Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
Sign in to follow this  
2xx1xy1JD

Apostasy = death pamphlet written by local Iman

Recommended Posts

2xx1xy1JD

Here's a document written about apostasy in Islam. On pages 7 and 8, it clearly spells out that the penalty for apostasy (heresy) is death, and even goes to some lengths to argue that apostasy is treason and the person should be killed during this lifetime, and not just punished by Allah in the hereafter.

 

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/97278293/Apostasy-in-Islam

 

On page 20, there's also a claim that Baha'is aren't really being persecuted by the Iranian government - despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio ... %27%C3%ADs

 

He's also written some lovely stuff about how the West is morally bankrupt for starting to accept homosexuals instead of giving them lashes or stoning them to death as required by Islam. He even throws in some junk science references to AIDS

 

www.al-islam.org/marriage-and-morals-is ... osexuality

 

Of course, women can avoid the lure of lesbianism simply by following his advice to marry early. Very, very early, since puberty is said to start at age 9 in girls. www.al-islam.org/marriage-and-morals-is ... lugh-rushd

 

Here's more information about the author:

 

jaffari.org/IslamInFocus/SayyidMuhammadRizvi.php

 

These pamphlets is clearly listed as his publications, and he is clearly the Iman of the Jaffari Islamic Centre - which is a few minutes drive from my house, on my route to work.

Edited by OnceUponATime
adding tags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'sFunToRun

As extreme as fundamentalist Christians are, none of them are as bad as fundamentalist Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2xx1xy1JD
As extreme as fundamentalist Christians are, none of them are as bad as fundamentalist Muslims.

It's a matter of time and place.

Yes, people will correctly point out that the Torah, the Christian Bible and the Quran have some similar statements. The question is what impact the teachings have on real life.

Apostasy = death was very much a theme of the Inquisition, and we do see extremism in some parts of Christian history. Modern Christianity has evolved, however, and adjusted to the rise of modernism and the notion of separation and church and state and religious freedom.

Today, however, we are seeing some radical trends in the other direction from some Islamic movements. Statements in the Quran are supplemented by more radical statements from Hadith (traditions about statements made by Mohammed during his life - some are considered more reliable than others), and there are political structures to actually implement some of the more extreme teachings. So, this Iman isn't just talking about the religious laws on apostasy in theory - when he discusses how apostasy is treason, he cites what another cleric wrote about Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses". Rushdie lives with death threats as a result of an Iranian fatwa against him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salex
Here's a document written about apostasy in Islam. On pages 7 and 8, it clearly spells out that the penalty for apostasy (heresy) is death, and even goes to some lengths to argue that apostasy is treason and the person should be killed during this lifetime, and not just punished by Allah in the hereafter.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/97278293/Apostasy-in-Islam

On page 20, there's also a claim that Baha'is aren't really being persecuted by the Iranian government - despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecutio ... %27%C3%ADs

He's also written some lovely stuff about how the West is morally bankrupt for starting to accept homosexuals instead of giving them lashes or stoning them to death as required by Islam. He even throws in some junk science references to AIDS

http://www.al-islam.org/marriage-and-mo ... osexuality

Of course, women can avoid the lure of lesbianism simply by following his advice to marry early. Very, very early, since puberty is said to start at age 9 in girls. http://www.al-islam.org/marriage-and-mo ... lugh-rushd

Here's more information about the author:

jaffari.org/IslamInFocus/SayyidMuhammadRizvi.php

These pamphlets is clearly listed as his publications, and he is clearly the Iman of the Jaffari Islamic Centre - which is a few minutes drive from my house, on my route to work.

He would fit right in with the Dominionist Theonomists, where they do discuss stoning people (stones are plentiful and ubitquitous, per Ron Paul's Buddy, Gary North, Rushdoony's son in law.)

Debate how young is too young to marry of their children/daughters (secondary sex characteristics, blah blah blah)

Of course, non christians should not have the vote and patriarchy would mean women wouldnt need it.

And government would be based on old testament, mostly.

So, yeah, I"m not sure that they are that different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FoxyMoxie
As extreme as fundamentalist Christians are, none of them are as bad as fundamentalist Muslims.

Coming out of lurkdom to say that this is a horrendous, racist, Islamophobic and most of all untrue statement.

Fundamentalism is not a thing that is restrained or defined by any one religion or culture, and is not about religion but is about power. Some places in the world have Islamic-based fundamentalism in some position of power. No place, to my knowledge, has Christian-based fundamentalism in the same kind of position of power. We have not yet had a chance to see Christian-based fundamentalism in the same arena, but the examples of Christian-based fundamentalism that have had a degree of power look very similar indeed. There is not much difference between fundamentalist Islamic polygamy and the FLDS, for example. That said, there is no real functional difference between any kind of fundamentalism - when reading Unorthodox by Deborah Feldman (about a woman growing up Hasidic in Brooklyn), I was struck by the similarities to examples of both Christian and Muslim fundamentalism, but also some kinds of extreme separatist feminism and some strands of non-democratic socialism/communism. Fundamentalism need not be religious.

As a (progressive, Anglican/Episcopalian) Christian, looking at both the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza (which includes some of the most ancient Christian groups in the world as well as Muslims, Druze etc) and the persecution of Christians but also Baha'i and other Muslim groups by IS(IS) in Iraq and Syria, this is a time for moderate Christians to join in solidarity with both moderate Muslim and Jewish siblings in faith. Nobody wins by pitting themselves against each other. You don't break the cycle of aggression and fundamentalism with more aggression and more fundamentalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'sFunToRun

Coming out of lurkdom to say that this is a horrendous, racist, Islamophobic and most of all untrue statement.

Fundamentalism is not a thing that is restrained or defined by any one religion or culture, and is not about religion but is about power. Some places in the world have Islamic-based fundamentalism in some position of power. No place, to my knowledge, has Christian-based fundamentalism in the same kind of position of power. We have not yet had a chance to see Christian-based fundamentalism in the same arena, but the examples of Christian-based fundamentalism that have had a degree of power look very similar indeed. There is not much difference between fundamentalist Islamic polygamy and the FLDS, for example. That said, there is no real functional difference between any kind of fundamentalism - when reading Unorthodox by Deborah Feldman (about a woman growing up Hasidic in Brooklyn), I was struck by the similarities to examples of both Christian and Muslim fundamentalism, but also some kinds of extreme separatist feminism and some strands of non-democratic socialism/communism. Fundamentalism need not be religious.

As a (progressive, Anglican/Episcopalian) Christian, looking at both the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza (which includes some of the most ancient Christian groups in the world as well as Muslims, Druze etc) and the persecution of Christians but also Baha'i and other Muslim groups by IS(IS) in Iraq and Syria, this is a time for moderate Christians to join in solidarity with both moderate Muslim and Jewish siblings in faith. Nobody wins by pitting themselves against each other. You don't break the cycle of aggression and fundamentalism with more aggression and more fundamentalism.

Fundamentalist Christians shame a woman for being raped; Muslims murder a woman for being raped. Fundamentalist Christians say "nike"; Muslims throw acid. Fundamentalist Christians might not want to allow immigration of Muslims; Muslims tell infidels to "convert or die". Fundamentalist Christian women have to wear skirts to the knee and some kind of sleeves; Muslim women have to wear more than that plus a head covering. People who compare the Duggars to the Taliban are grossly misinformed about just how bad the Taliban is.

The plight of Muslims is Gaza is because Hamas is using their resources to wage Jihad against Israeli civilians, and Hamas uses Arab civilians as human shields. So yes they are oppressed, but because of their own terrorist Islamic leaders.

It's not pitting one group against another any more than it is to say "conservative Christians are at least better than FLDS".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lipstickgoalie

Fundamentalist Christians shame a woman for being raped; Muslims murder a woman for being raped. Fundamentalist Christians say "nike"; Muslims throw acid. Fundamentalist Christians might not want to allow immigration of Muslims; Muslims tell infidels to "convert or die". Fundamentalist Christian women have to wear skirts to the knee and some kind of sleeves; Muslim women have to wear more than that plus a head covering. People who compare the Duggars to the Taliban are grossly misinformed about just how bad the Taliban is.

The plight of Muslims is Gaza is because Hamas is using their resources to wage Jihad against Israeli civilians, and Hamas uses Arab civilians as human shields. So yes they are oppressed, but because of their own terrorist Islamic leaders.

It's not pitting one group against another any more than it is to say "conservative Christians are at least better than FLDS".

Fundamentalist Christians also do things like shoot abortion providers. And the Klan was a Christian organization. Fundamentalism is dangerous no matter the stripe. And it is pretty racist to say what you did. I really think that you are the one that is ill informed here. Might I point you to Fundamentalisms Observed edited by Marty and Appleby.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lipstickgoalie

Fundamentalist Christians shame a woman for being raped; Muslims murder a woman for being raped. Fundamentalist Christians say "nike"; Muslims throw acid. Fundamentalist Christians might not want to allow immigration of Muslims; Muslims tell infidels to "convert or die". Fundamentalist Christian women have to wear skirts to the knee and some kind of sleeves; Muslim women have to wear more than that plus a head covering. People who compare the Duggars to the Taliban are grossly misinformed about just how bad the Taliban is.

The plight of Muslims is Gaza is because Hamas is using their resources to wage Jihad against Israeli civilians, and Hamas uses Arab civilians as human shields. So yes they are oppressed, but because of their own terrorist Islamic leaders.

It's not pitting one group against another any more than it is to say "conservative Christians are at least better than FLDS".

Oh wait. You're the idiot who wanders from thread to thread saying incendiary and unnecessarily confrontational crap. I don't know why I even attempted to engage. I really hope you step on a Lego in the dark of night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FoxyMoxie

Fundamentalist Christians shame a woman for being raped; Muslims murder a woman for being raped. Fundamentalist Christians say "nike"; Muslims throw acid. Fundamentalist Christians might not want to allow immigration of Muslims; Muslims tell infidels to "convert or die". Fundamentalist Christian women have to wear skirts to the knee and some kind of sleeves; Muslim women have to wear more than that plus a head covering. People who compare the Duggars to the Taliban are grossly misinformed about just how bad the Taliban is.

The plight of Muslims is Gaza is because Hamas is using their resources to wage Jihad against Israeli civilians, and Hamas uses Arab civilians as human shields. So yes they are oppressed, but because of their own terrorist Islamic leaders.

It's not pitting one group against another any more than it is to say "conservative Christians are at least better than FLDS".

Actually there are Christian Dominionists who want to bring back OT law, which would include stoning rape victims - they're just not in a position to do so. Christian fundamentalists would absolutely do all the things you mention Muslim fundamentalists doing if they had the chance - fundamentalism is about power not religion, and as I said, does not necessarily need religion to be fundamentalism in the first place.

Also, I did not talk about the plight of 'Muslims in Gaza', I actually talked about the plight of everyone in Gaza - that includes some of the most ancient Christian communities in the world. Gaza is mostly Muslim but has significant non-Muslim minorities, and they matter too. Also if you think that Palestine's oppression is because of Hamas, you are incredibly misinformed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'sFunToRun

Oh wait. You're the idiot who wanders from thread to thread saying incendiary and unnecessarily confrontational crap. I don't know why I even attempted to engage. I really hope you step on a Lego in the dark of night.

Do you actually have an argument there, or just name calling? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'sFunToRun

Actually there are Christian Dominionists who want to bring back OT law, which would include stoning rape victims - they're just not in a position to do so. Christian fundamentalists would absolutely do all the things you mention Muslim fundamentalists doing if they had the chance - fundamentalism is about power not religion, and as I said, does not necessarily need religion to be fundamentalism in the first place.

Also, I did not talk about the plight of 'Muslims in Gaza', I actually talked about the plight of everyone in Gaza - that includes some of the most ancient Christian communities in the world. Gaza is mostly Muslim but has significant non-Muslim minorities, and they matter too. Also if you think that Palestine's oppression is because of Hamas, you are incredibly misinformed.

Okay, so who is using concrete that was supposed to be used to build Arab kindergardens, to make terror tunnels to go into Israel and attack Jewish kindergardens? And who is using UN funded schools for Arab children to launch rockets to kill Israeli civilians?

There are significant populations of Christian Arabs, Druze, Bedouin, and Bahai' in Israel and in the West Bank, but not so much in Gaza which is Hamas controlled. In 2011 The Christian population of Gaza Strip was less than 1,400 out of a population of 1.5 million. For the mathematically challenged, that works out to be less than one tenth of one percent of the population. Not statistically significant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'sFunToRun

Fundamentalist Christians also do things like shoot abortion providers. And the Klan was a Christian organization. Fundamentalism is dangerous no matter the stripe. And it is pretty racist to say what you did. I really think that you are the one that is ill informed here. Might I point you to Fundamentalisms Observed edited by Marty and Appleby.

The Klan still is a Christian organization, and is actually the only one I can think of that compares to Islam. You're picking and choosing fairly rare historical events (how often is an abortion doctor murdered?) to compare to ongoing daily affairs in the Islamic world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FoxyMoxie

Okay, so who is using concrete that was supposed to be used to build Arab kindergardens, to make terror tunnels to go into Israel and attack Jewish kindergardens? And who is using UN funded schools for Arab children to launch rockets to kill Israeli civilians?

There are significant populations of Christian Arabs, Druze, Bedouin, and Bahai' in Israel and in the West Bank, but not so much in Gaza which is Hamas controlled. In 2011 The Christian population of Gaza Strip was less than 1,400 out of a population of 1.5 million. For the mathematically challenged, that works out to be less than one tenth of one percent of the population. Not statistically significant.

Are you unaware of the Gaza blockade? That Palestinians have no real water, food, or medical supplies - because of Israel? Israel has created apartheid - that's not Hamas' doing. Israel's illegal settlements have stolen Palestinian land.

But even as oppressive as Israel is, I'm not going to turn around and somehow suggest that Jews are dangerous. I know that Israel doesn't represent Judaism, just as Hamas (who have done wrong, but only because of the bigger wrong of Israel) doesn't represent Islam.

Islamic fundamentalism is not inherently worse than other kinds - again, Christian fundamentalists would do the exact same things if they had the chance. It's just that there currently aren't any Christian fundamentalist governments. Not because Christian fundamentalism isn't as bad, but because Christians generally have been the oppressor not the oppressed - and it's oppression that radicalises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'sFunToRun

There is a blockade because there needs to be. We have seen that when Hamas gets it hands on something like building materials, instead of using it to build for their civilians, they use it to try to murder Israelis. Thus, Arab civilians in Gaza are oppressed not by Israelis, but by their own Islamic leaders. Like Golda Meir said, peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.

As soon as Israel declared independence (a mere three years after the Holocaust), it was attacked by the neighboring Muslim countries and the resident Arabs. Israel doesn't have the option of not defending itself, that would mean no more Israel. If Canada or Mexico rained missles on you, aiming for your elementary schools and hospitals, and sent suicide bombers on your busses and your universities, and kidnapped and murdered your boys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_kidna ... _teenagers), you would build walls too. Or would you just let yourself be slaughtered?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'sFunToRun

Are you unaware of the Gaza blockade? That Palestinians have no real water, food, or medical supplies - because of Israel? Israel has created apartheid - that's not Hamas' doing. Israel's illegal settlements have stolen Palestinian land.

But even as oppressive as Israel is, I'm not going to turn around and somehow suggest that Jews are dangerous. I know that Israel doesn't represent Judaism, just as Hamas (who have done wrong, but only because of the bigger wrong of Israel) doesn't represent Islam.

Islamic fundamentalism is not inherently worse than other kinds - again, Christian fundamentalists would do the exact same things if they had the chance. It's just that there currently aren't any Christian fundamentalist governments. Not because Christian fundamentalism isn't as bad, but because Christians generally have been the oppressor not the oppressed - and it's oppression that radicalises.

I disagree; Israel does represent Judaism. The Land of Israel is central to Judaism. There is a mitzvah to live in Israel is based on the verse, "You shall possess the Land and dwell in it" (Numbers 33:53). The Talmud states that "every 4 amot (about 7 feet) that a person walks in Israel is another mitzvah." Observant Jews pray three times a day for G-d to rebuild and settle Jerusalem.

At the end of every Passover seder, Jews pray to celebrate "next year in Jerusalem". Do you know why they break a glass at Jewish weddings? It's to symbolize the loss of beit hamikdash (the temple) and the subsequent exile of the Jews from their land. On Tisha be'Av Jews fast to mourn said destruction and exile. A Jew who does not live in Israel is not living an optimally observant life because there are 37 mitzvoth that a Jew can only do in Israel, such as the mitzvot of Trumah and Maaser, and Shmitah (which is coming up this year).

A Jew can be Jewish outside of Israel the same way that a Frenchman can be French outside of France.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anny Nym

I disagree; Israel does represent Judaism. The Land of Israel is central to Judaism. There is a mitzvah to live in Israel is based on the verse, "You shall possess the Land and dwell in it" (Numbers 33:53). The Talmud states that "every 4 amot (about 7 feet) that a person walks in Israel is another mitzvah." Observant Jews pray three times a day for G-d to rebuild and settle Jerusalem.

At the end of every Passover seder, Jews pray to celebrate "next year in Jerusalem". Do you know why they break a glass at Jewish weddings? It's to symbolize the loss of beit hamikdash (the temple) and the subsequent exile of the Jews from their land. On Tisha be'Av Jews fast to mourn said destruction and exile. A Jew who does not live in Israel is not living an optimally observant life because there are 37 mitzvoth that a Jew can only do in Israel, such as the mitzvot of Trumah and Maaser, and Shmitah (which is coming up this year).

A Jew can be Jewish outside of Israel the same way that a Frenchman can be French outside of France.

So how do you call someone who disagrees with Israels actions or is critical of Israel´s policy then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It'sFunToRun

So how do you call someone who disagrees with Israels actions or is critical of Israel´s policy then?

If someone is against Israel's right to existance, or right to defend itself, then I'd call them anti-Israel. If someone disagrees with Israeli policies whose changing would not cause Israel's destruction, then I guess I'd call them... dunno... Sarah or Joey or Michael? Does that answer your question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anny Nym

With focus on the term "right to defend it(one)self" as a loosely and subjective defined one, yes you have answered it.

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Savoring Samsara

ItsFunToRun, are you Jewish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apple1

Checked out a posting history.

Don't feed the troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2xx1xy1JD

Islamic fundamentalism is not inherently worse than other kinds - again, Christian fundamentalists would do the exact same things if they had the chance. It's just that there currently aren't any Christian fundamentalist governments. Not because Christian fundamentalism isn't as bad, but because Christians generally have been the oppressor not the oppressed - and it's oppression that radicalises.

It's too simplistic - and sometimes just wrong - to say that oppression radicalizes.

Christian theocracies certainly existed in history. They were not caused by oppression. Quite the opposite - the Church was a powerful pillar of medieval society.

Is oppression behind the radical homophobia in Uganda - or have American evangelical efforts helped to fuel it? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world ... .html?_r=0

The mix of religion with politics can be toxic. Political forces will use religion to gain legitimacy and support, and the religious leaders in turn will expect the political leaders to support their agenda. It's happened in the Christian world (one of the more recent examples would be Quebec in the 1950s), and it happens in the Muslim world (Saudi Arabia being a prime example). Many religious wars are simply about which group will have political power.

You also have oppressed groups that haven't radicalized. Ismaili Muslims were persecuted in Uganda, yet they haven't beeen radicalized. Ahmaddiyah Muslims are persecuted in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, but remain a peaceful sect. Baha'is are oppressed in Iran, but also remain a peaceful group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nausicaa

Fundamentalist Christians shame a woman for being raped; Muslims murder a woman for being raped. Fundamentalist Christians say "nike"; Muslims throw acid. Fundamentalist Christians might not want to allow immigration of Muslims; Muslims tell infidels to "convert or die". Fundamentalist Christian women have to wear skirts to the knee and some kind of sleeves; Muslim women have to wear more than that plus a head covering. People who compare the Duggars to the Taliban are grossly misinformed about just how bad the Taliban is.

The plight of Muslims is Gaza is because Hamas is using their resources to wage Jihad against Israeli civilians, and Hamas uses Arab civilians as human shields. So yes they are oppressed, but because of their own terrorist Islamic leaders.

It's not pitting one group against another any more than it is to say "conservative Christians are at least better than FLDS".

I do find it odd that you use the term "Fundamentalist Christians" when discussing more extreme Christian beliefs and practices, but only use the term "Muslims" without any modifiers when discussing extreme Muslim beliefs and practices.

Do you think all Muslims, or nearly all Muslims, practice such an extreme brand of Islam? I can tell you from personal experience that the Taliban is NOT representative of all one billion Muslims in the world, though I can see how the media can be misleading in this way.

I have lived in Muslim countries and visited many more where this is not the case at all. In many Muslim countries one can practice whatever religion one wishes, wear whatever one wants (well, can't walk naked down the street, but that's the case in the US too), women have jobs and college degrees, and women are NOT murdered for being raped. (Also, I lived in these places as a single, very northern European looking woman who does not practice Islam).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2xx1xy1JD

In any event, I didn't post this as a "who is worse" contest.

The question is irrelevant to me, because I don't think I've ever met a Christian fundie in my area. This guy is in my backyard, and heads a large and growing community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FoxyMoxie

It's too simplistic - and sometimes just wrong - to say that oppression radicalizes.

Christian theocracies certainly existed in history. They were not caused by oppression. Quite the opposite - the Church was a powerful pillar of medieval society.

Is oppression behind the radical homophobia in Uganda - or have American evangelical efforts helped to fuel it? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world ... .html?_r=0

The mix of religion with politics can be toxic. Political forces will use religion to gain legitimacy and support, and the religious leaders in turn will expect the political leaders to support their agenda. It's happened in the Christian world (one of the more recent examples would be Quebec in the 1950s), and it happens in the Muslim world (Saudi Arabia being a prime example). Many religious wars are simply about which group will have political power.

You also have oppressed groups that haven't radicalized. Ismaili Muslims were persecuted in Uganda, yet they haven't beeen radicalized. Ahmaddiyah Muslims are persecuted in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, but remain a peaceful sect. Baha'is are oppressed in Iran, but also remain a peaceful group.

The church was not always powerful though - it was very much oppressed under the Romans. So when Constantine converted and they had a chance at power, they grabbed it. Christianity became a state religion, which is a huge and relatively sudden jump in radicalism since the early church was very opposed to involvement with the state (which Anabaptists and others tried to reintroduce as an idea after the Reformation). So I think the oppression = radicalism argument does work there to some degree. Yes, it's a simplistic argument and I'm well aware that it's not the only source of radicalism, but it does have a big effect. I think it also applies to the homophobia in Uganda - which is largely a result of Western imperialism, whether former Victorian empires or modern evangelicals taking over cultural imperialism. Oppression takes many forms.

And obviously, there are oppressed groups that haven't been radicalised - but I don't think that means oppression has no relationship to radicalism. I would also say that radicalism does not always equal violent - Anabaptists and Quakers are both deeply radical, but that radicalism includes pacifism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.