% and Arabi% ha&e se&eral features in %ommon#
How e&er it is in%orre%t and wron to %laim that Arabi% is a borrowed
lanuae 'ust be%ause it has se&eral thin
%ommon with Hebrew and A*A,AIC#
Su%h resemblan%e and %ommoness Implieth Not borrowin#
Arabi% is not a hybrid lanuae4 and Not borrowed from Aramai% and Hebrew#
If it is a%%epted that Arabi% is not an Oriinal lanuae on earth 4then it only
means that Arabi%4Aramai% et%# ha&e a %ommon
oriin whi%h %easeth to e1ist#Thus any appearent in7uan%e of Aramai% 8
Syria% is 'ust a pseudo:in7uan%e4 and is a%tually
the in7uan%e of the mother lanuae of whi%h Arabi% and Aramai% are
dauhters#
ANA+5SIS/
If there is an in7ua%ne of Aramai% or Syria% THEN THE A++E2E- "*OCESS
IN6O+6ES T3O STE"S#
;) E..ECT8IN.+!ANCE of Aramai% on Arabi%#
<) E9e%t 8In7uan%e of Of e%%eted 8 In7uan%ed Arabi% on Qur0ani%
Arabi%8Qur0an#
But these anti Islami% Ob'e%tion ma=ers ha&e deleted and erased the >rst
step e&en in the %ase of 00I.00?O* too= it as
an A1iom with out e&en mentionin it#
Any how with or with out >rst step mentioned abo&e the basi% ,ETHO- of
tra%in an Arabi% word to Aramai% is based on the
similarity of %onsonets and the order of these %onsonets# $A posati&e rule 4
whi%h is a%tually borrowed4 as it shall be seen below
latter#(
"I#DS O$ %&S&'(A#)&S A#D SI*I(A%ITI&S.
Some of the similarities in reard to words are i&en below#
a) A word in Arabi% may be similar to a word in Aramai% or Hebrew or in
both 4but in SI2NI.ICANT CONSONENTS or in in sini>%ant
appro1imation of %onsonents #If it is so then some times the meanin or
sense of the Arabi% word is in appro1imation with the
Aramai% or Hebrew word or both#
If su%h a word has some %orrespondin appro1imate &owel sounds in reard
to %onsonts or appro1imate %onsonents then it is some time
more probable that they ha&e appro1imately similar meanins or senses#
But this is not an stri%t rule# Sin%e in Arabi% it self there are a lare number of
words with same CONSONENTS and di9erent in meanins
or senses or both#
Therefore No Con%lusion Can Be -rawn 3ith Certainity and Nessi%ity4 sinse
%ontinen%y and possibility of otherwise is always
there#
b) There are a number of words in any two of the three stated abo&e
lanuaes whi%h do resemble in SI2NI.ICANT %onsonents4
and some times in appro1imate &owel sounds in addition 4 yet they may ha&e
di9erent meanins orsenses or both#
E1istan%e Of su%h words do not Imply the supposition of borrowin#
These OBJECTION ,A@E*S always try to tra%e ba%= Arabi% words in Holy
Quran in Aramai% or Hebrew#
The re'e%t not only Islami% Commentaies and Ahadith4 but also Arabi%
+a1itonsA+!2HAT)4 and Arabi% 2rammar AI+, ASSA*. 6AN NAH6)
They e&en deny the opinions of Authenti% and Authorati&e Arabists o&er the
lanuaes in their Beal to pro&e their
Supposition Of Borrowin#
,OST .!N-A,ENTA+ "OST!+ATE of their all aruments is that Arabi%
Authorities -I- NOT @now Hebrew and A*A,AIC4 so they
are in Error As Hebrew and A*A,AIC is =nown to these OBJ3CTION ,A@E*S
4they thin= that openion4 remarls and %omments
This is a 2*EAT .A++AC5#
+et the problem be dis%ussed in some proper details#
a) Arabi% is a di9erent lanuae 4di9erent from Hebrew and Aramai%4 'ust li=e
Hebrew is a di9erent lanuae from Aramai%#
b) If an Arabi% word is similar to a word in Hebrew or in A*A,AIC 4it is
in%orre%t to %laim that the Arabi% word is borrowed
either from Hebrew or Aramai% or Both 4on this basis#
%)A Similarity in fundamental %onsonents of any two words between the
words of any two of the two lanuaes oramon all
of them doeth no imply a similarity in meanins#
Athouh Hebrew 4 Aramai%4 and Arabi% ha&e se&eral features in %ommon 4it is
in%orre%t to %laim that ea%h and e&ery Arabi%
word IS borrowed either from Aramai% or frpm Hebrew 4 e&en if there is some
resemblan%e between the fundamental
%onsonents or in &owel sounds as well#
There are se&eral =ind of similiraties and resemblen%es between the words of
respe%ti&e lanuaes in eneral#
a) A word in Arabi% may be similar to a word in Hebrew or a word in Aramai%
or in both in .!N-A,ENTA+ CONSONENETS#
Some time there is an appro1imate similarity in their respe%ti&e meanins but
not e1a%tness#
But this doeth not pro&e that any one of them say Arabi% has borrowed it
either from Aramai% or from Hebrew or both#
At most they may ha&e a %ommon sour%e yet it is eCually possible that
parallel words oriinated independent of ea%h other#
Some times there is a n appro1imate similarity in &owels as well # But the law
is the same #
Some time inspite of su%h similarities the meanins are di9erent#
In su%h %ases in is primerily wron to %laim the a%t of borrowin from one
another#
If in some %ases some additional e&iden%es do shew a %ase of borrowin4 no
%on%lusion %an be drawn 'ust based on
similarities#
These bases do not support the %laim of borrowin#
b) There are %ases where a word in one lanuae doeth resemble an other
word in any one of the two lanuaes
or in both f them in fundamental %onsonents
yet di9erent im meanins#
It %annot pro&e any thin 4raither it is in%orre%t to %laim su%h a donation
:a%%eptan%e formula sin%e there are se&eral
words in Arabi% itself whi%h resmble on an other in fundamental %onsonents
but di9erent in meanins# If two words in one lanuae
%annot be %laimed to be borrowed on this basis it is more in %orre%t to %laim
su%h an alleed borrowin on this basis
if su%h words beloneth to two di9erent lanuaes#
%) If an Arabi% word is borrowed from any one of the two lanuaes or from
any other lanuae it is in%orre%t to %laim that
the author of Quran has borrowed it dire%tly from these lanuaes# If any one
of the non Arabi% lanuae is a doner of a word and Arabi%
is the A%%epter of the word 4 then this a%%eptan%e must ha&e o%%urred lon
before the appearen%e of Quran#
Su%h a %laim is as in %orre%t as to %laim that any word in SHAC@"EA*0S "+A5s
with 2*EE@ O* +ATIN oriin is dire%tly borrowed
from SHEC@"A*E from 2ree= or +atin for the >rst time# A%tually Enlish had
borrowed them lon before him 4 and he only used these
words in his ,asterpie%e wor=s# The same %an be said for master pie%es of
any hybrid lanuae with out any e1%eption#
.rom theoloi%al pAoint of &iew the Arabi% S%ripture Nounly 0Al Qur0a/n is a
Boo= Of -i&ine Spee%h and the Supreme
E1istent is the Author of 0Al Qur0a?n#
.or sa=e of an arument +ET IT BE S!""OSE- THAT the Author Of 0Al Qur0a/n
is not the -eity4but a %reated rational
suppositum say a human bein4 e&en then there is no proof8e&iden%e for the
%laim that if the Te1t Of Al Qur0a/n %ontaineth
a word borrowed from Aramai% or Hebrew 4 then it it is borrowed for the >rst
time by the alleed Non -i&ine Author of
The Arabi% S%ripture Nounly 0Al Qur0a/n dire%tly from any one of them# If there
are words in the Te1t Of 0Al Qur0an Borrowed
from any one of the Non 0Arabi% +anuaes say Aramai%4 then it is 'ust li=e
the %ase of Enlish lanuae or 2erman lanuae
borrowin words from +atin and 2ree= lanuaes#
.or an e1ample it is IN.INITE+5 INCO**ECT to %laim that ea%h and e&ery word
in the wor= of Sha=espare4 whi%h has +atin or
2ree= or Anlosa1on Oriin is borrowed for the >rst time by him4 in his
wor=s#Sin%e Enlish lanuae did borrow them but
in some Ante Sha=espare period#The same is true for the Author of Al Qur0a/n4
e&en if the Author Of Qur0a/n is not the
-i&inity Of the Only -eity Itself#
But a part from Nouns whi%h Shall be di%ussed latter4it is in%orre%t to %laim
that if a word in Arabi% is similar in fundamental
%onsonents to a word in Aramai% then it is Ne%essarily borrowed from the
A*A,AIC 3O*- with or with out ArabitiBation of
the word#
There are two aruments enerally ad&an%ed by those who %laim su%h a
thin#
;) Arabi% Authorities were inorent about Aramai% therefore there
%lassi>%ation whether a word is pure Arabi% or Borrwed
$-A:@HI/+( %annot be a%%epted#Sin%e the some time %ommit mista=es and
errors in dis%o&erin the non Arabi% oriin of su%h
-A:@HI/+ words#
<) Arabi% %ame in writin latter then Aramai% then it is natural $as a%%ordin
to them( that Aramai% is the -oner and Arabi%
is the A%%epter#
Both of them ore in%orre%t4 in&alid and wron aruments#
.irst/
0Arabi% +a1itonists4+inuisti%s and 2rammerian are Super sensiti&e in
%lassifyin whether an 0Arabi% word is -a:=hi/l
or not# It is irrele&ent if they %ommit a mista=e or an error in dis%o&erin the
lanuae and the word of the lanuae from
it is borrowed# Su%h an Error or a mista=e does not imply any error or any
mista=e in identifyin whether the word in Arabi% is
-a:=hi/l or not#
It is a reat raither in>nte falla%y if both of them are uni>ed or an impli%ation
is supposed between them or both#
.or an e1ample let it be supposed that there is a word D is Arabi%# Suppose
that Arabi% Authorities do Jude that this word is
-a=hi/l $alien(# There this Judement or de%ission is perfe%tly authorati&e and
%ompletely thrustworthy#How e&er they may
err in identifyin the oriinal lanuae say 5 from it is borrowed and the
oriinal word say D0 Of the lanuae 5#
Se%ond/
It is not ne%essary that Aramai% is always the doner and Arabi% is always the
a%%eptor#
It may be the %ase that It is Arabi% whi%h did donate some of its word to
Aramai% #It is a wea= proof that Arabi% is the
A%%eptor and Aramai% is the doner 4sin%e Arabi% %ame into written latter#
It is possible that a lanuae whi%h is not a written lanuae does donate
some of its words to a lanuae whi%h is written#
The %laim of its impossibility is proo7ess#
Rules and Regulations of Excogitation.
;) Stamements4%omments4remar=s4'udement et%#of Arabi% +a1itonists4
+inuisti%s 4 rammarians et%# are &alid4sini>%ant4
authorati&e and Trustwordy and %redible#
<)No word of Arabi% %an be said to be borrowed 'ust be%ause it has some
similirarity to a word of a written lanuae
what so e&er#
E) If Arabi% E1pers stated abo&e did la%= that =nowlede of ther lanuaes
there %omments4remar=s4'udement may
not be a%%epted as soon as the do lea&e the domain of Arabi% and do enter in
the domain of the any one of the Non Arabi%
+anuae 4 say Aramai%# But with in the boundaries are Arabi% they are &alid
with %ertanity and their %rediblity %annot be
denied# If some one suest that a word in Arabi% is borrowed from a non
Arabi% lanuae 4and his suestion
%ontradi%ts Arabi% Authoritiesthen his suestion is in&alid#
F) If Arabi% did adopt a word from any Non Arabi% lanuae say Aramai% and
disasso%iates the oriinal meanin or prin%iple sense
of the word and did assin a new meanin or a new sense to the word 4 then
in any spee%h or te1t or senten%e whi%h
doeth use this word the Arabi% meanin or sense is %onsiderable 4sini>%ant
$,u00tabar(4authorati&e and authenti%#
The Non Arabi% meanin or sense of the oriinal lanuae is dis%arded#
Thus one may di&ide the types of meanins of -a=hi/l words into two
fundamental roups#
F#;) "ost Adoptation meanins and senses# Those meanins and senses
assin to them by Arabi% after adoptin them or while
adoptin them# $i#e posterior to adoptation(#
F#<)Ante Adoptation# Those meanins or senses assined to them prior to
their adoptation#
The se%ond roup of meanins are in%&alid in Arabi% and may be &alid in their
respe%ti&e lanuaes where they had ot their
oriination some how#
F#E) If Arabi% doeth Adopt a word from a non Arabi% lanuae and does not
assin a %omplete new meanin to it but
modi>eth it then in Arabi% literature the modi>ed meanin is sini>%ant and
%onsiderable 4 only the ArabitiBed meanin
hath the %radibility#This is a %orrolary of F#< #
The funtamental A+iom Of the Sytem of the dogma.
All these objections are based upon the supposition that Aramaic is prior to Arabic and Arabic is
posterior to Aramaic and some other languages like Persian etc and Arabic is not a contemporary of Aramaic
,Persian etc. Therefore 'Arabic cannot donate words to them but it can
accept words
from them.
This is not even a theory but a Dogma, pressented as if it is a theory,
raither
presented as if it is a fact.
But This is incorrect and wrong.
irst it is based on the argument that !" Arabic literature was produced posterior
to Aramaic, there fore Arabic is Posterior to Aramaic.
And a posterior language can not loan words to a language which is proir to it.
#ut the posteriority production of written written literature is no proof that the
language is also posterior. $t is based on the denial
on oral literature.%ral literatues is undeniable and its cradibility is certain. &o the
a'iom which say %ral literature is unauthentic and
unauthorative , cannot be accepted.
&econd it is also incorrect and false that a language which is posterior to a language
cannot donate words to a language which predates it.
() $ can lend a word after its emergence. *) &econd , the proto of the posterior
language may lend a word to the language which may be
contemporary or prior.
$O% SA"& O$ A# A%,-*&#T.
or sake of an argument let it be suppoesd that A+A#$, is a hybrid language like
-nglish and directly borows words from .ebrew and Aramaic
A& -/0$&. #%++%1-T. 1%+D& +%2 0AT$/, 3+--4 A/D A/30%&-5%/. $n this case
there is no in6uence of these two languages upon 7uran.
To in6uance a language is one thing and to in6uance a particular work is another
thing.
Ob'e%tion of terms/:
If Arabi% is a Hybrid lanuae e&en then it is not ne%essary that the terms
used in Qur0a/n ahd 0Ahaddis0 are not borrowed
but are purely used from Arabi% e&en if the orin of the word is not 0Arabi%#
The Terms are made from 0arabi% itself irrespe%ti&e
of the oriin of the word#
If a person who did only =now Arabi% did want to %oin a term for his
theoloi%al and reliious system atmost and at least
%an %hoose words from Arabi% irrespe%ti&e and reardless of their "!*E
A*ABIC Oriin or Borrowed Oriin#
If Arabi% after borrowin a non Arabi% word from a lanuae absorbs it and
%hane it meanin %om:pletely or partially4
and a persons say "erson A who only did =now Arabi% use some of these
words for ma=in terms for his system then
it is independent
of the not only the meanins of them in their oriinal lanuaes say Aramai%
but also independent of possible termonoloi%al
meanins used by any person or %ommunity of the lanuaes prior to That
person say "erson A# S!CH A "E*SON did not
=now the meanin or the uses of the words uses only their Arabi%
meanins4So non Arabi% use of the words of these
Non Arabi% lanuaes are totally irrele&ent to him and his termonoloi%al
meanins#
This is not pe%ular to Arabi% but it is eneral for a number of di9erent
lanuaes#
E&en if a pesron who =now a lanuae say lanuae G whi%h has lended a
number of words to His lanuae say lanuae
5 uses words of his lanuaes for a system say a theoloi%al system it is not
ne%essay that he is in7uen%ed by the oriinal
words of the doner lanuae4 or their termonoli%al use if any prior to him4
sin%e he used it only from Arabi% independent
of not only its not Arabi% literal meanin$s( but also independent of Non
Arabi% Termonoloi%al meanins#
E1ample/: Some people ha&e suested that the 3ord Al:Qur0a/n is 'ust an
in7uan%e of Arami% word Qrn used by a prior
reliious %ommunity in some other meanin#
But this is totally in%orre%t for reasons stated abo&e#Some %ounter e1amples
of su%h in%orre%t tra%es/
It is in%orre%t to say that that the word A,E, is repeatedly said after "rayers
is S!""OSE- to be tra%ed ba%= TO the Noun
Of Eyptian -eity A,ON or A,EN# Similarly it is in%orre%t to tra%e ba%= El of
Hebrew to I+4 the father of Ba0l8Baal#
These two e1amples are suH%ient to pro&e that su%h in%orre%t form of
reasonins %an yeild &ery neati&e and in%orre%t
results#
Some )on.ere &+tremim:/
Just li=e some who try to tra%eba%= Aramai% In7uan%e on Arabi% on their self
reasonins4 some ha&e also tried to tra%e
ba%= Enlish to Arabi%4
parti%ularly some s%holars of lanuaes of a new reliion
,irBaiasm8Qadyanism# A%tually their methodoloy
is rouhly similar to those who want to tra%e ba%= not only Arabi% to Aramai%
but un this supposed tra%e try to pro&e
Aramai% termonoloi%al in7uan%e on Qur0an or Ahadis or both#
A follower of Qadyanism4 ,ohammad Ahmad ,aBhar a former ad&o%ate of
Hih Court .ormer 3est "a=istan had
de&eloped a method to pro&e that Arabi% is the sour%e of all +anuaes4 and
wrote 00Enlish Tra%ed to Arabi%00#
How e&er inspite of his labourous wor= this wor= did not ain any sini>%an%e
in the eyes of s%holars# But it appears that
Alphonse ,inana and some other people of his mind somehow ot %opies of
,ohammad Ahmad ,aBhar0s labourous
wor= 00 EN2+ISH T*ACE- TO A*ABIC00 and used his in&ented methodoloies
toTra%e Arabi% to Aramai%8Syria%#
Any one who may read ,aBhar0s wor= and wor=s of people li=e Alphonse shall
be %on&in%ed that the latter has used the prin%iple
methodoloies in&ented by the former4 and tried to pro&e Syria% in7uen%e on
Qur0an# Inspite of di9eren%e in aims and
ob'e%tions the basi% prin%iples are either same or similar#
One may read the wor= of ,aBhar and %ompair it with the wor=s of Alphonse
et%# himself and himself8herself see
that the methods used by ,aBhar were for more ad&an%ed then then the
author of In7uen%e of Syria% on the Style of Quran#
*aither the latter author %rudi>es the methods of the former writer#
It may be noted that the posati&e prin%iples are borrowed# The naati&e
prin%iples that no Arabi% +a1iton4 No Arabi% authority
is trustworthy 4 is 'ust an in&ention#
3E AS ,!S+I,S BE+IE6E THAT ,I*GAIS, 3ITH A++ ITS .O*,S IS A
-I..E*ENT *E+I2ION 4 OTHE* THAN IS+A,#
O!* O"ENION/ABO!T A*ABIC +AN2!A2E/
A*ABIC IS THE .I*ST +AN2!A2E 4 AN- IT 3AS INITIA++5 S"O@EN IN HEA6EN+5
"A*A-ISE# 3HEN 2O- ,A-E A-O, TO
-ESCEN- HE BE2AN TO !SE AN OTHE* +AN2!A2E# SO ON EA*TH IT IS NOT
"OSSIB+E TO SHE3 THAT A++ +AN2!A2ES CAN BE
T*ACE- TO A*ABIC# A*ABIC *EA""EA*E- ON EA*TH +I@E AN5 OTHE*
+AN2!A2E SHO!+-# THE HEA6EN+5 O*I2IN O. A*ABIC
,!ST NOT BE CON.!SE- 3ITH THE EA*TH5 O*I2INS#
NOTES/:
;(,r# ,aBhar has tried to pro&e a lare numer of Enlish words has its oriin
inArabi%4 whi%h are in%orre%tly tra%ed to other lanuaes# He has pro&ided
a di%tionaty of su%h words# He has made followin formulas to tra%e
an Enlish word to Arabi% whi%h is a%%ordin to him is in%orre%tly tra%ed to
other lanuaes#F of them ar termed as basi% and fandamental and I
of them are %orrolaries or sub formulae?with F premilinaries#
It may be seen that wor=s of anti Islami% s%holars are in7uen%ed by
,aBhar0s wor= but in %rude form# The problem is if Arabi% in eneral
and Qur0ani% Arabi% in parti%ular %an be tra%ed to Aramai%8Syria% by
usein methods similar to ,aBhar 4 then why not to tra%e Enlish to Arabi%
in the similar way#
One is reCuested to %ompare the methods of belie&ers of syria% in7uan%es
and ,aBhar method#
<)If Arabi% %an be tra%ed to Aramai% by usin the methods of belie&ers of the
doma of Syria% in7uan%e usein methods of ,aBhar with %rudi>%ation4
then %on&ersly Aramai% %an be tra%ed to Arabi% by ,aBhar0s methods whi%h
are the sou%es of the formerly stated su%h anti Islami% s%holars#
One may see himself 8herself that whi%h rules of maBhar are used4
with or with out statin them properly #It is noted that not only it is
not %onfessed that these rules$posati&e( were oriinally used by ,aBhar
in his attempt to tra%e a number of lanuaes to Arabi%4 Enlish in parti%ular4
but also they are not stated as rules#The neati&e rules are nothin but to
deny any thin aainst this hypothesis
whi%h is unfortunately and silently be%ome a doma of these anti Islami%
ob'e%tion ma=ers#
E)IT ,!ST BE NOTE- THAT 3E HA6E NO +I@ENESS TO3A*-S ,AGHA*4ETC#
SINCE THE5 BE+ON2 TO *E+I2ION ,I*GAIS,4
A *E+I2ION -ISTINCT .*O, IS+A,4 HO3E6E* HE IS *E..E*E- J!ST
BECA!SE HIS ,ETHO-S A*E SI+ENT+5 !SE- TO
T*CE Q!*0ANIC A*ABIC TO A*A,AIC8S5*IAC#
HIS 3O*@ 3AS .I*ST "!B+ISHE- IN ;JIKA#C#
ITS "!B+ISHE* 3AS / S!N*ISE A*T "*INTE*4LM .+E,IN2 *OA- +AHO*E 4
$.O*,E* 3EST "A@ISTAN4ANTE8"*E 4;JK; E*A(
F(3E ,A5 !"+OA- HIS 3O*@ J!ST .O* *E.E*ENCE "E*"OSE SINCE THIS
3O*@ ,A5 NOT BE A6AI+AB+E IN ,A*@ET#
"EO"+E IN 2*EAT B*ITAIN4 2E*,AN5 ,A5 .IN- IT -I..IC!+T TO .IN- A CO"5
TO THIS BOO@#
0O1&2&% IT IS O#)& *O%& D&)(AI%&D T0AT 1& '&(I&2& T0AT
T0&%& IS #O 3%O30&T4#O A3OS(T(& A$T&% 0O(5 3%O30&T
3&A)& '& -3O# 0I*4 A#D *I%6A ,0-(A* A0*AD 1AS A#
I*3OST&%.
78 SO*& $A#ATI)S 0AS T%I&D TO T%A)& SO*& #O-#S O$ I#DIA#
S-')O#TI#&T #OT0%&#
3A%T TO 'I'(I)A( #O-#S.
&,:
'-TT9"AS0*I%I: TO 'AT0 I"I#,S ;<
*&&%4*&%&S0 TO *&%&S &ST0&% =:=>
DO%- TO DO% I "I#, >:>
,I(,IT TO ,O(,OT0A O% ,I,A(.
TI'&T TO T&'&T0 &ST0&% ?:=<
(ADA"0 TO(OADA0 ,&# =@:A
0-&( 9(ADA"0: TO0I&( I"I#,=<:B>
'A#I%-T0 TO %-T0 %-T0 ==:>
,O)0A# TO ,OS0&# IOS0-A ==:=< &T).
T0IS IS A 1%O#, 1A5 '-T -S&S T0& SA*& T&)0#IQ-& AS
T0OS& 10O T%5
TO T%A)& A%A'I) TO A%A*AI).