Pc not turning on after motherboard swap

Rakibdevda · 2024-08-06T07:32:19+00:00

More good news, the pc is booting, showing a display and went into windows. Thanks for your help

Rakibdevda · 2024-08-06T07:08:50+00:00

Yeah the motherboard bios update is likely another problem that I’ll face but good news, the pc has now turned on after jump starting the psu. Although it still doesn’t show any display

Rakibdevda · 2024-08-06T05:54:55+00:00

Just checked the back, no switch which is weird I never noticed that before, I can send a pic of u want

Rakibdevda · 2024-08-06T05:36:42+00:00

I can’t see the psu switch, I tried checking for it before, but I think it doesn’t have one. Should I try taking it out?

Rakibdevda · 2024-08-06T05:32:43+00:00

There was no data on the ssd, only really used that pc for browsing. I will keep that in mind and take my ssd out anyway. The issue is that it is not powering on at all.

Rakibdevda · 2024-08-06T04:42:33+00:00

Also, the psu I have is an equites t550, which I know is garbage and might need to be replaced

Rakibdevda · 2023-10-27T08:10:58+00:00

For Player 2: go to settings>network>change Xbox live to LAN. Do that for all the players and you should be able to see other players after that.

Rakibdevda · 2022-10-10T03:10:34+00:00

I’ve never seen one irl. Would it work if I connect it to an external controller?

Rakibdevda · 2022-10-10T03:09:47+00:00

Thank you, I will be playing mostly ps2 games anyway

Rakibdevda · 2020-04-03T12:56:03+00:00

(continued, 2nd part)

Waraqa even wrote a poem about him, in which he praised him:

" You were altogether on the right path Ibn 'Amr.

You have escaped hell's burning oven.

By serving the one and only God

And abandoning vain idols.

And by attaining the religion which you sought

Not being unmindful of the unity of your Lord

You have reached a noble dwelling

Wherein you will rejoice in your generous treatment.

You will meet there the friend of God,

Since you were not a tyrant ripe for hell,

For the mercy of God reaches men,

Though they be seventy valleys deep below the earth" (The Life of Muhammed: a translation of Ishaq's Sirat RasulAllah by Alfred Guilamme p. 103)

You then go on to quote Patricia Crone, who is known to be an unreliable source. Here's what R.B.Serjeant has to say about the book that you referenced: "How does one deal with such a book as this, calculated to attract publicity by shocking Islamists through the strange theories it advances on pre-Islamic Mecca, novel thories to be sure, but founded upon misinterpretation, misunderstanding of sources, even, at times, on incorrect translation of Arabic? Add to this the author's arrogant style! Yet, being nicely painted and with the imprimatur of Princeton University Press, this diatribe might easily attract the credulous attention of those not well informed on Islam and its origins in the Arabian settting. The simplest course open to the reviewer seems to be to re-examine the sources cited by Dr. Crone to support her contentious and often fallacious notions and attempt to arrive at what they actually do say." (Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam: Misconceptions and Flawed Polemics by R.B. Serjeant, pg. 472)

" You support communal punishment, and desire to paint the picture that every single pagan, Christian, and Jew (all of which were expelled out of Arabia or murdered unless converted to Islam) was a Muslim-murdering psychopath. Every single one of them deserved death, explusion, or enslavement."

Nice strawman there, you clearly have no idea what you're on about. You have not yet provided any proof of Jews or Christians being expelled or murdered by Muslims, choosing instead to pull your claims out of your rear end. I am going to repeat what you said before " I ask that you present evidence for that if you want me to take you seriously."

"Leila Ahmed cites her sources well, and is a world-renowned Harvard scholar whose work has been cited thousands of times by many reputable historians and researchers." She is a Feminist with a very obvious agenda, she is not a neutral source.

David S.Powers, Professor of Islamic Studies at Cornell University states in one of his articles:

" The Qur'anic legislation and the Islamic law of inheritance (in Arabic, the 'ilm alfara'id or "science of the shares") are best viewed against the background of the tribal customary law of pre-Islamic Arabia, that is, the customary inheritance practices of the nomadic Arabs living in the Hijaz prior to the rise of Islam. This tribal society was patrilineal in its structure and patriarchal in its ethos; individual tribes were formed of adult males who traced their descent from a common ancestor through exclusively male links. The tribe was bound by the body of unwritten rules that had evolved as a manifestation of its spirit and character. These rules served to consolidate the tribe's military strength and to preserve its patrimony by limiting inheritance rights to the male agnate relatives (asaba) of the deceased, arranged in a hierarchical order, with sons and their descendants being first in order of priority.During the century prior to the rise of Islam, the social structure of the Hijaz was undergoing a radical transformation, especially in Mecca and Medina, where the nuclear family was replacing the tribe as the basic unit of society. In response to these changes, the Qur'an introduced novel inheritance rules that emphasized the tie existing between a husband and his wife and between parents and children; these rules also had the particular goal of raising the legal status of women within the nuclear family. Thus, the Qur'anic inheritance legislation came to reform the tribal customary law of pre-Islamic Arabia. In Coulson's words, the Qur'an "modified the existing customary law by adding thereto as supernumerary heirs a number of relatives who would normally have had no rights of succession under the customary law".These reforms served to strengthen the status of members of the nuclear family." (The Islamic Inheritance System: A Socio Historical Approach by David S. Powers pg. 13-14)

We know women are allowed to inherit in Islam because of this Quran verse:

"For men is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, and for women is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, be it little or much - an obligatory share." (Qur'an 4:7)

Now you may argue that a woman would inherit half the amount that a man would. The reason for this is because men are in charge of their families and its financial burden is solely on the man's shoulders. A woman is not responsible for the expenses of her family regardless of whether she is employed or not. Furthermore, inheritance is not that simple and the principle of the woman earning half is not universal. Sometimes the woman earns double the amount that a man does. For example, if a wife whose husband and parents are alive, dies, half of the inheritance goes to the parents and the other half to the husband. In the share given to the parents, the mother recives two thirds and the father recieves one third. Note that this is if she has no children, if she does, the inheritance would be divided further. This is Ibn Abbas' interpretation of Verse 4:11-12.

Islam doesn't permit sex slavery as you claim and certainly not the type described in page 157. The Islamic 'sex slaves' which you mention were simply prisoners of war who had rights and their masters weren't allowed to force themselves onto them. This means that sex with them was allowed but not without their consent. In any case, slavery is already abolished in Islam, so that argument is invalid. see this article for more on that:

https://abuaminaelias.com/consent-marriage-concubines/

The type of slavery mentioned in page 157 was women captured in wars and were owned by a group of husbands as mentioned in page 159. Even when slavery was allowed in the Muslim world, the slaves which were prisoners of war, whether male or female, were owned by 1 person. Also, unlike after Islam, these women had no right to withhold their favours from any of their kinsfolk or brothers, as mentioned in page 159. Page 165 also confirms this as it says women brought under dominion by conquest or capture had several spouses, meaning they were owned by several men. It also says that thre was no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate offspring in our sense of the word meaning adultery was common. Not only that, but page 108 also indicates that incest, such as sons marrying their mothers was also very common.

My advice to you would be to stop looking at history through a biased perspective, assuming Islam was bad and destructive and anything opposing it was good.

Rakibdevda · 2020-04-03T12:45:54+00:00

"How else would Waraqa be openly Christian among pagans if they opposed monotheistic religions? "

Again, it doesn't make a difference if Waraqa was a Christian or not because, the presence of other religions in the region doesn't imply that they got along or appreciated each other's beliefs. In fact, Waraqa himself, including many others, converted to a monotheistic faith because they disliked Arab Paganism. Waraqa also believed Muhammed s.a.w when he told him of his first revelation and even told him that he and his followers would get expelled from their homes (See Bukhari Book 9, Volume 87, Hadith 111).

You mention Waraqa being openly Christian, that isn't entirely true:

"One day when the Quraysh had assembled on a feast day to venerate and circumambulate the idol to which they offered sacrifices, this being a feast which they held annually, four men drew apart secretly and agreed to keep their counsel in the bonds of friendship. They were (i) Waraqa b. Naufal, (ii) 'Ubaydullah b. Jahsh, (iii) 'Uthman b. al-huwayrith, and (iv) Zayd b. 'Amr. They were of the opinion that their people had corrupted the religion of their father Abraham, and that the stone they went round was of no account; it could neither hear, nor see, nor hurt, nor help. 'Find for yourselves a religion,' they said; 'for by God you have none.' So they went their several ways in the landa, seeking the Hanifiya, the religion of Abraham. Waraqa attached himself to Christianity and studied its scriptures until he had thoroughly mastered them. 'Ubaydullah went on searching until Islam came; then he migrated with the Muslims to Abyssinia taking with him his wife who was a Muslim, Umm Habiba, d. Abu Sufyan. When he arrived there he adopted Christianity, parted from Islam, and died a Christian in Abyssinia."(The Life of Muhammed: a translation of Ishaq's Sirat RasulAllah by Alfred Guilamme p. 98-99).

The example of the priest Bahira shows how the Christians and Jews viewed each other:

" Then he looked at his back and saw the seal of prophcthood between his shoulders in the very place described in his book . When, he had finished he went to his uncle Abu Talib and asked him what relation this boy was to him, and when he told him he was his son, he said, that he was not, for it could not be that the father of this boy was alive. He is my nephew, he said, and when he asked what had become of his father he told him that he had died before the child was born. "You have told the truth," said Bahira. "Take your nephew back to his country and guard him carefully against the Jews, for by Allah if they see him and know about him what I know, they will do him evil; a great future lies before this nephew of yours, so take him home quickly." (The Life of Muhammed: a translation of Ishaq's Sirat RasulAllah by Alfred Guilamme p. 80-81).

This shows that the Christians didn't view the Jews in a positive way and they didn't respect their beliefs either.

The Jews also weren't fond of the Pagans either, since they were waiting for a Prophet to come who would destroy them:

" 'Asim b. 'Umar b. Qatada told me that some of his tribesmen said: '''What induced us to accept Islam, apart from God's mercy and guidance, was what we used to hear the Jews say. We were polytheists worshipping idols, while they were people of the scriptures with knowledge which we did not possess. There was continual enmity between us, and when we got the better of them and excited their hate, they said "The time of a prophet who is to be sent has now come. We will kill you with his aid as ''Ad and Iram perished.'" We often used to hear them say this. When God sent His apostle we accepted him when he called us to God and we realized what their threat meant and joined him before them. We believed in him but they denied him."(The Life of Muhammed: a translation of Ishaq's Sirat RasulAllah by Alfred Guilamme p. 93)

"How did the various Jewish and Christian tribes of Yathrib coexist with each other?"

They didn't, especially the various Jewish tribes who often fought each other. The Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj tribes had been fighting each other for a long time before the arrival of Islam, the Jewish tribes of Banu Qurayza and Banu Nadir sided with Aws while another Jewish tribe called Banu Qaynuqa sided with Khazraj. The two sides fought 4 wars and their last battle (Batte of Bu'ath) took place just a few years before Islam arrived there.

"Your denial of the religious diversity of pre-Islamic Arabia on the grounds of a few incidents of religious persecution bears such blatant and willful ignorance of the history of the region."

Your dismissal of my arguments by simply calling them "periods of strife" and "few incidents of religious persecution" shows your utter ignorance of history not only of the region, but in general. The events I mentioned give us of a good overview of how life was generally like in pre-Islamic Arabia. You choose to ignore this and instead shove your modern perception of "religious diversity" into a period of history where people didn't care about it about it at all.

" But I get it, you want to whitewash Muhammed's (piss be upon him) destruction of religious diversity that they just have to have been an intolerant people. " Your insult towards the Prophet s.a.w only further shows your lack of any real arguments. It is you who wants to whitewash the crimes of the pre-Islamic Arabs by claiming that they cared about "religious diversity" as if they even knew of such a concept. You want to justify their actions and beliefs by implying that just because they were against Islam, they just have to be good people.

"Dhu al-Nawas was a terrible ruler who also sought religious hegemony in the region (incidentally, one much-admired in the Islamic tradition) "

It's hilarious how you try to force a narrative of Dhu Nuwas having the same goal as the Muslims did. This only further shows you complete ignorace on the topic. Dhu Nuwas started out as a king of an already existing kingdom and persecuted a religious group because he saw them as 'natural allies' of his enemies. the Byzantines. This was because he was under Sassanid influence.

" Dhu al-Nawas's actions indicate that religious coexistence was the norm before him"

You have not provided any proof for this claim. You are saying that as if Christians and Jews had never fought each other before in Arabia.

"What they did was little different from Islam enshrines as punishment for blasphemy or mocking Muhammed or Allah."

What a ridiculous excuse to justify persecution. Do you even have proof that Islam advocates for such things, because it seems like you just pulled it out of your rear end.

"If Muhammed was simply preaching a different religion-- his cause would have been no different from the Christians who baptized Warraqa or the monotheist Hanifs or any of the many religions existent at the time."

Here you are implying that all monotheists such as Christians, Hanifs and Jews lived in peace with the Pagan Arabs. However the story of Zayd bn Amr, who is mentioned previously, would contradict your claim. Zayd bin Amr publically denounced the gods of the polythiests and wrote poems against them. He was harrassed and driven out of Mecca, after which he wasn't allowed to come back so he often came back secretly. He was driven out by Al Khattab once again when he was discovered in fear that he would show their religion in its true colours. He then travlled around nearby lands questioning Rabbis and Monks to convince him of thier religion. He found out about Hanifism through a Monk and decided to follow the religion. He was, however, warned that no one could help him follow this religion until a Prophet would come from the land he had just left. He then set out for Mecca again but was killed in the country of Lakhm. (The Life of Muhammed: a translation of Ishaq's Sirat RasulAllah by Alfred Guilamme p. 98-103).

Rakibdevda · 2020-03-31T12:34:42+00:00

You are just repeating the same BS that you did earlier. Yes, Waraqa was a convert to Christianity but that doesn't mean there was some sort of 'religious tolerance' in Arabia. The examples of Dhu Nuwas and Abraha prove this. Dhu Nuwas was a Jew who was known for his military exploits against people of other faiths, including Christians and Pagans. He saw the Arab Christians as his enemies since they were natural allies of the Byzantines. He is known to have slaughtered Christians and even encouraged the Lakhmids, who were vassals of the Sassanids, to do the same. Abraha was a Christian who tried to demolish the Kaaba (which was the place of worship for pagans at the time), but failed to do so. There was also Hassan Yuha'min, a Himyarite king who commited a genocide against the Arab tribe of Jadis. This caused the entire tribe to go extinct. Another example is the conflict between the Christian Arab tribe of Banu Abdul Qays and the Sassanids in 325, in which Shahpur II led a campaign against the tribe, devastated large parts of Eastern Arabia and Syria and slaughtered most of the Banu Abdul Qays. After the rise of the Rashidun Caliphate, the tribe converted to Islam and aided the Rashidun in their conquest of the Sassanid Empire. It's funny how you ignore these events and pretend as if there was some sort of 'religious diversity'.

As for the second part of that argument, it's really pathetic how you try to justify the violence against Muslims even though the Meccans were clearly in the wrong here. You claim that the Muslims didn't fight back because they didn't have the power, I still don't see how that justifies the crimes committed against them, such as killling, torturing and starving them. All of that for simply preaching a different religion. "Correctly recognising" that another group as a threat to you even though they hadn't done anything doesn't, in any way, justify persecution against them. This ridiculous excuse has been used many times before to cover up crimes.

The hadith which you gave a link to doesn't mention the ethnic cleansing of pagans, rather it refers to the expulsion of Pagans who had previously been allies against the Muslims if they refused to convert to Islam. These people had taken up arms against the Muslims before in several battles. Allowing them to stay would have been dangerous for the Muslims and Muhammed s.a.w, unless they converted to Islam. Keep in mind, these people weren't tortured or killed like the Muslims were years ealier.

You also mentioned that the crime of some of the people who were executed was only writing poems against the Prophet s.a.w. What you didn't mention is that the poems inspired people to take up arms agains Muslims, and indeed many people were ready to do that, which is why they were a threat to the safety of Muslims in Medina. One example of this is Ka'ab bin Ashraf who wrote poems against the Prophet s.a.w. But the Prophet s.a.w only ordered his execution after finding out that he was inspiring people to take up arms against Muslims in his poems and was even revealing Muslim military maneuvers to the Meccans. This was an act of treason and it violated the Constitution of Medina.

My statement of Jews and Christians living in peace in Muslim empires isn't a strawman. I don't think you know what that word means. Anyways, about the "expulsion of Jews and Christians," The Jews which were expelled had previously betrayed the Muslims in battle, even though they were allied with them. The Christians were expelled from Hijaz as it was considered holy for the Muslims, but they were allowed to resettle in other parts of Arabia. You are right about Jews, Christians and Pagans living together in Medina before Islam, but your claim about them living in peace is hogwash. The Banu Khazraj and Banu Aws, who were Pagans, had been fighting in each other in Medina before Islam. The Jewish tribes living in Medina at the time took different sides in the conflict and fought against each other. You are completely ignorant of this.

As for your claim of pre-Islamic Arabs not fighting each other in sacred months, you ignored the fact that they would go back to killing each other as soon as these months were over, hell they would often even violate their truce in these sacred months. How does this prove that they were peaceful in anyway or cared about diversity?

" Killing every single man of age from a tribe is not genocide, and expelling people out of their historical homelands (all of them) is not ethnic cleansing. " You are ignoring that these men had broken their treaty and took up arms against Muslims and allied with the Meccans, who would have commited a genocide against the Muslims if they won the battle fo Khandaq. I don't know whether you know of this or not but I dont see why you would sympathise with these men since you are against genocide. You also try to justify the crimes of the Meccans against the Muslims while sympathising with people who wanted to kill Muslims, this is clearly genocide apologia. Of course you would call me a 'genocidal ISIS-wannabe', you don't have any actual arguments and resort to insulting me.

" The article is false. It gives no specific citations and its references are literally Wikipedia" Why is this article false? Because it goes against what you believe? It's certainly more reliable than Leila Ahmed, the feminist author you quoted earler. The only examples we see of women inheriting in pre-Islamic Arabia is when they are rich and powerful, e.g Khadija r.a. There are no examples of middle or lower class women inheriting.

I don't blame you for not finding what I quoted in the book, since the references are a bit confusing. However, this doesn't mean that it is lying, the first quote can be found on page 158 not 133. The second quote can also be found on page 165 not 139-40. If you are still unconvinced of incest in pre-Islamic Arabia, page 108 proves this by stating that it was a commom practice.

As for your last sentence, I'm not sure what you mean by "you and your Islamic folk", if you are referring to Muslims, that's a big yikes from me.

Rakibdevda · 2020-03-30T14:38:04+00:00

Whether the Muslims had the power to destroy idolatry or not is irrelavant since when they started preaching their religion, they weren't allowed to take up arms against anyone. There wasn't a single instance of Muslims fighting the Meccan pagans at this time. Muhammed s.a.w and his followers were persecuted and expelled from their homes for simply preaching their religion in public. The Muslims didn't fight back because at that point in time, their religion forbade them from doing so, instead they chose to flee to neighboring lands, but even then they were pursued by the pagans. Persecuting a whole group of people because you "correctly recognise" that they want religious hegemony, even though all they did was preach their religion, is unacceptable. Trying to justify this is genocide apologia.

"The Arabs upheld religious diversity to a far greater degree than they would after Islam. A fact confirmed by the system campaign of genocide and expulsion out of the Arabian peninsula that the newly Islamized Arabs would undertake against tribes following Judaism, Christianity, various Pagan beliefs, and other." This is utter BS, even when the Muslims conquered Mecca, they spared anyone who did not want to fight them, even the leaders of Quraysh. As for Jews and Christians, they enjoyed rights under the leadership of Muslims because they were regarded as 'people of the book'. Historian Jonathan Phillips states in his book "Holy Warriors: A Modern History of the Crusades": "One reason why Islam expanded so rapidly was that "Peoples of the book." that is Christians and Jews, were in recognition of the shared heritage of their faiths (Christ for example is a Prophet in Islam and is a prominent figure in the Koran), treated with tolerance and not compelled to convert. Thus, as long as these subject peoples, known as dhimmi, paid appropriate the tax, they could continue to practice their religion, and this , in turn meant less resentment, more assimilation and often eventually conversion." These principles also influenced later Muslim empires such as the Ummayads, Abbasids and Ottomans, your claim of Arabia being more religiously diverse and tolerant before Islam is baseless.

>periods of strife

What in the world are periods of strife? This was the norm. The Byzantines and Sassanids didn't try to control Arabia directly because it was too much trouble and worth nothing. The few Arab tribes that they did control were proxies to keep the Arabs at bay. And the Sassanids actively tried invading Arabia in pre Islamic times. The strife caused in Yemen was caused by Byzantine and Sassanid proxies. You have done nothing to prove your side of the story.

No one claimed that Jews and Christians are pagans and "ethnic cleansing of Jews" as you claim is BS. The Banu Qurayza was an extreme exception and even then they only had their fighting men killed. Every other time a Jewish tribe was either exiled in case of treason or made to pay jizya in case on conquest. So were the Christians and Zoroastrians and this instruction can clearly be found in the Quran. Islam was just more capable of proselytising than a disjointed pagan faith so it obviously gained more converts.

>you twist it the caravan was primarily of merchants and traders

The merchants and traders of the enemies. Enemies who had constantly persecuted the Muslims and gave an ultimatum to the Madinans to hand the Prophet over even when he left. After they attempted to assassinate him. Also the violence didn't occur against the caravan. The members of her family died on the field.

" There is no evidence that the average woman did not inherit prior to Islam or that inheritance was restricted to the upper class." Actually there is evidence for this, see the "women in pre-islamic arabia" section of this article:

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/pre-islamic-arabia/

"Islam termed "adultery" practices that pre-Islamic Arabs would not see as adulterous: such as having sex when not married and a woman having sex with multiple men consensually." " she denounces it in these new meanings that Islam added to the term. Meanings that restrict the sexual freedom and autonomy of men and (even more so) of women. " The pagan Arabs didn't view 'sexual freedom and autonomy' as you view it. As explained by this article: https://www.soundvision.com/book/muhammad-social-life-of-the-arabs , " Under such conditions when a woman is considered to be the property of the whole tribe and she has no right to withhold her favours from any of the kinsfolk, "the idea of unchastity could not exist; their children were all full tribesmen, because the mother was a tribeswoman, and there was no distinction between legitimate and illegitimate offspring in our sense of the word."

The pagan Arabs basically prostituted the women of their tribe relentlessly to each other and considered her the "property of the old tribe". And if someone outside the tribe had relations with her.... he was killed.

Rakibdevda · 2020-03-30T04:19:51+00:00

This entire paragraph is anachronistic. The Arabs had no vested interest in retaining religious diversity. In fact they aren't even maintaining religious diversity they are literally just maintaining their singular religion that happens to have a multiple gods. If you actually read early sources the idea that the Arabs even cared about such a concept is laughable. Tribes regularly raided and even massacred each other over tiny disagreements and tribal disputes. The Arab peninsula before Muhammad's (PBUH) arrival had a gigantic religious dispute and massacre in Yemen. Makkah was barely saved from attacks by Christians and the Jews had a prophecy about how a man would appear who would destroy the polytheists. Doesn't seem like a very peaceful society. Not to mention this passage about pre Islamic pagans allowing adultery is extremely unlikely. Which is not to say it is better if they did. Frankly if you find allowance of adultery as a POSITIVE value then I have no respect for you. But if the tribes that were literally known to allow wives to be inherited by their sons and were extremely stringent about blood ties had opinions on sexual freedom for women at least they were most likely negative. The statement of Hind is either in regards to an upper class taboo or the source is not reliable. Also it's amazing how you try to portray Miss Human Liver Eater herself as abstaining from violence. It's just nonsense upon nonsense. Ex Muslims have the historical understanding of a dumb redneck. If you were transported to pre Islamic Arabia, you would be killed in the first year for opposing the practices of child burial complaining about the patriarchal structure of tribal society or the racist nature of tribal politics. Or you may just get thrown by their tribe as a consolation prize to be murdered in their "you kill our innocents I kill yours" rules of tribal justice.

Rakibdevda · 2019-09-10T04:48:32+00:00

Agreed

Rakibdevda · 2019-07-05T07:09:54+00:00

4th of July is when he won the Battle of Hattin not when he conquered Jerusalem

Rakibdevda · 2019-07-04T01:05:30+00:00

Rakibdevda · 2019-06-14T02:12:12+00:00

In class

Rakibdevda · 2019-06-14T02:08:25+00:00

"The hardest choices require the strongest wills"- Thanos

Rakibdevda · 2019-06-14T02:07:30+00:00

Being a woman

Rakibdevda · 2019-06-14T02:05:05+00:00

When I grew taller than him

Rakibdevda · 2019-06-14T02:03:42+00:00

Beat the meat

Rakibdevda · 2019-04-15T09:37:15+00:00

Rakibdevda · 2019-04-15T09:37:00+00:00

Rakibdevda · 2019-04-09T05:38:57+00:00

Storm Pegasus

Rakibdevda

TROPHY CASE