Which schools of Aqeedah do you subscribe too?

Which schools of Aqeedah do you subscribe to?

  • Batniyyah (Aqeedah of some Twelver Shias & Ismailis)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Zaydi (close to Mu’tazila with a Shia twist)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Imami-Ismā'īlīs

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    63

Mudug_gyal

لا تَقْنَطُوا مِنْ رَحْمَةِ اللَّه
VIP
Imam Ash`ari and Imam Maturidi were from the Salaf


Both Imam Abu’l Hasan al-Ash`ari and Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi were from the Salaf (the age of the early Muslims, generally defined as those of the righteous who lived in the first three centuries after the Prophetic age). Both of these Imams simply defended and upheld the transmitted beliefs of the Qur’an and Sunna, as understood by mainstream Sunni Islam in each generation before them, from the extremes of excessive literalism and excessive rationalism.


Their teachings and methodology were accepted as the standard of mainstream Sunni Islam by clear general consensus of the scholarly community in their own times and in every generation since–a sign of Divine acceptance by clear promise of Allah and His Messenger ﷺ (Allah bless him and give him peace), for it is a Divine promise that the teachings of His final revelation will be preserved and a Prophetic promise that his Umma will not agree on error.


The Divine Attributes and the way of Consigning (tafwid) the meaning to Allah


When it comes to understanding those Divine Attributes that may appear to indicate some similitude between the Creator and creation, the preferred position of both the Ash`aris and Maturidis is:


[1] Affirming what Allah has affirmed, such as istiwa’ or His Hand or Eyes, not more and not less.
[2] Negating what Allah has decisively negated, which is any similitude whatsoever between the Creator and creation–a negation that the sound intellect readily discerns, and which was affirmed by Allah’s words, “There is absolutely nothing like unto Him.” [Qur’an]
[3] Consigning (tafwid) the specific meaning and details of such matters to Allah Most High.


[Bajuri, Tuhfat al-Murid `ala Jawharat al-Tawhid; Nablusi, Sharh Ida’at al-Dujunna; Abu Mu`in al-Nasafi, Tabsirat al-Adilla; Qari/Abu Hanifa, Sharh al-Fiqh al-Akbar; Maydani/Tahawi, Sharh al-Aqida al-Tahawiyya; Bouti, Kubra al-Yaqiniyyat]


This was the way of the Salaf


This was clearly the way of the pious predecessors (salaf). Their statements of affirmation, which our methodologically-divergent brethren passionately latch onto, were not statements of excessive literalism. Rather, they were simply affirming what Allah has affirmed and strongly condemned those who would negate anything that Allah affirmed (for that entails disbelief, thus the reason why some statements were so firm). However, they did not affirm more than that and did not insist on understanding such affirmations in being “literal” in nature. This is because the literal (i.e. primary) meaning of such matters entails affirming similitude between the Creator and creation and such similitude has been clearly and decisively negated throughout the Qur’an.


What About Figurative Interpretation (ta’wil)?



However, when the need for it arose, some of the early Muslim (salaf) scholars and many of the later Muslim (khalaf) scholars used figurative interpretation to give a meaning to such “apparently problematic” primary texts, using the sound principles of linguistic usage and textual interpretation.


These scholars had clear precedent in the interpretations of many of the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), most notably Ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him), who also engaged in such interpretations when there was need. This is clearly found in many of the very earliest reliable tafsirs of the Qur’an, such as Tafsir al-Tabari, and also in Imam Maturidi’s own tafsir, Ta’wilat Ahl al-Sunna.


The later scholars engaged in figurative interpretation more than the earlier scholars because of the greater prevalence of literalist excesses and the harms these were causing to the laity among the believers.


Does Figurative Interpretation Entail Negation of What Allah Affirmed (ta`til)?


Figurative interpretation doesn’t entail negation of what Allah affirmed in any way whatsoever, because this way, akin to the way of ‘consigning the meaning to Allah’ (tafwid), also entails:


[1] Affirming what Allah has affirmed, such as istiwa’ or His Hand or Eyes.
[2] Negating what Allah has decisively negated, which is any similitude whatsoever between the Creator and creation–a negation that the sound intellect readily discerns, and which was affirmed by Allah’s words, “There is absolutely nothing like unto Him.” [Qur’an]


But it differs in that it


[3] Affirms a meaning to these texts, using the principles of established linguistic usage and sound textual interpretation (such as “Hand” signifying power or favor, as understood from the context). It is very important to note that this figurative interpretation entails affirming a meaning in the sense of affirming what the text signifies–and not an exclusive affirmation of meaning (such that A=B, meaning that text A means B, and nothing else). [For examples of such interpretation, see Shaykh Gibril Haddad’s Ibn `Abd al-Salam and Ash`ari Ta’wil.]


The way of figurative interpretation (ta’wil), as exercised by the mainstream Sunni scholars of the Ash`ari and Maturidi schools is an affirmation of what is understood from such expressions, and not an exclusive specification of meaning. Thus, the way of figurative interpretation (ta’wil), which the scholars only resorted to with the utmost of caution when there was genuine need, also entails a consignment of the ultimate meaning to Allah Most High (tafwid). This is an important but subtle matter, so understand!


And Allah alone gives success.

@Mudug_gyal This is a comprehensive overview there is literally nothing more than can be said

There is also this book- an English translation of an authoritative book almost 300 pages long going into great detail on the 'Ashari school and their place in the history of Ahlus Sunnah. You will also see all the tafseer of the master of tafseer the Sahabi Ibn Abbas and see how it matches with the understanding of these two Imams contrary to the lies that they were on something different.

Thank you I look into this as well as the athari side and make my pick.
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
When you read about Islamic history and how the different groups arose you’ll come to realise that in attempting to defend Islamic beliefs from deviancy they end up adopting extreme views down the line. Which is what we’ve today

Asharis & maturidi arose as a response to muctazila. Al ashari himself was a muctazila before he left it & developed his own theology to counter the muctazilah laakin his framework was still influenced by kalam until the later stages of his life where some say he repented from kalam entirely. Furthermore both of these schools of kalam were a minority & didn’t gain a lot of adherence until later on, 6/7 century onwards. They become dominant during the reigns of ayyubids & the different turkish sultanates

Atharism as a response to the different schools of kalam muctazila, ashairsm etc. Today’s asharis,maturidis, salafis despite claiming to adhere to their respective groups & madhabs differ very much from the earlier ones.

Imam shafici, hanafi, Maliki etc were not ashari but majority of their followers today are. So this begs the question what was their aqeedah & why don’t their followers today subscribe to it ?

Similarly salafis claim to follow imam hanbali but they differ very much from his understanding in tawheed, shirk, ibadah etc in fact the imam is only utilised to refute the asharis when it relates to Allah’s names & attributes. There’s issues between salafis & hanbalis today due to the former hijacking the school to spread the Najdi dawah & it’s scholars .
 

Garaad Awal

War is coming.
Imam shafici, hanafi, Maliki etc were not ashari but majority of their followers today are. So this begs the question what was their aqeedah & why don’t their followers today subscribe to it ?
Imam Abu Hanifa Aqeedah is well known as he has written about the topic and so have his students.. The Hanafi school has the Al Fiqh Al Akbar written by the Imam and we also have the Aqeedah At-tahaawiya written by At-Tahawi (in Egypt) who studied under two different students of Imam Abu Hanfia.

Also majority of the followers of Abu Hanifa are not Ash’ari….
We also have the Kitabul Tawheed written by Abu Mansur Al Maturidi who studied under the students of the students of Imam Abu Hanifa all the way in Central Asia with not much difference with Tahawi.
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
Imam Abu Hanifa Aqeedah is well known as he has written about the topic and so have his students.. The Hanafi school has the Al Fiqh Al Akbar written by the Imam and we also have the Aqeedah At-tahaawiya written by At-Tahawi (in Egypt) who studied under two different students of Imam Abu Hanfia.

Also majority of the followers of Abu Hanifa are not Ash’ari….
We also have the Kitabul Tawheed written by Abu Mansur Al Maturidi who studied under the students of the students of Imam Abu Hanifa all the way in Central Asia with not much difference with Tahawi.

I knw sxb it was just an oversight that I didn’t include maturidi but my point still stands nonetheless because if there wasn’t a difference between abu hanfia & Al maturidi there wouldn’t be a need for hanafis to describe themselves as hanafi in fiqh & maturidi in aqeedah. Why make the distinction between fiqh & aqeedah in terms of following imam Abu hanifa, shafici & Maliki?
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
For those interested to get a quick introduction into this issue I suggest you watch yasir qadhi lectures about the history of this issue and what are the major differences.







 

Keep it a boqol

All Praise Be To Allah In Every Situation!!!
VIP
For those interested to get a quick introduction into this issue I suggest you watch yasir qadhi lectures about the history of this issue and what are the major differences.







same dude that said making dua to the dead isn’t shirk. Don’t take your islam from this clear cut deviant
 

Awd

Araabi
Yes and the quote is from Allah swt words


.أأمنتم من في السماء

Allah swt is above the heavens as the aya says

Al-Haafiz Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr :

With regard to the words of Allah (interpretation of the meaning): “Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven [fi’l-sama’] (Allah), will not cause the earth to sink with you, and then it should quake” [al-Mulk 67:16], what it means is the One Who is above the heaven, i.e., above the Throne. The word fi [in the phrase fi’l-sama’ (translated above as ‘over the heaven’); fi literally means ‘in’] may mean ‘ala [above, over]. Haven’t you seen the verse in which Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “So travel freely (O Mushrikoon) for four months (as you will) throughout the land [fi’l-ard]” [al-Tawbah 9:2], meaning on the land; and the verse in which He says (interpretation of the meaning): “and I will surely, crucify you on the trunks of date palms [fi judhoo’ al-nakhl]” [Ta-Ha 20:71].


Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

The salaf, the imams and all the scholars of the Sunnah, when they say that He is above the Throne, He is in heaven above all things, do not mean that there is something which contains Him or surrounds Him, or that He has a location, or that there is something that encompasses Him. Exalted be He above that. Rather He is above all things, He has no need of all things, and all things are in need of Him. He is above all things, He is the One Who carries the Throne and its bearers by His power and might. All created beings are in need of Him, but He has no need of the Throne or of any created being.

With regard to what it says in the Quran and Sunnah, “Do you feel secure that He, Who is over the heaven [fi’l-sama’]…?” [al-Mulk 67:16] and so on, some people may understand the word heaven as being the same as the created heaven on high or the Throne and what is beneath it, so they say that His words “in heaven (fi’l-sama’)” mean that He is above the heaven, as the words “and I will surely, crucify you on the trunks of date palms [fi judhoo’ al-nakhl]” [Ta-Ha 20:71] mean on the trunks of date palms, and the words “So travel freely (O Mushrikoon — see V.2:105) for four months (as you will) throughout the land[ fi’l-ard]” [al-Tawbah 9:2] mean on the land.

There is no need for that; rather the word sama’ (often translated as heaven) refers to what is up high, and does not apply to any specific thing. So the words fi’l-sama’ [translated above as ‘in heaven’] apply to that which is up high as opposed to being low or down.

He is high and the highest, and He is the Highest of the high; there is nothing beyond the Most High, may He be glorified and exalted.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa (16/100-101)

You've made my point. Ibn Taymiyyah had to divert away from a literalist interpretation by concluding that في means على . All linguists and grammarians including the likes of Ibn Hisham and Sibawiy all agree that the base meaning of في is الظرفية meaning "in" and any usage of the harf to mean anything else is figurative.

Any other meaning is allegorical or figurative. في does not mean على unless you allow figurative discourse which Ibn Taymiyyah himself rejects. But that's not surprising since he contradicts himself multiple times.

Another one:

God also says:

فآتاهم الله من حيث لم يحسبوا
"God came to them from where they did not expect"

What is the literal meaning here? According to your principles do you believe God actually came in person to Banu Nadhir?

Also, God says:
نسوا الله فنسيهم

"They forgot God, so He forgot them"

God attributes to Himself forgetfulness (نسيان), will you do ta'weel (interpretation) here or stick to Salafi principles in attributing to God what he attributes to Himself?
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
same dude that said making dua to the dead isn’t shirk. Don’t take your islam from this clear cut deviant
Sxb stop making hasty judgments on issues that you lack knowledge in.

Shirk is about beliefs, not about living or dead. That’s why if a person has shirk beliefs concerning the individual he’s asking dua from it doesn’t matter whether that person is alive or dead as it’ll always be classified as shirk. Where are you getting that it’s ONLY shirk when dua is made to the dead ?

You completely misconstrued yasir qadhi view on this matter due to your bias. What changed sxb you were never a salafi laakin of late you’ve been making threads advocating for salafism ?
 

reer

VIP
Sxb stop making hasty judgments on issues that you lack knowledge in.

Shirk is about beliefs, not about living or dead. That’s why if a person has shirk beliefs concerning the individual he’s asking dua from it doesn’t matter whether that person is alive or dead as it’ll always be classified as shirk. Where are you getting that it’s ONLY shirk when dua is made to the dead ?

You completely misconstrued yasir qadhi view on this matter due to your bias. What changed sxb you were never a salafi laakin of late you’ve been making threads advocating for salafism ?
do you think qadiriyyah sufis in somalia say "o jilani we do not believe you can help us from the grave but we make dua to you for help". when they make dua to him they usually believe he can help them.
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
do you think qadiriyyah sufis in somalia say "o jilani we do not believe you can help us from the grave but we make dua to you for help". when they make dua to him they usually believe he can help them.

Even in that scenario do they believe that he can help them independently without Allah ? This is the mistake salafis make when they make similarities between haram actions some Muslims make to the actions of mushrikeen who worshipped gods besides Allah who they believed could help, protect give benefit etc ie they ascribed qualities of Rububiyyah to their gods and worshipped them on this basis.

When chrisitians make dua to Jesus or pagan Arabs call upon their gods they do so with the belief that those whom they make dua to, worship etc is their rabb. Do these sufis believe that about their saints ?


There may well be a possibility that such individuals exist among Muslims outwardly laakin they’re most definitely are a tiny minority & most importantly unless you examine their beliefs you wouldn’t know it. Hence the need to make a distinction between those who fall into haram versus those who commit shirk in this issue.

Unfortunately what many people end up doing is grouping them together due to their misunderstanding when it relates to tawheed & shirk.

As long as one believes in a god besides Allah they’re considered a mushrik even when they don’t make dua to their god simply because of their shirki beliefs. Similarly one is considered to be a muslim as long as they retain their belief of Allah, I mean we don’t stop being Muslims when we’re not in prayer do we now ?

So in short if one has shirk beliefs they’re guilty of shirk even if they don’t make a single act of worship to their god etc. Being dead or alive has no bearing on whether an action is classified as shirk
 
When you read about Islamic history and how the different groups arose you’ll come to realise that in attempting to defend Islamic beliefs from deviancy they end up adopting extreme views down the line. Which is what we’ve today

Asharis & maturidi arose as a response to muctazila. Al ashari himself was a muctazila before he left it & developed his own theology to counter the muctazilah laakin his framework was still influenced by kalam until the later stages of his life where some say he repented from kalam entirely. Furthermore both of these schools of kalam were a minority & didn’t gain a lot of adherence until later on, 6/7 century onwards. They become dominant during the reigns of ayyubids & the different turkish sultanates

Atharism as a response to the different schools of kalam muctazila, ashairsm etc. Today’s asharis,maturidis, salafis despite claiming to adhere to their respective groups & madhabs differ very much from the earlier ones.

Imam shafici, hanafi, Maliki etc were not ashari but majority of their followers today are. So this begs the question what was their aqeedah & why don’t their followers today subscribe to it ?

Similarly salafis claim to follow imam hanbali but they differ very much from his understanding in tawheed, shirk, ibadah etc in fact the imam is only utilised to refute the asharis when it relates to Allah’s names & attributes. There’s issues between salafis & hanbalis today due to the former hijacking the school to spread the Najdi dawah & it’s scholars .
Respectfully this is slander of the Imam he was never a Mu'tazili all the relevant information is in that book I linked to written by very authoritative shuyukh out of the Levant
 

Omar del Sur

RETIRED
VIP
Even in that scenario do they believe that he can help them independently without Allah ? This is the mistake salafis make when they make similarities between haram actions some Muslims make to the actions of mushrikeen who worshipped gods besides Allah who they believed could help, protect give benefit etc ie they ascribed qualities of Rububiyyah to their gods and worshipped them on this basis.

When chrisitians make dua to Jesus or pagan Arabs call upon their gods they do so with the belief that those whom they make dua to, worship etc is their rabb. Do these sufis believe that about their saints ?


There may well be a possibility that such individuals exist among Muslims outwardly laakin they’re most definitely are a tiny minority & most importantly unless you examine their beliefs you wouldn’t know it. Hence the need to make a distinction between those who fall into haram versus those who commit shirk in this issue.

Unfortunately what many people end up doing is grouping them together due to their misunderstanding when it relates to tawheed & shirk.

As long as one believes in a god besides Allah they’re considered a mushrik even when they don’t make dua to their god simply because of their shirki beliefs. Similarly one is considered to be a muslim as long as they retain their belief of Allah, I mean we don’t stop being Muslims when we’re not in prayer do we now ?

So in short if one has shirk beliefs they’re guilty of shirk even if they don’t make a single act of worship to their god etc. Being dead or alive has no bearing on whether an action is classified as shirk

La ilaha illa Allah.


When chrisitians make dua to Jesus or pagan Arabs call upon their gods they do so with the belief that those whom they make dua to, worship etc is their rabb. Do these sufis believe that about their saints ?

1- so the problem is believing Isa is alrabb- supposedly. so- a Catholic saying, as they do in one of their most common prayers- "pray for us sinners"- directed at "Mother Mary"- this is okay? this is not shirk for someone to say "Mary, pray for us sinners?" that would not be shirk? the one who makes that dua would not be a kaffir mushrik?

Being dead or alive has no bearing on whether an action is classified as shirk

2- this is incorrect. who prays to the dead is a kaffir. you make dua to some sufi saint, you say "mother mary pray for me", you say "ya Ali"..... all of this is major kufr. La ilaha illa Allah. the shahadah is the first pillar of Islam. it comes even before salah, which is the second. if you're worshipping other than Allah- and praying to a Sufi saint, a Catholic "saint" or one of the many created beings the Shia pray to- all of this is worship, it invalidates the shahadah.

الدُّعَاءُ هُوَ الْعِبَادَةُ

Al-Nu’man ibn Bashir reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Supplication is worship itself.” Then, the Prophet recited the verse, “Your Lord said: Call upon Me and I will respond to you. Verily, those who disdain My worship will enter Hell in humiliation.” (40:60)

Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 3247

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani

 
Last edited:
La ilaha illa Allah.




1- so the problem is believing Isa is alrabb- supposedly. so- a Catholic saying, as they do in one of their most common prayers- "pray for us sinners"- directed at "Mother Mary"- this is okay? this is not shirk for someone to say "Mary, pray for us sinners?" that would not be shirk? the one who makes that dua would not be a kaffir mushrik?



2- this is incorrect. who prays to the dead is a kaffir. you make dua to some sufi saint, you say "mother mary pray for me", you say "ya Ali"..... all of this is major kufr. La ilaha illa Allah. the shahadah is the first pillar of Islam. it comes even before salah, which is the second. if you're worshipping other than Allah- and praying to a Sufi saint, a Catholic "saint" or one of the many personalities the Shia pray to- all of this is worship, it invalidates the shahadah.

الدُّعَاءُ هُوَ الْعِبَادَةُ

Al-Nu’man ibn Bashir reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Supplication is worship itself.” Then, the Prophet recited the verse, “Your Lord said: Call upon Me and I will respond to you. Verily, those who disdain My worship will enter Hell in humiliation.” (40:60)

Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 3247

Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani

You have entered dubious ground by declaring kufr so easily especially when there is a lot of discussion about tawassul. Tawassul is merely a means absolutely no body worships a shaykh or anyone other than allah

You really shouldn't make takfir so easily especially when you can be shown to be wrong
 

Keep it a boqol

All Praise Be To Allah In Every Situation!!!
VIP
Sxb stop making hasty judgments on issues that you lack knowledge in.

Shirk is about beliefs, not about living or dead. That’s why if a person has shirk beliefs concerning the individual he’s asking dua from it doesn’t matter whether that person is alive or dead as it’ll always be classified as shirk. Where are you getting that it’s ONLY shirk when dua is made to the dead ?

You completely misconstrued yasir qadhi view on this matter due to your bias. What changed sxb you were never a salafi laakin of late you’ve been making threads advocating for salafism ?
i don’t think its only shirk asking making dua but it falls under it. asking a dead person for help creates the assumption that they have supernatural power and can help you in the worldly affairs. This negates tawheed Rububiyyah and tawheed uluhiyyah. only allah can control affairs alone and iyyaka nabudu wa iyyaka nastaeen

Some of The quraysh pagens didn’t disbelieve in allah but they didn’t want to give up their idols and saints as intercessors to get closer. Do you see the similarities between extreme sufi sects and mushrikeen?

And Speaking of yasir qadhi he slanders the shaykh mohammed ibn wahhab may allah have mercy on him and his dawah. All the shaykh did was make a book on tawheed and the slander is inaccurate and baseless. I don’t see how people can have a problem with his books when he’s calling people to tawheed
 
Last edited:
i don’t think its only shirk asking making dua but it falls under it. asking a dead person for help creates the assumption that they have supernatural power and can help you in the worldly affairs. This negates Rububiyyah tawheed. only allah can control the worldly affairs alone.

Some of The quraysh pagens didn’t disbelieve in allah but they didn’t want to give up their idols and saints as intercessors to get closer. Do you see the similarities between extreme sufi sects and mushrikeen?

And Speaking of yasir qadhi he slanders the shaykh mohammed ibn wahhab may allah have mercy on him and his dawah. All the shaykh did was make a book on tawheed and the slander is inaccurate and baseless. I don’t see how people can have a problem with his books when he’s calling people to tawheed
MIAW deserves to be slandered. He was a jahil and murderous Khariji and false prophet (yes false prophet he only stopped short of calling himself a prophet) who had so many people killed, mosques, madrassas and libraries destroyed, etc who was disowned by both his father and brother who were prominent shuyukh.

A 5 min google search will show you all the evidence needed from SALAFIS themselves who gloat in the bloodbath their ancestors committed to 'rid the Gulf of shirk and kufr' (i.e kill Muslims who didn't agree with them).
 

Omar del Sur

RETIRED
VIP
You have entered dubious ground by declaring kufr so easily especially when there is a lot of discussion about tawassul. Tawassul is merely a means absolutely no body worships a shaykh or anyone other than allah

You really shouldn't make takfir so easily especially when you can be shown to be wrong

I think I'd be entering much more dubious ground by not making takfir of the mushrikeen. Being overly quick to make takfir is one extreme but irja is another extreme. We shouldn't takfir people who commit major sins. But a person who worships a grave? A person who worships a grave is a kaffir like a person who worships a cross.
 
I think I'd be entering much more dubious ground by not making takfir of the mushrikeen. Being overly quick to make takfir is one extreme but irja is another extreme. We shouldn't takfir people who commit major sins. But a person who worships a grave? A person who worships a grave is a kaffir like a person who worships a cross.

These 'grave worshippers' really only exist as ghost stories I've never come across or heard of one.
 

AdoonkaAlle

Ragna qowl baa xira, dumarna meher baa xira.
Respectfully this is slander of the Imam he was never a Mu'tazili all the relevant information is in that book I linked to written by very authoritative shuyukh out of the Levant
sxb this is common knowledge that the imam was a mutazilah during his early years after which he left it.
 

Omar del Sur

RETIRED
VIP
These 'grave worshippers' really only exist as ghost stories I've never come across or heard of one.

yes alhamdulillah by the will of Allah, Salafis are making the grave worship practices more and more to be old ghost stories... by educating the public, the light of truth has helped make recede the darkness of ignorance
 

Trending

Latest posts

Top