Cult Watch
See other Cult Watch Articles
Title: Islam's 'Reformation' Is Already Here - and It's Called 'ISIS'
Source:
American Thinker
URL Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/arti ... 5/islams_reformation_isis.html
Published: May 20, 2015
Author: Raymond Ibrahim
Post Date: 2015-05-20 07:36:05 by Tooconservative
Keywords: None
Views: 30479
Comments: 83
The idea that Islam needs to reform is again in the spotlight following the recent publication of Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s new book, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now. While Ali makes the argument that Islam can reform – and is in desperate need of taking the extreme measures to do so – many of her critics contend that Islam is not in need of reform. The one argument not being made, however, is the one I make below – namely, that Islam has already “reformed.” And violence, intolerance, and extremism – typified by the Islamic State (ISIS) – are the net result of this “reformation.” Such a claim sounds absurd due only to our understanding of the word “reform.” Yet despite its positive connotations, “reform” simply means to “make changes (in something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice) in order to improve it.” Synonyms of “reform” include “make better,” “ameliorate,” and “improve” – splendid words all, yet words all subjective and loaded with Western connotations. Muslim notions of “improving” society can include purging it of “infidels” and “apostates,” and segregating Muslim men from women, keeping the latter under wraps or quarantined at home. Banning many forms of freedoms taken for granted in the West – from alcohol consumption to religious and gender equality – is an “improvement” and a “betterment” of society from a strictly Islamic point of view. In short, an Islamic reformation will not lead to what we think of as an “improvement” and “betterment” of society – simply because we are not Muslims and do not share their first premises and reference points. “Reform” sounds good to most Western peoples only because they naturally attribute Western connotations to the word. Historical Parallels: Islam’s Reformation and the Protestant Reformation At its core, the Protestant Reformation was a revolt against tradition in the name of scripture – in this case, the Bible. With the coming of the printing press, increasing numbers of Christians became better-acquainted with the Bible’s contents, parts of which they felt contradicted what the Church was teaching. So they broke away, protesting that the only Christian authority was “scripture alone,” sola scriptura. Islam’s current reformation follows the same logic of the Protestant Reformation – specifically by prioritizing scripture over centuries of tradition and legal debate – but with antithetical results that reflect the contradictory teachings of the core texts of Christianity and Islam. As with Christianity, throughout most of its history, Islam’s scriptures, specifically its “twin pillars,” the Koran (literal words of Allah) and the Hadith (words and deeds of Allah’s prophet, Muhammad), were inaccessible to the overwhelming majority of Muslims. Only a few scholars, or ulema – literally, “they who know” – were literate in Arabic and/or had possession of Islam’s scriptures. The average Muslim knew only the basics of Islam, or its “Five Pillars.” In this context, a “medieval synthesis” flourished throughout the Islamic world. Guided by an evolving general consensus (or ijma‘), Muslims sought to accommodate reality by, in medieval historian Daniel Pipes’s words (emphasis added), translat[ing] Islam from a body of abstract, infeasible demands [as stipulated in the Koran and Hadith] into a workable system. In practical terms, it toned down Sharia and made the code of law operational. Sharia could now be sufficiently applied without Muslims being subjected to its more stringent demands[.] … [However, w]hile the medieval synthesis worked over the centuries, it never overcame a fundamental weakness: It is not comprehensively rooted in or derived from the foundational, constitutional texts of Islam. Based on compromises and half measures, it always remained vulnerable to challenge by purists. This vulnerability has now reached a breaking point: millions more Korans published in Arabic and other languages are in circulation today compared to just a century ago; millions more Muslims are now literate enough to read and understand the Koran compared to their medieval forbears. The Hadith, which contains some of the most intolerant teachings and violent deeds attributed to Islam’s prophet – including every atrocity ISIS commits, such as beheading, crucifying, and burning “infidels,” even mocking their corpses – is now collated and accessible, in part thanks to the efforts of Western scholars, the Orientalists. Most recently, there is the internet – where all these scriptures are now available in dozens of languages and to anyone with a laptop or iPhone. Against this backdrop, what has been called at different times, places, and contexts “Islamic fundamentalism,” “radical Islam,” “Islamism,” and “Salafism” flourished. Many of today’s Muslim believers, much better-acquainted than their ancestors with the often black and white teachings of their scriptures, are protesting against earlier traditions, are protesting against the “medieval synthesis,” in favor of scriptural literalism – just like their Christian Protestant counterparts once did. Thus, if Martin Luther (d. 1546) rejected the extra-scriptural accretions of the Church and “reformed” Christianity by aligning it exclusively with scripture, Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab (d. 1787), one of Islam’s first modern reformers, “called for a return to the pure, authentic Islam of the Prophet, and the rejection of the accretions that had corrupted it and distorted it” (Bernard Lewis, The Middle East, p. 333). The unadulterated words of God – or Allah – are all that matter for the “reformists,” with ISIS at their head. Note: Because they are better-acquainted with Islam’s scriptures, other Muslims, of course, are apostatizing – whether by converting to other religions, most notably Christianity, or whether by abandoning religion altogether, even if only in their hearts (for fear of the apostasy penalty). This is an important point to be revisited later. Muslims who do not become disaffected after becoming better-acquainted with the literal teachings of Islam’s scriptures, and who instead become more faithful to and observant of them, are the topic of this essay. Christianity and Islam: Antithetical Teachings, Antithetical Results How Christianity and Islam can follow similar patterns of reform but with antithetical results rests in the fact that their scriptures are often antithetical to one another. This is the key point, and one admittedly unintelligible to postmodern, secular sensibilities, which tend to lump all religious scriptures together in a melting pot of relativism without bothering to evaluate the significance of their respective words and teachings. Obviously a point-by-point comparison of the scriptures of Islam and Christianity is inappropriate for an article of this length (see my “Are Judaism and Christianity as Violent as Islam” for a more comprehensive treatment). Suffice it to note some contradictions (which naturally will be rejected as a matter of course by the relativistic mindset): It is precisely because Christian scriptural literalism lends itself to religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women that Western civilization developed the way it did – despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise. And it is precisely because Islamic scriptural literalism is at odds with religious freedom, tolerance, and the dignity of women that Islamic civilization is the way it is – despite the nonstop propaganda campaign emanating from academia, Hollywood, and other major media that says otherwise. The Islamic Reformation Is Here – and It’s ISIS Those in the West waiting for an Islamic “reformation” along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation, on the assumption that it will lead to similar results, must embrace two facts: 1) Islam’s reformation is well on its way, and yes, along the same lines of the Protestant Reformation – with a focus on scripture and a disregard for tradition – and for similar historic reasons (literacy, scriptural dissemination, etc.); 2) but because the core teachings of the founders and scriptures of Christianity and Islam markedly differ from one another, Islam’s reformation is producing something markedly different. Put differently, those in the West calling for an “Islamic reformation” need to acknowledge what it is they are really calling for: the secularization of Islam in the name of modernity, and the trivialization and sidelining of Islamic law from Muslim society. That is precisely what Ayaan Hirsi Ali is doing. Some of her reforms as outlined in Heretic call for Muslims to begin doubting Muhammad (whose words and deeds are in the Hadith) and the Koran – the very two foundations of Islam. That would not be a “reformation” – certainly nothing analogous to the Protestant Reformation. Overlooked is that Western secularism was, and is, possible only because Christian scripture lends itself to the division between church and state, the spiritual and the temporal. Upholding the literal teachings of Christianity is possible within a secular – or any – state. Christ called on believers to “render unto Caesar the things of Caesar [temporal] and unto God the things of God [spiritual]” (Matt. 22:21). For the “kingdom of God” is “not of this world” (John 18:36). Indeed, a good chunk of the New Testament deals with how “man is not justified by the works of the law … for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified” (Gal. 2:16). On the other hand, mainstream Islam is devoted to upholding the law, and Islamic scripture calls for a fusion between Islamic law – sharia – and the state. Allah decrees in the Koran that “[i]t is not fitting for true believers – men or women – to take their choice in affairs if Allah and His Messenger have decreed otherwise. He that disobeys Allah and His Messenger strays far indeed!” (33:36). Allah tells the prophet of Islam, “We put you on an ordained way [literarily in Arabic, sharia] of command; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who are ignorant” (45:18). Mainstream Islamic exegesis has always interpreted such verses to mean that Muslims must follow the commandments of Allah as laid out in the Koran and the example of Muhammad as laid out in the Hadith – in a word, sharia. And sharia is so concerned with the details of this world, with the everyday doings of Muslims, that every conceivable human action falls under five rulings, or ahkam: the forbidden (haram), the discouraged (makruh), the neutral (mubah), the recommended (mustahib), and the obligatory (wajib). Conversely, Islam offers little concerning the spiritual (sidelined Sufism the exception). Unlike Christianity, then, Islam without the law – without sharia – becomes meaningless. After all, the Arabic word Islam literally means “submit.” Submit to what? Allah’s laws as codified in sharia and derived from the Koran and Hadith – the very three things Ali is asking Muslims to start doubting. The “Islamic reformation” some in the West are calling for is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam – secularization, not reformation; Muslims prioritizing secular, civic, and humanitarian laws over Allah’s law; a “reformation” that would slowly see the religion of Muhammad go into the dustbin of history. Such a scenario is certainly more plausible than believing that Islam can be true to its scriptures and history in any meaningful way and still peacefully coexist with, much less complement, modernity the way Christianity does.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-38) not displayed.
.
.
.
#39. To: redleghunter, TooConservative (#38)
(Edited)
No, The USA was bombing Serbia. The Chechens probably thought if they acted up now maybe NATO would get involved - it was the plot of a Tom Clancey novel at the time also. The Chechens probably thought that with NATO in the field and Yeltsin losing his health and power and a newbie Putin coming in that now was the time to strike. The Chechens were acting up before Putin came to power.
I recall the Stain trying to warmonger and gin up another tragic war in Chechnya. What a downright evil person he is.
I did not make the point that Putin was the reason for the Chechens acting up. But that he had a lot to do with addressing the issue very early in his office as Prime Minister.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
A lot of people have accused Putin of orchestrating the second Chechen war's start. It maybe true - but I doubt it based on my readings of books and news articles on this war.
So was Robespierre or Lenin. And they executed their King too.
I always thought Putin was plucked from obscurity because the Russian elite and military anticipated the need to invade Chechnya again and the little KGB man had the right disposition and outlook they wanted. Yeltsin certainly couldn't be trusted. Putin prosecuted the war like he intended to settle it permanently. And he did.
They were pigs but Cromwell was stupendous.
We lost in the Kingdom of This World.
Taking potshots is my favored sport. Say ouch :)
No, you lost. Period.
The first campaign did not go as well as Russia wanted it to go. So the second campaign was necessary IMO. Boris Y was weak, his cronies were jockeying for his office in the next election etc. Putin stepped up and succeeded where the previous numerous Prime Ministers failed. So yeah, he made it happen, but he knew it would not happen if it waited until the elections. Plus, being politically savvy he knew if he was linked in any way with a military victory, he had a good chance of getting elected President. And he did. I don't blame the Russians for what they did on their own territory. And I never supported the Clinton-NATO attacks on Serbia. Bombing Christians on Easter Sunday is not the USA I grew up in. I also believe the NATO 'sphere grab' of the former Warsaw Pact regions to be an unwise move as well. If that were to work then Russia would need to be a part of NATO. That was my position back then. And if handled properly we could be looking at a world where Russia would be part of NATO or allied to NATO and together fighting Islamic Jihad. Instead we are not.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
Faluja?
The Kosovo war ended June 1999 and I read accounts that the Russian siloviki had enough and made Yeltsin pick Putin in August. By December Yeltsin was out. The Russians were freaked out about NATO and Kosovo.
It hasn't reformed. It's been this way for fourteen hundred years.
Like we freaked out when the Germans tried to incite Mexico to attack the U.S. (Zimmerman telegram). Or the USSR trying to place nukes in Cuba. And Russia is much much more paranoid than NATO members are.
Only applies if the Russians made an effort (as US forces did in Fallujah) to evacuate non-combatants prior to the assault.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
Actually, it has reformed toward fundamentalist purity. If you go back 40-50 years and look at photos, there weren't any Arab women in burkhas, many had no hijabs or head coverings. They wore makeup and short dresses, just like Western women. The men smoked and drank about as much as Westerners if they had adequate money. Islamic fundamentalism, not liberalism, is the Islamic Reformation. And Arab Spring is a failed Western wet dream that is nothing more than a joke. Except the part where millions are dead or refugees from lands where they had lived in relative safety and peace for generations.
Only applies if the Russians made an effort You set the rules when it applies.
The "Christian" scriptures that confused Lucifer with Nebuchadnezzar and his fallen eunuch temple fleecers. Those scriptures?
Who is your God?
I don't make the rules. You made a comparison. I pointed out that USFOR and the duly elected Iraqi government sent notifications to evacuate Falujah.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
Actually, it has reformed toward fundamentalist purity. If you go back 40-50 years and look at photos, there weren't any Arab women in burkhas, many had no hijabs or head coverings. I got it. What you are trying to do is convince us that the islamic world of 40 years ago was modern and permissive with women running about in miniskirts. It's an indirect way of arguing that our view of the islamic world is too rigid and critical. You are here to correct our thinking. Sell it to someone else. I'm not buying it.
Today Damascus (not liberated yet):
Who/whatever it is that says water freezes consistently at 32 degrees F, that objects fall and accelerate at 15 ft per second per second, that time is a derivative function of state change that progresses relative to E within the (billions of years old) inertial frame(s) where it is observed, that V = I x R, and that Nature selected HETEROsexual reproduction for humans - and not the mutual masturbation selected and worshiped by reprobate perverts of Nature. The Creator of the self-evident laws of the universe who doesn't require interpretation by, or the intercession of, some parrot adorned in vestigial plumage left over from the Roman/Egyptian/Babylonian empires -- perched atop a self-serving, man-made, state-established, fallible and uninspiring religious hierarchic pyramid of Ba-al shyte. The ONE God.
I think you are ignorant of the Pahlevi regime's outlawing of Islamic dress code for women. When the first Ayatollah took power, it returned and the police rigorously enforced it and still do. Women who do not conform are sentenced to the lash, imprisonment and other punishments routinely. The Shah's Iran also didn't have regular spectacles of hanging homosexuals from cranes in public squares as the Iran of the Ayatollahs does. You have many other restrictions in post-Shah Iran that did not exist before. Women are forbidden to sing alone, only in groups (might corrupt young men). There are many other restrictions as well. For instance, only religious persons may hold office. So a Christian or a Jew or one of Iran's other minorities may hold office (and do) but irreligious Iranians are forbidden from office altogether. Any opposition to the death penalty is considered un-Islamic and journalists who are brave enough to write against it have been warned sternly that they may be executed for opposing the death penalty for even the most minor offenses or in cases where the guilt of the accused is highly suspect. So we have a picture of a totalitarian Islam derived from rural fundamentalists that continues to control post-Shah Iran. And the virus has spread across the region, in combination with the Saudi export of their Wahhabism in the region and around the world. God forbid that any facts would penetrate the discussion. Oh, drat, foiled again. And when the stakes are so high on this dusty little chat board.
Outlawing Islamic dress code is as bad as mandating it. And in case you forgot, the Pahlavi regime was imposed as a result of a coup against popular/elected and secular government. (in 1953)
Those scriptures? 1 Corinthians 1:18-31King James Version (KJV) 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29 That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord. “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
Don't be silly. There is a world of difference between the two. Would it make no difference if the Chinese people were still tooling around by the millions in Chairman Mao pantsuits, the same kind Hitlery is so fond of? Maybe liberty is a very low priority for you. But there are many elements of liberty and choice that make up modern life and a modern worldview. If you prefer the government should dictate customs and dress entirely, just say so. To me, it smacks of a regimented totalitarian society. Like North Korea or Iran or Saudi Arabia where choices are very sharply curtailed with harsh punishments. I know Iran's history and don't need the reminders. And the point is moot with regard to this topic. The Shah's predecessors were not anti-modern in the way that Iran's current regime is. The Shah did not replace a Muslim fundamentalist regime.
Maybe liberty is a very low priority for you. Perhaps you meant covering/masking of the face (which is not the only Islamic dress code)? Otherwise, it would be you who is against liberty. To have a choice between having a religious dress code - traditional Christian women (especially nuns/Amish ) might cover head, same with religious Jewish women, use long skirts, wear crosses etc ... and emancipated or scantily dressed. Freedom is not divisible if you cannot wear Muslim dress it mean that you can wear only the one that the government allows or orders you. Chain store chic: Orthodox Jewish women shop in stores like Macy's and H&M in Manhattan: Catholic nun: Ethiopian: Indian: Iranian: Do you want to tolerate/mandate only such:
No, instead he made Iranians to turn to Shia Islam as the way to gain national independence from foreign domination.
You can paste, but can't answer the question. Typical parrot.
The God who revealed Himself in the Holy Scriptures? Absolutely.
The God who revealed itself everywhere in Creation, which is self-evidently billions of years old. The Creation through which natural selection created hetero-sex-ual procreation for species billions of years before your state-establishing temple fleecers managed to scribble their confusion of Lucifer and Nebuchadnezzar onto papyrus. How's your man-made biblical parroting working out for containing the cancer of homosexuality in this iteration of the hive's Samsaran death cycle?
LOL, the subject was on Scriptures. You attacked the Scriptures and I just let the Bible 'speak' for itself.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
The same Bible confuses Lucifer and Nebuchadnezzar - but religious goons like you won't recognize that self-evident truth.
Thanks for concluding this exchange with your concession. You made it personal there bud, which means you got nothing left.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
The Bible itself even names other fallen "angels", and identifies them as nothing more than insubordinate rebels in Moses' tribe. How's the affinity-fraud shearing working for the fallen "angels" among the Vatican eunuchs these days? www.google.com/search?q=secrets+of+the+vatican Ba'al shyte is better for hiding behind than standing upon, bud. Run along now with your papyrus tail drooping between your legs, again.
The continued fascination of your's with temple eunuchs and the Vatican is telling.
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
It's sort of like having a fascination with curing cancer. Nature selected hetero-sex-ual procreation because it rendered increased fitness for species. Reprobate perverts, OTOH, selected the mutual masturbation (and other created things) they/you worship... religiously.
Well that's just slander on your part. I have never supported the perversion of homosexuality nor "worship" any who do. Where do you come up with these things?
“Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew 11:28)
Comments (80 - 83) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHe did not let any moss grow under his feet. Only two weeks after being appointed as Prime Minister the 2nd Chechen campaign began. I'm sure old Boris had little to do with that.
#40. To: Pericles (#39)
The Chechens probably thought if they acted up now maybe NATO would get involved...
#41. To: Pericles (#39)
The Chechens were acting up before Putin came to power.
#42. To: redleghunter (#41)
I did not make the point that Putin was the reason for the Chechens acting up. But that he had a lot to do with addressing the issue very early in his office as Prime Minister.
#43. To: TooConservative (#6)
Against a very violent tyrant king who was executed.Cromwell was a great man.
#44. To: Pericles (#42)
A lot of people have accused Putin of orchestrating the second Chechen war's start.
#45. To: A Pole (#43)
So was Robespierre or Lenin.
#46. To: TooConservative (#9)
You guys lost. Get over it.
#47. To: TooConservative (#11)
when you took a potshot at Cromwell
#48. To: A Pole (#46)
#49. To: Pericles (#42)
A lot of people have accused Putin of orchestrating the second Chechen war's start. It maybe true - but I doubt it based on my readings of books and news articles on this war.
#50. To: redleghunter (#34)
I have to say that is Russian efficiency there...to heck with LOAC and just level the entire neighborhood.
#51. To: TooConservative, A Pole (#44)
(Edited)
I always thought Putin was plucked from obscurity because the Russian elite and military anticipated the need to invade Chechnya again and the little KGB man had the right disposition and outlook they wanted. Yeltsin certainly couldn't be trusted. Putin prosecuted the war like he intended to settle it permanently. And he did.
#52. To: TooConservative (#0)
Islam's 'Reformation' Is Already Here - and It's Called 'ISIS'
#53. To: Pericles (#51)
The Russians were freaked out about NATO and Kosovo.
#54. To: A Pole (#50)
Faluja?
#55. To: rlk (#52)
It hasn't reformed. It's been this way for fourteen hundred years.
#56. To: redleghunter (#54)
Faluja?
#57. To: redleghunter (#17)
(Edited)
what do your temple Vatican eunuchs have to do with Christian Scriptures?
#58. To: VxH (#57)
#59. To: A Pole (#56)
#60. To: TooConservative (#55)
(Edited)
It hasn't reformed. It's been this way for fourteen hundred years.
#61. To: rlk (#60)
the islamic world of 40 years ago was modern and permissive with women running about in miniskirts
#62. To: Don (#58)
(Edited)
Who is your God?
#63. To: rlk (#60)
(Edited)
What you are trying to do is convince us that the islamic world of 40 years ago was modern and permissive with women running about in miniskirts.
It's an indirect way of arguing that our view of the islamic world is too rigid and critical. You are here to correct our thinking.
Sell it to someone else. I'm not buying it.
#64. To: TooConservative (#63)
I think you are ignorant of the Pahlevi regime's outlawing of Islamic dress code for women.
#65. To: VxH (#57)
The "Christian" scriptures that confused Lucifer with Nebuchadnezzar and his fallen eunuch temple fleecers.
#66. To: A Pole (#64)
(Edited)
Outlawing Islamic dress code is as bad as mandating it.
And in case you forgot, the Pahlavi regime was imposed as a result of a coup against popular/elected and secular government. (in 1953)
#67. To: A Pole (#64)
(Edited)
And in case you forgot, the Pahlavi regime was imposed as a result of a coup against popular/elected and secular government. (in 1953)
Hush your mouth!
#68. To: TooConservative (#66)
"Outlawing Islamic dress code is as bad as mandating it."
#69. To: TooConservative (#66)
The Shah's predecessors were not anti-modern in the way that Iran's current regime is. The Shah did not replace a Muslim fundamentalist regime.
#70. To: redleghunter (#65)
#71. To: VxH (#62)
#72. To: Don (#71)
(Edited)
#73. To: VxH (#70)
You can paste, but can't answer the question.
#74. To: redleghunter (#73)
(Edited)
#75. To: VxH (#74)
#76. To: redleghunter (#75)
(Edited)
#77. To: VxH (#76)
#78. To: redleghunter (#77)
(Edited)
#79. To: VxH (#78)
Reprobate perverts, OTOH, selected the mutual masturbation (and other created things) they/you worship... religiously.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]