Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Islamic Hatred

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

3) The Organization of Islamic Cooperation is a 57-member diplomatic organization, second in size only to the UN. The way it defines human rights presents the troubling implication that it actively promotes Islamic theocracy.

The OIC issued The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. I suggest reading through it before reading my commentary below.

Article 25 expressly states that any article of this declaration must be interpreted by referencing Sharia law. This is consistently reinforced throughout the document. I am not an expert on sharia, and I admit that experts could modernize any of these provisions given enough time and effort. However, I am troubled by what I believe to be the prevailing consensus. Specifically, here are just some of my concerns:

1) Express guarantees to religious freedom will be mitigated by the application of sharia law. For instance, Article 10 states, "Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism." Notice that physical compulsion to convert to Islam is not prohibited. I am concerned that apostasy will be met with capital punishment, while the kidnapping and conversion-by-marriage of non-Islamic girls will be ignored. To my knowledge, there are no Christian-majority countries where the state executes apostates.

2) Article 22 will be interpreted to forbid blasphemy and thereby destroy freedom of speech. This is particularly troubling to me because the European world (and many in the US) seem open to laws against so-called hate speech.

3) Article 23B will be interpreted so as to bar non-Muslims from government office.

4) The declaration seems to mandate an expansive welfare state.

5) One good provision is Article 12, which recognizes a right to immigration. Of course, political asylum is not allowed if it is used in an attempt to escape punishment for a violation of sharia law. I fear that will mean that Islamic countries without, say, apostasy laws will refuse asylum seekers who are trying to evade capital punishment.

Edited by FeatherFall
removed B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that Oism is against the basic tenets of religions (ie: believing in a higher power, blind faith, unconditional love, sacrifice, etc). More specifically, it's against acts of violence that aren't rooted in self-defense. It's obviously against Jihad or any other acts that harm people because of their religious beliefs.

..Makes sense.

But just as Oism isn't against all Christians, it isn't against all Muslims. It's just against the teachings of these religions that do nothing to promote independence, reason, or self-esteem. In this sense, we can't make generalizations about Muslims or Chrisitans based on just one aspect of their religions. Not all Muslims believe in Jihad (physical acts of violence against nonbelievers)- they're not ticking time bombs waiting to go off. Similarly, not all Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin- not all of them believe in harming gay people.

So statements like the one below are not consistent with Oism.. right?:

 

I think it's important to differentiate between 'Islamic hatred' and the hatred of irrational, blind violence- if that's truly the reason why Oism is against Islam.

 

One interesting question in the current worldwide War On Islam (or Defense Against Islam) is whether or not Muslims personally are profoundly evil just because their philosophy is profoundly evil.  I say yes, if they're true, sincere, honest Muslims i.e. if they genuinely believe in and practice Islam. The two most important tenets of Islamic philosophy, in my view, are war (jihad) and slavery (sharia). Islam demands that all Muslims devote themselves to converting the whole world and then, if anyone refuses to convert, making war against them, and then enslaving anyone who survives the battle.

 

This cosmic nightmare isn't based on maliciousness or a kind of hateful omni-destructiveness toward mankind. Just the opposite. Muslims genuinely believe they're benefitting mankind. They think you can't be civilized unless you're Islamic -- or at least ruled by Muslims. In practicing jihad and sharia Muslims are seeking to make life on earth wonderful, and to guarantee passage to Paradise in the afterlife. Thus all real Muslims are always backers of the jihadis and shariaists.

 

Now admittedly there are some dishonest or confused or hypocritical Muslims who don't believe in or practice jihad and sharia. These guys probably should not be hated.

 

But they should be watched. It's not that they may become "radicalized" or turn "extremist", as everyone says. It's that they may become sincere Muslims or activist Muslims. That's the problem and danger. Muslims who really are Muslims should be hated, feared, resisted and crushed.      

Edited by Garshasp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Epstein shares a view similar to the one stated above: "The terrorists are not "un-Islamic" bandits who have "hijacked a great religion"; they are consistent and serious followers of their religion." I couldn't disagree more- but that's mostly based on my own experiences with Muslims in the US. When I was little I used to go to the northridge islamic center every other Sunday for worship, and the imam there was the most gracious, loving person I've ever met. Wish I remembered his name.

 

For a bit of objectivity, look at the stats. Out of all terrorist attacks on US soil (1980-2005), only 6% were done by Muslims. Just looking at the pie chart below, it's evident that Islamic extremists are a fringe minority. But why is that? Are most Muslims not truly committed to Islam?? Not sincere enough? Not genuine enough? No- I don't think that's the case. It's more likely that they follow different interpretations of the Quran than the extremists.. more likely that they understand murder is wrong, and follow in the steps of men like Abdulaziz Sachedina instead of Osama Bin Laden.

 

157j2ud.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alex Epstein shares a view similar to the one stated above: "The terrorists are not "un-Islamic" bandits who have "hijacked a great religion"; they are consistent and serious followers of their religion." I couldn't disagree more- but that's mostly based on my own experiences with Muslims in the US. When I was little I used to go to the northridge islamic center every other Sunday for worship, and the imam there was the most gracious, loving person I've ever met. Wish I remembered his name.

 

For a bit of objectivity, look at the stats. Out of all terrorist attacks on US soil (1980-2005), only 6% were done by Muslims. Just looking at the pie chart below, it's evident that Islamic extremists are a fringe minority. But why is that? Are most Muslims not truly committed to Islam?? Not sincere enough? Not genuine enough? No- I don't think that's the case. It's more likely that they follow different interpretations of the Quran than the extremists.. more likely that they understand murder is wrong, and follow in the steps of men like Abdulaziz Sachedina instead of Osama Bin Laden.

 

157j2ud.jpg

Yes, if you classify the Animal Liberation Front vandalizing an empty college building (read: college students acting out) in the same category as destroying the WTC and killing 3000 innocent people, then you're right, Islamists are no real threat. 

 

I especially love the nice touch about how Jewish extremists are more dangerous than Islamists. That really holds up to scrutiny, huh? Jews trying to stand up to to Soviet ethnic cleansing in the 70s, by torching a few buildings, really proves that they're more dangerous than Islamic terror, huh?

 

In the same vein, I don't see what the Jews are complaining about when it comes to the Holocaust. There was only one Jewish Holocaust in the history of Germany. Meanwhile, Germans have been getting paper cuts on their fingers millions of times. Why would anyone focus on just 0.00001% of atrocities? The Holocaust wasn't a big deal at all.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

M, I share the concern that the pie chart may make no distinction between arson-type terrorism, attacking state/governmental targets, and the intentional mass-murder of civilians. On the other hand, I don't entirely agree with what I'll call the "Epstein position" (I know that many others have expressed this idea, but he is the latest popular Objectivist to be referenced in this thread, so...).

All religions venerate the afterlife; sometimes just a little more than the real world, sometimes infinitely so. This is a bad ethical premise. When consistently followed, it causes very bad things. But following any non-life based standard of value is bad. The epistemological error of the "Epstein position" is a form of the fallacy of composition - the position identifies this singular ethical premise as the essence of all "brands" of Islam. Some versions of the position go further and say that this interpretation of Islam is actually some sort of ubertheology that all other religions aspire to. This is an error, but I don't regard this as an egregious error, for reasons I am about to explain.

The metaphysical nonsense involved in religion prevents it from achieving ethical consistency. Mystic metaphysics literally can't be used to construct a set of premises which can be consistently followed. The result is that each religion has a suite of competing ethical premises. Of course, premature death is the result of failing to consistently follow ethical premises based on accurate metaphysical assumptions. So to varying extent, every religion will lead to earlier death or valueless life. But again, it is a category error to even say that the essence of religious/mystical ethics is death; it would be more accurate to say that the essence of religious ethics is metaphysical contradiction.

Identifying essential differences between religions becomes a process of identifying which premises are held more consistently. Islamic supremacists like the Tsarnaev brothers are death cultists. They want rewards they believe will come at the moment of death, and the way they think they will achieve those rewards is by bringing death to other people. This is not that different from people like Adam Lanza, who want to bring death to other people and know that their own death will swiftly follow. The ethical outcomes are essentially the same; both could be called death worshipers. But the metaphysical premises are different; one bases his ethics on a metaphysical contradiction, the other on no metaphysical premise at all. Contrast these kinds of death worship with someone who believes they will gain rewards at the moment of death by "bringing light into this world" or by feeding the poor or by taking a bullet to protect a child.

If you accept that the essence of religious ethics is metaphysical contradiction, you can begin to identify which premises are in greater conflict with life as the standard of value. You now have a useful tool to make meaningful distinctions between Islamic supremacist death cults, Islamic totalitarians, Islamic reformists, Saalafi's, Sufi's, Wahabi's, etc. These are different religions based on different premises that hold different ethical outcomes, and the "Epstein position" fails to account for them. The only unity between these competing forms of Islam is their own followers' reluctance to expressly differentiate themselves from each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only unity between these competing forms of Islam is their own followers' reluctance to expressly differentiate themselves from each other.

They really ought to -- the way Objectivists try to distance themselves from anarchists who claim they are inspired by Rand. I'm not sure if they do in their own minds, or within their own cohorts. I'm not aware of a very vocal attempt to distance themselves from the more extreme interpretations.

Slightly related, of the countries with the highest percentage of Buddhist populations we have Cambodia, Thailand and Myanmar (alongside some peaceful places too like Bhutan). So, doctrine is one thing, while practice and interpretation is what we see day to day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...In the same vein, I don't see what the Jews are complaining about when it comes to the Holocaust. There was only one Jewish Holocaust in the history of Germany. Meanwhile, Germans have been getting paper cuts on their fingers millions of times. Why would anyone focus on just 0.00001% of atrocities? The Holocaust wasn't a big deal at all.

 

I only linked to that article because the author created the pie chart- I didn't quote from it because I disagree with his conclusions.

 

Yes, if you classify the Animal Liberation Front vandalizing an empty college building (read: college students acting out) in the same category as destroying the WTC and killing 3000 innocent people, then you're right, Islamists are no real threat.

 

@Nicky, et al: The conclusion to be drawn is not that "Islamic Extremists are no real threat." It's obvious that they are a huge threat. The only thing the pie chart shows is that the number of Islamic extremists who have actually committed terrorist attacks on US soil is incredibly low compared to other groups (such as the ELF). Perhaps some deductions can be found from that information.

 

@JayR: The chart at the very bottom of the page on the fbi website lists the number of causalities/injuries for each terrorist attack. In both categories, attacks by Islamic Extremists are at the very top of the list (because of 9/11)- followed by Christian extremists (Timothy McVeigh). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Nicky, et al: The conclusion to be drawn is not that "Islamic Extremists are no real threat." It's obvious that they are a huge threat. The only thing the pie chart shows is that the number of Islamic extremists who have actually committed terrorist attacks on US soil is incredibly low compared to other groups (such as the ELF). Perhaps some deductions can be found from that information.

Terrorism is just a tactic. There are no conclusions to be drawn from who uses it and who doesn't, without also considering why and how it's being used.

 

Some groups use it for legitimate reasons, against criminal states or organizations. Others use it for illegitimate reasons, but only against property, taking care not to hurt people. Others use it with specific goals in mind, but with disregard to innocent bystanders.

 

Others again, use it with the specific purpose of killing and maiming the population of the United States, wherever they live and work, to strike terror in the heart of the nation as a whole. 

 

All these methods and motivations to use a bomb or targeted attack for political reasons on American soil are different and should be considered differently. 100 instances of someone raiding labs or campuses to spray paint graffiti on the walls should concern us less and on a whole different level than one instance of someone attacking a crowd with bombs. There is no reason to ever bring up the former in a conversation about the latter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your neighbor posts youtube comments about why infidels everywhere ought to be killed, know that he would not hesitate to cross the street and bash your skull in with an ax, given the right conditions. History is full of examples of neighbors who have been perfectly polite and friendly their whole lives, doing exactly that as soon as it became acceptable.

Accurate as A=A.

 

It's not about Islam per se; radical Islam versus moderate Islam; or Islam v. Christianity.  It's about philosophy and integrity.

The Koran says (I paraphrase) something along the lines of 'if you feel like it, or if you want infinite happiness, kill the infidels.'  I don't say this as anything against Islam, specifically; the Bible says and I DO quote "thou shall not suffer a witch to live among you" (hence the Spanish inquisition).

There's this wonderful Bible story in Exodus about the city of Ai, which God told Joshua to conquer because it was wicked.  (collectively wicked)  So Joshua split his army into two groups; one of them hid while the other yelled taunts and threats at the city gates.  When the army of Ai came out to fight the hidden Hebrews ran inside, set the whole place on fire, and then- it says this, specifically- the Hebrew warriors stood in front of the burning buildings with their weapons drawn and slaughtered anyone who tried to escape; men, women, children and slaves.  They slaughtered EVERYONE, completely razed the city and then salted the earth so that nothing could ever grow there again. . . And at the end of this story, in the Bible, it says that God was happy about it.

There was a time when the Pope commanded his own, personal army.  And the Pope's army would've taken Al Qaida's lunch money any day of the week, slaughtered all their children for kicks and, at the end of the day, planted their seed in their grieving widows.

 

Islam isn't all that different from any other cult of zero-worship, longing for nonexistence.  The significant difference in its followers is that Islamic death-addicts aren't twisted up in mental contortions in an attempt to turn "afterlife" into "peace, love and harmony".

The reason we're safe from Christians (and "moderate" Muslims) is that they know life is good; they can't deny the evidence of America.  So now they're trying oh-so-desperately to find some sort of compromise between life and death.  We're safe from them because they're too cowardly to admit, even to themselves, that "burn the witch" actually MEANS "burn the witch".

"Radical" Islam, Environmentalism and Collectivism are all doing the opposite.  Their followers are realizing their contradictions, resolving them and boldly proclaiming that they really do hate life.  That's why they're a direct threat to us.

 

So as far as ideologies go, Islam isn't anything particularly special.  But when a Conservative skips church to watch Football with his buddies, he's implicitly choosing life over death.  When a Muslim blows himself up, along with dozens of innocent bystanders; or when Obama says "there's a time for profit, and this isn't it". . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They're Muslims! They're jihadis! Their Islamic philosophy compels them to wage continuous holy war (jihad) on the whole world -- to kill or enslave everyone!"

That is true.  Philosophy doesn't compel anyone to do anything- see modern Christians- but the Jihadis actually take their own ideas seriously.

 

"It makes not a jot of difference whether or not the individual muzzies think the U.S. supports Israel too much, or fails to aid Chechnya enough against Russia, or is improperly working against the Syrian dictatorship, or isn't doing enough to overthrow the Syrian dictatorship, etc. The 'reason' for the various Islamic atrocities is absolutely irrelevant. The Muslim response to all of these alleged American failures is always the same: jihad!"

That is diametrically opposed to Objectivism.

 

1: He blames Islam (correctly) for the acts of Jihadis, and then proceeds to disregard "individual muzzies" as irrelevant.  If it weren't for all of those individuals fighting for Alleh there would be peace in the middle-east; individuals, and all of their interactions, are the ONLY things that matter.

2: The reasoning behind their hatred for America is key.  They hate the good for being good and without that knowledge, there is no possible way to understand them.

(Understanding them is key to fixing the problem; not as a pacifistic "peace, love and understanding" but as in "know thy enemy")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This issue is, at its core, a philosophical one.  This isn't about violence in the Koran (it's in the Bible and Torah, as well) and it has absolutely nothing to do with any supposed American oppression.  (except in that the philosophy of our elected representatives, the good is an oppression of the bad and life is unfair to the dead; hence the apologies)  This is about ideas.

And actually, this is an excellent opportunity for Objectivism to rock the world.  With this issue you have people openly, specifically showing that they want everyone (including themselves) to die, you have a mighty and rightful country bowing to them for inexplicable reasons, you have the obscenity of European nations tolerating Shuria law (law which, itself, is an affront to humanity), and you have Palestine launching rockets at Israeli schools while the EU declares Israeli colonies (COLONIES!!  BUILDINGS, ROADS AND PEOPLE!!!) to be a form of subjugation.

And all the while the American people can't wrap their heads around any of it, in the first place.

They can't explain it.  We can.

They don't know how to solve it.  We do.

They won't stand a chance without philosophy (not a morally acceptable chance), but most Americans still want to live.

 

Enter some articulate Objectivists, who know all of the answers, who can explain WHY such things happen and how to stop them. . .

?

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky, the reason they're lumped together is that they're all classified as 'terrorist attacks' by the fbi- They define terrorism as "the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85). I agree with your above post that the threats and consequences of terrorist attacks are (and should be) measured differently depending on the severity of the acts.

 

Islam isn't all that different from any other cult of zero-worship, longing for nonexistence.

 

That is not what Islam is about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not what Islam is about. 

 

Isn't the afterlife, by definition, death?

“To the extent to which a man is rational, life is the premise directing his actions. To the extent to which he is irrational, the premise directing his actions is death. . .

Death is the standard of your values, death is your chosen goal, and you have to keep running, since there is no escape from the pursuer who is out to destroy you or from the knowledge that that pursuer is yourself."  -Galt's speech (not necessarily about Islam, but I think it's applicable)

I'm just saying that religion in general, but particularly the monotheistic Heaven/Hell religions, are philosophies with the goal and purpose of death.  I could've phrased it better but the underlying premise is sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So religious people don't value their lives at all, or the lives of those around them? They believe there is nothing to be gained or accomplished here on earth? No, not true. Even religious people believe that life is meaningful.. even Muslims (who believe that life's main purpose is to worship God) find meaning, purpose, and joy in many other aspects of their lives.

 

Believing in an afterlife doesn't make one's life meaningless- it just helps people escape the fear that stems from the uncertainty about what happens after death. It's easier to believe that your parents are in a utopia-in-the-sky (heaven) instead of lifeless and rotting in the ground. It's nice to believe that at the culmination of our lives, something more lies ahead. But I think at some point in each of our lives, we feel the need to seek out the truth instead of hiding behind wishes and hopes. It's at this point that we have to face the inevitability and truth about death, and understand that all our wishes can't (and never will) change reality. 

 

Jacob says it nicely below. If you accept life as the standard of value, you're going to find many inconsistencies (to say the least) with religious doctrine. However, that doesn't mean "the essence of religious ethics is death" or that "the goal of religion is the purpose of death." Death is inevitable, yes, and religions have painted a pretty picture of life after death for believers (and hell after death for those who have wronged them)- but that doesn't mean religionists find life on earth meaningless.

 

But again, it is a category error to even say that the essence of religious/mystical ethics is death; it would be more accurate to say that the essence of religious ethics is metaphysical contradiction

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So religious people don't value their lives at all, or the lives of those around them? They believe there is nothing to be gained or accomplished here on earth? No, not true. Even religious people believe that life is meaningful.. even Muslims (who believe that life's main purpose is to worship God) find meaning, purpose, and joy in many other aspects of their lives.

No, I agree; that's not true.  But I was referring to the religions themselves, taken straight, and their effects on individuals in general.  So saying that "all Muslims kill infidels" wouldn't be any more accurate than "no scientists ever fails to think critically."

 

But when a Conservative skips church to watch Football with his buddies, he's implicitly choosing life over death.

So yes, as you pointed out, the majority of religious people in America (I hesitate to include the world) do want to live and must suffer the consequent contradictions.

But a few of them aren't contradictory and are entirely self-consistent; they're the ones who are dangerous.  And in order to refute them and show them for what they are, we have to be willing to say exactly why they do that (which is what nobody is willing to say).

 

Believing in an afterlife doesn't make one's life meaningless- it just helps people escape the fear that stems from the uncertainty about what happens after death.

Yes, it is an escape and it does help people deal with their fear of death.

As for whether it makes one's life meaningless, I would contend that the degree of purpose and value one finds in one's own life is inversely-proportional to one's desire for the afterlife.

 

Imagine yourself within the mind of a zealot.  As part of this mentality, your belief in the afterlife is one of your primary motives in all things; you fear all things labeled as 'sin' because they represent a direct possibility of your own eternal torment; you enjoy all things labeled as 'virtue' for precisely the opposite.

But this isn't like any other emotion you feel; it's one you have to train yourself for by constantly reminding yourself of what the goal is and what is required to achieve it.  (it would feel much like being at a party with volumous quantities of alcohol, in which everyone else is having the time of their lives, except that you suspect the drinks could be poisoned)

And- this is the most crucial part- since your very THOUGHTS can be sinful, you must train yourself not to THINK certain things.  You must never allow yourself to doubt, to speculate or to scrutinize too closely, lest you accidentally blaspheme and sentence yourself to Hell.

With enough practice this becomes NEARLY automatic self-censorship; censorship of your own thoughts from the moment they occur. . . Almost, but not perfectly.

Now, while still imagining this, what if your passion in life could lead you to sin?  It could be basically anything; architecture, innovation, industry (you would be surprised what is considered sinful); what if the values you desire most are forbidden?  Now you have to decide between a lifetime of selfish pleasure followed by eternal pain, or a lifetime of repressive and selfless monotony followed by eternal bliss.

 

There is a reason why certain mystics exhibit that glossy, hollow attribute, to various degrees, at all times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway.  The upshot of it is that the degree of a mysticist's love of life and of happiness is inversely related to the degree of his mysticism.  To accept all of the underlying premises completely, absolutely and without contradiction is to act on the motive and standard of death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I agree; that's not true.  But I was referring to the religions themselves, taken straight, and their effects on individuals in general...

But a few of them aren't contradictory and are entirely self-consistent; they're the ones who are dangerous.

 

This is a question for all those who share Epstein's view: Out of all the millions of religious interpretations, why is the 'extremist' interpretation the 'correct' and 'consistent' one? The only supporting evidence I've seen for this is a few quotes from the Quran and the Bible taken out of context- with no mention of contradictory statements in the same texts, or contradictory beliefs of extremists.

 

For example, see the excerpt below taken from Voices of Islam (p246), which quotes Muhammad. It clearly states that if a man commits suicide, he will "be punished in the Fire of Hell forever." Woah! Wait a second. Don't suicide bombers believe they'll be rewarded in the afterlife (ie: greeted in heaven by 72 virgins)? Where are they getting that from? Certainly not from Muhammad or the Quran- as you can see, it's written that suicide will land you in hell! So can this extremist belief even be considered a 'religious' one if it's contradicted in the holy book (the word of God) and by the holy prophet? If the answer is no (and I believe it is), then the 'extremist' interpretation is not the 'correct' or 'consistent' one, and should not be regarded as such.

10d6yj6.png

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the extremist interpretations highlight the broader point that Islam is a motivator of a vast range of actions, including attempts to destroy the enemies of Muslims in holy war. It also shows that mysticism allows the religious follower to play out his actions with all cards "wild."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a question for all those who share Epstein's view: Out of all the millions of religious interpretations, why is the 'extremist' interpretation the 'correct' and 'consistent' one?

Because people who take things seriously are called extremists. That's just how that word is used.

I'm called an extremist too, for taking individual rights seriously.

The only supporting evidence I've seen for this is a few quotes from the Quran and the Bible taken out of context- with no mention of contradictory statements in the same texts, or contradictory beliefs of extremists.

Well "in context" evidence is hard to provide on a message board. Any quote is gonna be out of context.

Except maybe like this: http://quran.com/ There you go. In context evidence. Read it. Check for yourself that the Quran doesn't preach the kind of lifestyle the Arab kid you would go out drinking and picking up girls with lives. It preaches the kind of lifestyle the Ayatollahs are imposing on Iranians.

Link to comment
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.

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.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...