Does Islam need a reformation?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-09-2014, 09:01 AM
Allah knows best!
(05-09-2014 06:31 AM)CleverUsername Wrote:  No, Islam needs to stop existing, along with every other religion on the planet.

(05-09-2014 03:39 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  And, of course, Muslims have a high regard for women and have taken steps against male chauvenism...great:

"It is to the credit of Islam that it modified and reformed the system in existence at the time. Firstly, of all, Islam put a limit to the numbers of wives that a person can have at one time — maximum of four wives at one time."

Laugh out load This is like something straight from a satire.

It gets better. These are deep philosophical issues in Islam which require guidance from religious clericsconsidering that departing from the true path of righteousnss can result in being beheaded as an infidel. This is from http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index....d&Id=87389

" Fatwa No : 87389
Shaving hair from around the anus
Fatwa Date : Safar 20, 1425 / 10-4-2004
Question
Can we also remove hair from our back parts like around the anus? Is that allowed ‎because this hair is impure?‎

Answer
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.

Some scholars are of the opinion that shaving hair from around anus comes under the ruling of shaving one’s pubes. It is called Sunan al-Fitrah mentioned in the Hadith narrated by Ayisha (Radiya Allahu Anhua) that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: "Five are the acts quite akin to the Fitrah: - shaving the pubes, circumcision, clipping the moustache, plucking the hair under the armpits and cutting the nails." [Reported by Bukhari, Muslim and others…]
Therefore, removing hair from around anus is not merely permissible but it is even likeable.
Know that hair of the back parts or around anus is not impure unless some impurity touches it. For more details, please read the Fatwa: 81950 and 86257.
Allah knows best."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2014, 09:41 AM
RE: Does Islam need a reformation?
Does fundamentalist Islam need to change, or be changed, or end? Yes.

But that's not the question of this thread.

It's important to recognize that the book and the doctrine, that the prohibitions and the mandates, are not the religion. That is the faith in principle, but what we end up dealing with is the faith as practiced. For example, even if the Koran says to behead infidels, if Muslims do not practice this, then it is not a problem.

Whether Islam needs to be reformed is, therefore, a question about whether Islam AS PRACTICED needs to be reformed.

As practiced, the majority of Muslims are capable of living in civil societies side-by-side with their sectarian opposites, as well as members of other religions. There are strong trends of oppression and male authoritarianism where Islam involves itself with the state (as when Christianity involves itself with the state), so separation of church and state needs to be observed.

There are, of course, the extremists and radicals, who often base their faith on a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the text... which, yes, are truer to traditional, even original, practices of the religion. These are quite intolerant and capable of great violence, and some method of withstanding, surviving, crippling, or eliminating this trend needs to be adopted. However, they are a minority, and are not representative of the religion as practiced at large. (Wait, am I talking about Christianity or Islam? ... Islam. Okay. Works for either one.) Their presence does not point to a need to reform the entirety of Islam, so much as clean the cobwebs out of some of its corners. (This isn't to say that Islam doesn't need reforming... just that a radical minority does not constitute a good argument for general reformation.)

It should also be noted that much of this radicalization is the result of theocratic governments, either directly in compelling their people to obedience and mobilizing them against perceived enemies, or indirectly in empowering with popular discontent radicals who will stand against the theocratic governments. Again, this emphasizes the need for separation of church and state, rather than any fundamental change of Islam.

But that's also not the question being asked. The question being asked is whether Islam needs a reformation... which I read as being parallel to the Christian Reformation. And the answer to that question is, that it is not applicable to Islam.

The Christian Reformation was a theological (and eventually cultural, political, and military) rebellion against the central authority in Western Christianity: The Catholic Church. It was motivated by the blatant corruption and abuses of church officials, and it replaced a heirarchial model (in which priests were intermediaries between the religious and the divine, handling matters of communication, interpretation, confession, and passing along commands) with a more personal model. It ended with the Catholic Church as simply one of many denominations... one of the largest, true, but no longer the monolith.

What exists in Islam today is the exact opposite of the preconditions of the Christian Reformation. There is no central agency in a position of authority to rebel against. None. Imams aren't appointed by hierarchies, and there's no Muslim Pope holding everything together. When one of them starts being abusive, it's not held against the larger institution. There IS no larger institution to blame. There's only a tradition of beliefs, texts, and judgements deemed holy, and the individuals who must be getting it wrong. Somehow. Rejecting the individuals does not lead to rejecting the religion or reforming the religion. Similarly, when a theocratic government grows burdensome, it is the government, and not the theology, that gets the blame. That's what we're seeing in the Arab Spring, at least. The causes of internal anger and righteous indignation within Islam aren't "sticking" to Islam the way that their counterparts during the Reformation "stuck" to Catholicism, and that is because the Catholic Church was an institution as well as a religion, and Islam is just a religion. So the cases aren't parallel, and I think any analogy between the two would be dangerous.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2014, 09:43 AM
RE: Does Islam need a reformation?
(05-09-2014 09:01 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Know that hair of the back parts or around anus is not impure unless some impurity touches it. For more details, please read the Fatwa: 81950 and 86257.
Allah knows best."
So our shit is pure?

Islam doesnt need a reformation, it needs a demolition.

All great truths begin as blasphemy - George Bernard Shaw
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Anna's post
05-09-2014, 10:11 AM
RE: Does Islam need a reformation?
(05-09-2014 09:41 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Does fundamentalist Islam need to change, or be changed, or end? Yes.

But that's not the question of this thread.

It's important to recognize that the book and the doctrine, that the prohibitions and the mandates, are not the religion. That is the faith in principle, but what we end up dealing with is the faith as practiced. For example, even if the Koran says to behead infidels, if Muslims do not practice this, then it is not a problem.

Whether Islam needs to be reformed is, therefore, a question about whether Islam AS PRACTICED needs to be reformed.

As practiced, the majority of Muslims are capable of living in civil societies side-by-side with their sectarian opposites, as well as members of other religions. There are strong trends of oppression and male authoritarianism where Islam involves itself with the state (as when Christianity involves itself with the state), so separation of church and state needs to be observed.

There are, of course, the extremists and radicals, who often base their faith on a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the text... which, yes, are truer to traditional, even original, practices of the religion. These are quite intolerant and capable of great violence, and some method of withstanding, surviving, crippling, or eliminating this trend needs to be adopted. However, they are a minority, and are not representative of the religion as practiced at large. (Wait, am I talking about Christianity or Islam? ... Islam. Okay. Works for either one.) Their presence does not point to a need to reform the entirety of Islam, so much as clean the cobwebs out of some of its corners. (This isn't to say that Islam doesn't need reforming... just that a radical minority does not constitute a good argument for general reformation.)

It should also be noted that much of this radicalization is the result of theocratic governments, either directly in compelling their people to obedience and mobilizing them against perceived enemies, or indirectly in empowering with popular discontent radicals who will stand against the theocratic governments. Again, this emphasizes the need for separation of church and state, rather than any fundamental change of Islam.

But that's also not the question being asked. The question being asked is whether Islam needs a reformation... which I read as being parallel to the Christian Reformation. And the answer to that question is, that it is not applicable to Islam.

The Christian Reformation was a theological (and eventually cultural, political, and military) rebellion against the central authority in Western Christianity: The Catholic Church. It was motivated by the blatant corruption and abuses of church officials, and it replaced a heirarchial model (in which priests were intermediaries between the religious and the divine, handling matters of communication, interpretation, confession, and passing along commands) with a more personal model. It ended with the Catholic Church as simply one of many denominations... one of the largest, true, but no longer the monolith.

What exists in Islam today is the exact opposite of the preconditions of the Christian Reformation. There is no central agency in a position of authority to rebel against. None. Imams aren't appointed by hierarchies, and there's no Muslim Pope holding everything together. When one of them starts being abusive, it's not held against the larger institution. There IS no larger institution to blame. There's only a tradition of beliefs, texts, and judgements deemed holy, and the individuals who must be getting it wrong. Somehow. Rejecting the individuals does not lead to rejecting the religion or reforming the religion. Similarly, when a theocratic government grows burdensome, it is the government, and not the theology, that gets the blame. That's what we're seeing in the Arab Spring, at least. The causes of internal anger and righteous indignation within Islam aren't "sticking" to Islam the way that their counterparts during the Reformation "stuck" to Catholicism, and that is because the Catholic Church was an institution as well as a religion, and Islam is just a religion. So the cases aren't parallel, and I think any analogy between the two would be dangerous.


I should have capitalized Reformation.

Yes, there is no Caliph but I think the question is still valid, in a way. You say that the Christian Reformation made the religion more of a personal one. What was partly responsible for that was the movement to translate the Bible into languages that people spoke. The Koran is to be read only in old Arabic and only a few percent of Muslims have read it, so in a way, they are where Western Europe was before Wycliffe et al.

Virtually no ordinary Muslim knows what the Koran actually says which is why its interpretation is left to Imams who issue these Fatwas.

What I am saying is that the regard which we in the West have for freedom of thought is a statement against religions which dictate, and in favor of individual choice based on the ability of the individual to interpret religion for him/herself. That presupposes a society which has been through something like the Reformation.

Would we, for instance, tolerate, as a religion, the activities of the Etoro people if they were in the US or Europe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etoro_people
Or the paganism of the Saxons perhaps?

I think what I am trying to get across is that the activities which define Islam are rituals which are anti-freedom of religion, anathema to it. How can a religion which is a throw back to something worse than what the reformation sought to get rid of be given equal status before the very laws, ie., freedoms of religion and conscience, which it seeks to do away with?


More on nail trimming:

Fatwa No : 84160
Cutting the nails
Fatwa Date : Rabee' Al-Awwal 3, 1423 / 14-5-2002
Question
I would like to ask about cutting the nails, should we cut them (as I do) or leave them very long? I have read many times that cutting the nails is a must and they should be pared every 7 days trimmed every 40 days, as I try my best to advise my friend that Shaitan will be under them, but she chooses to listen to others as they tell her what she wants to hear. I have tried many times now to advise her and don't know what to do now for the best. Could I be wrong in my understanding in what I have read? Please advise me in what is the right path to take?
Answer
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the World; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.

It is proved in the sound collections of Hadith of al-Bukhari and Muslim from Abu Hurairah (Radiya Allahu Anhu) that Allah's Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: "Five things are part of one's Fitra (human nature and disposition): Shaving the pubic hairs, circumcision, trimming the moustache, removing the hair under the arms and trimming the nails" .
The above-named Hadith indicates that performing such acts constitutes part of human Fitra, which Allah has created in all human beings; it also urges them to do such acts so as to acquire the best and finest qualities of the human being.
As mentioned above, trimming the nails means to pare them and to keep them short so as to prevent dirt from remaining under them; otherwise this constitutes a violation to the Sunnah of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam). He (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) stated that we should not leave them (acts of Fitra except circumcision) more than forty days as reported in a sound Hadith by Imam Muslim . This means that we are allowed to leave trimming the nails no more than forty days; otherwise it becomes disallowed.
In addition, if leaving the nails to be long is just to imitate non-Muslim women, then it becomes a violation to Shari'a for two reasons: imitation and breaching the Prophet's (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) guidance.
As for the inquirer's saying that the devil will be under long nails, there is no evidence in the Qur'an or Sunnah for such assumption according to our knowledge.
Allah knows best.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2014, 10:16 AM
RE: Does Islam need a reformation?
Well, at least the devil isn't under long nails...phew, that's good news.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2014, 10:32 AM
RE: Does Islam need a reformation?
Islam needs a new Koran and a new Mohammad who isn't a pedophile and a serial killer. And an Allah that isn't an asshole.

with the Prophet that they have and the book that they have there cannot really be a reformation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2014, 10:41 AM
RE: Does Islam need a reformation?
(05-09-2014 09:01 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  It gets better. These are deep philosophical issues in Islam which require guidance from religious clericsconsidering that departing from the true path of righteousnss can result in being beheaded as an infidel. This is from http://www.islamweb.net/emainpage/index....d&Id=87389

" Fatwa No : 87389
Shaving hair from around the anus
Fatwa Date : Safar 20, 1425 / 10-4-2004
Question
Can we also remove hair from our back parts like around the anus? Is that allowed ‎because this hair is impure?‎

Answer
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.

Some scholars are of the opinion that shaving hair from around anus comes under the ruling of shaving one’s pubes. It is called Sunan al-Fitrah mentioned in the Hadith narrated by Ayisha (Radiya Allahu Anhua) that the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: "Five are the acts quite akin to the Fitrah: - shaving the pubes, circumcision, clipping the moustache, plucking the hair under the armpits and cutting the nails." [Reported by Bukhari, Muslim and others…]
Therefore, removing hair from around anus is not merely permissible but it is even likeable.
Know that hair of the back parts or around anus is not impure unless some impurity touches it. For more details, please read the Fatwa: 81950 and 86257.
Allah knows best."

Blink

I keep trying to type a comment on the idiocy of this, but I think it broke my brainaidojwfjgekf.

[Image: drool-smiley.gif]

Popcorn I put more thought into fiction than theists put into reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2014, 10:42 AM (This post was last modified: 05-09-2014 10:58 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Does Islam need a reformation?
There is a great new book out called "City of Lies", by a woman journalist, about the fakery of living in Teheran and how bogus Islam is really there, and the fraud being perpetrated by Islamic clerics that it really is an Islamic country, how vast numbers of people quietly don't buy into it at all. (She says a lot of younger people at work "do prayers", but actually don't really know any words for them, so they pretend to pray, and just mumble jibberish to make it sound like they are saying something, as well as quietly drink and party). Here is a review of it by the WSJ. (Love the seminary joke at the beginning). Haven't read it yet, but I will as soon as I can get a copy.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/book-revi...1409698848

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2014, 12:53 PM
RE: Does Islam need a reformation?
(05-09-2014 10:11 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(05-09-2014 09:41 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  Does fundamentalist Islam need to change, or be changed, or end? Yes.

But that's not the question of this thread.

It's important to recognize that the book and the doctrine, that the prohibitions and the mandates, are not the religion. That is the faith in principle, but what we end up dealing with is the faith as practiced. For example, even if the Koran says to behead infidels, if Muslims do not practice this, then it is not a problem.

Whether Islam needs to be reformed is, therefore, a question about whether Islam AS PRACTICED needs to be reformed.

As practiced, the majority of Muslims are capable of living in civil societies side-by-side with their sectarian opposites, as well as members of other religions. There are strong trends of oppression and male authoritarianism where Islam involves itself with the state (as when Christianity involves itself with the state), so separation of church and state needs to be observed.

There are, of course, the extremists and radicals, who often base their faith on a literal, fundamentalist interpretation of the text... which, yes, are truer to traditional, even original, practices of the religion. These are quite intolerant and capable of great violence, and some method of withstanding, surviving, crippling, or eliminating this trend needs to be adopted. However, they are a minority, and are not representative of the religion as practiced at large. (Wait, am I talking about Christianity or Islam? ... Islam. Okay. Works for either one.) Their presence does not point to a need to reform the entirety of Islam, so much as clean the cobwebs out of some of its corners. (This isn't to say that Islam doesn't need reforming... just that a radical minority does not constitute a good argument for general reformation.)

It should also be noted that much of this radicalization is the result of theocratic governments, either directly in compelling their people to obedience and mobilizing them against perceived enemies, or indirectly in empowering with popular discontent radicals who will stand against the theocratic governments. Again, this emphasizes the need for separation of church and state, rather than any fundamental change of Islam.

But that's also not the question being asked. The question being asked is whether Islam needs a reformation... which I read as being parallel to the Christian Reformation. And the answer to that question is, that it is not applicable to Islam.

The Christian Reformation was a theological (and eventually cultural, political, and military) rebellion against the central authority in Western Christianity: The Catholic Church. It was motivated by the blatant corruption and abuses of church officials, and it replaced a heirarchial model (in which priests were intermediaries between the religious and the divine, handling matters of communication, interpretation, confession, and passing along commands) with a more personal model. It ended with the Catholic Church as simply one of many denominations... one of the largest, true, but no longer the monolith.

What exists in Islam today is the exact opposite of the preconditions of the Christian Reformation. There is no central agency in a position of authority to rebel against. None. Imams aren't appointed by hierarchies, and there's no Muslim Pope holding everything together. When one of them starts being abusive, it's not held against the larger institution. There IS no larger institution to blame. There's only a tradition of beliefs, texts, and judgements deemed holy, and the individuals who must be getting it wrong. Somehow. Rejecting the individuals does not lead to rejecting the religion or reforming the religion. Similarly, when a theocratic government grows burdensome, it is the government, and not the theology, that gets the blame. That's what we're seeing in the Arab Spring, at least. The causes of internal anger and righteous indignation within Islam aren't "sticking" to Islam the way that their counterparts during the Reformation "stuck" to Catholicism, and that is because the Catholic Church was an institution as well as a religion, and Islam is just a religion. So the cases aren't parallel, and I think any analogy between the two would be dangerous.


I should have capitalized Reformation.

Yes, there is no Caliph but I think the question is still valid, in a way. You say that the Christian Reformation made the religion more of a personal one. What was partly responsible for that was the movement to translate the Bible into languages that people spoke. The Koran is to be read only in old Arabic and only a few percent of Muslims have read it, so in a way, they are where Western Europe was before Wycliffe et al.

Virtually no ordinary Muslim knows what the Koran actually says which is why its interpretation is left to Imams who issue these Fatwas.

What I am saying is that the regard which we in the West have for freedom of thought is a statement against religions which dictate, and in favor of individual choice based on the ability of the individual to interpret religion for him/herself. That presupposes a society which has been through something like the Reformation.

Would we, for instance, tolerate, as a religion, the activities of the Etoro people if they were in the US or Europe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etoro_people
Or the paganism of the Saxons perhaps?

I think what I am trying to get across is that the activities which define Islam are rituals which are anti-freedom of religion, anathema to it. How can a religion which is a throw back to something worse than what the reformation sought to get rid of be given equal status before the very laws, ie., freedoms of religion and conscience, which it seeks to do away with?


More on nail trimming:

Fatwa No : 84160
Cutting the nails
Fatwa Date : Rabee' Al-Awwal 3, 1423 / 14-5-2002
Question
I would like to ask about cutting the nails, should we cut them (as I do) or leave them very long? I have read many times that cutting the nails is a must and they should be pared every 7 days trimmed every 40 days, as I try my best to advise my friend that Shaitan will be under them, but she chooses to listen to others as they tell her what she wants to hear. I have tried many times now to advise her and don't know what to do now for the best. Could I be wrong in my understanding in what I have read? Please advise me in what is the right path to take?
Answer
Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the World; and may His blessings and peace be upon our Prophet Muhammad and upon all his Family and Companions.

It is proved in the sound collections of Hadith of al-Bukhari and Muslim from Abu Hurairah (Radiya Allahu Anhu) that Allah's Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) said: "Five things are part of one's Fitra (human nature and disposition): Shaving the pubic hairs, circumcision, trimming the moustache, removing the hair under the arms and trimming the nails" .
The above-named Hadith indicates that performing such acts constitutes part of human Fitra, which Allah has created in all human beings; it also urges them to do such acts so as to acquire the best and finest qualities of the human being.
As mentioned above, trimming the nails means to pare them and to keep them short so as to prevent dirt from remaining under them; otherwise this constitutes a violation to the Sunnah of the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam). He (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) stated that we should not leave them (acts of Fitra except circumcision) more than forty days as reported in a sound Hadith by Imam Muslim . This means that we are allowed to leave trimming the nails no more than forty days; otherwise it becomes disallowed.
In addition, if leaving the nails to be long is just to imitate non-Muslim women, then it becomes a violation to Shari'a for two reasons: imitation and breaching the Prophet's (Sallallahu Alaihi wa Sallam) guidance.
As for the inquirer's saying that the devil will be under long nails, there is no evidence in the Qur'an or Sunnah for such assumption according to our knowledge.
Allah knows best.

This is an example of a point I made earlier. Many Muslims -- especially moderate Muslims, in Western-influenced regions of the world -- HAVE read the Koran in a language other than the original. Just because a bunch of fundamentalists are pushing that rule, doesn't mean that all the others will obey it, whatever scriptural or doctrinal justifications for that rule the fundamentalists might put forward.

As for whether that is an example of why a Reformation is needed? My point isn't that there isn't a need for the sort of freedom of thought that the Reformation brought (eventually... after centuries of bloody civil wars, holy wars, and Inquisition). My point is that it wouldn't work. The Christian Reformation had a clearly-defined, powerful, common enemy who was in many ways working CONTRARY to the written holy text, was obviously corrupt, and wanted it destroyed.... and even with all that, the Reformation was a splintered, disparate mess that could almost never work together to accomplish its goals... and in the end, a large measure of its success was the Vatican's centralized efforts to institute reform within the Catholic Church as well. Without that central, common enemy, the Reformation never would have managed what it did. The situation on the ground on Islam is just too different from that in mid-2nd-millenium Christendom to think the same thing will work.

... also, none of the actors in the Christian Reformation and Counter-Reformation had nukes. Or chemical weapons. Or even high explosives (though I'll give Fawkes a nod for trying). That could've changed how it would have gone down. Shocking
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-09-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: Does Islam need a reformation?
(05-09-2014 12:53 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  This is an example of a point I made earlier. Many Muslims -- especially moderate Muslims, in Western-influenced regions of the world -- HAVE read the Koran in a language other than the original. Just because a bunch of fundamentalists are pushing that rule, doesn't mean that all the others will obey it, whatever scriptural or doctrinal justifications for that rule the fundamentalists might put forward.

As for whether that is an example of why a Reformation is needed? My point isn't that there isn't a need for the sort of freedom of thought that the Reformation brought (eventually... after centuries of bloody civil wars, holy wars, and Inquisition). My point is that it wouldn't work. The Christian Reformation had a clearly-defined, powerful, common enemy who was in many ways working CONTRARY to the written holy text, was obviously corrupt, and wanted it destroyed.... and even with all that, the Reformation was a splintered, disparate mess that could almost never work together to accomplish its goals... and in the end, a large measure of its success was the Vatican's centralized efforts to institute reform within the Catholic Church as well. Without that central, common enemy, the Reformation never would have managed what it did. The situation on the ground on Islam is just too different from that in mid-2nd-millenium Christendom to think the same thing will work.

Indeed. Any random mufti can issue a fatwa; it means next to nothing unless enforced by other means. In which case it's not a religious change needed, but a political one.

There is no common authority for Muslims in anything like the role the Catholic church played before the Reformation - and there hasn't been for hundreds and hundreds of years.

(05-09-2014 12:53 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  ... also, none of the actors in the Christian Reformation and Counter-Reformation had nukes. Or chemical weapons. Or even high explosives (though I'll give Fawkes a nod for trying). That could've changed how it would have gone down. Shocking

The Thirty Years' War was already one of the bloodiest wars of all time. Add to that the French and British religious wars... Old-fashioned methods got pretty good high scores already.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: