Ads by Muslim Ad Network

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wahhabi claim: Belief in Rububiyya (lordship) of Allah: Muslims = Pagans

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post


    Please do explain how one can ascribe partners in the Oneness of Allah's Lordship yet still maintain their tawheed ?
    Please quote the part about maintaining tawheed.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

      Please quote the part about maintaining tawheed.

      Which part is that ? please do explain as i don't understand what you're referring to

      The fatwa says that the mushrikeen affirmed it in a general sense but not completely as they committed shirk which undermined their tawheed. This distinction of theirs is a logical impossibility as you can not affirm and negate the same belief in one go, yet claim to still believe in it.

      For one have tawheed rububiyyah you need to believe that Allah is One and Unique in His actions, any belief less than this doesn't meet the requirement of having tawheed. The moment an individual commits shirk by ascribing partners in the Oneness of Allah's Lordship, their tawheed is negated as they no longer have a belief that maintains the Uniqueness of Allah's actions.

      That's why it's contradictory to define Tawheed Rububiyyah as singling out Allah alone in His actions but then affirm it to the mushrikeen who don't meet this requirement ie possess this belief.

      Comment


      • #48

        Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post


        Which part is that ? please do explain as i don't understand what you're referring to...
        You asked:
        Please do explain how one can ascribe partners in the Oneness of Allah's Lordship yet still maintain their tawheed ?
        I asked where it says, "one can ascribe partners in the Oneness of Allah's Lordship yet still maintain their tawheed."


        ...The fatwa says that the mushrikeen affirmed it in a general sense but not completely as they committed shirk which undermined their tawheed. This distinction of theirs is a logical impossibility as you can not affirm and negate the same belief in one go, yet claim to still believe in it.

        For one have tawheed rububiyyah you need to believe that Allah is One and Unique in His actions, any belief less than this doesn't meet the requirement of having tawheed. The moment an individual commits shirk by ascribing partners in the Oneness of Allah's Lordship, their tawheed is negated as they no longer have a belief that maintains the Uniqueness of Allah's actions.

        That's why it's contradictory to define Tawheed Rububiyyah as singling out Allah alone in His actions but then affirm it to the mushrikeen who don't meet this requirement ie possess this belief.
        The contradiction is the whole point. If someone claims to believe in Allah but calls on someone other than Allah then they have negated their tawheed. The key part here is the claim.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

          I asked where it says, "one can ascribe partners in the Oneness of Allah's Lordship yet still maintain their tawheed."
          I understand what you mean now, i assumed my initial point was quite obvious as this is what the fatwa was claiming.

          The mushrikeen among whom the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was sent did not disagree with this aspect of Tawheed, rather they affirmed it in general terms
          The fact that the mushrikeen affirmed Tawheed al-ruboobiyyah does not mean that they did so in a complete sense But they had some faults in their beliefs that undermined this concept, such as attributing rain to the stars, and their belief that soothsayers and fortunetellers had knowledge of the unseen, and other forms of shirk concerning the divine Lordship

          How would you interpret the above quote (bolded parts) ? despite saying the mushrikeen committed shirk in tawheed rububiyyah they still continue to say that the mushrikeen had tawheed in this aspect albeit in a general sense. This is what i was questioning ie how can one commit shirk yet still have tawheed




          Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

          The contradiction is the whole point. If someone claims to believe in Allah but calls on someone other than Allah then they have negated their tawheed. The key part here is the claim.
          I agree , now regarding the fatwa from islamqa they say the mushrikeen had tawheed rububiyyah even though the mushrikeen committed shirk in this aspect, is this possible ? do you believe that an individual who commits shirk in tawheed rububiyyah has tawheed in this category ?

          My question to you is as follows; If a person who has tawheed rububiyyah (completely) goes on to commit shirk in tawheed uluhiyyah only, does their shirk negate
          1. Their tawheed in uluhiyyah only
          2. Negate their tawheed completely ( all categories of tawheed)

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post

            I understand what you mean now, i assumed my initial point was quite obvious as this is what the fatwa was claiming...
            I don't think it claims that.


            How would you interpret the above quote (bolded parts) ? despite saying the mushrikeen committed shirk in tawheed rububiyyah they still continue to say that the mushrikeen had tawheed in this aspect albeit in a general sense. This is what i was questioning ie how can one commit shirk yet still have tawheed
            The key part is the claim. They claimed (affirmed) to believe but obviously negated the belief.



            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
              I don't think it claims that.


              They literally say that have a look at that quote, i don't think you can interpret it in anotherway other than what i mentioned. If you disagree please share with me your interpretation of the parts in bold.

              The fact that the mushrikeen affirmed Tawheed al-ruboobiyyah does not mean that they did so in a complete sense But they had some faults in their beliefs that undermined this concept, such as attributing rain to the stars, and their belief that soothsayers and fortunetellers had knowledge of the unseen, and other forms of shirk concerning the divine Lordship

              Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
              I don't think it claims that.

              The key part is the claim. They claimed (affirmed) to believe but obviously negated the belief.


              The fatwa isn't saying what you're implying at all, if anything they use this belief of the mushrikeen affirming tawheed rububiyyah to establish that simply affirming this tawheed isn't sufficient for one to be a muslim and that you need tawheed uluhiyyah. On top of that they also used Quran to prove that the mushrikeen affirmed tawheed rubuibiyyah.


              And they affirmed that Allaah is in control of all things and that in His hand is sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. Thus it is known that affirming the Lordship of Allaah is not sufficient for a person to be a true Muslim, rather he must also affirm that which is implied by that, namely the oneness of the divinity of Allaah and he must devote his worship to Allaah alone.

              If they believed that the mushrikeen were falsely claiming to believe in this tawheed they would never use their (mushrikeen) affirmation as evidence to prove that tawheed rububiyyah wasn't enough for a person to be considered a muslim. So in short they aren't saying that their affirmation is a false one but a truthful one this is clear without a doubt. This is why i asked how was it possible for one to commit shirk and then still have tawheed.



              Please i would appreciate if you answered my previous question


              My question to you is as follows; If a person who has tawheed rububiyyah (completely) goes on to commit shirk in tawheed uluhiyyah only, does their shirk negate
              1. Their tawheed in uluhiyyah only
              2. Negate their tawheed completely ( all categories of tawheed)

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post




                The fatwa isn't saying what you're implying at all, if anything they use this belief of the mushrikeen affirming tawheed rububiyyah to establish that simply affirming this tawheed isn't sufficient for one to be a muslim and that you need tawheed uluhiyyah. On top of that they also used Quran to prove that the mushrikeen affirmed tawheed rubuibiyyah.





                If they believed that the mushrikeen were falsely claiming to believe in this tawheed they would never use their (mushrikeen) affirmation as evidence to prove that tawheed rububiyyah wasn't enough for a person to be considered a muslim. So in short they aren't saying that their affirmation is a false one but a truthful one this is clear without a doubt. This is why i asked how was it possible for one to commit shirk and then still have tawheed...
                What you're essentially asking is how it's possible for someone to 'believe' yet still go against their own beliefs.

                False vs truthful is a bit of misnomer. The point as mentioned previously is the affirmation itself. It would be like someone claiming to believe in only one 'God' (an idol) and they may be 'truthful' in that but their claim is still false.


                ...Please i would appreciate if you answered my previous question
                I don't understand the question.







                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
                  What you're essentially asking is how it's possible for someone to 'believe' yet still go against their own beliefs.

                  Exactly if someone affirms a belief with conviction yet negates that same belief, can we then ascribe said belief to him/her ? the answer is no as it's illogical to do so simply because the person engaged in actions that negated that belief.


                  QUOTE=Abu 'Abdullaah;n12729237]
                  False vs truthful is a bit of misnomer. The point as mentioned previously is the affirmation itself. It would be like someone claiming to believe in only one 'God' (an idol) and they may be 'truthful' in that but their claim is still false.
                  [/QUOTE]


                  I disagree as the statements from the fatwa was quite clear, why would they use a false claim of the mushrikeen as evidence to state that the affirmation of tawheed rububiyyah is not sufficient to make one a muslim ? To them the validity of the mushrikeen's affirmation is indeed one based on truth, as they use it as proof to say look just because one affirms the Oneness of Allah's Lordship
                  it won't make you a muslim because the mushrikeen affirmed it as well but they not considered because of it. That's why you need to affirm tawheed uluhiyyah as well.

                  In your example the only way such a person's claim is true is if they Only believed in One God. A claim can not be true and false at the same time, that's just a logical impossibility

                  Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
                  I don't understand the question.
                  Basically my question is; suppose an individual has complete tawheed rububiyyah ( doesn't commit shirk in this category) but commits shirk in tawheed uluhiyyah, does this shirk they commit in this category of tawheed (tawheed uluhiyyah)
                  1. Negate tawheed uluhiyyah only or
                  2. Negate tawheed in it's entirety ( ie all 3 categories of of tawheed)

                  Hope the question is clear this time around.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post
                    ...I disagree as the statements from the fatwa was quite clear, why would they use a false claim of the mushrikeen as evidence to state that the affirmation of tawheed rububiyyah is not sufficient to make one a muslim ? To them the validity of the mushrikeen's affirmation is indeed one based on truth, as they use it as proof to say look just because one affirms the Oneness of Allah's Lordship
                    it won't make you a muslim because the mushrikeen affirmed it as well but they not considered because of it. That's why you need to affirm tawheed uluhiyyah as well.

                    In your example the only way such a person's claim is true is if they Only believed in One God. A claim can not be true and false at the same time, that's just a logical impossibility...
                    The difference is between a generic affirmation and a specific one. Again, it would be like saying how can someone claim to be on tawheed and believe in the last day yet negate it by committing sins. Is there a contradiction there? Yes. Can both things be simultaneously 'true?' Also yes.



                    ...Basically my question is; suppose an individual has complete tawheed rububiyyah ( doesn't commit shirk in this category) but commits shirk in tawheed uluhiyyah, does this shirk they commit in this category of tawheed (tawheed uluhiyyah)
                    1. Negate tawheed uluhiyyah only or
                    2. Negate tawheed in it's entirety ( ie all 3 categories of of tawheed)

                    Hope the question is clear this time around...
                    The category of shirk vs the category of tawheed is academic. Shirk negates everything.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post
                      Abu Sulayman


                      Have look at the following statements from islamqa










                      Taken from islamqa: The real meaning of Tawheed Rububiyyah
                      1. They define Tawheed Rububiyyah as singling out Allah in His actions
                      2. Divide tawheed Rububiyyah into :
                        1. Complete Tawheed Rububiyyah
                        2. General Tawheed Rububiyyah
                      3. Affirm that the mushrikeen committed shirk in Tawheed Rububiyyah

                      How are those statements not contradicting each other ? How do shirk and tawheed coexist together ?

                      Even if we were to assume for arguments sake that they didn't commit shirk in tawheed rububiyyah, how do they still retain their tawheed in this aspect after committing shirk in uluhiyyah ? It's like claiming an apostate still retains emaan after they've left the deen. It just doesn't add up at all and they want to convince us that they're following the Prophet ?

                      Just imagine making excuses for mushriks who engage in blatant shirk yet when it comes to muslims they don't hold their tongues and are quick to label them as mushriks, spill their blood etc simply because they don't share their innovated understanding of tawheed and shirk
                      IslamQA is stating how the mushriks thought themselves to believe in tawheed based on the verse

                      “And indeed if you ask them: ‘Who has created the heavens and the earth?’ They will surely say: ‘The All-Mighty, the All-Knower created them’”

                      [al-Zukhruf 43:9]

                      It then goes on "And they affirmed that Allaah is in control of all things and that in His hand is sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. Thus it is known that affirming the Lordship of Allaah is not sufficient for a person to be a true Muslim, rather he must also affirm that which is implied by that, namely the oneness of the divinity of Allaah and he must devote his worship to Allaah alone.

                      later it mentions "But they had some faults in their beliefs that undermined this concept, such as attributing rain to the stars, and their belief that soothsayers and fortunetellers had knowledge of the unseen, and other forms of shirk concerning the divine Lordship"

                      So IslamQA is merely pointing out how while they claimed to believe in Tawheed, this was undermined by their faulty understanding of it.

                      I don't see how you arrived at the conclusion that they are making excuses for them. Perhaps you and the OP need to cut down on the Matam.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by AdoonkaAlle View Post
                        Abu Sulayman


                        Have look at the following statements from islamqa










                        Taken from islamqa: The real meaning of Tawheed Rububiyyah
                        1. They define Tawheed Rububiyyah as singling out Allah in His actions
                        2. Divide tawheed Rububiyyah into :
                          1. Complete Tawheed Rububiyyah
                          2. General Tawheed Rububiyyah
                        3. Affirm that the mushrikeen committed shirk in Tawheed Rububiyyah

                        How are those statements not contradicting each other ? How do shirk and tawheed coexist together ?

                        Even if we were to assume for arguments sake that they didn't commit shirk in tawheed rububiyyah, how do they still retain their tawheed in this aspect after committing shirk in uluhiyyah ? It's like claiming an apostate still retains emaan after they've left the deen. It just doesn't add up at all and they want to convince us that they're following the Prophet ?

                        Just imagine making excuses for mushriks who engage in blatant shirk yet when it comes to muslims they don't hold their tongues and are quick to label them as mushriks, spill their blood etc simply because they don't share their innovated understanding of tawheed and shirk
                        They're obviously contradicting themselves. Note that what was stated by the innovators and heretics of "islamqa" - that the polytheists would accept general Tawhid al-Rububiyya - is a modified and updated version of the Najdi claim after realizing how idiotic the original Najdi claim was and that was their claim that the polytheists accepted the Lordship of Allah ta'ala COMPLETELY and WITHOUT ANY PARTNERS, thereby directly opposing what is mentioned regarding the polytheists in the book of Allah ta'ala!


                        Remember that their heretic leaders like Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH), Ibn Baz (d. 1420 AH) and al-Fawzan were quoted, who clearly and openly argued that the Makkan pagans were COMPLETE monotheists in the Lordship of Allah ta'ala.

                        This was the statement of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab - the leader of this movement - in his Kashf al-Shubuhat:

                        فإن قال: هؤلاء الآيات نزلت فيمن يعبد الأصنام، كيف تجعلون الصالحين مثل الأصنام أم كيف تجعلون الأنبياء أصنامًا؟ فجاوبه بما تقدم فإنه إذا أقر أن الكفار يشهدون بالربوبية كلها لله، وأنهم ما أرادوا ممن قصدوا إلا الشفاعة

                        So if it is said: These verses were sent down regarding the woshippers of idols; how do you make the righteous (Salihin) like the idols or how do you make the Prophets (Anbiya`) like idols?
                        Then the answer is as already mentioned: If it is established that the disbelievers testified lordship (Rububiyya) completely for Allah and that they did not intend from those whom they turned to except their intercession...

                        - end of quote -

                        What this man stated above is simply disbelief and nothing less. These polytheists whom he regards as "complete monotheists in the Lordship of God" believed that many "gods" are needed for the preservation of the universe and they claimed that angels were "daughters of god" and therefore "gods" themselves and they didn't believe that Allah ta'ala is All-Knowing nor All-Seeing nor All-Hearing nor All-Powerful (remember: this is why they rejected the resurrection!). Infact they weren't even sure whether Allah ta'ala exists or not and would curse Him if one were to curse their idols! So what kind of monotheism is this that he ascribes to them?!

                        Note that even those among the polytheists who did believe in a "supreme diety who is greater than other dieties" still were not monotheists in the Lordship of Allah ta'ala, because they still ascribed characteristics of Lordship to other than this "supreme diety" and their view of this "supreme diety" is not even the same as our view of Allah ta'ala. They had anthropomorphic views.

                        Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab himself had also anthropomorphic views and did not know Allah ta'ala in reality!! What he worshipped was a 3-dimensional being, which he falsely called "Allah"!

                        All these claims of "Makkan pagans were monotheists in Lordship..." were intended to justify the spilling of blood of real believers and that's it. Many laymen in the West today obviously don't get this, because a got portion of them have been fooled by them.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Ibn Abdul-Wahhab was a kafir.

                          Sadly, his spiritual progeny has been a source of fitna to the Ummah of Rasulullah (ﷺ) for the past century.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post
                            The difference is between a generic affirmation and a specific one. Again, it would be like saying how can someone claim to be on tawheed and believe in the last day yet negate it by committing sins. Is there a contradiction there? Yes. Can both things be simultaneously 'true?' Also yes..

                            You're comparing apples and oranges here , the shirk we're discussing about is a specific type of sin that negates tawheed and emaan. Tell me does drinking alcohol, committing zina etc negate your tawheed/emaan ? Allah says in the Quran that associating anything with Allah renders ones deeds null and void ie worthless. How can one then go on to affirm tawheed for individuals who commit shirk ? Furthermore there can never be a generic affirmation of tawheed it's either an individual has it or not.

                            Just ask yourself this question why didn't they affirm tawheed uluhiyyah to the mushrikeen ? i mean they worshipped others with Allah why didn't they not affirm tawheed uluhiyyah in the general sense here as well ? Would you say that a muslim who chooses 6 days to worship Allah alone but on the 7th day worships another ilah as having tawheed uluhiyyah ? would you then affirm a general tawheed uluhiyyah to him/her ? Do you understand how illogical and dangerous introducing such distinctions are ?


                            Originally posted by Abu 'Abdullaah View Post

                            The category of shirk vs the category of tawheed is academic. Shirk negates everything.
                            To the salafis it's not as this part of their aqeedah that they teach. Since shirk negates everything for the one who engages in it how is it possible to affirm tawheed afterwards for such a person ?

                            Since their shirk in uluhiyyah negates tawheed in it's entirety how in the world do they have any tawheed ? why did you then continue to distinguish between a generic and specific affirmation of tawheed when you fully know that the shirk mushrikeen committed was one that negated their tawheed in it's entirety ?




                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Eorlingas View Post

                              IslamQA is stating how the mushriks thought themselves to believe in tawheed based on the verse

                              “And indeed if you ask them: ‘Who has created the heavens and the earth?’ They will surely say: ‘The All-Mighty, the All-Knower created them’”

                              [al-Zukhruf 43:9]

                              It then goes on "And they affirmed that Allaah is in control of all things and that in His hand is sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. Thus it is known that affirming the Lordship of Allaah is not sufficient for a person to be a true Muslim, rather he must also affirm that which is implied by that, namely the oneness of the divinity of Allaah and he must devote his worship to Allaah alone.

                              later it mentions "But they had some faults in their beliefs that undermined this concept, such as attributing rain to the stars, and their belief that soothsayers and fortunetellers had knowledge of the unseen, and other forms of shirk concerning the divine Lordship"

                              So IslamQA is merely pointing out how while they claimed to believe in Tawheed, this was undermined by their faulty understanding of it.

                              I don't see how you arrived at the conclusion that they are making excuses for them. Perhaps you and the OP need to cut down on the Matam.

                              They're making excuses for them by claiming that they had tawheed rububiyyah while acknowledging they committed shirk in this aspect of tawheed. Tawheed and shirk do not go together, the mushrikeen never said "We have tawheed" nor do they ever acknowledge or affirm such a thing , it's the salafis who're attributing it to them. The christians. jews all affirm the existence of Allah believe in Him, affirm He is the creator of the universe etc but we don't affirm any tawheed to them at all why ? because they commit shirk which negates any belief they've.

                              To have tawheed is to believe that Allah is the Only Rabb and Ilah, there's no god or rabb besides him and none shares in His attributes, no one should be worshipped but Him alone. Mushrikeen of the past and even now don't have any tawheed.

                              Just ask yourself this if their shirk undermined tawheed, how do they still retain it ? why would they affirm tawheed to a mushrik ? what possible reason is there to do such a thing ?

                              Furthermore affirming the Oneness of Allah's Lordship also affirms the Oneness of His Worship, they're inclusive of each other and can't be separated. Which is why their claim that affirming tawheed rububiyyah isn't sufficient enough to be a muslim completely false

                              To the salafis claiming mushrikeen affirmed tawheed rububiyyah is an integral part of their entire understanding of tawheed, they use it as evidence to prove that you need tawheed uluhiyyah. Without it everything would fall apart, they don't extend the same courtesy to the muslims they accuse of committing shirk.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Abu Sulayman View Post

                                They're obviously contradicting themselves. Note that what was stated by the innovators and heretics of "islamqa" - that the polytheists would accept general Tawhid al-Rububiyya - is a modified and updated version of the Najdi claim after realizing how idiotic the original Najdi claim was and that was their claim that the polytheists accepted the Lordship of Allah ta'ala COMPLETELY and WITHOUT ANY PARTNERS, thereby directly opposing what is mentioned regarding the polytheists in the book of Allah ta'ala!


                                Remember that their heretic leaders like Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (d. 1206 AH), Ibn Baz (d. 1420 AH) and al-Fawzan were quoted, who clearly and openly argued that the Makkan pagans were COMPLETE monotheists in the Lordship of Allah ta'ala.

                                This was the statement of Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab - the leader of this movement - in his Kashf al-Shubuhat:

                                فإن قال: هؤلاء الآيات نزلت فيمن يعبد الأصنام، كيف تجعلون الصالحين مثل الأصنام أم كيف تجعلون الأنبياء أصنامًا؟ فجاوبه بما تقدم فإنه إذا أقر أن الكفار يشهدون بالربوبية كلها لله، وأنهم ما أرادوا ممن قصدوا إلا الشفاعة

                                So if it is said: These verses were sent down regarding the woshippers of idols; how do you make the righteous (Salihin) like the idols or how do you make the Prophets (Anbiya`) like idols?
                                Then the answer is as already mentioned: If it is established that the disbelievers testified lordship (Rububiyya) completely for Allah and that they did not intend from those whom they turned to except their intercession...

                                - end of quote -

                                What this man stated above is simply disbelief and nothing less. These polytheists whom he regards as "complete monotheists in the Lordship of God" believed that many "gods" are needed for the preservation of the universe and they claimed that angels were "daughters of god" and therefore "gods" themselves and they didn't believe that Allah ta'ala is All-Knowing nor All-Seeing nor All-Hearing nor All-Powerful (remember: this is why they rejected the resurrection!). Infact they weren't even sure whether Allah ta'ala exists or not and would curse Him if one were to curse their idols! So what kind of monotheism is this that he ascribes to them?!

                                Note that even those among the polytheists who did believe in a "supreme diety who is greater than other dieties" still were not monotheists in the Lordship of Allah ta'ala, because they still ascribed characteristics of Lordship to other than this "supreme diety" and their view of this "supreme diety" is not even the same as our view of Allah ta'ala. They had anthropomorphic views.

                                Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab himself had also anthropomorphic views and did not know Allah ta'ala in reality!! What he worshipped was a 3-dimensional being, which he falsely called "Allah"!

                                All these claims of "Makkan pagans were monotheists in Lordship..." were intended to justify the spilling of blood of real believers and that's it. Many laymen in the West today obviously don't get this, because a got portion of them have been fooled by them.

                                The entire concept is just completely irrational from affirming tawheed to mushriks to separating between Rabb & Ilah etc. I remember reading an article whereby the writer confirmed that Rabb is inclusive of ilah and vice versa when they're mentioned alone in the Quran,and Hadith but later on says that it doesn't apply to the categorisation of tawheed and claiming that they're one is the talk of Ahlu bidah i was shocked

                                The sad thing is the little coverage this important matter receives when people are critiquing salafis, after all this is where all the deviation stems from when it comes to them.


                                for you hard work brother it's truly important what you're doing











                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X