I’m sure you will be aware that Dutch politician Geert Wilders has posted a film critical of the Koran on the internet. The opening scenes show a copy of the Koran, followed by footage of the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001. The 17-minute film was posted on video-sharing website LiveLeak. (It’s been posted over on my own blog as it all helps the general debate on the Religion of Peace AND Love.)
Now then, the BBC reports this but the BBC report itself is laced with all kinds of subtle poison. For example, if you read it you will note that the State Broadcaster cannot apparently find anyone to interview who is in FAVOUR of this film on the nature of Islam. Furthermore it immediately characterises Geert Wilders as “right-wing” however no other political comment is prefaced with such a description. Is anyone who opposes the advance of Islam a right-winger?
Now I don’t hold the BBC responsible for the cowardly Dutch PM Jan Peter Balkenende who disowns this questioning of Islam, but I do hold the BBC responsible for ensuring that the topic is covered by providing a range of views. However anyone who raises questions about the Koran and those who use it to justify their terrorist pathologies seems to be persona non gratia in Beebland.
Hillhunt
You tell me? In fact, it’s a subject which Nick Cohen articulated rather well in “What’s Left”, an account of how the British liberal-left has lost its way and, in the process, turned a blind eye to Islamic fascism.
Maybe you should read it and educate your mind, and then return to B-BBC to make your point. As you say, it makes no sense for the liberal left to make the stand it is taking on Islam, yet that is what it is appearing to be taking. Read the Blair link from the economist for confirmation. Like I said, the liberal left are both irrational and illogical.
“Why would the liberal left, permeated as it is with enthusiasm for gay freedoms, feminist values and other non-Islamic attitudes, dig the ground from under its own feet?”
Masochists the lot of them.
Why would the liberal left, permeated as it is with enthusiasm for gay freedoms, feminist values and other non-Islamic attitudes, dig the ground from under its own feet
Because they are thick?
“Why would the liberal left, permeated as it is with enthusiasm for gay freedoms, feminist values and other non-Islamic attitudes, dig the ground from under its own feet?”
It is because they have a perceived common enemy.Left wing indoctrination is so deep in organisations like the BBC that it is instinctive.Secondly the liberal left are so arrogant that ,as per Marx, their creed will come out on top.
One word.Fear.This is what motivates the liberal left when facing militant Islam.Fear of the suicide bomber,the unyielding fighter for his beliefs.They(the liberal left) believing in nothing except a vague niceness all round and lots of nice things to play with are way way out of their depth.Time will tell just how much is a pose or just how afraid they really are.
RE: Live Leak’s note,
Does anyone have an idea as to what ..and some ill informed reports from certain corners of the British media that could directly lead to the harm of some of our staff… is about?
From Radio Netherlands worldwide
Threats push anti-Qur’an film Fitna offline
Published: Friday 28 March 2008 21:24 UTC
Last updated: Friday 28 March 2008 22:10 UTC
The Hague – The anti-Qur’an film Fitna made by Dutch MP Geert Wilders has once again been removed from LiveLeak, the British website where it was being shown. In its place is an official statement by the website saying the film was removed because of very serious threats to staff. The statement speaks of a sad day for freedom of speech but insists that the safety of the website’s staff has to come first.
There have been a growing number of protests by people whose work features in the film. Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard says he wants his prominently featured cartoon of Mohammad to be removed from the film and says Geert Wilders never asked his permission to use it.
Broadcaster Robbie Muntz says he is considering taking legal action because the film includes an excerpt of him interviewing murdered film director Theo van Gogh. Rapper Salah Edin also plans to take Geert Wilders to court because the film features a photograph of him dressed as Theo van Gogh’s killer, Mohammed Bouyeri.
Thats all f`f`folks(so far anyway)
“Why would the liberal left, permeated as it is with enthusiasm for gay freedoms, feminist values and other non-Islamic attitudes, dig the ground from under its own feet?”
Nick Cohen’s book What’s Left is a good place to start. It does get a bit rambling – in fact its sometimes hard to see how some chapters support his thesis.
The general idea (which I agree with) is that the collapse of the Berlin Wall was the end of the dream for leftists. Before that they could have various idealistic pipe dreams about some kind of socialist paradise but without the nasty bits like the stasi or the KGB.
But now the reality is that no-one seriously believes in left wing economics – nationalisation, workers’ soviets, and so on.
Instead these dreamers have found refuge in identity politics, or niches like greeny stuff.
But there is so much cognitive dissonance left over that they just want to use anything at all to attack the status quo. This includes weird stuff like this flirtation with islamism.
There is not much point trying to rationalise or debate with these people because their motives are not rational. They are not even emotional – they are subconscious psychological factors. Its got some common ground with Stockholm Syndrome.
While Al Beeb continues its oppositional stance to the content of Mr. Wilders’ film (which shows Islam-inspired violence), the description of Mr. Wilders, in this Al Beeb report, is no longer as ‘right-wing’, but as ‘far-right MP Geert Wilders’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7319188.stm
The best antidote to Al Beeb’s dhimmi reporting on all this is to be found at:
http://www.jihadwatch.org
and
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch
( The strapline items at the top of the pages of those sites: ‘Islam 101’ and ‘Qur’an Blog’ are also useful.)
“There was no misquote”
He missed out the bit about the battle. That’s a fairly big misquote
“and you do not have to be an expert on the KORAN(note the spelling)”
Actually the spelling is “قرآن” you patronising shite. I admit writing ‘Kuran’ mixes two different methods of transcription, but as you know, Arabic has no letter ‘o’ or ‘e’ and English has no equivalent to the initial ‘ق’.
“To go back to Alex, I wonder why Wilders has not had the backing of so many politicians? Are they scared of being made targets by Muslims? Are they scared of losing the Muslim vote? Do they actually deep down belive in the values of Islam (putting women in their place, killing all the gays etc etc.)”
Let’s not go into the whys and wherefores. The important thing for a site based on bias in the BBC is that nobody has said anything.
Therefore the BBC can’t be blamed for not quoting anybody. Simple.
“Here is a question. What does Islam contribute to any western democracy?”
What it “contributes” should be irrelevant to whether it is allowed to exist. That’s how free societies work. But I would say what it does contribute is a testing-ground for values like tolerance and freedom of speech.
“Why does the BBC give Islam such an easy ride?”
Same reason it gives Judaism, Catholicism and Hinduism easy rides – it’s not the job of the BBC news to wade into complex theological discussions.
“Freedom of Speech and Islam appear to be unable to co-exist. Perhaps Alex would like to tell us which one he supports”
Freedom of Speech. But also for Muslims. Which unfortunately makes it hard for me to agree with Geert Wilders’ hypocritical desire to ban the Quran. And freedom of speech does not extend to the right to your own TV show, so the fact that he can’t find someone willing to publish his ham-fisted orgy of hate and copyright infringement isn’t really a massive political issue.
“Why would the liberal left, permeated as it is with enthusiasm for gay freedoms, feminist values and other non-Islamic attitudes, dig the ground from under its own feet?”
The whole “I do not agree with what you say, but will fight to the death for your right to say it” thing I guess.
Alex: “he can’t find someone willing to publish his ham-fisted orgy of hate…”
Intellectual dishonesty anyone? Liveleak.com say they stopped hosting it because of threats to their staff. Not quite the same thing is it?
Threats to their staff are a serious matter, admittedly, but this should be seen as a criminal element intimidating publishers and restricting free speech outside of the law, not Islam vs. Idiot.
That’s true, admittedly, but I never suggested otherwise.
Fair enough, shake hands?
“but this should be seen as a criminal element intimidating publishers and restricting free speech outside of the law, not Islam vs. Idiot.”
No, this is happening everywhere where Islam gains any measure of power. The Koran and the Hadiths explicitly instruct violence against unbelievers. Do bare in mind that an unbeliever is anyone who objects to any aspect of the nominally God inspired Koran and Sharia law. Such as secularists who make their own laws that include, for instance, gender equality, or permitting representations of Mohammed and the cartoonists who work according to these laws whom suggest that the violence we have been seeing from Mohammedans may be inspired by the Prophet Mohammed.
A suggestion that has been vindicated.
Surah 8, Verse 38: Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past shall be forgiven to them; and if they return, then what happened to the ancients has already passed.
Verse 39: And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do.
This is not a question of interpretation. Islam is not being utilised for immoral, or “nihilistic”, or criminal desires, Islam is immoral and criminal.
I am sure that is exactly what the people who threatened LiveLeak thought. But this is a matter for the courts and not the legislature. And nothing to do with the BBC.
Alex:
Fair enough, shake hands?
Nah – from what I’ve read you’re still a motormouth gobshite
Will
There is not much point trying to rationalise or debate with these people because their motives are not rational. They are not even emotional – they are subconscious psychological factors. Its got some common ground with Stockholm Syndrome.
Jack Hughes | 29.03.08 – 9:09 am |
I think you’re right, Jack.
These are deep psychological traits which probably go way back into childhood – and tend to be shared by folk in showbiz, the media and leftish politics.
These are the kids who always had their hands up first in class – the “look at me” kids with a deep, insecure need for the admiration of others.
That’s why, even in the successful free market US, nearly all showbiz types and 80 odd percent of journalists lean to the left.
It leads to a flaw in so called “representative” democracy which Nixon identified when he spoke of the “silent majority”.
As long as we rely on “representatives” – politics will always be “showbiz for ugly people”.
I rembember a cartoon years ago imagining normal, average citizens on a protest march chanting – ” What we do want? – To be left alone – When do we want it – now!”
It’s never going to happen is it?
IMHO the future for democracy lies in secure IT based personal voting with referendum polls on everything.
No MP’s feathering their nests, no pressure groups lobbying and no political parties.
Bliss.
Alex: You really are a drippy liberal. So you are quite happy if more and more Muslims flood into europe and demand that traditional islamic values are allowed to superceed western ones?
For example, Shariah law? How exactly would you stop Muslims deciding that in the areas where they live homosexuals would be executed or women (regardless of race) forced to cover up? Shariah law is seen by ALL Muslims as superior to all man made law. Even an idiot like you must be able to notice that?
You just don’t get it do you? By your “values” you’d have been quite happy for Hilter to go about his work in the interests of “liberal” free speech?
Islam is a barbaric religion. You only have to look at Muslim Countries ot see that.
The only good thing will be to see your smug face when it’s your “gay mates” being strung up on the streets of London or members of YOUR family being blown to pieces on the next suidide bombing done in the name of Allah.
Lets see if your such a smug little shit then.
“Why would the liberal left, permeated as it is with enthusiasm for gay freedoms, feminist values and other non-Islamic attitudes, dig the ground from under its own feet?”
Because the Left does not think. Oh sure, it has “exciting ideas” without any basis in reality, but it has no concept of consequences, no ability to work things out.
Ideology is all that matters to the Left, coupled with a blind worship of “ideals” which make no sense. Hate America? Of course they do and any bedfellow who says the same is welcomed. Hate personal freedom? Naturally… because that would mean people think for themselves and the Left despises people who do not toe the party line and exhibit “approved” thinking.
And where stands the Beeb in this? Firmly on the side of the Left as otherwise, people might question why they have to go on paying a tax to watch EastEnders and receive biased news.
Martin, Will, Anyone.
Alex doesn’t really mean it. Any of it. He’s just honing his debating technique for some unknown future benefit. How could someone so argumentatively incontinent be sincere about so much?
Yeah, but at some stage one has to stop honing and concede a point or two.
This is a well-produced, well-argued documentary VIDEO (1 hour-39 mins.) on the threat of Islam, featuring, and countering, the mantras of Blair, Bush and Clinton:
” Islam: What the West Needs to Know ”
Will the BBC transmit it?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781
I just refer everyone to the post I made at the top of the page with the comments from Rod Liddle. To me that just sums up not only the BBC but the left as well.
This idea that the BBC are soft on all religions (as suggested by Alex) is just a load of crap. Rod Liddle worked at the BBC for years and knows what he is talking about.
Alex also ignores the fact the BBC has admitted that it would not treat Islam in the same way it treats Christianity.
Alex needs to wake up before it’s too late. In fact I think we’ve reached a tipping point with Islam in the UK.
The next election will be the decider. If McLiebour get elected again then that’s it. The Country is finished.
Funny thing is I still this McLiebour will win the next election. They have allowed so many people into the UK now and the election system is so corrupt that they have no chance of losing enough of the seats in the inner cities to be kicked out of power, not to mention the block Scottish vote and of course the BBC will be 100% on side.
On the post-modern left and Islam: They have been here before
“Atoussa H.,” a leftist Iranian woman living in exile in France, who took strong exception to Foucault’s uncritical stance toward the Islamists. She declared: “I am very distressed by the matter of fact commentaries usually made by the French left with respect to the prospect of an ‘Islamic’ government replacing the bloody tyranny of the shah.”2 Foucault, she wrote, seemed “deeply moved by ‘Muslim spirituality,’ which, according to him, would be an improvement over the ferocious capitalist dictatorship, which is today beginning to fall apart.” Why, she continued, alluding to the 1953 overthrow of the democratic and leftist Mossadeq government, must the Iranian people, “after twenty-five years of silence and oppression” be forced to choose between “the SAVAK and religious fanaticism?” Unveiled women were already being insulted on the streets and Khomeini supporters had made clear that “in the regime they want to create, women will have to adhere” to Islamic law. With respect to statements that ethnic and religious minorities would have their rights “so long as they do not harm the majority,” Atoussa H. asked pointedly: “Since when have the minorities begun to ‘harm'” the majority?”
And most chilling of all: “Foucault, in a short rejoinder published the following week in Nouvel Observateur, wrote that what was “intolerable” about Atoussa H.’s letter, was her “merging together” of all forms of Islam into one and then “scorning” Islam as “fanatical.”
“[Foucault] concluded his rejoinder by lecturing Atoussa H.: “The first condition for approaching it [Islam] with a minimum of intelligence is not to begin by bringing in hatred.” In March and April 1979, once the Khomeini regime’s atrocities against women and homosexuals began, this exchange would come back to haunt Foucault.”
Here.
Hillhunt. Carried forward from earlier thread.
“Worried about: Islam? = storm in a teacup.
Mosques? = amusing architecture.
Ugly rumours about Muslims? = Ugly tabloid rumours.
Jews and Muslims, poor things, having to wear odd garb. All alike, mad but diverse. Ho Hum.”
If you distance yourself from Jews (but are not, of course, antisemitic,) I do see how you might regard the specific hatred Islam expresses for them as harmless fun. But what happens when they turn it specifically to the likes of you? Will you be joining the winning side?
Breaking your self imposed sarky rule is not really a generous concession, so I’m taking it as a belated admission that it was an obstacle to communication that you were glad to get rid of.
Better out than in.
Don’t suppose you claim benefit for your wives, but I expect you get a tax break for them. If not, I expect it’ll be announced in the next budget.
Incidentally I think the aftermath to the Wilders film could be more revealing than the film itself, which was not quite all it was cracked up to be.
Sue:
If you distance yourself from Jews…
No, I don’t. I’m more than happy among Jews. I know more Jews than I know Muslims. I get along very well with them all. Thankfully, few of them are into silly… ahem, traditional garb.
…I do see how you might regard the specific hatred Islam expresses for them as harmless fun…
I don’t see hatred as harmless fun. Who would?
what happens when they turn it specifically to the likes of you?
I’m not as convinced as you that they – Muslims as a global group – are about to visit hell upon us. I’ve long known that the radical elements see things that way. I’m not convinced that the vast majority do, or ever will, want to bring about the catastrophic changes you predict. They want to get on with their lives and not put their families in harm’s way.
Don’t suppose you claim benefit for your wives, but I expect you get a tax break for them.
I only have eyes for you.
.
George R:
This is a well-produced, well-argued documentary VIDEO (1 hour-39 mins.) on the threat of Islam, featuring, and countering, the mantras of Blair, Bush and Clinton:
” Islam: What the West Needs to Know ”
Will the BBC transmit it?
I feel safe in saying No. It’s crashingly dull. It could be announcing the second coming of Christ or the end of cancer, but no-one would want to watch it unless they had trouble sleeping.
Only those with a superhuman capacity for surviving boredom could imagine spending time in front of it….
George R, you are that man.
Alex 10.05 AM
I see that you call me “a patronising shite”?
I see by the nasty insult and name calling I have rattled your little cage? GOOD!
You have not even been able to figure out just why I wrote “KORAN”! Are you so thick that you cannot see why? Do you want me to explain?
You bend over backwards and spare no effort to get the name of a stupid book so correct and so perfect! Who cares what the exact spelling and translation is Alex? You do, thats for sure, but why? Are you so eager to please your Islamic heroes that you worry about such petty things? KORAN is a well used phonetic English translation and thats good enough for me! In fact if it were upto me I would call it the “pile of claptrap”.
Be under no illusion Alex, you are a ready made dhimmi and I hope you will be happy in your future role as a muslim pet! Sit up and beg for you masters theres a good boy!
George R: this VIDEO critique of Islam is excellent (Hillhunt hasn’t reviewed it, he simply makes ad hominem insults instead):
“ISLAM: What the West Needs to Know”
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781
.
Hillhunt | 29.03.08 – 2:24 pm | #
I am delighted that you are happy with your Jewish friends. Long may it last. Email Mr Nasrallah with that good news straight away!
I am more likely to have descended from the monkey tribe than the pig. Just by appearance. It’s quite hard to tell. Have been unable to trace the genealogy very far back owing to unforseen circumstances.
Does the proposal still stand? Still time to change your mind.
Oh, I forgot. Dammit! I’m already married to Bryan! Is polygamy legal for ladies as well?
Sue,
Nope. What’s sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander in Islam.
Sue:
“Is polygamy legal for ladies as well?”
I believe it’s known as polyandry.
Or swinging, if you live in Surbiton.
.
“You really are a drippy liberal. So you are quite happy if more and more Muslims flood into europe and demand that traditional islamic values are allowed to superceed western ones?”
They can demand what they want, doesn’t mean we have to give it to them.
“For example, Shariah law? How exactly would you stop Muslims deciding that in the areas where they live homosexuals would be executed or women (regardless of race) forced to cover up? Shariah law is seen by ALL Muslims as superior to all man made law.”
Erm, the same way Americans prevent homosexuals from being executed in the Bible Belt. By having a legal system that does not allow for such things. You seem to be new to this ‘rule of law’ concept so I’ll let you do some research on it before I comment any more on the subject.
Now, here’s the million dollar question: What has any of this got to do with the BBC?
Now, here’s the million dollar question: What has any of this got to do with the BBC?
Easy. All of the above are valid comments on islam, whether you agree with them or not, and none of them will ever be seen or heard on the BBC unless prefaced by right-winger, xenophobe or racist.
I’ll expect your cheque directly shall I?
“the same way Americans prevent homosexuals from being executed in the Bible Belt”
You really are a bigoted little bugger aren’t ya.
Typical leftist idiot who tries to equate Christian beliefs with the vileness in Islamist nations, as if Christian Americans are roaming around just waiting to string up homosexuals except for the laws of the leftist. In trying to show the intolerance of other, it is always amazing to watch leftist show themselves to be the ultimate bigots and racist.
Good show.
“All of the above are valid comments on islam, whether you agree with them or not, and none of them will ever be seen or heard on the BBC unless prefaced by right-winger, xenophobe or racist.”
And Omar Bakri Mohammed doesn’t have his own prime time show. What’s your point?
Erm, the same way Americans prevent homosexuals from being executed in the Bible Belt. By having a legal system that does not allow for such things.
It never seems to occur to leftoids that laws can always be changed when the demographics are in the favor of their beloved “Other”. They seem to think that a piece of paper talking about “human rights” actually protect people, instead of armies and police forces backed up with arms. More “magical thinking” from the irrational brain-did left, I see.
Angry Alex, did you use the (much softer) Rashad Khalifa translation of the Koran above? If so, rather dishonest of you to quote from it without acknowledging that Rashad Khalifa is considered an apostate and was in fact murdered by the Saudis for his heretical beliefs. The vast majority of Muslims do not consider the Khalifites to be “real” Muslims at all.
i’ve uploaded fitna to google video
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7116437460889399690&hl=en-GB
Yup, as I thought. Angry Alex DID quote 47:4 from the Rashad Khalifa translation of the Quran.
http://www.submission.org/suras/sura47.html
Just so those here know: Rashad Khalifa was the founder of a reform Islamic movement in the US. He was murdered in Tuscon, Arizona in 1990 by a Saudi agent after a death fatwa was slapped on him by all the top Saudi Islamic clerics. His translation of the Koran is considered highly unorthodox and heritical by most orthodox Muslims.
Angry Alex quoted from Rashad Khalifa’s, more humane, heretical translation of the Koran in an attempt to try to fool the people here into believing that it represents mainstream Islamic beliefs.
It doesn’t.
(PS — I know all the dishonest tricks of Islamic apologists cold — don’t ever bother trying to do this again, Alex.)
John Trenchard: Excellent job mate!
Alex: You really are a prat. If Muslims flood into Europe they simply decide what they want and the weak liberal elite will give way.
Just look at the way Islam is already making demands on western Governments to “opt out” by having a parallel legal system for them.
You really are an idiot. In fact you’d do well at the BBC.
“Erm, the same way Americans prevent homosexuals from being executed in the Bible Belt. By having a legal system that does not allow for such things. You seem to be new to this ‘rule of law'”
Yeas,the same rule of law which protected the maimed and murdered on 7/7,9/11,Ken Bigley,Daniel Pearl,Thai Buddhists,the Madrid victims,Honour killing victims,Christians throughout Africa and the Middle East.
Alex,you are scum.
“Alex:
Wasn’t Rodwell the one who translated the Koran because he thought other translations were a bit too pro-Islam?”
The three verses posted by WoAD are not translations by “Rodwell” — they are from the three most accepted and commonly used translations of the Koran by Pickthal, Yusuf Ali and Shakir. Many websites run all three translations side by side so comparisons can be made.
Marmaduke Pickthal was an eccentric Englishman who converted to Islam in the 1920s. He was a native English-speaker.
A friend of mine who speaks Arabic says the most accurate version is the one by Muhsin Khan (which incidentally is also the most blood thirsty.) You can easily google Khan’s or any of these other translations of the Koran including Khalifa’s heretical one. Here’s how Muhsin Khan translates 47:4:
English Muhsin Khan: [47:4]So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah’s Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allah’s Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost,
Susan: I own a copy of the Koran (probably unlike Alex or Hillhunt). Mine is translated by Maulana Muhammad Ali.
Looking at the quote you give about my translated version is almost identical.
Why do I own a copy of the Koran? Because I like to make my own mind up about things.
The version I have is supposed to be a very accutate translation. It certainly doesn’t hold back on the blood thirsty stuff (although it does add notes about interpretation)
John Trenchard: thanks for the link to fitna.
I have 4 translations of the Koran. The Rodwell translation is the sweetest when read aloud, though dense in meaning and requires meditation and comparison with other translations for clarity.
To call Islam irrational or scatterlogical or dualistic doesn’t begin to convey its strangeness. That the Peace and Love Mecca verses and warlike Medina verses are both perfectly correct and completely exclusive is not an argument against their god ordained rightness in Islam..
The only parallel I can think with this in Western thought would be extreme existentialism, empiricism, and deconstructionism (epistemological scepticism).
To call Islam irrational or scatterlogical or dualistic doesn’t begin to convey its strangeness. That the Peace and Love Mecca verses and warlike Medina verses are both perfectly correct and completely exclusive is not an argument against their god ordained rightness in Islam..
There are those who believe that Mo was eiher schizophrenic or eptileptic and that the Koran is a product of his mind when he had “spells” or “fits.” The Koran certainly does read as if it were written by a schizo.
Whoops did I post something that’s now illegal to say in the UK?
Susan,
Go straight to jail, do not pass go and do not collect 200 pounds.
Your a very naughty girl, shame on you for not being subservient enough and believing in the truth.
.