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
Mohammad313Ali

The Authenticity of The Third Shahada

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam, I am aware that this issue has been discussed many times before on this forum, however, I seek to rekindle this discussion in hopes of gaining further insight and reaching a sound conclusion InshaAllah.

If you believe it is an innovation (Bid'ah) please state your reasons why

If you believe it is a recommended act (Mustahab) please state your reasons why

 

@AmirioTheMuzzy@Diaz@guest 2025@Haji 2003 @ShiaChat Mod @notme @starlight @Ibn Al-Shahid @Ibn Al-Ja'abi @AlmondJoy680 @habib e najjaar @Mahdavist @313 Seeker @Ethics @.InshAllah. @Sirius_Bright @The Green Knight @AkhiraisReal @Hameedeh @A_A @Gaius I. Caesar

Edited by Mohammad313Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our classical scholars appear to have rejected it, although they were not under compulsion of dissimulation, is it reasonable to say that the reason was in order to disassociate themselves from certain extremist groups, as well as solidify the main traditions and teachings pertaining to the Adhan and iqama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those who say Shahid Al-Awwal and Al-Thani also rejected the third Shahada claiming that they were at a comfortable time for freedom of religious expression for the Shia, should note why then were they both martyred by Nasabis If the time was safe for scholars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who say why then didn’t Imam Hussein proclaim it in the battlefield one must certainly consider that what is obligatory trumps what is recommended and that distinct situations call for distinct exceptions.

The enemies of Imam Hussein ((عليه السلام)) told him that they were fighting him out of hatred for his father and also claimed that he was fighting for political power. Had the Imam stated the third Shahada the enemies could easily use that as an excuse to highlight the difference between them and him, using the name of Imam Ali as the narrative in justifying their transgressions.

The Imam did not say it in order to not give the enemy the opportunity to use it as propaganda against him within and outside the battlefield. 

(These are my own opinions pertaining to perhaps the reason why the Imam (supposedly) did not say the third Shahada in Karbala)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tradition found in Bihar Al-Anwar states that in the heavens an angel proclaimed that there is no wali except Ali.

It is important to note that the Prophet (ص) also said when remembering me remember Ali ((عليه السلام))

 عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: (إنّا أول أهل بيت نوّه الله بأسمائنا، انه لمّا خلق الله السماوات والأرض أمر منادياً فنادى: أشهد أن لا اله الا الله ـ ثلاثاً ـ أشهد أن محمّداً رسول الله ـ ثلاثاً ـ أشهد أن عليّاً أمير المؤمنين حقاً ـ ثلاثاً ).

 بحار الأنوار ج37 ص295 ح10 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The classical scholars as valued and as important as they are to our school of thought were not infallible, had their reasons (as speculated above), and disputed amongst each other.

Al-Tusi had disputes with Al-Saduq in regards to a narration pertaining to the Prophet and procrastination.

The Qur'an is very clear and the A’Hadith which indicate the closeness of Ali to Muhammad are not restricted to mere kinship, but in every aspect.

When the Prophet told Imam Ali, O’Ali you are to me as Aaron was to Moses, would it be problematic to state that the closeness indeed pertains to the Adhan as well? To the contrary it would be consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Adhan and Iqama we are yet to enter a state of worship, therefore you see many individuals coming and reciting certain supplications, or verses of the Qur'an before entering within their Salat.

In Salat nobody can add or remove anything. Which was not prescribed explicitly by the Prophet and his immaculate progeny.

The scholars merely wanted to preserve an authentic tradition as transmuted from the Prophet that being the original way in which the Adhan/iqama were transmuted to us.

This does not mean adding mustahab acts which are validated with A’hadith are prohibited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The matter is not very black and white, therefore we need to be very considerate of the meticulous nature which brought forth this honorable tradition of mentioning the Imams name in our Adhan/Iqama 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My speculation:

I think it's recommended with a seperate intention. As in, it's not part of the adhan, even though it may sound like it to the listener. Because it is not part of the adhan, we are not adding an innovation. The third testimony is a recommended reply to the second testimony. This is allowed in adhan because adhan itself is mustahab not wajib. This is nothing remarkable. It is the same way we can accept interest (riba) in the West, as it is not considered interest though it may seem like it, rather you are looting from non-Muslims.

However, some may reduce this by simply calling it a jurisprudential loophole. But to me it seems like a well established principle in fiqh. Salafis typically look to what's physically apparent, Shias typically look to what's the intention. 

Also, while searching on this site, I found this which could be of great use: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

The matter is not very black and white, therefore we need to be very considerate of the meticulous nature which brought forth this honorable tradition of mentioning the Imams name in our Adhan/Iqama 

 It appears you already come in made up your mind about it before starting this thread.

Edited by 786:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, 786:) said:

 It appears you already come in made up your mind about it before starting this thread.

This is what I’ve been able to reach so far of conclusions 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 786:) said:

If the third testimony is absent from hadith then the taqiyya card will be used. If it’s present then it’s Hujjah lol. 

Can you elaborate JazakAllah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Pschological Warfare

إِنَّمَا وَلِيُّكُمُ اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا الَّذِينَ يُقِيمُونَ الصَّلَاةَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَهُمْ رَاكِعُونَ {55}

[Pickthal 5:55] Your guardian can be only Allah; and His messenger and those who believe, who establish worship and pay the poordue, and bow down (in prayer).

وَمَنْ يَتَوَلَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَالَّذِينَ آمَنُوا فَإِنَّ حِزْبَ اللَّهِ هُمُ الْغَالِبُونَ {56}

[Pickthal 5:56] And whoso taketh Allah and His messenger and those who believe for guardian (will know that), lo! the party of Allah, they are the victorious.

 

Other Links here

https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235056780-Ali-in-the-athaan/?tab=comments#comment-3133319

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we discussing the third testimony in general or are we discussing the innovation of saying it in tashahud with the intention that its recitation in tashahud is wajib? The third testimony stems from our usool of Imamate. It is an usool, not a furoo. But first you should make the clarification. If you are talking of its recitation in general sense (and not as "wajib third testimoney in tashahud") then as far as I know it is obligatory to be said each time the other two testimonies are recited. For tashahud its recitation as wajib as done in some parts of zakir led punjab and made a big thing is not practical because there are several hadiths that repeatedly mention two testimonies being recited in tashahud is obligatory. Of course the third can be recited as mutahab according to a very few scholars and a few hadiths seem to support that. Outside tashahud the third testimony is extremely important both in recitation and more importantly in our actions because only we believe in imamate and all our actions must be the right actions which are taught by our Imams who only convey prophetic knowledge as is our belief. Outside tashahud the third testimony is not to be taken lightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2020 at 12:16 AM, The Green Knight said:

Are we discussing the third testimony in general or are we discussing the innovation of saying it in tashahud with the intention that its recitation in tashahud is wajib? The third testimony stems from our usool of Imamate. It is an usool, not a furoo. But first you should make the clarification. If you are talking of its recitation in general sense (and not as "wajib third testimoney in tashahud") then as far as I know it is obligatory to be said each time the other two testimonies are recited. For tashahud its recitation as wajib as done in some parts of zakir led punjab and made a big thing is not practical because there are several hadiths that repeatedly mention two testimonies being recited in tashahud is obligatory. Of course the third can be recited as mutahab according to a very few scholars and a few hadiths seem to support that. Outside tashahud the third testimony is extremely important both in recitation and more importantly in our actions because only we believe in imamate and all our actions must be the right actions which are taught by our Imams who only convey prophetic knowledge as is our belief. Outside tashahud the third testimony is not to be taken lightly.

Beautifully said brother!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@The Green Knight 

Brother could you kindly provide us with the fundamental sources that support your claims and also an explanation towards the dismay of our classical scholars.

The A'hadith which you have founded your basis on, are they ones which stem from books which were present at the time of the classical scholars such as Tusi, Saduq, and Hilli

Is the chain reliable and is it from a trustworthy source?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

@The Green Knight 

Brother could you kindly provide us with the fundamental sources that support your claims and also an explanation towards the dismay of our classical scholars.

The A'hadith which you have founded your basis on, are they ones which stem from books which were present at the time of the classical scholars such as Tusi, Saduq, and Hilli

Is the chain reliable and is it from a trustworthy source?

That is simply not my cup of tea. I am sorry. However rest assured that I do not lie. The things I have written in my previous post are all from hadiths for which I recommend the book Wasail ush Shia by Hurr Al-Amili. Sorry dear bro but you are just as capable if not more to dig out the answers from the books of all those scholars. Or you can ask brother likes Qaim, ibn Ja'abi, Mahdavist and Abu Nur or similar who have been through all these things. OR better yet you can write to Sistani or Khamenai or other maraje karaam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May sound dumb not sure if I’m going to make sense but if it’s not part of adhan why is it ok to say it with the intention it’s not part of adhan. Can I say for example “yazid is a bad man” with the intention of that not being part of adhan? Why would that be not okay yet I know it’s not part of adhan? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also regarding shahada I’ve seen videos Of people taking shahada saying after Muhammad Rasool Allah, and I witness isa is a messenger of Allah. Yes isa is a messenger but is there even a need to state that in Shahada?

Edited by Ali2196

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ali2196 said:

May sound dumb not sure if I’m going to make sense but if it’s not part of adhan why is it ok to say it with the intention it’s not part of adhan. Can I say for example “yazid is a bad man” with the intention of that not being part of adhan? Why would that be not okay yet I know it’s not part of adhan? 

Because the narration that state of the closeness of Imam Ali and the Holy Prophet, as well as the preference of when remembering the Prophet to remember Imam Ali ((عليه السلام))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ali2196 said:

Also regarding shahada I’ve seen videos Of people taking shahada saying after Muhammad Rasool Allah, and I witness isa is a messenger of Allah. Yes isa is a messenger but is there even a need to state that in Shahada?

This is irrelevant and stating Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) name takes precedence as per the A’hadith And Qur'an 5:55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2020 at 11:17 AM, Mahdavist said:

Classical and contemporary scholars almost unanimously agree that it is not part of the adhan or iqamah

These scholars were at a time where there were deviant individuals such as the مفاوضة who at any moment would want to take the advantage of such a recommended slogan to further their deviant beliefs, therefore the classical scholars needed to make it clear that such a Shahada is not part of the Adhan/Iqama in order to preserve it.

On 4/9/2020 at 11:17 AM, Mahdavist said:

The adhan and iqamah that we have received from the ma'soomeen (عليه السلام) do not contain this statement

The development of Islam was very meticulous and even at the time of Imam Al-Baqir we see that people were unsure when it came to certain jurisprudential rulings as well as matter pertaining to Hajj rituals, therefore our Imams ((عليه السلام)) considering the necessity of establishing the fundamental teachings of the principles of the religion needed to first solidify such matters. Also taking to note the belligerent hatred towards Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) if they were to include this in their declaration then out of blind ignorance and hatred the people would oppose them solely for this. I don’t think it’s very black and white.

On 4/9/2020 at 11:17 AM, Mahdavist said:

Therefore one who doesn't include it in or around their adhan or iqamah is completely in line with Qur'an, Hadith, Classical rulings and contemporary rulings. 

Of course they’re in line, but in Adhan/Iqama one can add prayers and sayings in the beginning or end in the form of Dua in hopes of gaining closeness to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and as the Prophet says the closeness of me to Ali is that of Aaron to Moses and when remembering him (ص) one should remember the door to his city of knowledge. As a means of تقرب و إقرار 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2020 at 12:59 PM, Mohammad313Ali said:

These scholars were at a time where there were deviant individuals such as the مفاوضة who at any moment would want to take the advantage of such a recommended slogan to further their deviant beliefs, therefore the classical scholars needed to make it clear that such a Shahada is not part of the Adhan/Iqama in order to preserve it.

The development of Islam was very meticulous and even at the time of Imam Al-Baqir we see that people were unsure when it came to certain jurisprudential rulings as well as matter pertaining to Hajj rituals, therefore our Imams ((عليه السلام)) considering the necessity of establishing the fundamental teachings of the principles of the religion needed to first solidify such matters. Also taking to note the belligerent hatred towards Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) if they were to include this in their declaration then out of blind ignorance and hatred the people would oppose them solely for this. I don’t think it’s very black and white.

Of course they’re in line, but in Adhan/Iqama one can add prayers and sayings in the beginning or end in the form of Dua in hopes of gaining closeness to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and as the Prophet says the closeness of me to Ali is that of Aaron to Moses and when remembering him (ص) one should remember the door to his city of knowledge. As a means of تقرب و إقرار 

Again you have already made up your mind so why waste a thread?

Imams that supposedly control every atom in the universe were afraid people would leave Islam by their true teachings so they had to hide matters such as the “true” Adhan? Sounds pretty absurd if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m interested in hearing you justifications for it. If the Prophet never introduced nor the Imams. The classical scholars condemned its addition. So why do you think it’s so necessary?

The practice doesn’t even get merit until the Safavid Era when the empire was in a rivalry with the Ottomans so they wanted to put a political stamp on the Adhan. Oh and they hired an akhbaari scholar to pass it into law. Look at the matter from a objective perspective not perspective that is convenient and you will reach the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

These scholars were at a time where there were deviant individuals such as the مفاوضة who at any moment would want to take the advantage of such a recommended slogan to further their deviant beliefs, therefore the classical scholars needed to make it clear that such a Shahada is not part of the Adhan/Iqama in order to preserve it.

Brother, even the contemporary scholars confirm that it isn't part of the adhan. Starting from a collection of narrations like Wasail al Shia, through to Sharai al Islam of Muhaqqiq al Hilli and right down to the modern day risalaat al amaliyyah of current fuqaha, you consistently find that it is not a part of the adhan or the iqamah.

The discussion is therefore only reduced to it's addition as a 'supplement' and whether this is an innovation, a technical loophole or a mustahab act and on this point different scholars at different times have had different opinions.

This is why I say that the common ground lies in not adding it to the adhan or iqamah because you 'can't go wrong' so to speak. 

Quote

Of course they’re in line, but in Adhan/Iqama one can add prayers and sayings in the beginning or end in the form of Dua in hopes of gaining closeness to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) and as the Prophet says the closeness of me to Ali is that of Aaron to Moses and when remembering him (ص) one should remember the door to his city of knowledge. As a means of تقرب و إقرار 

Perhaps, but the confusion lies in the fact that it isn't coming at the beginning or the end - it is recited right in the middle of the adhan, in the same tone and in the same manner with no differentiation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

The discussion is therefore only reduced to it's addition as a 'supplement' and whether this is an innovation, a technical loophole or a mustahab act and on this point different scholars at different times have had different opinions.

Yes and this is the portion which concerns me, our scholars have made it clear cut and evident that it is not a traditional part of the Adhan or Iqama, however, it is a supplemental means of providing Dawah to our own school of thought and a way which is in accordance with the aforementioned A’hadith which state that when remembering the Prophet it is recommended to remember Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) 

Also there are certain exceptions and rulings in fiqh which go out of the norm

for example Salat Al-Layl is a Mustahab act, but when an individual consistently prays it for two years it then becomes a act which is obligatory on that individual (Notice the complications which accompany fiqhi rulings there are exceptions and circumstances which can make something go from Mustahab to Wajib or Non-traditional to Traditional)

the reason that it becomes wajib is because the scholars say that the individual has built a foundational basis which is consistent with this prayer and if one were to then leave this action it may carry negative drawbacks such as failing to pray Fajir in its prescribed time and eventual leaving the prayer in its entirety.

Inshallah the point I made is clear and that Fiqih is not something which is fixed, although it is necessary to cling to the traditional teachings one must also consider the era they are in and the necessity of such a slogan.

The third testimony as a supplement invites to the way of truth it is a means of propagation in and of itself, when someone hears this proclamation they will instantly know that we are a school of thought separate from many deviated schools of thought and may use it as an opportunity to inquire or realize that we are followers of Ja’far Al Sadiq 

the Imam who said شيعتنا كونو لنا دعات صامتين

Our Shia be individuals who silently propagate our path, meaning through clearly identifying ourselves as Shi’a through such a proclamation and with our mannerisms and conduct we can invite to the way of Muhammad and Ale Muhammad صلوات الله وسلامه عليهم اجمعين 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, 786:) said:

I’m interested in hearing you justifications for it. If the Prophet never introduced nor the Imams. The classical scholars condemned its addition. So why do you think it’s so necessary?

The practice doesn’t even get merit until the Safavid Era when the empire was in a rivalry with the Ottomans so they wanted to put a political stamp on the Adhan. Oh and they hired an akhbaari scholar to pass it into law. Look at the matter from a objective perspective not perspective that is convenient and you will reach the truth.

Brother irrespective of where and why it got merit the practice is consistent with logic and the traditions of our Prophet 

يا علي انت مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلى انه لا نبي من بعدي

O’Ali you are to me as Aaron was to Moses, except there is no Prophet after me.

انا و علي خلقنا من نور واحد 

I and Ali have been created from a single light 

وسار الناس من نور شتا 

And the rest of the people from a separate light

also refer to 5:55 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest In Allah we trust

Ask yourself one question:

 

Did any of our Masumeen ever order us to recite it in then Adhan with the intention of it being mustahab and not part of the Adhan?

If the answer is no, perhaps ask another question:

On what authority do we do so, despite them never themselves either doing or asking us to do it with this intention? Have we found something better?

The reality is, this was originated by extremist groups during the time of Shaykh Saduq , who ordered people not to add it in for whatever reason. It gained popularity during the Safavid era, along with many other things, because the rulers wanted to used Shia Islam for their own goals.

Scholard before that time generally spoke out against it or ignored it. Scholars during justified it, and scholars that came after who were the product of the establishment which itself taught and moulded them to defend it unsurprisingly defended it, till today.

A fair handful of scholarship, including recent ones have spoke out against it, such as Sayed Fadllullah,  

but you all know what happens in any area of society when someone tries to challenge the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Brother irrespective of where and why it got merit the practice is consistent with logic and the traditions of our Prophet 

يا علي انت مني بمنزلة هارون من موسى إلى انه لا نبي من بعدي

O’Ali you are to me as Aaron was to Moses, except there is no Prophet after me.

انا و علي خلقنا من نور واحد 

I and Ali have been created from a single light 

وسار الناس من نور شتا 

And the rest of the people from a separate light

also refer to 5:55 

And the Prophet and the Imams did not know of these justifications? In that case we shall add fazail of all of the Ahlul Kisa in the adhan because even though the Prophet never practiced this, he implied its okay to do so with his praise for the figures. Oh and add in Hamza to the adhan too since the Prophet had high reverence for him as well. Maybe we can add Angel Gibrail to the adhan too since he is close to the Prophet too. See how ridiculous this can get?

Essentially what you are saying is you know of a better adhan than what the Prophet and Imams taught. There is divine wisdom in what the Prophet taught us. We should not tamper with the Sunnah of the Prophet for our own sect or personal biases. This is my thought on the idea. I find it amusing how the Shias who do not practice this get denounced and humiliated for being on haqq.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 786:) said:

And the Prophet and the Imams did not know of these justifications?

I addressed this already in a nutshell one must consider the era they are in.

Until the time of Imam Al-Baqir ((عليه السلام)) people were still uncertain of how Hajj rituals and other matters of jurisprudence were to be performed

Therefore it was necessary for the Imams to solidify the obligatory traditions with consideration of recommended acts here and there, as well as be considerate of not allowing the Ummah to disperse more then it already has. 

Now our school is centered and has established a foundation where it can comfortably say the name of Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) without fear of the rise of deviant sects 

irrespective of what the Safavid empire did, the traditions and the stance of the scholars is clear as for it being a recommended act.

ذكر على عبادة 

             The remembrance of Ali ((عليه السلام)) is worship

We are yet to enter a state of ibadat when professing the Adhan/Iqama so professing a declaration which is supplementary in gaining closeness to Allah as per the holy traditions and as a means of propagating the religion of Ale Muhammad should not be considered problematic.

11 minutes ago, 786:) said:

. I find it amusing how the Shias who do not practice this get denounced and humiliated for being on haqq.

Nobody has the right to denounce them, however, this is our identity and through this we are able to use a fundamental means of propagating the religion and a stab at whoever cursed Ali ((عليه السلام))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

I addressed this already in a nutshell one must consider the era they are in.

Until the time of Imam Al-Baqir ((عليه السلام)) people were still uncertain of how Hajj rituals and other matters of jurisprudence were to be performed

Therefore it was necessary for the Imams to solidify the obligatory traditions with consideration of recommended acts here and there, as well as be considerate of not allowing the Ummah to disperse more then it already has. 

Now our school is centered and has established a foundation where it can comfortably say the name of Imam Ali ((عليه السلام)) without fear of the rise of deviant sects 

irrespective of what the Safavid empire did, the traditions and the stance of the scholars is clear as for it being a recommended act.

ذكر على عبادة 

             The remembrance of Ali ((عليه السلام)) is worship

We are yet to enter a state of ibadat when professing the Adhan/Iqama so professing a declaration which is supplementary in gaining closeness to Allah as per the holy traditions and as a means of propagating the religion of Ale Muhammad should not be considered problematic.

Nobody has the right to denounce them, however, this is our identity and through this we are able to use a fundamental means of propagating the religion and a stab at whoever cursed Ali ((عليه السلام))

Comparing Hajj and salah is not an ideal comparison. The Prophet performed one Hajj so there can clearly be open questions left from that. Not to forget Hajj happens once a year. So from the time of the Prophets Hajj to Imam Baqirs time there were approximately 75 Hajj in between. Salah was done daily 5x so the margin of error or open items is marginal compared to Hajj.

Also you didn’t answer my question. Do you think you have a better Adhan than what the Prophet taught us? If your justifications hold any weight than surely Rasool Allah would’ve added any mustahab act to the call of prayer. However he conveyed the Adhan that was inspired to him from Allah. You or I or Majlisi do not have any authority to override that no matter what the reason.
 

Why not just add Aliyun Waliullah in the Qur'an every time Muhammadur Rasool Allah is mentioned? We can say it’s not a part of the original Qur'an but it is mustahab to add it now. Times were different 1400 years ago so Allah had to suppress the message of Islam. Now times have changed so we can assume Allah is pleased with our additions.
 

See how rubbish that sounds? We want to override divine design due to our own biases and assumptions.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...