Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

Moreover, the following is also added:

"Zaidiyyah say: If the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).s.) has introduced the names of twelve Imams to his Ummah, why it has moved away from it and gone hither tither and become highly deviated?

We (12 vers) reply that: You say that the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).s.) appointed Ali as his successor and Imam after himself. He issued Nass for him and indicated him clearly as there remains no doubt about it. Then what happened to this Ummah that it turned away from Ali and abandoned him completely, such that he went away from Medina to Yanba1 and whatever befell him is known to all. And if you say that the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).s.) did not appoint Ali as his successor, we shall ask why have you mentioned it in your books, and why are you talking about it? People turn away from the truth if it might be absolutely clear and reject a matter even if it is explained in detail. Such as the people move from belief in monotheism to apostasy and inspite of Allah’s statement that: “There is nothing like Him”, they start believing in comparison".

(Kamaaluddin wa Tamaamun Ni’ma 75, First objection of Zaidiyyah sect, by Shaykh as-Sadooq)

Seems to be a weak argument as there is some evidence for the latter but not the former claim. Some contemporary Shia scholars rate as weak all hadiths of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) naming the 12 Imams by name. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fink said:

Seems to be a weak argument as there is some evidence for the latter but not the former claim. Some contemporary Shia scholars rate as weak all hadiths of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) naming the 12 Imams by name. 

There is no verse in Qur'an mentioning that the people can choose a caliph /Imam for their guidance except it is chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Then all such claims that are not authenticated by hadith of 12 caliphs./ ameers/ Imams ( except those names mentioned in hadith of the Prophet saww both in Shia and Sunni sources) are rejected. 

The hadith provided both in Sunni and Shia sources mentions the numbers ie 12 caliphs / ameers / Imams and both sources as mentioned have the names of those caliphs / Imams first one is Imam  Ali and 12th is Al Mahdi as

The hadith is considered authentic as the names have been mentioned in both these sources. Thus any conjecture in this concern can be rejected.

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Fink said:

Seems to be a weak argument as there is some evidence for the latter but not the former claim. Some contemporary Shia scholars rate as weak all hadiths of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) naming the 12 Imams by name. 

Would you like to explain which part of the argument do you deny?

The Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).s.) appointed Ali as his successor and Imam after himself. He issued Nass for him and indicated him clearly as there remains no doubt about it. Then what happened to this Ummah that it turned away from Ali and abandoned him completely,

OR

 If you say that the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).s.) did not appoint Ali as his successor, we shall ask why have you mentioned it in your books, and why are you talking about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

There is no verse in Qur'an mentioning that the people can choose a caliph /Imam for their guidance except it is chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Then all such claims that are not authenticated by hadith of 12 caliphs./ ameers/ Imams ( except those names mentioned in hadith of the Prophet saww both in Shia and Sunni sources) are rejected. 

The hadith provided both in Sunni and Shia sources mentions the numbers ie 12 caliphs / ameers / Imams and both sources as mentioned in this thread  have the names of those caliphs / Imams first one is Imam  Ali and 12th is Al Mahdi as

The hadith is considered authentic as the names have been mentioned in both these sources. Thus any conjecture in this concern is rejected.

What hadith are you referring to that mentions the 12 Imams by NAME per the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fink said:

What hadith are you referring to that mentions the 12 Imams by NAME per the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) ? 

 

13 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

There is no verse in Qur'an mentioning that the people can choose a caliph /Imam for their guidance except it is chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Then all such claims that are not authenticated by hadith of 12 caliphs./ ameers/ Imams ( except those names mentioned in hadith of the Prophet saww both in Shia and Sunni sources) are rejected. 

The hadith provided both in Sunni and Shia sources mentions the numbers ie 12 caliphs / ameers / Imams and both sources as mentioned have the names of those caliphs / Imams first one is Imam  Ali and 12th is Al Mahdi as

The hadith is considered authentic as the names have been mentioned in both these sources. Thus any conjecture in this concern can be rejected.

I await the answers of my questions posted in my earlier posts  before proceeding any further on discussion please.

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

Would you like to explain which part of the argument do you deny?

The Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).s.) appointed Ali as his successor and Imam after himself. He issued Nass for him and indicated him clearly as there remains no doubt about it. Then what happened to this Ummah that it turned away from Ali and abandoned him completely,

OR

 If you say that the Holy Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).s.) did not appoint Ali as his successor, we shall ask why have you mentioned it in your books, and why are you talking about it?

Neither,  what im disagreeing with is shaykh sadooqs equivalence of

1. Imam Ali as appointment 

And 

2. Appointment of 12 Imams as believed by 12ers 

 

The first one may have evidence but that doesn't mean the second is true.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

 

I await the answers of my questions posted in my earlier posts  before proceeding any further on discussion please.

What questions exactly ,

 

Thank you 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fink said:

Neither,  what im disagreeing with is shaykh sadooqs equivalence of

1. Imam Ali as appointment 

And 

2. Appointment of 12 Imams as believed by 12ers 

The first one may have evidence but that doesn't mean the second is true.

The fact you are accepting that Imam Ali was an appointed successor after the pophet saww and people left him after knowing he is true sucesor.

Similarly it is proof for us that the people left other out of 12 Imams ie  successors of the Imam Ali like they left Imam Ali after the Prophet saww. 

People turn away from the truth if it might be absolutely clear and reject a matter even if it is explained in detail. Such as the people move from belief in monotheism to apostasy and inspite of Allah’s statement that: “There is nothing like Him”, they start believing in comparison" 

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, skyweb1987 said:

The fact you are accepting that Imam Ali was an appointed successor after the pophet saww and people left him after knowing he is true sucesor.

Similarly it is proof for us that the people left other out of 12 Imams ie  successors of the Imam Ali like they left Imam Ali after the Prophet saw.

I think this is a reach. All Shia subsects can make this claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, skyweb1987 said:

1. The members of Ahl alabayt put him in high esteem but he is not considered in any case a divinely appointed Imam by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) as quoted earlier.

2. You also agree that there is no verse in Qur'an mentioning that the people can choose a caliph /Imam for their guidance except it is chosen by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Then all such claims thst  are not authenticated by hadith of 12 caliphs./ ameers/ Imams ( except those names mentioned in hadith of the Prophet saww both in Shia and Sunni sources) are rejected. 

3. Can you provide a hadith from primary Shia sources that Zayd bin Ali claims his  imamamt and he was accepted an Imam by Imam of the time ie Imam Muhamamd Al baqer or Imam Jaafr As Sadiq AS?

I await the reply on the posted questions, please.

In the absence of verse of Qur'an that people can choose a caliph for their guidance except by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) how people can choose caliph  Imam/ successor of the Prophet saww that has no basis in the Qur'an?

 

Edited by skyweb1987

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 786:) said:

I believe their opinion of the caliphate is in line with the opinion of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as he outlines in Nahjul Balagha.

 

 I have always wondered about this. Was Imam Zaid (عليه السلام) a deviant grandson of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) for this idea?

Salam brother

Why deviant ? Esp if his views were inline with earlier generation of Shias 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

I await the reply on the posted questions, please.

In the absence of verse of Qur'an that people can choose a caliph for their guidance except by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) how people can choose caliph  Imam/ successor of the Prophet saww that has no basis in the Qur'an?

 

So you want to prove from 12er books about Zayd's imamate? I am not that well versed in hadith literature to be quite honest with you. However, I do not see the purpose of this request as its a lose-lose scenario for me:

1) No hadith exists to support that in 12er literature
2) Hadith exists-->you claim no 12er hadith book is 100% sahih therefore you dismiss the hadith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Panzerwaffe said:

Salam brother

Why deviant ? Esp if his views were inline with earlier generation of Shias 

I do not consider him to be a deviant. I am asking on the basis of modern Shia views of how shaykhayn are kafirs etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 786:) said:

Imam Zayd's (عليه السلام) opinion of Abu Bakr: he was a just caliph. Have not heard bad things about him from Ahlul-Bayt.

Perhaps you have taken this from "darbari mulla" & fitna like Abu Hanifa.

When did Zayd Shaheed claimed Imamate?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 786:) said:

I do not consider him to be a deviant. I am asking on the basis of modern Shia views of how shaykhayn are kafirs etc.

Sorry I misunderstood 

I wonder when these views of shaykhayn were formulated as they were not really the dividing point between Shias of Ali and others in the first and second civil war. In those days it was only Alids unanimous condemnation of Uthman 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, skyweb1987 said:

The fact you are accepting that Imam Ali was an appointed successor after the pophet saww and people left him after knowing he is true sucesor.

Similarly it is proof for us that the people left other out of 12 Imams ie  successors of the Imam Ali like they left Imam Ali after the Prophet saww. 

People turn away from the truth if it might be absolutely clear and reject a matter even if it is explained in detail. Such as the people move from belief in monotheism to apostasy and inspite of Allah’s statement that: “There is nothing like Him”, they start believing in comparison" 

That is no argument at all. That's ظن aka assumption. Just because people rejected Imam Ali as doesnt prove God (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) appointed 11 other Imams, the last of which was born a mysterious birth and subsequently communicated via 4 messengers who were kind enough to be concerned mostly about khums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 786:) said:

So for example:

Imam Zayd's (عليه السلام) opinion of Abu Bakr: he was a just caliph. Have not heard bad things about him from Ahlul-Bayt.

Imam Sadiq's (عليه السلام) first opinion of Abu Bakr: he was a just caliph. I have blood of Abu Bakr from my mother's side.

Imam Sadiq's (عليه السلام) second opinion of Abu Bakr: he was a tyrant and kafir. He will burn in hell.

Do you see how this can raise an eyebrow?

Salam ,people were saying words instead of them in many situation ,the original saying of Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) was about that Shias don’t insult first caliph but they misuse it to justify Abubakr only ‘I have blood of Abu Bakr from my mother's side.’ Part is true because from mother side he inherited Abubakr blood but by son that raised by Ahlul Bayt(عليه السلام) not by relatives of any of 3 caliphs  but first part of it added by Other people to justify first caliph 

secondly there is no original talk from Zayd Ibn Ali(رضي الله عنه) except his short conversation with Imam Baqir (عليه السلام) rest of his speeches changed by people that were trying to make an alternative from him against Shia Imams like as they made 4 major alternative Sunni Imams as founders of 4 school of taughts by separation of Sunnis to 4 groups every Abbasid caliph could make a balance between people by favoring one of them to other each time or cause wars between these 4 groups like as now they can’t reach to a simple conclusion about place of folded hands that they don’t know what position is the best that they tried it parallel to this by creating Zaidism & Ismailis but by true decision of our Imams we don’t rise against each other when 4 Sunni madhab were busy attacking  each other in that era that at last caused weakening of Abbasids against Mughol invaders but they like as other times accuse Shias for betrayal althought Shias with defensive strategy of great Shia scholars like as sheikh aTusi (رضي الله عنه)  saved many lives of Muslims that Sunnis have great debt to Shias for this .

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam I follow the Zaidi Madhab. It's definition is not as strict as other Shia.

Basics principles are much the same as other schools of tght. So I'll skip to differences between 12er And zaidi

Imam Ali designation has been argued for as both explicit and implicit.

Zaidi that believe in explicit designation do not accept the caliphate of the first three but leave it at that and keep silent on matters Imam Ali kept silent on

Those that believe in implicit designation accept caliphate of Abu Bakar and Umar

They believe in infallibility of only 5. Who have evidence from Qur'an and sunnah. Prophet Muhammad, Bibi Fatima, Imam Ali, Imam Hassan, and Imam Hussein.

There after an Imam is anyone from the line of Hassan and Hussein that have the qualities of a righteous Muslim both in knowledge and action and rise up against an oppressor and call people openly to follow them. Eg Imam Zaid and Imam Ali Rezza 

The second type of Imam is one who has all the mentioned qualities but does not call people openly to follow them in action eg Imam jaffer Sadiq, Imam Muhammed bakir.

As they are not infallible any Imam does not have to be followed if they go against what is deemed to be Islam 

At no point has zaidi ever believed in or suggested alteration on Qur'an.

This is just a summary and I'm not a scholar so there maybe errors.

 

 

 

Edited by Warilla

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coincidentally, I was reading "The Origins and Early Development of Shia Islam" by Sayyid Husayn Muhammad Ja'fari [is he a 12er?] today. I jumped straight into Chapter 9 to read about the struggles with Imamate and schisms post Karbala. Here's some juicy extracts about the al-Baqir and Zayd schism:

Quote

Though Muhammad al-Baqir inherited his father's following, he had to face many more serious problems than did his father. Zayn al-'Abidin had only to counteract the propaganda of Mukhtar for the Imamate of Ibn al-Hanafiya, which he could easily do on the grounds that he was the descendant of the Prophet as well as of 'Ali. After the death of Zayn al- 'Abidin many descendants of Fatima too, either motivated by ambitions or discontented with the idea of the Imam being merely a spiritual guide, as adopted by Zayn al-'Abidin, raised their own claims to the heritage of the Prophet.

Thus the immediate problem facing Al-Baqir was not from outside, but from within the family circle. The movements of his two most potential rivals, 'Abd Allah al-Mahdi, who worked for his son Muhammad an-Nafs az-Zakiya, and Al-Baqir's half brother Zayd b. 'Ali Zayn al-'Abidin, will be discussed in detail in the following chapter. Here it would suffice to point out in passing that Zayd b. Zayn al-'Abidin's energies appealed to many Shi'is and were a serious challenge to the Imamate of Al-Baqir. In these rivalries, however, Al-Baqir and his followers were markedly overshadowed by Zayd and led the former to put increasing emphasis on legitimism within the Shi'I movement.

Quote

the popularity of the movement of Zayd b. Zayn Al-Abidin overshadowed Al-Baqir's efforts to establish the legitimist Imamate, yet Al-Baqir restricted himself to attacking only the friends and followers of Zayd. Nevertheless, when an opportunity presented itself, he did not hesitate to contest Zayd's rights quite sharply. Thus when Sa'id b. al-Mansur, one of the leaders of the Zaydiya circle, asked him:

“What is your opinion about nabidh, for I have seen Zayd drinking it?” Al-Baqir replied: “I do not believe that Zayd would drink it, but even if he did, he is neither a Prophet nor a Trustee of a Prophet, only an ordinary person from the Family of Muhammad, and he is sometimes right and sometimes may commit an error.” [Ref: Kashshi, Rijal, p.232]. This was both an open denial of Zayd's rights to the Imamate, and an indirect assertion of his own position as the Prophetic Wasi Muhammad al-Baqir was the son of Fatima, the daughter of Al-Hasan, [Ref: Ibn Sa'd, V, pp.211, 320, 325 f.] and so, being the descendant of the Prophet and of 'Ali on both sides, he had a great advantage over Zayd, whose mother was a slave-woman from Sind, [Ref: Abu'l-Faraj, Maqatil, p.127; Ibn Sa'd, V, pp.211, 325 f.] but the former never showed any inclination to organize an active movement and maintained the Pacific policy of his father.

On the other hand, Zayd, a close associate of Wasil b. 'Ata', the Mu'tazilite, was strongly impressed by the latter's ideas and laid emphasis on the principle of “ordering good and prohibiting evil”, if necessary, by force. Accordingly, he believed that if an Imam wanted to be recognized, he had to claim his right, sword in hand. [Ref: Shahrastani, Milal, I, pp. 154 f.] Al-Baqir and Zayd quarrelled over this point, for when the latter asserted that an Imam must rise against the oppressors, the former remarked: “So you deny that your own father was an Imam, for he never contested the issue.” [Ref: ibid.]
 
When Abu Bakr b. Muhammad al-Hadrami and his brother 'Alqama, two Kufan Shi'is, asked Zayd whether 'Ali was an Imam before he resorted to the sword, he refused to answer the question, which made them break their allegiance with Zayd and go over to Al-Baqir. [Ref: Kashshi, Rijal, pp.416 f.]

Quote

A crucial question was that of the rights of Abu-Bakr and 'Umar. Zayd, agreeing with the Mu'tazilites, held that the first two caliphs had been legally elected Imams, though 'Ali was the preferable candidate, and this greatly impressed the traditionist circles. At the same time he rejected the Mu'tazilite doctrine of the “intermediate state”, but did not object to the opinion of Wasil, that in the conflict between ”'Ali and his adversaries” one of the opposing sides was certainly wrong though Wasil was not sure which, [Ref: Shahrastani, Milal, I, p.49] whereas Zayd regarded the virtues of 'Ali as of such a high order that the idea of his not being in the right was inadmissible.
 
However, Zayd's special emphasis on accepting the caliphates of Abu Bakr and 'Umar and his popularity on this ground among moderate circles show, on the one hand, that the question of the caliphates of the first two caliphs had already been under serious discussion in some Shi'I circles at that time, and on the other hand, that Zayd's success by adopting this stand created an embarrassing and complicated situation for Al-Baqir. Zayn al-'Abidin himself never spoke against the first two caliphs, but during Al-Baqir's lifetime some of the extremists who sided themselves with him started asking this question among the legitimist section of the Shi'a. Al-Baqir was thus asked time and again what he thought of Abu Bakr and 'Umar, but he did not publicly discredit them and rather confirmed that they were caliphs. [Ref: Ibn Kathir, Bidaya, IX, p.311; Dhahabi, Ta'rikh, IV, p.300; Ibn al-Jawzi, Sifat as-Safwa, II, p. 61; Abu Nu'aym, Hilya, III, p. 185]

Yet certain Shi'is of Kufa asserted that he disavowed the first two caliphs and only concealed his real opinion by resorting to the principle of dissimulation. [Ref: Traditions referring to the poet Kumayt quote Al-Baqir as very violently disavowing Abu Bakr and 'Umar; see Kashshl, Rijal, pp.205 f. On the other hand Kumayt did not express himself openly against the first two caliphs; see his verse in Hashimyat, p. 155]. This propaganda on the part of some of the Kufan followers of Al-Baqir no doubt earned him the sympathy of many extremist and semi-extremist circles, but on the other hand it discouraged those who wanted an active and more practical movement to bring the Ahl al-Bayt to power, and were already disappointed with Al-Baqir's quiescent policy. These moderates therefore preferred to range themselves on the side of Zayd, [Ref: Nawbakhti, Firaq, pp.52 ff.; Kashshl, Rijal, p.229] who in order to secure certain advantages became more emphatic in his acceptance of the first two caliphs, at the same time rejecting the principle of Taqiya. Al-Baqir was infuriated by the attitude of these Kufan Shi'is and said, “Even if the Butrites formed one battle-line from east to west, God would not grant glory to the world through them.” [Ref: Kashshi, Rijal, p.232. The Butrlya were those who drew no distinction between the claimants from the house of 'Ali and supported any 'Alid claimant who revolted, sword in hand.]

Quote

The question of the first two caliphs at this stage draws our attention to another problem: that of religious practices. Al-Baqir adhered to the traditions derived from 'Ali and his supporters. There were, however, certain disagreements even among the Ahl al-Bayt, for Zayd was inclined to accept the practice of the Ashab al-Hadith of Kufa, mainly based on the rulings of 'Umar. Thus it was Al-Baqir who established the beginnings of the madhhab (legal school) of the Ahl al-Bayt Kashshi records for us a very important tradition which says:
 
“Before the Imamate of Muhammad al-Baqir the Shi'is did not know what was lawful and what was unlawful, except what they learned from the [other] people; until Abu Ja'far [Al-Baqir] became the Imam, and he taught them and explained to them the knowledge [of law], and they began to teach other people from whom they were previously learning.” [Ref: Kashshi, Rijal, p. 289]
 
This tradition clearly indicates that until the time of Al-Baqir there were hardly any differences in legal practices among the Shi'is and Ashab al-Hadith of Medina, Kufa, and elsewhere. Even later the differences in the sphere of legal matters (furu') were in reality few, [Ref: Schacht, Origins, pp. 262 ff] such as while Al-Baqir absolutely forbade all intoxicants, including nabidh  (fermented drinks) [Ref: Kulayni, Furu' al-Kafi, II, p.193. Also see Dhahabl, Tadhkirat al-Huffaz, I, p. 160; Qadi Nu'man, Sharh Al-Akhbar, fol. 36a] the Kufan jurists allowed nabidh. Another problem was that of mut'a (temporary marriage), over which the Shi'I and Kufan jurists differed, the former allowing it on the authority of 'Ali, the latter forbidding it, referring to the decision of 'Umar. [Ref: Schacht, Origins, pp. 266 ff; Malik b. Anas, Muwatta, III, p.23; Murtada b. Dai', Tadhkirat al-'Awamm, pp. 270-271]. The argument was that if 'Umar could revoke a permission granted by the Prophet, then 'Ali could revoke a ruling of 'Umar.

 

Edited by Jaane Ya Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Warilla said:

Salaam I follow the Zaidi Madhab. It's definition is not as strict as other Shia.

Basics principles are much the same as other schools of tght. So I'll skip to differences between 12er And zaidi

Imam Ali designation has been argued for as both explicit and implicit.

Zaidi that believe in explicit designation do not accept the caliphate of the first three but leave it at that and keep silent on matters Imam Ali kept silent on

Those that believe in implicit designation accept caliphate of Abu Bakar and Umar

They believe in infallibility of only 5. Who have evidence from Qur'an and sunnah. Prophet Muhammad, Bibi Fatima, Imam Ali, Imam Hassan, and Imam Hussein.

There after an Imam is anyone from the line of Hassan and Hussein that have the qualities of a righteous Muslim both in knowledge and action and rise up against an oppressor and call people openly to follow them. Eg Imam Zaid and Imam Ali Rezza 

The second type of Imam is one who has all the mentioned qualities but does not call people openly to follow them in action eg Imam jaffer Sadiq, Imam Muhammed bakir.

As they are not infallible any Imam does not have to be followed if they go against what is deemed to be Islam 

At no point has zaidi ever believed in or suggested alteration on Qur'an.

This is just a summary and I'm not a scholar so there maybe errors.

 

 

 

Sign me up! Lol I think the fact that they were the original Shias is highly overlooked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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...