Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Is It Permissible To Reject Hadiths?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

Alsalam alaykum,

Brother Darul Islam, in another thread, said something very interesting. I would like to hear the thoughts of everyone on this, because I believe that his views regarding this matter are very dangerous.

He said:

A thing I see in the Imamiyya that I don't think exists in Sunnism is the idea of denying Akhbar. It is a major sin, I think, to deny something being the akhbar of the Ahlulbayt [as], even if it is a Sunni hadith (because there is a abrogation, context, etc). So even if you find something extremely weak, a billion ghulaat in the chain or weak people, you cannot deny and reject something as the qawl of Imam [as] - because it might actually be. You either accept a narraiton or do tawaqquf.

I ask: What about hadiths that say that salat and zakat are just names of men and that we don't have to pray or give the alms? (Refer to Rijal Al-Kashshi, under the bio of Ali bin Hasaka.) Do we do tawaqquf on those as well?

The early scholars have rejected narrations frequently. They would call them fabrications instead of do tawaqquf. Is their methodology incorrect?

Based upon what you have said, is it prohibited to reject narrations attributed to the Prophet (pbuh) as well? You seem to think that this should be the case about the Imams, then why should we treat the Prophet (pbuh) any less?

Please share your thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

shia believe that they take religion from infallible imams and yet they rely on fallible scholars for grading of hadiths.shia believe that book of suliem was endorsed by their imams but yet they call kitab al kafi their most authentic book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hadees does not make up any part of the Islamic Religion.

The religion is based on Usool e Deen and Furuw e Deen................... Therefore rejection does not arise when it is not supposed to be adopted. It only creates tension and takes you around in circles !!!! round n round n round n round.

The earlier "scholars" have coined phrases like weak, distorted, accurate, acceptable (it all depends on ones interpretation of the sayings and they are not always accurate therefore these terms).

Also for the sake of clarification, it was the "Tradition" of our Imam's (PBUT) to narrate and educate their followers the teachings of our Prophet Muhammad (P.B.U.H.) in a certain way which included quoting the words of our Prophet and explaining via acts of the Holy Prophet (pbuh). Thus, the tradition had been set in the form of Hadeeth's which are used in today's time to refer to the acts / sayings of the Prophet.

Since they do not form the Pillars of the Religion, they should not be taken as seriously as they are being and should serve as a mode of "reference only".

This is a personal viewpoint and i am sure many reading this as well as other members on the forum will disagree, which they are free to do !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Err, say what..? Before you throw something like that out there and give people the impression that we actually have hadiths that say that, shouldn't you tell them the context is that `Ali b. Haska was claiming such heretical teachings, and that the section in al-Kashshi is there with the Imam's response rejecting it when asked about it?

Mac, it goes without saying that heretical things were always attributed to the Imams.

I do agree with you that these narrations are to be rejected. However, are they only to be rejected for the sole purpose that they are rejected by the Imams? Or because they are heretical? Or should an Imami do tawaqquf when he finds that the narration falls under the "heretical" category?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Mac, it goes without saying that heretical things were always attributed to the Imams.

I do agree with you that these narrations are to be rejected. However, are they only to be rejected for the sole purpose that they are rejected by the Imams? Or because they are heretical? Or should an Imami do tawaqquf when he finds that the narration falls under the "heretical" category?

You arent a Nussairi or Alvi by any chance are you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Forum Administrators

Mac, it goes without saying that heretical things were always attributed to the Imams.

I do agree with you that these narrations are to be rejected. However, are they only to be rejected for the sole purpose that they are rejected by the Imams? Or because they are heretical? Or should an Imami do tawaqquf when he finds that the narration falls under the "heretical" category?

You'll need to reform your argument, as the one example you used was something you had mistakenly or deliberately misunderstood. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were not trying to be deceptive. To answer your question, see the ahadith below:

عن محمد بن يحيى ، عن أحمد بن محمد ، عن ابن محبوب ، عن جميل بن صالح ، عن أبي عبيدة الحذاء قال : سمعت أبا جعفر ( عليه السلام ) يقول : والله ان أحب أصحابي إلي أورعهم وأفقههم وأكتمهم لحديثنا وان أسوأهم عندي حالا وأمقتهم للذي إذا سمع الحديث ينسب إلينا ويروى عنا فلم يقبله اشماز منه وجحده وكفر من دان به وهو لا يدري لعل الحديث من عندنا خرج وإلينا أسند فيكون بذلك خارجا عن ولايتنا.

حدثنا أحمد بن محمد (ثقة) عن الحسن بن محبوب (ثقة) عن جميل بن صالح (ثقة) عن أبي عبيدة الحذاء (ثقة) عن أبي جعفر عليه السلام قال :

( سمعته يقول : أما والله إنّ أحب أصحابي إليّ أورعهم وأفقههم وأكتمهم بحديثنا وإن أسوأهم عندي حالاً وأمقتهم إليّ الذي إذا سمع الحديث ينسب إلينا ويروى عنا فلم يعقله ولم يقبله قلبه اشمأزّ منه وجحده وكفر بمن دان به وهو لا يدري لعلّ الحديث من عندنا خرج وإلينا سند فيكون بذلك خارجاً من ولايتنا

Hence, we cannot say a hadith is an outright lie without very strong evidences; lest we deny something the Prophet (pbuh) actually said. Moreover, a matn can sometimes be subject to interpretation - so if you see a dha`eef hadith with a questionable matn, it may be explained some other way that you did not see. As for the criterion for judging what material is more reliable or less reliable, there are divine methods and man-made methods. The divinely-created criterion is the Qur'an: if a matn appears to be fundamentally inconsistent with the Qur'an, it may be rejected or weakened on that basis. The man-made methods are ones you are aware of; namely, rijal, tawatur, and other historiographical tools. Also, you know by now (perhaps better than me) that our ahadith were collected differently than yours, to say the least - it would be disingenuous to apply the same standards on both schools.

ـ عن هشام بن الحكم عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: قال رسول الله في خطبة بمنى او بمكة: يا أيها الناس ما جائكم عنى يوافق القرآن فأنا قلته وما جائكم عنى لا يوافق القرآن فلم أقله

1 – From Hisham b. al-Hakam from Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام. He said: The Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله) said in a sermon at Mina or Makka: O people, whatever comes (is narrated) to you from me (said to be narrated by me) that agrees with the Quran then I have said it, and whatever comes to you from me that does not agree with the Quran then I have not said it.

2 ـ عن اسمعيل بن أبى زياد السكونى عن أبى جعفر عن أبيه عن على صلوات الله عليه قال: الوقوف عند الشبهة خير من الاقتحام في الهلكة، وتركك حديثا لم تروه خير من روايتك حديثا لم تحصه، ان على كل حق حقيقة وعلى كل صواب نورا فما وافق كتاب الله فخذوا به، وما خالف كتاب الله فدعوه

2 – From Isma`il b. Abi Ziyad as-Sakuni from Abu Ja`far from his father from `Ali صلوات الله عليه. He said: Halting at doubt is better than storming into destruction, and your abandonment of a hadith that you do not narrate is better than your narrating of a hadith which you have not comprehended (or, enumerated, registered). Verily upon every truth is a reality and upon every correctness is a light. So whatever agrees with the Book of Allah then take hold of it, and whatever disagrees with the Book of Allah then leave it.

3 ـ عن محمد بن مسلم قال: قال ابوعبدالله (عليه السلام): يا محمد ما جائك في رواية من بر أو فاجر يوافق القرآن فخذ به، وما جائك في رواية من بر او فاجر يخالف القرآن فلا تأخذ به

3 – From Muhammad b. Muslim. He said: Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام said: O Muhammad, whatever comes to you in a narration from a righteous person or an immoral person that agrees with the Quran, then take hold of it. And whatever comes to in a narration from a righteous person or an immoral person that contradicts the Quran, then do not take hold of it.

http://www.tashayyu....ry-to-the-quran

You arent a Nussairi or Alvi by any chance are you.

He is a Wahabi.

Edited by Qa'im
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Chatroom Moderators

(wasalam)

I ask: What about hadiths that say that salat and zakat are just names of men and that we don't have to pray or give the alms? (Refer to Rijal Al-Kashshi, under the bio of Ali bin Hasaka.) Do we do tawaqquf on those as well?

The early scholars have rejected narrations frequently. They would call them fabrications instead of do tawaqquf. Is their methodology incorrect?

Based upon what you have said, is it prohibited to reject narrations attributed to the Prophet (pbuh) as well? You seem to think that this should be the case about the Imams, then why should we treat the Prophet (pbuh) any less?

Please share your thoughts.

Mac, it goes without saying that heretical things were always attributed to the Imams.

I do agree with you that these narrations are to be rejected. However, are they only to be rejected for the sole purpose that they are rejected by the Imams? Or because they are heretical? Or should an Imami do tawaqquf when he finds that the narration falls under the "heretical" category?

I agree with you that the card of "we cannot reject ahadeeth or call them fabricated" can be overplayed in some cases (such as playing it with the long version of hadeeth al-kisaa'). This is of course based on a group of ahadeeth from the Aimmah who have warned us that we do not reject ahadeeth based on our lack of understanding of a hadeeth or based on their being strange. For example, see http://www.tashayyu....-ten/chapter-22

This card is played e.g. when there is technical problem with the sanad - such as not rejecting the ahadeeth of the majhool shaykh of al-Kulayni, Muhammmed bin Ismaa`eel an-Nishaapoori. It is not necessarily played however when there are a "billion ghulaat people in the chain" or other situations.

(3) حدثنا محمد بن عيسى عن محمد بن عمرو عن عبد الله بن جندب عن سفيان بن السيط قال قلت لابي عبد الله عليه السلام جعلت فداك ان الرجل ليأتينا من قبلك فيخبرنا عنك بالعظيم من الامر فيضيق بذلك صدورنا حتى نكذبه قال فقال أبو عبد الله عليه السلام اليس عنى يحدثكم قال قلت بلى قال فيقول لليل انه نهار وللنهار انه ليل قال فقلت له لا قال فقال رده الينا فانك ان كذبت فانما تكذبنا.

3 – Muhammad b. `Isa narrated to us from Muhammad b. `Amr from `Abdullah b. Jundab from Sufyan b. as-Sayt (?). He said: I said to Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام: May I be made your ransom, verily the man comes to us from before you and he informs us from you by (something) mighty of the affair. So our bosoms are constricted by that until we give the lie to him. He said: So Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام said: Was it not from me that he narrates to you? He said: I said: Yea. He said: So he says for the night that it is day and for the day that it is night? He said: So I said to him: No. He said: So he said: Return it to us, for verily if you gave the lie (to it, him) then you only gave us the lie.

In this particular hadeeth, the Imam is reported to have checked whether the akhbaar that the primary rawi has received contradicted the certain; it is only after this, he then tells the rawi to do tawaqquf and wait for an Imam's confirmation or denial.

The situations in which we can reject the ahadeeth or call them fabricated are limited though. I have given one example, and brother Qa'im has quoted more in the akhbaar that he has quoted. The most famous of which would be to reject the hadeeth that irreconcilably contradicts the Quran. In the case of Ali bin Hasaka, he was attributing to the Imams what contradicted the known facts of Tawheed and the Imam brought attention to this.

So yes, Inglip, you are right to call Darul Islam on this. And some principles by which a hadeeth is rejected or called a fabrication are given in my post and the post of Qa'im.

It seems that Al-MuHammadee, and Gypsy failed to understand your point. It's a shame that ad hominems were used. If you don't understand something, don't bother posting and then be rude and disrespectful just because he is not of your ideological group.

SC Rule 4. No swear words, unmannered replies or racist comments, especially when directed at other members. A warning followed by a temporary ban shall be met. If a member repeats their offensive or racist language, a permanent ban will take place. No excuses.

SC Rule 5. We encourage members to be courteous to others, and treat fellow members the way they wish to be treated. Intelligent discourse and freedom of expression is encouraged, as long as it is exercised with responsibility. Insults made against other members on this board are not tolerated, even those made via PM. Warnings will be issued to offending members.

Edited by Cake
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

This card is played e.g. when there is technical problem with the sanad - such as not rejecting the ahadeeth of the majhool shaykh of al-Kulayni, Muhammmed bin Ismaa`eel an-Nishaapoori. It is not necessarily played however when there are a "billion ghulaat people in the chain" or other situations.

The problem here is that you cannot know for sure that these people suspected of ghuluw are lying here and fabricating and there should be that doubt that perhaps this is still Qawl al-Imam [as]. The information in the books of rijal themselves are not absolute reflections of reality, so they can be incorrect.

The criteria for comparing with the Qur'an goes without saying. But apparent "heresies" in akhbar cannot be denied right off the bat, anyway. All you can say is "if this hadith means that X is Y, then it is not true," but you cannot absolutely say the hadith is fabrication. The context, meaning, etc of the Imam [as] in this particular narration may be off from the "norm." Even the most far off and unlikely interpretation to a hadith can be given, so its complete denial is extremely dangers.

في امان الله

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Chatroom Moderators

Perhaps I am mistaken but it seems that you still are insisting that it is practically impossible to deny a khabar.

The problem here is that you cannot know for sure that these people suspected of ghuluw are lying here and fabricating and there should be that doubt that perhaps this is still Qawl al-Imam [as]. The information in the books of rijal themselves are not absolute reflections of reality, so they can be incorrect.

The criteria for comparing with the Qur'an goes without saying. But apparent "heresies" in akhbar cannot be denied right off the bat, anyway. All you can say is "if this hadith means that X is Y, then it is not true," but you cannot absolutely say the hadith is fabrication. The context, meaning, etc of the Imam [as] in this particular narration may be off from the "norm." Even the most far off and unlikely interpretation to a hadith can be given, so its complete denial is extremely dangers.

One who made so many mistakes was labelled dha`eef; or one who raised the status of the Imams despite the correct ahadeeth from the khaas of the Imamiyya denying the various positions of ghuluww. Is it a coincidence that we find reported strange acts and strange beliefs through such chains, and often these strange things are reported alone? If they had authenticity, then we would expect to find them reported by others, especially the trustworthy pillars of tashayyu, who had katheer ar-riwayyaat. Therefore, yes, we don't say that a dha`eef hadeeth is mawdhoo`, but there are situations when ahadeeth can be rejected or called fabricated. In such a situation, if an attempt to reasonably reconcile the meaning of a munkar hadeeth is not possible, then due to the weakness of the tareeq, the rarity of the reported thing, and the contradiction of the report with the sihhaat, then we can reject the hadeeth, or even call it fabricated. In the hadeeth that Mac translated, the Imam brought attention to the hadeeth contradicting the certain.

Do you think an absurd interpretation of a report containing an "apparent heresy" is reasonably likely? Perhaps then, the ghulaat are to be excused of blame for their ghuluww, for you would have it that the Imams were speaking apparent heresies, but intending something else. Is it a coincidence when strange things are reported through men who were not the closest, high Shi`a, and through men who the scholars of rijaal criticised? Or did the Aimmah go to such lengths that not only they would issue contradicting fataawa, but they would mess with the aqeeda of their Shi`a?

Edited by Cake
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

2 ـ عن اسمعيل بن أبى زياد السكونى عن أبى جعفر عن أبيه عن على صلوات الله عليه قال: الوقوف عند الشبهة خير من الاقتحام في الهلكة، وتركك حديثا لم تروه خير من روايتك حديثا لم تحصه، ان على كل حق حقيقة وعلى كل صواب نورا فما وافق كتاب الله فخذوا به، وما خالف كتاب الله فدعوه

2 – From Isma`il b. Abi Ziyad as-Sakuni from Abu Ja`far from his father from `Ali صلوات الله عليه. He said: Halting at doubt is better than storming into destruction, and your abandonment of a hadith that you do not narrate is better than your narrating of a hadith which you have not comprehended (or, enumerated, registered). Verily upon every truth is a reality and upon every correctness is a light. So whatever agrees with the Book of Allah then take hold of it, and whatever disagrees with the Book of Allah then leave it.

There is a lot of wisdom in this hadith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

Brother Dar, I do get where you are coming from.

I would really it you to comment if this applies to the narrations of the Prophet (pbuh) as well though.

It's an interesting thought, I assume you are referring to Imamis being able to deny Sunni ahaadeeth. I don't think we are allowed to explicitly deny unless the Imam [as] is saying such an idea is false, the Imam [as] says that hadith is abrogated just like the Qur'an is abrogated, therefore they may narrated something true, but it is abrogated or they are misunderstanding, etc. We have hadith that explicitly say to not act up them, if I remember correctly.

Perhaps I am mistaken but it seems that you still are insisting that it is practically impossible to deny a khabar...

I think this would have to be looked at completely on a case by case basis, and again, you would rejecting a particular meaning you are attaching to the narrative.

Do you think an absurd interpretation of a report containing an "apparent heresy" is reasonably likely? Perhaps then, the ghulaat are to be excused of blame for their ghuluww, for you would have it that the Imams were speaking apparent heresies, but intending something else. Is it a coincidence when strange things are reported through men who were not the closest, high Shi`a, and through men who the scholars of rijaal criticised? Or did the Aimmah go to such lengths that not only they would issue contradicting fataawa, but they would mess with the aqeeda of their Shi`a?

Again, ghuluw is highly subjective and most of these people were "accused" or they were "associated" with the ghulaat. I mean, you know that the ahadith of the Imams [as] are difficult and can have many interpretations: http://www.tashayyu....hadiths/makhbar

في امان الله

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(salam)

(bismillah)

Do not reject khabar? Huh. This is not the view of any scholars. I can show you scholars from al-Mufīd to al-Murtada weakening or rejecting ahādīth all the time, even in al-Kāfī. Even you admit in another thread al-Murtada rejected the "stone running with the clothes of Musa". Classical scholars rejected whole books, let alone a few hadīth. Heck, I can even show you akhbārī scholars rejecting whole books attributed to our Imāms (i.e. Hurr al-`Āmilī).

This is a shādh view which should not be paid attention to.

(salam)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

(bismillah)

Do not reject khabar? Huh. This is not the view of any scholars. I can show you scholars from al-Mufīd to al-Murtada weakening or rejecting ahādīth all the time, even in al-Kāfī. Even you admit in another thread al-Murtada rejected the "stone running with the clothes of Musa". Classical scholars rejected whole books, let alone a few hadīth. Heck, I can even show you akhbārī scholars rejecting whole books attributed to our Imāms (i.e. Hurr al-`Āmilī).

This is a shādh view which should not be paid attention to.

(salam)

(bismillah)

Is this them saying that such and such hadith is an absolute fabrication and thereby deny this being the Imam's [as] words absolutely or rather them saying they do not rely on certain narrations or these are not narrations to give weight and/or act upon?

في امان الله

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

عدة من أصحابنا، عن أحمد بن محمد بن خالد، عن أبيه، عن النضر بن سويد، عن يحيى الحلبي، عن أيوب بن الحر قال: سمعت أبا عبدالله عليه السلام يقول: كل شئ مردود إلى الكتاب والسنة، وكل حديث لا يوافق كتاب الله فهو زخرف

A number of our companions from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Khalid from his father (Muhammad b. Khalid) from an-Nadhr b. Suwayd from Yahya (b. Imran) al-Halabiy from Ayub b. al-Hur who said:

I heard Aba Abdillah عليه السلام saying: Everything is referred back to the Qur'an and the Sunnah, and every Hadith that does not agree (i.e. is not consistent) with the book of Allah - then it is (just) an ornament (shiny but having no real value).

(Hadith Sahih regardless of what some have said of Muhammad bin Khalid)

Edited by Islamic Salvation
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@ Dar:

It's an interesting thought, I assume you are referring to Imamis being able to deny Sunni ahaadeeth. I don't think we are allowed to explicitly deny unless the Imam [as] is saying such an idea is false, the Imam [as] says that hadith is abrogated just like the Qur'an is abrogated, therefore they may narrated something true, but it is abrogated or they are misunderstanding, etc. We have hadith that explicitly say to not act up them, if I remember correctly.

Well, obviously, hahah. In a sense, are you propagating the view that Shias shouldn't reject the strange hadiths of Abu Huraira about early generations and previous prophets?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

(bismillah)

@ Dar:

Well, obviously, hahah. In a sense, are you propagating the view that Shias shouldn't reject the strange hadiths of Abu Huraira about early generations and previous prophets?

Again, not really sure. They hold no wait on a fiqhi and aqeedah level, perhaps historical. The rule of not rejecting may be specific to akhbar from the Imams [as] and not subject to what the people narrated around the Imamiyya. Wallahu `Aalim.

في امان الله

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
The rule of not rejecting may be specific to akhbar from the Imams [as]

This is a strange exception. Do you have any evidence that suggests this?

How about the Sunni narrations of the fatawa of Ali (as)?

I also obviously agree with Nader's conclusions. Personally, I believe that narrations like these were concocted due to the abundance of ikhtilaaf due to the fabrications. It almost seems like someone forged a random fiqhi hadith, and those that heard him doubted the contents of the hadith. In response, he narrated something about the prohibition of rejecting hadiths. It is just a theory, so wallahu a'alam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

(bismillah)

(salam)

@ Dar:

Well, obviously, hahah. In a sense, are you propagating the view that Shias shouldn't reject the strange hadiths of Abu Huraira about early generations and previous prophets?

i am of the view that Abu Hurairah's narrations shouldn't automatically be rejected without reason. Afterall, he narrates a number of hadiths that the Imams (as) also narrate, so one runs the risk of rejecting hadiths of the Imams(as) if they automatically rejected everything Abu Hurairah said.

And sometimes it's simply better to do tawaqquf if we have nothing that contridicts what he's saying and we don't know the reality of the situation, yet we have doubts.

As for the fatawa of Ali (as) in Sunni sources, i think it's important to put ourselves in people's shoes back then. There was no Bukhari and there was no al-Kafi. All there was was a number of narrators between you and Ali (as). What exactly makes someone like say Abu al-Khattab a more reliable source for the hadiths of Ahl al-Bayt(as) than say Hatim bin isma'eel? However, one can understand why Shias would reject certain fatawa attributed to Ahl al-Bayt(as) in Sunni sources if it contridicts Shia principles, such as the hadith of Ali (as) washing his feet in wudhu, unless one is of the view that this action was Sunnah but then abrogated when the verse of wudhu was revealed (which was rather late).

And Allah(swt) knows best

Edited by ImamAliLover
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

As for the fatawa of Ali (as) in Sunni sources, i think it's important to put ourselves in people's shoes back then. There was no Bukhari and there was no al-Kafi. All there was was a number of narrators between you and Ali (as). What exactly makes someone like say Abu al-Khattab a more reliable source for the hadiths of Ahl al-Bayt(as) than say Hatim bin isma'eel?

I agree with this point. It seems that the schools were not as separate as they later became.

I have mentioned this elsewhere and I'll mention it again, for the benefit of the forums. Sunnis took narrations from Shias and vice versa. This was common in Baghdaad and Al-Kufa since the two groups lived in the same community. The only major isolation that I've found is in the third century when the hadith school in Shiasm shifted to Qum. We do not find Sunnis narrating from Qummis (almost ever), since there were hardly any Sunnis in Qum.

So, yes, brother, you are correct in implying that the narrations that are attributed to the Imams don't come from strictly Sunni (Al-Bukhari) or Shia (Al-Kulayni) sources, but rather, from individuals that happen to fall under these schools. There were no "Sunni hadiths" and "Shia hadiths" until much later.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...