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  
WilayaBlood

Cursing/abusing By Mu'awiya On Hcy Discussion

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Aslamalaykum,

For the benefit of the brothers & sisters.......

Islamvictory who is a shia on the HCY site made the following points on there, interesting reply by Farid, again I will only add the main points of discussion.

My purpose is not to create fitna (as many of guys may accuse me)but to learn about the real facts about “abusing” Imam Ali, the family member of the Prophet’s household

Let us begin with the first narration from Sahih Muslim:

‏قال :‏ ‏أمر ‏ ‏معاوية بن أبي سفيان ‏ ‏سعدا ‏ ‏فقال : ما منعك أن تسب ‏أبا التراب ؟

It is said that Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan was only inquiring from Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas as to why he refrained from abusing Imam Ali (as).

There are few points I would like to raise from the above response:

· It seems that abusing the family members of the Holy Prophet (P) started quite early, that is to say in the first generation, which is known as the period of the Sahabah (RadiAnHum)

· Questioning Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas implies that “abusing” Imam Ali (as) had become so COMMON that out of astonishment Muawiayh inquired from him as to why remained reluctant…

· Why did Muawiyah pose such a question to a “Companion” of the Holy Prophet (P)? Does that not then INDICATE that perhaps many other Sahabah may also have been INVOLVED in abusing the Imam? Otherwise why act upon something out of the ordinary?

Then again, how do we interpret the term: “Amara” –“Ordered” in contrast to “questioning”?

Since the term “ORDERED” exists in the report collected by IMAM MUSLIM, IMAM TIRMIDHI AND IMAM NASA’I, the correct Interpretation would be:

Muawiya “ordered” Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas (to abuse) - (But he refused) so (in context of the conversation Muawiyah) said: What prevents you from abusing Abu Turab?

As for the words of Imam Al-Qurtubi : “…rather it just was an inquiry about why he didn’t”. (youpuncturedtheark)

He should have said: “…rather it just was an ORDER about why he didn’t”.

Makes sense? No? OK then let us ask the SHAYKHS:

SHAYKH IBN TAYMIYAH:

Ibn Taymiyah says in his Minhaj al-Sunnah:

وأما حديث سعد لما أمره معاوية بالسب فأبى فقال ما منعك أن تسب علي بن أبي طالب ؟ فقال ثلاث قالهن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فلن أسبه لأن يكون لي واحدة منهن أحب إلي من حمر النعم الحديث ، فهذا حديث صحيح رواه مسلم في صحيحه ... .

"..Muawiyah ordered (S'ad) to ABUSE but he REFUSED...

Muqbil bin Haadi al-Waadi'ee:

He stated in his book: “Virtues of the family of the Prophet”

ودعا بعض الأمويين سعد بن أبي وقاص ليسبَّ عليا، فما فعل، قالوا: ما منعك أن تسب عليا؟

Hey that's unfair! Where is the name of Muawiyah gone? However the Shaykh UNDERSTOOD the narration as the RAFIDAH, give him the credit for it...He makes it clear that men of Banu Umayyah (الأمويين) CALLED Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas TO ABUSE Ali and we all know that Muwaiyah's name appears in many narrations, which proves that he was part of the group that called Sa'd to abuse Imam Ali (as)...

al-SHAYKH MUSA SHAHEEN:

In the commentary of Sahih Muslim, called Fath al-Mun’im, he says:

«أمر معاوية بن أبي سفيان سعدا» المأمور به محذوف ، لصيانة اللسان عنه ، و التقدير : أمره بسب علي رضي الله عنه ، و كان سعد قد اعتزل الفتنة (حرب علي مع خصومه) ولعله اشتهر عنه الدفاع عن علي . فقال : ( ما منعك أن تسب أبا التراب ) ؟ معطوف علي محذوف ، والتقدير : امر معاويه سعدا أن يسب عليا ، فأمتنع ، فقال له : «ما منعك » .

So he clarifies, that Muawiyah ORDERED Sa'd to ABUSE the Imam but he refused...

Muhammad bin Abdulhadi al-Sindi (d. 1138 H), in his commentary of Sunan ibn Majah:

نال معاوية من علي ووقع فيه وسبه بل أمر سعدا بالسب كما قيل في مسلم والترمذي

Muwaiyah commanded S'ad to ABUSE Ali....

Besides there are many other REPORTS that add WEIGHT to above observation. Ibn Majah and ibn Shaybah recorded:

قَدِمَ مُعَاوِيَةَ فِي بَعْضِ حَجَّاتِهِ، فَدَخَلَ عَلَيْهِ سَعْد، فَذَكَرُوا عَلِيُّاً. فَنَالَ مِنْهُ. فَغَضِبَ سَعْد،

The lovers of Muawiyah (youpuncturedtheark) had the following to say in their response:

Quote

From now onwards all the narrations which speak that Muawiya(ra) cursed Ali(ra) are weak and they seems to be the handywork of the Shian e dajjal of that era.

Argument 3: ibn majah:

قَدِمَ مُعَاوِيَةَ فِي بَعْضِ حَجَّاتِهِ، فَدَخَلَ عَلَيْهِ سَعْد، فَذَكَرُوا عَلِيُّاً. فَنَالَ مِنْهُ. فَغَضِبَ سَعْد،

Sa’d met Muawiya and Muawiya cursed Ali and Sa’d became angry with Muawiya…

Answer: This narration is weak and unreliable because the chain of this narration contains: “Abdulrahman b. Saabit” who Yahya b. Maeen said: “He did not hear directly from Sa’d”, and in this narration he is narrating from Sa’d, so there is an unknown between them, and him not being known weakens this narration.

حدثنا : ‏ ‏علي بن محمد ‏ ‏حدثنا ‏أبو معاوية ‏ ، حدثنا : ‏ ‏موسى بن مسلم ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏إبن سابط وهو عبد الرحمن ‏ ‏، عن ‏ ‏سعد بن أبي وقاص ، قال : قدم ‏ ‏معاوية ‏ ‏في بعض حجاته فدخل عليه ‏ ‏سعد ‏ ‏فذكروا ‏ ‏علياً ‏ ‏فنال منه فغضب ‏ ‏سعد

قيل ليحيى بن معين سمع عبد الرحمن من سعد بن أبي وقاص؟

قال: لا. قيل: من أبي أمامة؟

قال: لا. قيل: من جابر؟

قال: لا؛ هو مرسل»

تهذيب التهذيب6/180 ترجمة رقم361

Another point to be mentioned is that you can even notice a difference between the two narrations of the encounter (the one in Muslim and the other). While this should be the encounter, you would notice that in the first Sa’d mentions the qualities of Ali after a direct question from Mu’awiya, while in the second he mentioned them from himself to rebuke Mu’awiya for his insults, which in itself would cast doubts in the other narrations not in Sahi Muslim. [Refer too: Risalah Jawabiyah 3ala Risalat Ustad Shi3ee]

http://youpuncturedt...-and-muawiyara/

Well, Yahya bin Ma'in also stated that Abdulrahman b. Saabit did not DIRECTLY report from Jabir bin Abdullah ® and this is an ERROR...

Ibn Hibaan in his Saheeh recorded:

يعقوب بن سفيان حدثنا محمد بن عبدالله بن نمير حدثنا أبي حدثنا

ربيع بن سعد عن عبدالرحمن بن سابط قال :" كنت مع جابر ، فدخل

حسين بن علي - رضي الله عنهما - فقال جابر :من سرّه أن ينظر

إلى رجل من أهل الجنة فلينظر إلى هذا ، فأشهد لسمعت رسول الله

- صلى الله عليه وسلم - يقوله

The above report shows that ibn Saabit actually met Jabir...

This is what Imam Ibn Abi Haatim in his Jarh wal-Ta'deel recorded:

عبد الرحمن بن سابط الجمحي مكي روى عن عمر رضي الله عنه مرسل وعن جابر بن عبد الله متصل

Abd al-Rahman bin Sabit reported from Umar ® disconnected and from Jabir connected reports...

And Imam Ibn Hibaan in his Kitaab al-Thiqat:

يروى عن جماعة من الصحابة منهم جابر بن عبد الله روى عنه أهل مكة وفطر بن خليفة وليث بن أبي سليم عداده في أهل مكة

"...reported from a group of Sahabah amongst whom Jabir bin Abdullah..."

Now tell me, who ascribed this error to Yahya bin Ma'in? Perhaps the same person who ascribed the similiar error to him concerning Sa'd...

Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas died in 55 Ah, while Abd al-Rahman bin Saabit died in 118, who would have been 63 years old towards the end of Sa'd life...

So is that time period not long enough for him to have heard from Sa'd?

No wonder Shaykh al-Albaani termed the report of Ibn Majah Sahih...

Hence, unlike the Shaykh, it is only conjectures that they follow, blindly save the ones they love, while their desire should be to protect the truth against falsehood...

FARID:

I believe the common view is that he cursed Ali. As I always say, going to war is worse than cursing, so I think that focusing on this point makes you miss the big picture.

You are a wise and a learned person, hence you claim this UNLIKE many Muslims (both laymen and the scholars) who blindly favour others, due to personal reasons...

FARID: I'm assuming you are of the view that Mu'awiyah did what he did out of lust for power. However, I have come across a couple of narrations that imply that the caliphate wasn't Mu'awiyah's goal. Due to this, I personally find it very plausible that "revenge for Uthman" was nothing more than "revenge for Uthman". Would you like a quote or two?

Yes please, let me see those narrations that you are basing your judgement upon...

And yes I personally believe that Muawiyah fought for other than the revenge of Uthman...

Could it really be that for Muawiyah the "revenge" meant for than:

The commands of Allah and his Messenger (P) not to fight the Imam of the time unjustly...

Obedience to the Imam...

Disunity of the Islamic nation...

The blood that was spilled by the two opposing groups...

etc, etc, etc???

Besides who was Mauwiyah to TELL Imam Ali, the Caliph of the Islamic nation, to hand over the KILLERS to him?

Whose job was it to punish the wrongdoers? Muawiyah's or the Caliph of the time?

Did he provide any evidences and valid reasons to the Imam to justify his stance? And if he did, then why did NOT the Imam do as he requested? Either the Imam knew that Muawiyah had no valid intentions or that the latter had no right to interfere in such a matter...

The conclusion is as the majority believe that Muawiyah was wrong in what he did...

And if that it the case then it is more "plausible" to believe that he fought the Imam for personal reasons, since no SANE person would cause SO MUCH FITNA over one murder, leading to thousands of lives being taken, disunity in the ummah and above all DISOBEDIENCE to Allah and his Messenger!

TripolySunni:

Ali (ra) was assassinated and the situation was not yet resolved, Mu’awiyah (ra) and the people of Sham and Misr were still asking for Qasas from the killers of ‘Utman (ra), al-Hasan (ra) inherited the Khilafah in this critical and dangerous period.

Was Imam Hasan at fault? Did Imam Hassan suggest the murder of Uthmaan? Then why fight him, just because he was the son of Imam Ali? Or was it as the Christians believe, Adam sinned and the children pay for it!? REVENGE YEH RIGHT!

And

Narrated Al-Hasan Al-Basri: By Allah, Al-hasan bin Ali led large battalions like mountains against muawiya. Amr bin Al-As said (to muawiya), "I surely see battalions which will not turn back before killing their opponents." muawiya who was really the best of the two men said to him, "O 'Amr! If these killed those and those killed these, who would be left for the jobs of the public, who would be left for their women, who would be left for their children?..." (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Hello! Where did the "BEST" of Muawiyah go with regards to those who were killed during the battle of Siffeen in THOUSANDS over a number of years, their women and their children?

How comes he started thinking wise during the period of Imam Hasan but unwise during the time of Imam Ali?

The truth is that he always believed that he was MORE RIGHTFUL to the Caliphate than any other person:

Sahih al-Bukhari:

Narrated Ikrima bin Khalid: Ibn 'umar said, "I went to Hafsa while water was dribbling from her twined braids. I said, 'The condition of the people is as you see, and no authority has been given to me.' Hafsa said, (to me), 'Go to them, and as they (i.e. the people) are waiting for you, and I am afraid your absence from them will produce division amongst them.' " So Hafsa did not leave Ibn 'umar till we went to them. When the people differed. muawiya addressed the people saying, "'If anybody wants to say anything in this matter of the Caliphate, he should show up and not conceal himself, for we are more rightful to be a Caliph than he and his father." On that, Habib bin Masalama said (to Ibn 'umar), "Why don't you reply to him (i.e. muawiya)?" 'Abdullah bin 'umar said, "I untied my garment that was going round my back and legs while I was sitting and was about to say, 'He who fought against you and against your father for the sake of Islam, is more rightful to be a Caliph,' but I was afraid that my statement might produce differences amongst the people and cause bloodshed, and my statement might be interpreted not as I intended. (So I kept quiet) remembering what Allah has prepared in the Gardens of Paradise (for those who are patient and prefer the Hereafter to this worldly life)." Habib said, "You did what kept you safe and secure (i.e. you were wise in doing so)." (Book #59, Hadith#434)

Do you see the DESIRE than Muawiyah had for leadership?

Secondly if it really was for the "revenge" then why didn't he join in the battle of Jammal with H. Aisha? She also went out to avenge Uthamns death didnt she?

Why start another war? (with Imam Ali )

And yet another battle with Imam Hassan?

Edited by muslimunity1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FARID: I'm assuming you are of the view that Mu'awiyah did what he did out of lust for power. However, I have come across a couple of narrations that imply that the caliphate wasn't Mu'awiyah's goal. Due to this, I personally find it very plausible that "revenge for Uthman" was nothing more than "revenge for Uthman". Would you like a quote or two?

How about this AUTHENTIC narration in al-Musannaf of Ibn Abee Shaybah, vol. 6, p. 187, # 30556:

حدثنا أبو معاوية عن الأعمش عن عمرو بن مرة عن سعيد بن سويد قال صلى بنا معاوية الجمعة بالنخيلة في الضحى ثم خطبنا فقال ما قاتلتكم لتصلوا ولا لتصوموا ولا لتحجوا ولا لتزكوا وقد أعرف أنكم تفعلون ذلك ولكن إنما قاتلتكم لأتأمر عليكم وقد أعطاني الله ذلك وأنتم له كارهون

Narrated Sa'eed b. Suwayd:

Mu'aawiyah led us in the Jumu'ah prayer at al-Nakheelah AT THE TIME OF DUHAA (i.e. in the morning). After that, he delivered a sermon and said, "I did not fight you to make you offer Salaah, or yo fast, or to make you perform Hajj or to pay Zakaah. I already knew that you were performing those duties. Rather, I FOUGHT YOU ONLY TO RULE OVER YOU, and Allaah has granted that to me, and you do not want it."

His ONLY interest was to rule over people, and not for the religion or for "revenge".

I wonder how Farid responds to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that lanti was more than just a power hungry person ..........

he had all the pre islamic jahiliya qualities - promoted family rule , hated banu hashim , killed imam hasan (as) , broke the treaty ...................killed ammar ibn yasir (ra) ...............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

LOL this is stupidity 'the caliphate wasn't Mu'awiyah's goal.'

Please, better akhlaq. Farid, although we all believe each other to be deviated, he has good akhlaq here. Inshaa'Allah that will be a shifaa`ah for him on Qiyamah. al-Imam [as] said (paraphrasing) that if there's a person who is his "shi`ah" in a city and he is NOT the best person amongst them, then he is not really their Shi`ah.

في امانه

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone translate this sahih hadith?

صحيح ابن حبان بترتيب ابن بلبان المؤلف : محمد بن حبان بن أحمد أبو حاتم التميمي البستي الناشر : مؤسسة الرسالة – بيروت الطبعة الثانية ، 1414 – 1993 تحقيق : شعيب الأرنؤوط عدد الأجزاء : 18 الأحاديث مذيلة بأحكام شعيب الأرنؤوط عليها [ جزء 2 - صفحة 335 ] ح 575 ( قال أبو حاتم رضي الله عنه : أبو إدريس الخولاني اسمه عائذ الله بن عبدالله كان سيد قراء أهل الشام في زمانه وهو الذي أنكر على معاوية محاربته علي بن أبي طالب حين قال له : من أنت حتى تقاتل عليا وتنازعه الخلافة ولست أنت مثله لست زوج فاطمة ولا بأبي الحسن والحسين ولا بابن عم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأشفق معاوية أن يفسد قلوب قراء الشام فقال له : إنما أطلب دم عثمان قال : فليس علي قاتله قال : لكنه يمنع قاتله عن أن يقتص منه قال : اصبر حتى آتيه فاستخبره الحال فأتى عليا وسلم عليه ثم قال له : من قتل عثمان ؟ قال : الله قتله وأنا معه عنى : وأنا معه مقتول وقيل : أراد الله قتله وأنا حاربته فجمع جماعة قراء الشام وحثهم على القتال قال شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده صحيح على شرط الشيخين).

Sayyed Kamal al-Haydari prove that Muawiya is Nasibi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

Shame on you u blabbering fool!!!

Fear Allahسبحانه وتعالى.

A question i have for those who try to portray an image of mua'wiya being a righteous person, how do they answer verses like these in light of the war that he (mua'wiya) raged against the Khalifa and Imam of his time (Ali):

إِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُمْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ أَوْ يُنْفَوْا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا ۖ وَلَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ {33}

[Shakir 5:33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement,

إِلَّا الَّذِينَ تَابُوا مِنْ قَبْلِ أَنْ تَقْدِرُوا عَلَيْهِمْ ۖ فَاعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ {34}

[Shakir 5:34] Except those who repent before you have them in your power; so know that Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

And since mua'wiya was in charge of an army that attacked an killed mu'mineen (whether purposefully or accidently), did he give diya and free slaves as compensation? The verses i'm referring to for this are these:

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ أَنْ يَقْتُلَ مُؤْمِنًا إِلَّا خَطَأً ۚ وَمَنْ قَتَلَ مُؤْمِنًا خَطَأً فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ وَدِيَةٌ مُسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَىٰ أَهْلِهِ إِلَّا أَنْ يَصَّدَّقُوا ۚ فَإِنْ كَانَ مِنْ قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَكُمْ وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ ۖ وَإِنْ كَانَ مِنْ قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِيثَاقٌ فَدِيَةٌ مُسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَىٰ أَهْلِهِ وَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ ۖ فَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ تَوْبَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ ۗ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا {92}

[Shakir 4:92] And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer except by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave, and blood-money should be paid to his people unless they remit it as alms; but if he be from a tribe hostile to you and he is a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (suffices), and if he is from a tribe between whom and you there is a convenant, the blood-money should be paid to his people along with the freeing of a believing slave; but he who cannot find (a slave) should fast for two months successively: a penance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.

وَمَنْ يَقْتُلْ مُؤْمِنًا مُتَعَمِّدًا فَجَزَاؤُهُ جَهَنَّمُ خَالِدًا فِيهَا وَغَضِبَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَلَعَنَهُ وَأَعَدَّ لَهُ عَذَابًا عَظِيمًا {93}

[Shakir 4:93] And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.

And finally, it is said that the people who stopped giving zakat to the Islamic government during the khilafah of Abu Bakr were kafirs and their blood was made halal.

So if not giving zakat to a Khalfiah (and correct me if i misunderstand this) makes one a kafir, how about a person who waged war against not only 1 Khalifah, but 2 Khalifahs (Ali and Hasan عليهما السلام)? What is the ruling on such a person?

may Allah(swt) guide us and show us the right path

And Allah(swt) knows best

w/s

Edited by ImamAliLover

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aslamalaykum,

@Al Muhammadee

His ONLY interest was to rule over people, and not for the religion or for "revenge".

I wonder how Farid responds to this.

This thread lead to another discussion between Islaamvictory and Farid, if Mu'waiya had desired for leadership or not? If you want I can open a new thread and put all that info on what they discussed it was really interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inglip isnt gonna reply.

He was here as a spy and poking his nose about but he wont come out into the open ...not on this site, he was smashed as Lord Bota and he is too afraid to come out again so be prepared for him not to reply.

Though I am really appreciating this stuff so keep it coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone translate this sahih hadith?

صحيح ابن حبان بترتيب ابن بلبان المؤلف : محمد بن حبان بن أحمد أبو حاتم التميمي البستي الناشر : مؤسسة الرسالة – بيروت الطبعة الثانية ، 1414 – 1993 تحقيق : شعيب الأرنؤوط عدد الأجزاء : 18 الأحاديث مذيلة بأحكام شعيب الأرنؤوط عليها [ جزء 2 - صفحة 335 ] ح 575 ( قال أبو حاتم رضي الله عنه : أبو إدريس الخولاني اسمه عائذ الله بن عبدالله كان سيد قراء أهل الشام في زمانه وهو الذي أنكر على معاوية محاربته علي بن أبي طالب حين قال له : من أنت حتى تقاتل عليا وتنازعه الخلافة ولست أنت مثله لست زوج فاطمة ولا بأبي الحسن والحسين ولا بابن عم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فأشفق معاوية أن يفسد قلوب قراء الشام فقال له : إنما أطلب دم عثمان قال : فليس علي قاتله قال : لكنه يمنع قاتله عن أن يقتص منه قال : اصبر حتى آتيه فاستخبره الحال فأتى عليا وسلم عليه ثم قال له : من قتل عثمان ؟ قال : الله قتله وأنا معه عنى : وأنا معه مقتول وقيل : أراد الله قتله وأنا حاربته فجمع جماعة قراء الشام وحثهم على القتال قال شعيب الأرنؤوط : إسناده صحيح على شرط الشيخين).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...