The Seven Qiraa’aat are all Part of One Harf: ibn Taymiyah

Sheikh al-Islaam ibn Taymiyah once received a letter with a series of questions about the qiraa’aat in it, including:

وسئل عن قول النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم ” { أنزل القرآن على سبعة أحرف } ” ما المراد بهذه السبعة ؟ وهل هذه القراءات المنسوبة إلى نافع وعاصم وغيرهما هي الأحرف السبعة أو واحد منها ؟ وما السبب الذي أوجب الاختلاف بين القراء فيما احتمله خط المصحف ؟ وهل تجوز القراءة برواية الأعمش وابن محيصن وغيرهما من القراءات الشاذة أم لا ؟ وإذا جازت القراءة بها فهل تجوز الصلاة بها أم لا ؟ أفتونا مأجورين . ـ

The sheikh was asked about the Prophet’s statement, “The Qur’an was sent down in seven ahruf

(a) what is meant by these seven?

(b) Are the qiraa’aat attributed to Naafi’ and ‘Asim and others the seven ahruf or just one of them?

(c) What is it that causes there to be differences among the reciters within the bounds of the text of the official ‘Uthmani Mushaf?

(d) Is is permissible to recite the recitation of al-A’mash or ibn Muhaysin or other such shadh [non-canonical] recitations? If so, is allowed to pray with them?

We would greatly appreciate if you could deliver some verdicts for us.

[Majmoo’ Fataawaa 13/389]

What follows is part of Ibn Taymiyah‘s response to these questions, touching on the fourth question (d) and the second question (b) while also addressing a number of related topics such as the collection of the Qur’an:

وأما القراءة الشاذة الخارجة عن رسم المصحف العثماني مثل قراءة ابن مسعود وأبي الدرداء رضي الله عنهما ( والليل إذا يغشى والنهار إذا تجلى والذكر والأنثى كما قد ثبت ذلك في الصحيحين . ـ

There are the shadh [non-canonical] qiraa’aat which do not match with the text of the official ‘Uthmani mushaf, such as the recitation of ibn Mas’ood and Abu al-Dardaa’ (may Allah be pleased with them both) of:

وَاللَّيْلِ إذَا يَغْشَى * وَالنَّهَارِ إذَا تَجَلَّى * وَمَا خَلَقَ الذَّكَرَ وَالْأُنثَىٰ

By the night when it comes over * and by the day when it appears * and by He who created the male and the female [compare to 92:1-3]

as comes authentically in both al-Bukhari and Muslim.

ومثل قراءة عبد الله ( فصيام ثلاثة أيام متتابعات وكقراءته : ( إن كانت إلا زقية واحدة ونحو ذلك . فهذه إذا ثبتت عن بعض الصحابة فهل يجوز أن يقرأ بها في الصلاة ؟ على قولين للعلماء هما روايتان مشهورتان عن الإمام أحمد وروايتان عن مالك . ـ

And there is also the recitation of ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ood:

فَصِيَامُ ثَلَاثَةِ أَيَّامٍ مُتَتَابِعَاتٍ

So the fasting is three consecutive days [compare to 5:89]

and his recitation:

إنْ كَانَتْ إلَّا زقية وَاحِدَةً

It was not but on cry [compare to 36:29]

and so on.

So, if these are authentically attributed to some of the Sahabah, then is it permissible to recite with them during the salah?

There are two positions on this among the scholars, which are the two well-known opinions transmitted from Imam Ahmad, as well as both being transmitted from Imam Maalik.

ـ ” إحداهما ” يجوز ذلك لأن الصحابة والتابعين كانوا يقرءون بهذه الحروف في الصلاة . ـ

1) That it is permissible, for the Sahabah and the Taabi’oon used to recite with these huroof while praying.

” والثانية ” لا يجوز ذلك وهو قول أكثر العلماء ; لأن هذه [ ص: 395 ] القراءات لم تثبت متواترة عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وإن ثبتت فإنها منسوخة بالعرضة الآخرة فإنه قد ثبت في الصحاح { عن عائشة وابن عباس رضي الله عنهم أن جبريل عليه السلام كان يعارض النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بالقرآن في كل عام مرة فلما كان العام الذي قبض فيه عارضه به مرتين والعرضة الآخرة هي قراءة زيد بن ثابت وغيره } وهي التي أمر الخلفاء الراشدون أبو بكر وعمر وعثمان وعلي بكتابتها في المصاحف وكتبها أبو بكر وعمر في خلافة أبي بكر في صحف أمر زيد بن ثابت بكتابتها ثم أمر عثمان في خلافته بكتابتها في المصاحف وإرسالها إلى الأمصار وجمع الناس عليها باتفاق من الصحابة علي وغيره . ـ

2) That it is not permissible, which is the position of most scholars. That is because these qiraa’aat have not been authenticated as having come from the Prophet through mutawatir transmission. But even if they were to be authentically traced back to him, they are still abrogated by the final review of the Qur’an, as is well-established in the authentic reports on the authority of ‘A’ishah and ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with them both) that:

Jibril (peace be upon him) used to make a review of the Qur’an for the Prophet once every year, but then in the year in which the Prophet died he reviewed it with him twice and the final review was in the qiraa’ah recited by Zayd ibn Thabit and others.

And that was the recitation which the Rightly-Guided Khulafaa’ – Abu Bakr, ‘Umar, ‘Uthman, and ‘Ali – commanded that the mushafs to be written in. During the khilaafah of Abu Bakr, he and ‘Umar had that written down on loose sheets of paper, and he commanded Zayd ibn Thabit to write it. Then during his khilaafah, ‘Uthman commanded for that same recitation to be written down in bound books and he then sent those mushafs to the major cities. And there was unanimous consensus on that [during the time of ‘Ali] both from those who supported ‘Ali and from the other camp.

وهذا النزاع لا بد أن يبنى على الأصل الذي سأل عنه السائل وهو أن القراءات السبعة هل هي حرف من الحروف السبعة أم لا ؟ فالذي عليه جمهور العلماء من السلف والأئمة أنها حرف من الحروف السبعة ; بل يقولون : إن مصحف عثمان هو أحد الحروف السبعة وهو متضمن للعرضة الآخرة التي عرضها النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم على جبريل والأحاديث والآثار المشهورة المستفيضة تدل على هذا القول . وذهب طوائف من الفقهاء والقراء وأهل الكلام إلى أن هذا المصحف مشتمل على الأحرف السبعة وقرر ذلك طوائف من أهل الكلام [ ص: 396 ] كالقاضي أبي بكر الباقلاني وغيره ; بناء على أنه لا يجوز على الأمة أن تهمل نقل شيء من الأحرف السبعة وقد اتفقوا على نقل هذا المصحف الإمام العثماني وترك ما سواه حيث أمر عثمان بنقل القرآن من الصحف التي كان أبو بكر وعمر كتبا القرآن فيها ثم أرسل عثمان بمشاورة الصحابة إلى كل مصر من أمصار المسلمين بمصحف وأمر بترك ما سوى ذلك . ـ

This difference of opinion as to whether it is permissible to recite with the shadh [non-canonical] qiraa’aat or not revolves around one foundational point which the questioner asked about, which is whether or not the seven qiraa’aat are all part of just one of the seven ahruf or not.

The position of the majority of the scholars of the salaf and the imams of the fiqh schools is that the seven qiraa’aat all go back to just one of the seven ahruf. In fact they say that the official ‘Uthmani Mushaf is one of the seven ahruf and that it holds the final review of the Qur’an which Jibril gave to the Prophet. And the well-known and detailed statements from the Prophet and from the salaf support this position.

However, a group comprised of some experts in fiqh, some experts in the qiraa’aat and some of the Ahl al-Kalaam held that the official ‘Uthmani Mushaf contains all of the seven ahruf. And some of the Ahl al-Kalaam – such as al-Qaadhi Abu Bakr al-Baqilani and others – supported this position based on the idea that it is not permissible for the Ummah to overlook or abandon transmitting any part of the seven ahruf.

But in fact the Ummah unanimously agreed on transmitting this official ‘Uthmani Mushaf and leaving off what it did not include when ‘Uthman commanded the transmission of the Qur’an which Abu Bakr and ‘Umar had had recorded in a collection of loose papers, and then after consultation and in agreement with the Sahabah ‘Uthman had that sent to all of the major cities of the Muslims in the form of a mushaf and commanded the people to leave off anything other than that mushaf.

قال هؤلاء : ولا يجوز أن ينهى عن القراءة ببعض الأحرف السبعة . ومن نصر قول الأولين يجيب تارة بما ذكر محمد بن جرير وغيره من أن القراءة على الأحرف السبعة لم يكن واجبا على الأمة وإنما كان جائزا لهم مرخصا لهم فيه وقد جعل إليهم الاختيار في أي حرف اختاروه كما أن ترتيب السور لم يكن واجبا عليهم منصوصا ; بل مفوضا إلى اجتهادهم ; ولهذا كان ترتيب مصحف عبد الله على غير ترتيب مصحف زيد وكذلك مصحف غيره . ـ

But those of the second opinion say that it is not possible that ‘Uthman forbade the people from reciting any part of the seven ahruf.

However those who champion the first opinion sometimes respond to that point by mentioning what Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari and others said: that reciting the Qur’an in all seven ahruf is not something that is obligatory upon the Ummah; rather it is only something which was permitted for the Ummah in order to facilitate their recitation of the Qur’an, and Allah gave them the choice to select any harf they wanted. And this is like the situation of the arrangement of the surahs in the Qur’an – that the specific ordering that we have was not something obligatory which was explicitly stated by Allah or His Messenger. Rather, it was something left up to the ijtihad of the Sahabah. That is why the arrangement of the surahs in the mushaf of ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’ood or others was different from the arrangement of the surahs in the mushaf of Zayd ibn Thabit.

وأما ترتيب آيات السور فهو منزل منصوص عليه فلم يكن لهم أن يقدموا آية على آية في الرسم كما قدموا سورة على سورة لأن ترتيب الآيات مأمور به نصا وأما ترتيب السور فمفوض إلى اجتهادهم . قالوا : فكذلك الأحرف السبعة فلما رأى الصحابة أن الأمة تفترق وتختلف وتتقاتل إذا لم يجتمعوا على حرف واحد اجتمعوا على ذلك [ ص: 397 ] اجتماعا سائغا وهم معصومون أن يجتمعوا على ضلالة ولم يكن في ذلك ترك لواجب ولا فعل لمحظور . ـ

As for the ordering of the ayaat within each surah though, that is a matter of direct and explicit divine revelation, such that they had no right to move any ayah in front of any other in the official mushaf in the way that they had been able to place any surah before any other. That is because there was explicit guidance for the arrangement of the ayaat, while the arrangement of the surahs was left up to their own ijtihad.

So, those who hold the first opinion say that this was also the case for the seven ahruf, that when the Sahabah saw the Ummah splitting, differing, and fighting when they were not united on one single harf, they united the people on a single harf, and this was something permissible, and they were protected from ever coming to a false consensus. And this decision did not involve committing any sins or leaving off anything that was obligatory.

ومن هؤلاء من يقول بأن الترخيص في الأحرف السبعة كان في أول الإسلام ; لما في المحافظة على حرف واحد من المشقة عليهم أولا فلما تذللت ألسنتهم بالقراءة وكان اتفاقهم على حرف واحد يسيرا عليهم وهو أرفق بهم أجمعوا على الحرف الذي كان في العرضة الآخرة . ويقولون : إنه نسخ ما سوى ذلك . ـ

And some of those who hold the first opinion also say that the allowance that Allah granted to recite any of the seven ahruf was something for the early period of Islam due to the difficulty that the Muslims initially faced in sticking to any one single harf, but then once their tongues had become accustomed to reciting and once being united upon one harf was easy for them and actually better for them they united on reciting that harf which was used for the final review of the Qur’an. And those who say this also say that the final review abrogated the other ahruf.

وهؤلاء يوافق قولهم قول من يقول : إن حروف أبي بن كعب وابن مسعود وغيرهما مما يخالف رسم هذا المصحف منسوخة . ـ

And this is in line with the position of those who say that the ahruf of Ubay ibn Ka’b, ibn Mas’ood, and others which differ from text of the official ‘Uthmani mushaf were abrogated.

وأما من قال عن ابن مسعود : أنه كان يجوز القراءة بالمعنى فقد كذب عليه وإنما قال : قد نظرت إلى القراء فرأيت قراءتهم متقاربة وإنما هو كقول أحدكم : أقبل وهلم وتعال فاقرءوا كما علمتم أو كما قال . ـ

And as for those who claim that ibn Mas’ood said that it is permissible to recite the Qur’an according to meaning [i.e. to wantonly change the wording so long as the general meaning remains], then these people have attributed a lie to him. What he actually said was, “I looked at the reciters and I saw that their recitations were very close to one another. It was like when someone says, ‘come on’, ‘let’s go’, or ‘come along’. So recite it the way you have learned it” – or something similar to this.

ثُمَّ مَنْ جَوَّزَ الْقِرَاءَةَ بِمَا يَخْرُجُ عَنْ الْمُصْحَفِ مِمَّا ثَبَتَ عَنْ الصَّحَابَةِ قَالَ يَجُوزُ ذَلِكَ ; لِأَنَّهُ مِنْ الْحُرُوفِ السَّبْعَةِ الَّتِي أُنْزِلَ الْقُرْآنُ عَلَيْهَا وَمَنْ لَمْ يُجَوِّزْهُ فَلَهُ ثَلَاثَةُ مَآخِذَ : تَارَةً يَقُولُ لَيْسَ هُوَ مِنْ الْحُرُوفِ [ ص: 398 ] السَّبْعَةِ وَتَارَةً يَقُولُ : هُوَ مِنْ الْحُرُوفِ الْمَنْسُوخَةِ وَتَارَةً يَقُولُ : هُوَ مِمَّا انْعَقَدَ إجْمَاعُ الصَّحَابَةِ عَلَى الْإِعْرَاضِ عَنْهُ وَتَارَةً يَقُولُ : لَمْ يُنْقَلْ إلَيْنَا نَقْلًا يَثْبُتُ بِمِثْلِهِ الْقُرْآنُ . وَهَذَا هُوَ الْفَرْقُ بَيْنَ الْمُتَقَدِّمِينَ والمتأخرين . ـ

Then, there are those who hold that the qiraa’aat which do not correspond to the text of the official ‘Uthmani Mushaf but which have been authentically attributed to Sahabah are permissible to recite with. They hold this position because these recitations are part of the seven ahruf in which the Qur’an was revealed.

Those who do not consider such shadh qiraa’aat to be permitted have three main reasons for holding that position:

  1. Sometimes they say that such qiraa’aat are not actually part of the seven huroof.
  2. Sometimes they say that these qiraa’aat fall under the abrogated huroof. Sometimes they say that one of the things which the Sahabah unanimously agreed upon was leaving off these qiraa’aat of the other huroof.
  3. And at times they say that these qiraa’aat have not been transmitted to us according to the same standard of veracity as the Qur’an that we have, which is a point of difference between the earlier and later scholars.

وَلِهَذَا كَانَ فِي الْمَسْأَلَةِ ” قَوْلٌ ثَالِثٌ ” وَهُوَ اخْتِيَارُ جَدِّي أَبِي الْبَرَكَاتِ أَنَّهُ إنْ قَرَأَ بِهَذِهِ الْقِرَاءَاتِ فِي الْقِرَاءَةِ الْوَاجِبَةِ – وَهِيَ الْفَاتِحَةُ عِنْدَ الْقُدْرَةِ عَلَيْهَا – لَمْ تَصِحَّ صَلَاتُهُ ; لِأَنَّهُ لَمْ يَتَيَقَّنْ أَنَّهُ أَدَّى الْوَاجِبَ مِنْ الْقِرَاءَةِ لِعَدَمِ ثُبُوتِ الْقُرْآنِ بِذَلِكَ وَإِنْ قَرَأَ بِهَا فِيمَا لَا يَجِبُ لَمْ تَبْطُلْ صَلَاتُهُ ; لِأَنَّهُ لَمْ يَتَيَقَّنْ أَنَّهُ أَتَى فِي الصَّلَاةِ بِمُبْطِلِ لِجَوَازِ أَنْ يَكُونَ ذَلِكَ مِنْ الْحُرُوفِ السَّبْعَةِ الَّتِي أُنْزِلَ عَلَيْهَا .ـ

Stemming from the third argument above, there is an issue of fiqh – and this is the position which my grandfather, Abu’l-Barakaat, held – that if someone recites with one of these qiraa’aat in an instance where recitation is mandatory – i.e. reciting surah al-Fatihah in the prayer for anyone with the ability to do so -, then his prayer is not valid. That is because it is not completely certain whether he has fulfilled that requirement of recitation since it is not authentically established that what he recited is actually part of the Qur’an. But if he recites with such a qiraa’ah in other parts of the prayer where reciting is not mandatory, then this would not invalidate his prayer. That is because it is not completely certain if he has done something which would invalidate his prayer, as it is possible that this is part of the seven ahruf in which the Qur’an was revealed.

وَهَذَا الْقَوْلُ يَنْبَنِي عَلَى ” أَصْلٍ ” وَهُوَ أَنَّ مَا لَمْ يَثْبُتْ كَوْنُهُ مِنْ الْحُرُوفِ السَّبْعَةِ فَهَلْ يَجِبُ الْقَطْعُ بِكَوْنِهِ لَيْسَ مِنْهَا ؟ فَاَلَّذِي عَلَيْهِ جُمْهُورُ الْعُلَمَاءِ أَنَّهُ لَا يَجِبُ الْقَطْعُ بِذَلِكَ إذْ لَيْسَ ذَلِكَ مِمَّا أَوْجَبَ عَلَيْنَا أَنْ يَكُونَ الْعِلْمُ بِهِ فِي النَّفْيِ وَالْإِثْبَاتِ قَطْعِيًّا . ـ

And this position pivots around a fundamental question, which is: For that which has not been definitively affirmed as being part of the seven ahruf, it is obligatory for us to definitively declare that these are not part of the seven ahruf? 

The position held by the majority of scholars is that is not obligatory to take the stance which unequivocally declares such things to not part of the seven ahruf. That is because this issue is not one which requires us to take a definitive position.

وَذَهَبَ فَرِيقٌ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكَلَامِ إلَى وُجُوبِ الْقَطْعِ بِنَفْيِهِ حَتَّى قَطَعَ بَعْضُ هَؤُلَاءِ – كَالْقَاضِي أَبِي بَكْرٍ – بِخَطَأِ الشَّافِعِيِّ وَغَيْرِهِ مِمَّنْ أَثْبَتَ الْبَسْمَلَةَ آيَةً مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ فِي غَيْرِ سُورَةِ النَّمْلِ لِزَعْمِهِمْ أَنَّ مَا كَانَ مِنْ مَوَارِدِ الِاجْتِهَادِ فِي الْقُرْآنِ فَإِنَّهُ يَجِبُ الْقَطْعُ بِنَفْيِهِ وَالصَّوَابُ [ ص: 399 ] الْقَطْعُ بِخَطَأِ هَؤُلَاءِ وَأَنَّ الْبَسْمَلَةَ آيَةٌ مِنْ كِتَابِ اللَّهِ حَيْثُ كَتَبَهَا الصَّحَابَةُ فِي الْمُصْحَفِ إذْ لَمْ يَكْتُبُوا فِيهِ إلَّا الْقُرْآنَ وَجَرَّدُوهُ عَمَّا لَيْسَ مِنْهُ كَالتَّخْمِيسِ وَالتَّعْشِيرِ وَأَسْمَاءِ السُّوَرِ ; وَلَكِنْ مَعَ ذَلِكَ لَا يُقَالُ هِيَ مِنْ السُّورَةِ الَّتِي بَعْدَهَا كَمَا أَنَّهَا لَيْسَتْ مِنْ السُّورَةِ الَّتِي قَبْلَهَا ; بَلْ هِيَ كَمَا كُتِبَتْ آيَةٌ أَنْزَلَهَا اللَّهُ فِي أَوَّلِ كُلِّ سُورَةٍ وَإِنْ لَمْ تَكُنْ مِنْ السُّورَةِ وَهَذَا أَعْدَلُ الْأَقْوَالِ الثَّلَاثَةِ فِي هَذِهِ الْمَسْأَلَةِ .ـ

But a group of Ahl al-Kalaam held that is was obligatory to definitively declare that such shadh qiraa’aat were not part of the seven ahruf. In fact, some of them, such as al-Qaadhi Abu Bakr and others, even considered Imam al-Shaafi’ to have erred in his position that the basmalah counts as an ayah of the Qur’an anywhere aside from its occurrence in the text of surah al-Naml. This position of theirs came from their assertion that there is no room for ijtihad regarding the Qur’an and that is is therefore necessary to definitively declare such things to not be part of the Qur’an.

However the correct position is that we can definitively declare them to be mistaken in that position. The basmalah is, in truth, an ayah of the Qur’an since the Sahabah wrote it in the ‘Uthmani Mushaf and they did not write anything except for the Qur’an in the mushaf. They strictly limited what they wrote in the mushaf to the Qur’an only, without any of the symbols for divisions of the Qur’an or the names of the surahs. However, with that being said, it is not correct to say that the basmalah is part of the surah that follows it, nor is it part of the surah which preceded it. Instead, it is just as it is written: an ayah that Allah revealed at the beginning of every surah without being part of the surah. This is the most reasonable of the three opinions regarding this issue.

وَسَوَاءٌ قِيلَ بِالْقَطْعِ فِي النَّفْيِ أَوْ الْإِثْبَاتِ فَذَلِكَ لَا يَمْنَعُ كَوْنَهَا مِنْ مَوَارِدِ الِاجْتِهَادِ الَّتِي لَا تَكْفِيرَ وَلَا تَفْسِيقَ فِيهَا لِلنَّافِي وَلَا لِلْمُثْبِتِ ; بَلْ قَدْ يُقَالُ مَا قَالَهُ طَائِفَةٌ مِنْ الْعُلَمَاءِ : إنَّ كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِنْ الْقَوْلَيْنِ حَقٌّ وَإِنَّهَا آيَةٌ مِنْ الْقُرْآنِ فِي بَعْضِ الْقِرَاءَاتِ وَهِيَ قِرَاءَةُ الَّذِينَ يَفْصِلُونَ بِهَا بَيْنَ السُّورَتَيْنِ وَلَيْسَتْ آيَةً فِي بَعْضِ الْقِرَاءَاتِ ; وَهِيَ قِرَاءَةُ الَّذِينَ يَصِلُونَ وَلَا يَفْصِلُونَ بِهَا بَيْنَ السُّورَتَيْنِ . ـ

But regardless of what one says about the necessity of making a definitive statement on whether these things are or are not part of the Qur’an, that does not prevent this matter from falling within the realm of issues for which ijtihad is allowed without any fear of excommunication or criticism of people on either side of the issue. In fact, a group of scholars have voiced the position that both of these positions [about whether or not the basmalah is itself an ayah] are correct. They held that it is an ayah of the Qur’an in some of the qiraa’aat, those being the qiraa’aat which make a break between consecutive surahs, while it is not an ayah in other qiraa’aat, those being the qiraa’aat which allow for connection between two consecutive surahs without any break.

[Majmoo’ Fataawaa 13/394-399]

Continue reading the next portion of this letter with: Where Do the Differences in the Qiraa’aat Come From?: ibn Taymiyah

For more sections from this letter, see:

Clarifying some Misconceptions about the Seven Qiraa’aat: Ibn Taymiyah

The Valid Qiraa’aat are not Limited to Seven: ibn Taymiyah

Where do the Differences in the Qiraa’aat Come From?: Ibn Taymiyah

Learning the Qur’an – Both Wordings and Meanings: ibn Taymiyah

See also: The Arrangement of the Qur’an: Tafsir ibn Kathir

For more on these and related topics, please explore the Qiraa’aat Article Index

4 thoughts on “The Seven Qiraa’aat are all Part of One Harf: ibn Taymiyah

  1. Pingback: Where Do the Differences in the Qiraa’aat Come From?: ibn Taymiyah | Tulayhah

  2. Pingback: Clarifying some Misconceptions about the Seven Qiraa’aat: Ibn Taymiyah | Tulayhah

  3. Pingback: The Valid Qiraa’aat are not Limited to Seven: ibn Taymiyah | Tulayhah

  4. Pingback: Learning the Qur’an – Both Wordings and Meanings: ibn Taymiyah | Tulayhah

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.