Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Cypress

[Closed/Review]Mujtahidah (female Allamah)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Because in the time there was a general conception that leaders needed to be rulers (not shepherds), with a rich man more likely to be respected as leaders than a poor man. Why? Because political leaders were generally rich. Why? Because political leaders generally needed to be military leaders as well, and military leaders generally needed to be brutal. Why? Because combat was very physical. Carpenters were generally less skilled than soldiers, and therefore generally less likely to be military leaders, and thus generally less likely to be political leaders. This environment produced an environment where orphans were generally subconsciously seen as less appropriate for leadership, despite the fact that they were capable, potentially, of the intellectual abilities needed for leadership. Add to this that unschooled orphans were less likely to be educated, and it became even less likely for a unschooled orphan to appear who would be recognized as a leader.

Lol, that last criteria (education) you added is pretty funny. I didn't even have to change that one to make it contradict the truth/reality :lol:..

Are you finished? The adults are trying to talk. Here; some homework reading.

Does anything in this remotely suggest that a prophet needs big muscles to be a prophet? That he needs riches, etc? No. It addresses simply the issue of why women were less likely than men to be taken seriously as spiritual leaders in the pre-modern world. The skills and level of development needed to make one an apt candidate to be chosen by God for prophethood are of course quite complex and dependent on the situation. Note that nowhere did I say acceptability was the criterion. I hope it is clear why a woman would have been less likely than a man in the past to achieve the mission if chosen, and why few, or possibly none, were chosen.
Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eh bro to be honest i didn't get what you were trying to say either. Seems like a play on words. Anyways this discussion has reached its fruitful life expectancy.

Shrugs. Sorry. I tried to make it as simple as I could. Here's a final attempt to try to communicate the idea: Basically, women were seen as lower than men, on average. For the most part, you would have had to have been a rich, powerful woman to get the respect of an ordinary man. But if you were a rich, powerful woman, chances were better than not you would have been corrupted by materialism (though obviously there are exceptions, such as Lady Khadijah; we are speaking on average, generally, and not universally), and wouldn't have had the spiritual credentials to be a prophet. Therefore it was less likely for a woman to be a prophet, based on likelihood to be respected, all else being equal. That's about as simple and straightforward as I can put it. My apologies if I am imperfectly communicating my ideas.

(I've edited this a few more times)

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eh bro to be honest i didn't get what you were trying to say either. Seems like a play on words. Anyways this discussion has reached its fruitful life expectancy.

The expiry date was passed a few pages ago..

Are you finished? The adults are trying to talk. Here; some homework reading.

:blink: - a.) How is that relevant ? b.) Even if the nature of the argument is syllogistic, how does it refute what I said ? c.) Jooi, please do extract for us the minor & premises and corresponding conclusion of what I quoted..

Unless someone has some new point, just let it die so we don't have to kill it.

meh, I was bored of this thread ages ago. But I'm sure you guys know me well enough to know that I'm only gonna drop the ball once kadhim stops spewing his rubbish (I don't care whether he changes his view or not). It seems like he likes to stubbornly repeat himself without trying to understand others' posts. His latest conjecture/hypothesis/story/fantasy is quite amusing though:

Basically, women were seen as lower than men, on average. For the most part, you would have had to have been a rich, powerful woman to get the respect of an ordinary man. But if you were a rich, powerful woman, chances were better than not you would have been corrupted by materialism, and wouldn't have had the spiritual credentials to be a prophet. Therefore it was less likely for a woman to be a prophet, based on likelihood to be respected. That's about as simple and straightforward as I can put it.

Man, you can tell when people get desperate -_-. You've managed to weave together an intricate fictional story, but it still laden with the same problems. You now start out by implying "respect" is the necessary condition for leadership. But if that were so, then it still does not make sense to select a carpenter over a king, a shepherd over a pharoah, an orphan over a ruler. Secondly, tell me how much respect Imam Hussein [AS] got from the ummah, or any other of the Ma`soomin [AS]. Their tragedies and oppresions are too many to list. Respect as determined by the society is not a condition at all, so you can forget about the necessary/sufficient nature of it altogether ! You then say a powerful, rich women is "more likely" to have been corrupted by materialism. If you mean by "more likely" you are allowing exceptions, then you don't prove anything. As along as it is in the realm of logical possibility, Allah [sWT] can operate on whom he wills. If you meant to posit it as a necessary relationship, then a single particular negative proposition suffices to refute a universal affirmative proposition: Hazrat Khadijah [sA] - she was both rich and powerful, and simultaneously not corrupted.

To summarise, every single statement you made their is 100% pure jibberish..

EDIT: Lol, it's pretty ironic how you've now changed your post to include same exception I talked about. Nonetheless, my post still deals with your modified story anyway..

My apologies if I am imperfectly communicating my ideas.

You've changed your story altogether from what you have said in your previous posts..

Edited by The Persian Shah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You then say a powerful, rich women is "more likely" to have been corrupted by materialism. If you mean by "more likely" you are allowing exceptions, then you don't prove anything.

Is there something in particular about qualifiers such as "for the most part," "in general," "all things being equal," and "more likely to" that does not compute? You don't refute the observation that, in general, men make more than women by pointing out that a female CEO makes more than a male janitor. We are asking why, other than some sort of innate difference in capacity, there were more male than female prophets. Such a question lends itself to probabilistic (rather than strictly causitive) arguments of "more likely than," "all other things being equal." Of course there's variation within populations, but we're talking about comparing population averages.

As along as it is in the realm of logical possibility, Allah [sWT] can operate on whom he wills.

"In the realm of logical possibility" involves, practically, whether the person is going to be able, in his/her context, to accomplish the mission. He can choose as He likes, but His choices are always rational and strategic.

meh, I was bored of this thread ages ago.

What's with these strange people who don't have anything to contribute to the conversation, yet continue to hang around trying to interfere with others?

You now start out by implying "respect" is the necessary condition for leadership.

Yes. This is a surprise to you? No one is going to follow someone he doesn't respect. People took Muhammad seriously when he claimed prophethood because he had built up a reputation over decades as an honest, trustworthy man.

To summarise, every single statement you made their is 100% pure jibberish..

You're really making it rather difficult to keep a fake grin on my face and be polite when you utterly refuse to extend the same courtesy.

You've changed your story altogether from what you have said in your previous posts..

Not one iota. I have elaborated and clarified, but it has been the same message throughout. (And please, spare us the embarrassing spectacle of you going on and on that you know better than me what I was trying to communicate) If you got a different message earlier from what you are getting now, it is because you misunderstood earlier. There is no shame in this; as I said earlier, I will be charitable and admit the possibility that I did not explain clearly enough earlier for you to be able to comprehend. It happens, and my apologies if I confused you.

Edited by kadhim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you finished? The adults are trying to talk. Here; some homework reading.

And you said he was being immature and speaking out of emotion. That was really rude, i don't think he was ever that rude to you.

I don't know why people need to be so stubborn. If you're wrong just admit it and move on, that makes people respect you more. Arguing on and on just so that you can win a debate, and in reality not getting anything out of it is not what an intelligent person does. We are all guilty of this at one point or another obviously, but at one point we should wake up and just admit it.

That's the way an intelligent adult acts.

Wasalam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In science, women and men are not regarded the same in a number of aspects. Women are not even regarded the same. This itself is just a form of essentialism that does not exist. But there are common traits which is why we seperate men from women.

Freud believed that the women understand women better and can understand because of their atonomy

While Men have difficulty understanding the female anatomy but understand men better

This paves way for the scientific reason behind the Female mojtahedeh. A woman who gives religious rulings solely to women. A female scholar in the Islamic view is not allowed to be emulated by men, nor can men follow her, because this would be against the islamic teachings (Shahid Motahhari's social and human evolution) that we must refer to the rational and move away from the common ancestor (greed, lust, desire, which are unstoppable forces, urges and must be suppressed until lessened through marriage.)

in Dr. Paul Cameron's view and his explanation of homosexuality and the reasoning behind it, boys are more likely to play with boys when they are smaller, while girls usually play with girls and sometimes it is even called "disgusting" to play with each other. They prefer following one another. Men have always played a dominant role as the ruler, decision maker, etc. this also holds true in the animal kingdom.

Think about how many animals you know where the men holds the function of judge, ruler, decision maker, provider for the family etc. while the woman has other duties, namely protecting, loving, caring, advisory role, etc., Islam is modelled after this simple form of equity (that women and men both have seperate purposes and tasks) which is present among many beings and even among the most early hunting and gathering societies. We see that during this society, the women would follow the men in decision making, they would do this by the book so well that the role of women and women became egalitarian (equal) and based on mutual respect. This is also the case in Iran, and this aspect of hunting and gathering is a stage we would like to reach. The woman follows the boundaries of our male Ayatellah and within those boundaries she is allowed to serve Islam and judge over the women and give them religious rulings. This is a desirable society because after this period there was a large amount of inequality and it eventually paved the way for sexism as we know. So saying that this should not happen has a very negative outcome and serves as the exploitation of women and a return to the common ancestor.

Again, some people are judging Islam by looking at individualist societies which are full of corruption and exploit women and men together in many aspects. Islam says, men and women have seperate roles while seperated or being a family. In Islam, the family unit is the most important (which is also why the position of Mojtahedeh evolves around this and is thus limited) in line with Darwin it ensures the next generation and the most healthy chance to existence while the women can equally serve Islam in the same way men do. There is no objection ofcourse in leadership by a woman for the woman, the women of Madinah during the Prophet's time had a leader and through this leader they pledged their allegiance.

Edited by Rubaiyat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You first..

You are either very dumb or you are a hypocrite.

I said:

Unless there is a good reason to believe otherwise, I would say that yes, the teacher knows more than the student.

Seems you "missed" that bit.

Have you actually seen the other thread ? No scholar, big or small, other than Pooya says it refers to the idols. The chapter doesn't even make sense with this meaning.

43:16 (Y. Ali) What! has He taken daughters out of what He himself creates, and granted to you sons for choice?

43:16 (Picktall) Or chooseth He daughters of all that He hath created, and honoureth He you with sons?

43:17 (Y. Ali) When news is brought to one of them of (the birth of) what he sets up as a likeness to ((Allah)) Most Gracious, his face darkens, and he is filled with inward grief!

43:17 (Picktall) And if one of them hath tidings of that which he likeneth to the Beneficent One, his countenance becometh black and he is full of inward rage.

43:18 (Picktall) (Liken they then to Allah) that which is bred up in outward show, and in dispute cannot make itself plain?

43:18 (Y. Ali) Is then one brought up among trinkets, and unable to give a clear account in a dispute (to be associated with Allah.?

The whole story is about how the pagans ascribed daughters to Allah [sWT], not idols. I suggest you read it once from the beginning..

You are backtracking, as usual.

You first posted this verse and said that this "ends" the discussion. In other words, you were saying that all women are foolish. After being proved wrong, you are now saying that only women who adorn themselves become stupid.

You need to first decide what your point of view is and then come here with your "end of discussion" posts.

Beace :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rubaiyyat for your thoughts. A few comments though to poke a bit at what you're saying. I would be careful with analogies with the animal kingdom in this respect. Animals are not rational creatures, and authority and power amongst animals is established largely through who is stronger. I would add that there are a few exceptions, such as ants, where the chief female, the queen, is the dominant centre of the "society." Same with bees. (Intriguingly these two insect species are given as examples in the Qu'ran, but I'm not going to try to take that too far) However, for the most part, it is through strength, and in most species, this is the male.

Humans have an animal aspect, with similar sex-based dimorphisms as in the animal kingdom, making male humans stronger, more agressive, more dominant. I can see the analogy to the animal kingdom certainly for simpler, earlier societies. But, we need to keep in mind that in more sophisticated societies, it is less brute strength than intelligence and brain power that are the basis of economic and political power. As mankind uses science to develop technologies and machines to do the brute force things for them, sex-based differences of strength become less significant. Political power is attained through rational and other forms of persuasion, and economic wealth is generated through creative innovation to think up new products and newer, better methods of production. These are intellectual bases of power, and according to the best science, while there are some qualitative differences in how women and men think, there is no sound evidence to say one is more or less rational than the other. Indeed, the near balance of university enrollment in nearly all subjects in modern nations, and even in Iran, is a strong argument that men don't have a lock on rationality.

Of course, one biological difference does remain powerful and inescapable in one area, and that is childbirth, which naturally places more demands on the woman. This difference will likely ensure that men would naturally make up the majority of major scholars. This is about as far as you can take the line of argument. Biological differences cannot however be used to argue that no women are capable of becoming maraja or that no women should.

You are either very dumb or you are a hypocrite.

I said:

Seems you "missed" that bit.

You are backtracking, as usual.

You first posted this verse and said that this "ends" the discussion. In other words, you were saying that all women are foolish. After being proved wrong, you are now saying that only women who adorn themselves become stupid.

You need to first decide what your point of view is and then come here with your "end of discussion" posts.

Beace :)

Hey, I realize I'm not the best messenger to bring this message, but let's all just tone it back a bit, take a breather. We're all getting a little too wound up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, my initial post was kind of written in a hurry, ofcourse I meant to write anatomy, not atonomy. It has some other mistakes however it was purely because I was lazy, excusez-moi.

Thanks Rubaiyyat for your thoughts. A few comments though to poke a bit at what you're saying. I would be careful with analogies with the animal kingdom in this respect. Animals are not rational creatures, and authority and power amongst animals is established largely through who is stronger. I would add that there are a few exceptions, such as ants, where the chief female, the queen, is the dominant centre of the "society." Same with bees. (Intriguingly these two insect species are given as examples in the Qu'ran, but I'm not going to try to take that too far) However, for the most part, it is through strength, and in most species, this is the male.

I believe that this is for a large part biologically determined, and that the Woman (as described by Dr. Azghadi) is attempting to behave like the male when she assumes the role absolute rulership over men in addition to women. I consider animals to sometimes be more rational than us, an example would be them being very protective of their mate and confronting any lustful looks of other animals, while we showcase our women with short skirts, we are in fact the ones lying to our bodies through "emancipation" while it is absolutely rational for us to protect them. The human difference compared to animals lies in the fact that animals can survive without culture, while mankind slowly develops its culture based on what the majority wants or likes. Animals thus retain their natural purposes, women having their tasks and men their own. While we attempt to change this form of behaviour that has always existed among the vast species through ethnomethodology. Also mankind very much relies on who is stronger and who is weaker, this is why women prefer good-looking men, stronger men, etc. and men prefer good looking and smart women, this has entirely to do with the will to survive and the suppressed unconscious idea that healthy offspring have to be made, we do not differ in this respect to animals at all.

Humans have an animal aspect, with similar sex-based dimorphisms as in the animal kingdom, making male humans stronger, more agressive, more dominant. I can see the analogy to the animal kingdom certainly for simpler, earlier societies. But, we need to keep in mind that in more sophisticated societies, it is less brute strength than intelligence and brain power that are the basis of economic and political power. As mankind uses science to develop technologies and machines to do the brute force things for them, sex-based differences of strength become less significant.

I am not sure if you have followed political psychology, but in this aspect of political science, there is a large focus on why humans become successful in the economic and political field. This is ofcourse also for a very large part determined by biology.

Tall men are usually more successful than short men

Right handed more than left handed

George bush's more so than Ron Paul's

Men with thick eyebrows more than thin eyebrows..and so on.

Political power is attained through rational and other forms of persuasion, and economic wealth is generated through creative innovation to think up new products and newer, better methods of production. These are intellectual bases of power,

If only the world was structured in such an ideal way. While I agree that women have to be given equal ways to contribute in the way they can. The reality is that most of the political power and economic wealth relies on this political psychology. It determines if we become powerful in any aspect of life. If we take most of the ideologies that have developed after the french revolution, all of these populist ideologies which are not based on the rational thinking of man but what he much rather wants to hear (persuasive techniques) to feel good about his or herself. This is not very different to how the animal kingdom behaves in many ways.

It is absolutely important to include biological factors in how we should treat one another, since there is a very strong basis for why we do things, regard them right or wrong etc. from birth and what is the most efficient way from our Islam to move away from the common ancestor, to the extent our body allows. The body has a very large role in all of this and excluding it is very naive and has been attempted by individualism, which is today ofcourse full of social corruption as a result.

Edited by Rubaiyat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubaiyyat,

Like I said, I do acknowledge that we humans are an integrated mix of animal, intellectual, and spiritual, and that these things inter-relate, and that the animal aspects can leak over into behavior and perception in some subtle insidious ways. I don't think I've heard of political psychology before, but evolutionary psychology certainly. One aside about the lefties though - most of the occupants of the White House in the last 30 years, excepting Carter and Bush Jr were southpaws, or ambidextrous - Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Obama.

I'm however, confident, perhaps a bit more than you, that spiritual development enables us to overcome and transcend the animal nature. The whole idea of spiritual development is to tame the animal nature and put it under control of the intellect, itself under the sway of the purified spirit, so that we are conscious of the animal instincts and able to consciously direct them in productive ways. Because spiritual development leads to this control, again, as men and women become more developed intellectually and spiritually, in my mind the animal differences become less and less relevant to the question of spiritual scholarship and leadership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there something in particular about qualifiers such as "for the most part," "in general," "all things being equal," and "more likely to" that does not compute? You don't refute the observation that, in general, men make more than women by pointing out that a female CEO makes more than a male janitor. We are asking why, other than some sort of innate difference in capacity, there were more male than female prophets. Such a question lends itself to probabilistic (rather than strictly causitive) arguments of "more likely than," "all other things being equal." Of course there's variation within populations, but we're talking about comparing population averages.

Poor guy. It seems like the pressures of materialism and atheism have finally taken their toll on you. Allah [sWT] does not close his eyes and select a Prophet or an Imam as a number of coloured balls randomly from a bag, that it should be governed by the laws of probability. This isn't some emperical experiment where you can repeat it over and over again, and then subsequently predict the outcome statistically. If you don't understand this concept, then I don't know how else to explain it to you. All I can do is repeat what I said earlier which already deals with your argument:

You then say a powerful, rich women is "more likely" to have been corrupted by materialism. If you mean by "more likely" you are allowing exceptions, then you don't prove anything. As along as it is in the realm of logical possibility, Allah [sWT] can operate on whom he wills. If you meant to posit it as a necessary relationship, then a single particular negative proposition suffices to refute a universal affirmative proposition: Hazrat Khadijah [sA] - she was both rich and powerful, and simultaneously not corrupted.
"In the realm of logical possibility" involves, practically, whether the person is going to be able, in his/her context, to accomplish the mission. He can choose as He likes, but His choices are always rational and strategic.

I think you would benefit from learning about the three types of possibility. Please read Shaheed Sadr's contribution to The Awaited Saviour.

What's with these strange people who don't have anything to contribute to the conversation, yet continue to hang around trying to interfere with others?

I didn't say I have nothing to contribute. I have plenty to contribute: refutations of your fairy-tales. I just said I was bored sick of them already.

Yes. This is a surprise to you? No one is going to follow someone he doesn't respect. People took Muhammad seriously when he claimed prophethood because he had built up a reputation over decades as an honest, trustworthy man.

Please pay more attention to the careful wording of my replies:

You said: Basically, women were seen as lower than men, on average. For the most part, you would have had to
have been a
rich, powerful
woman to get the respect of an ordinary ma
n.

I said:
Respect as determined by the society
is not a condition at all, so you can forget about the necessary/sufficient nature of it altogether !

Respect as determined by the society ("rich, powerful"), and respect due because of a virtue inherent in that person are two different things. Although, the second is far more important than the latter, I will reiterate that you are still confused over this issue: Respect (a quantity measured and relative to the society) is not at all a condition for divine leadership. It's the virtues that one possess that is. So long as that person possess the good & necessary qualities, it doesn't matter if no-one, 1 person, only 72 people respect him (Imam Hussein) or if the entire Ummah respect him (Nabi Sulayman [AS]). Allah [sWT] doesn't bend his religion around society, such that what they see as good and respectful ("rich & powerful") he then decrees as good, and then consequently selects his chosen ones according to those qualities. In short, Prophet Muhammad [sAWS] was respected (albeit, by few - the very small minority) because of his trustworthy reputation, but there is nothing stopping a women being trustworthy and honest as well.

Not one iota. I have elaborated and clarified, but it has been the same message throughout. (And please, spare us the embarrassing spectacle of you going on and on that you know better than me what I was trying to communicate)

No need to. You have clearly changed your argument, and I will prove it below from your own posts..

Shrugs. Sorry. I tried to make it as simple as I could. Here's a final attempt to try to communicate the idea: Basically, women were seen as lower than men, on average.
For the most part, you would have had to have been a rich, powerful woman to get the
respect
of an ordinary man.
But if you were a
rich, powerful woman
, chances were better than not you would have been corrupted by materialism (though obviously there are exceptions, such as Lady Khadijah; we are speaking on average, generally, and not universally), and wouldn't have had the spiritual credentials to be a prophet. Therefore it was less likely for a woman to be a prophet, based on likelihood to be respected, all else being equal. That's about as simple and straightforward as I can put it. My apologies if I am imperfectly communicating my ideas.

(I've edited this a few more times)

Key criteria: "Respect", "Rich & Powerful"..

No. You misunderstood, by a long shot. What I said (or rather, intended to say, to be charitable, and accept some responsibility for the misunderstanding) was that in the past,
because of the physical military aspect of political leadership
, it was necessary generally for a leader to be male for the leader to be respected. The leader needed to be seen credibly as a
symbol of strength
in order to be seen as able to lead militarily, and for this maleness was a practical necessity.

Key criteria: "Physical military aspect of political leadership", "Strength"..

You are either very dumb or you are a hypocrite.

I said:

Your hypocrisy is unbelievable. The fact that you were so adamantly defending this position in the other thread when it was to your benefit, and now all of a sudden, you've turned on your heels 180 degrees..

You were hellbent on asserting that "Ayatullah Mutahhari [QS] is less knowledgeable than Ayatullah Boroujerdi [QS]", "Sayyed Ibn Toos is the greatest scholar, and there is no-one greater than him", and now you "have good reason to believe" that Pooya is more knowledgeable than all of Shaykh Tusi [QS], Tabataba`i [QS], Fayd Kashani [QS], Tabrisi [QS], Ayatullah Borujerdi [QS], etc... all put together ??!! Is Pooya even an Ayatullah ?? Did you even think for a second about what you were writing before you were going to post ?? What are these good reasons of yours ?

You are backtracking, as usual.

You first posted this verse and said that this "ends" the discussion. In other words, you were saying that all women are foolish. After being proved wrong, you are now saying that only women who adorn themselves become stupid.

I have no absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please could you answer the following:

1) When did I change my view ? I have always supported Tabataba`i's [QS] explanation right from the start line. Are you sure you know what that is exactly ?

2) Who refuted me ?

3) What was their refutation ?

The zawahir of the Qur`an quite clearly itself presents itself in this way, and 99.99999999999999999999999% of all our scholars agree..

These are intellectual bases of power, and according to the best science, while there are some qualitative differences in how women and men think, there is no sound evidence to say one is more or less rational than the other.

I'm very sorry to hear that you don't consider the Qur`an "sound evidence". It seems like your preconceived notions of "equality" are far more important to you than Allah's [sWT] word..

2:6
BEHOLD, as for those who are
bent on denying the truth
- it is all one to them whether thou warnest them or dost not warn them: they will not believe.

2:39
but those who are
bent on denying the truth and
giving the lie to Our messages
- they are destined for the fire, and therein shall they abide.

2:171
And so, the parable of those who re
bent on denying the truth
is that of the beast which hears the shepherd's cry, and hears in it nothing but the sound of a voice and a call. Deaf are they, and dumb, and blind: for they do not use their reason.

Edited by The Persian Shah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Just wow. There is the bizarre, and then there is the surreal. I feel like I'm in a David Lynch movie.

Tell you what; here's a plan. I'll write nothing, and then you can just invent things you pretend I said, and respond accordingly. It's basically what you've beendoing the whole thread anyway, and it has mutual benefits. I don't waste time writing things you won't read or reflect upon, and you will have complete creative freedom to invent strawmen to knock down without the encumbrance of my actual words saying things completely different from your claims. Everybody wins. I look forward to hearing what I'll be thinking next!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...