Which culture/country is closest to being perfectly Islam?

Mark Hamill

This has something that has come up in one or two threads recently: someone says that if a country/the world was fully Islamic, then there would be total peace. The rebuttal is what about country X, Y or Z. The rebuttal to the rebuttal is that they aren't truly Islamic, for whatever applicable reason. So I am just wondering what countries or cultures do people here think are actually closest to being truly Islamic?

I realise there may be no 100% true Islamic country, but which countries do you think get closest?

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

This has something that has come up in one or two threads recently: someone says that if a country/the world was fully Islamic, then there would be total peace. The rebuttal is what about country X, Y or Z. The rebuttal to the rebuttal is that they aren't truly Islamic, for whatever applicable reason. So I am just wondering what countries or cultures do people here think are actually closest to being truly Islamic?

I realise there may be no 100% true Islamic country, but which countries do you think get closest?

Look Mark let me clear you something in detail this will open your mind and also it clears why there is no Islamic state in the world. State is word which shows an authority that commands a land and forbid or prohibit group of people who live in certain land. The definition of state differs from nation to nation. For Westerner it is agreed state is reflected in the lands, its people and its rule,

Islamic state is ruling authority and political entity that looks after the affairs of citizens according to Islamic Law or Shariah Laws. In simple words, It is khaleefah ruling by what Allah has revealed and carrying Islam as message to the whole world. God has decreed that the Islamic state should be the method to implement the Islamic or Sharia rules and to carry Islam by way of Da'awa (preaching) and Jihad as a Message of guidance and light to the whole world.

Islamic state doesn't consider its territory, This is because the Islamic state has a universal Message, and God has ordered to carry that message to whole world and to invite all people to Islam.Therefore people believe in Islam, would become part of the state's subjects, and their land becomes part of its land.

Now i have given you detail answer i hope it will clear your mind why there is no Islamic state on earth after Fall of Ottoman State. You are completely confused about Islamic state and modern political concept of country. You can't assume Muslim countries as Islamic state because they have fixed borders and Most of these countries are ruled by dictators / tyrants. They are not ruled by what Allah had revealed as Quran states

"And rule between them by what Allah has revealed." [Al-Maida, 5:49]

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I realise there may be no 100% true Islamic country, but which countries do you think get closest?

Your above question clearly shows your lack of knowledge about Islam state. If you wish to see closest state to Islam than you have to study State of Madina established by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his companion and generation after them.

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

Look Mark let me clear you something in detail this will open your mind and also it clears why there is no Islamic state in the world. State is word which shows an authority that commands a land and forbid or prohibit group of people who live in certain land. The definition of state differs from nation to nation. For Westerner it is agreed state is reflected in the lands, its people and its rule,

Islamic state is ruling authority and political entity that looks after the affairs of citizens according to Islamic Law or Shariah Laws. In simple words, It is khaleefah ruling by what Allah has revealed and carrying Islam as message to the whole world. God has decreed that the Islamic state should be the method to implement the Islamic or Sharia rules and to carry Islam by way of Da'awa (preaching) and Jihad as a Message of guidance and light to the whole world.

I dont think this makes much sense. If the islamic state is a political entity, then it must recognise political boundaries. Also, the only difference between what you propose is an Islamic state and a western state, is that the islamic state takes its authority from god and a western takes it from its people. This is wrong, firstly because not all western states take their authority from their people (democracies do, but not all western states are democracies) and also because the state of madina, which you mention later, was, from what I could tell, a state ruled based on the (written, apparently) consent of each of its citizens. Even if there is some fundamental difference between the authority of these states, I dont see what difference that makes to my question, it just maybe becomes now "which muslim state is closest to the State of Madina?"

dead one wrote: »

Islamic state doesn't consider its territory, This is because the Islamic state has a universal Message, and God has ordered to carry that message to whole world and to invite all people to Islam.Therefore people believe in Islam, would become part of the state's subjects, and their land becomes part of its land.

If, as you your self say, it considers all muslims its people and all their lands its lands, the it does consider territory. Does it consider that land as politically distinct from the country its in? Does the islamic state consider any muslims land in any and every country sovereign on a par with its embassies? Does it think that anyone entering a muslims house should enter the same due process as if they were entering the sovereign soil of an embassy?

dead one wrote: »

Now i have given you detail answer i hope it will clear your mind why there is no Islamic state on earth after Fall of Ottoman State. You are completely confused about Islamic state and modern political concept of country. You can't assume Muslim countries as Islamic state because they have fixed borders and Most of these countries are ruled by dictators / tyrants. They are not ruled by what Allah had revealed as Quran states

Well, from a modern point of view, which state is closest?

dead one wrote: »

Your above question clearly shows your lack of knowledge about Islam state. If you wish to see closest state to Islam than you have to study State of Madina established by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and his companion and generation after them.

I dont know, from what you have said and from what I have read, the state of medina was where Muhammad unified 12 tribes into one state in Madina and Muhammad ruled with the consent of the citizens. Now while it may have considered all muslims everywhere its citizens, it would have been naive for it to think that muslims outside of Madina would have only been subject to its own laws and cultures and not that of the lands they where in, as if every muslims everywhere had diplomatic immunity or something. I dont see how the state could have existed without recognising that there places that where not it and that its laws could not have been enacted in precedence over native laws.

whydoc

I agree.
When you are looking to islam, look to the best muslim ( The prophet Muhammad ( peace and blessings be upon him )).

Similarly, when you are looking at islamic country, look to the era of early islamic state and Alkhulafaa' Alrashedeen

Mark Hamill

whydoc wrote: »

I agree.
When you are looking to islam, look to the best muslim ( The prophet Muhammad ( peace and blessings be upon him )).

Similarly, when you are looking at islamic country, look to the era of early islamic state and Alkhulafaa' Alrashedeen

So is there no modern muslim nation that comes even a little close?
How big was the early state, btw?

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

it just maybe becomes now "which muslim state is closest to the State of Madina?"

What do you mean by closest to Islam. When a state doesn't take its authority from God how it can be closest to Islam. Just take example of Pakistan. Pakistan is muslim country but it doesn't mean Pakistan is an islamic state. Take example of Iran, Egypt or whatever. They can't be closest to Islam because they don't judge themselves what God has revealed. A state can only be closest to Islam if it follow islamic codes and laws. Islam is only way to bring peace in the world because it message of last of prophet. Hope you will get the point.

oceanclub

dead one wrote: »

A state can only be closest to Islam if it follow islamic codes and laws.

So there are currently no states that follow any Islamic codes or laws?

If there are - and I'm pretty sure there are - then it's possible to say which one follows them the most.

P.

Mark Hamill

dead one wrote: »

What do you mean by closest to Islam.

I mean the state with the least to change to become as like the state of madina (which you put forward as the perfect islamic state) as possible.

dead one wrote: »

When a state doesn't take its authority from God how it can be closest to Islam. Just take example of Pakistan. Pakistan is muslim country but it doesn't mean Pakistan is an islamic state. Take example of Iran, Egypt or whatever. They can't be closest to Islam because they don't judge themselves what God has revealed.

Dont these countries use shariah law? In what way do they not judge themselves what god has revealed? If they aren't closest, then who is?

dead one wrote: »

A state can only be closest to Islam if it follow islamic codes and laws. Islam is only way to bring peace in the world because it message of last of prophet. Hope you will get the point.

Unless you are saying that every muslim country is equally far away from being the perfect islamic state, then, no, I dont get your point.

dead one

oceanclub wrote: »

So there are currently no states that follow any Islamic codes or laws?

If there are - and I'm pretty sure there are - then it's possible to say which one follows them the most.

P.

There is conspiracy behind islamic state by Zionist jews and Zionist christian because islamic state is only terror in their hearts. Islamic state is dangerous for growing state of isreal. You can see how they played a stage play like 9-11 when they realized mulism are struggling for Islamic state in the hills of Aghanistan. To gain control of muslim world there will be games on their part. They are indeed fooling themselves.
The conspirators don't want islamic state on earth, that is main reason why jews finished Ottoman khilafat in 1924 with the help Britisher. Whenever there was islamic state on earth jews were unable create a separate state for themselves.
Now look at the world one part is rich and other part is poor. Islamic state is only solution to the problems of world. Islamic state demands justice and zionist jews and zionist christian wish injustice. But nearly in future you will see an islamic state from east to west and world will be one pieces of heaven.

Professors Walt and Mearsheimer said.
"The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread 'democracy' throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardized not only U.S. security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the U.S. been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state?"

"The thrust of U.S. policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the 'Israel Lobby'. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that U.S. interests and those of the other country - in this case, Israel -- are essentially identical," they add.
http://thy-weapon-of-war.blogspot.com/2009/09/flashback-jewish-zionist-control-of-us.html

oceanclub wrote: »

If there are - and I'm pretty sure there are - then it's possible to say which one follows them the most.

You don't say that, because the world in still control.

dead one

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I mean the state with the least to change to become as like the state of madina (which you put forward as the perfect islamic state) as possible.

There are movement for Islamic state in some parts of world. Remember state in madina was build in city and spread from east to west.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Dont these countries use shariah law? In what way do they not judge themselves what god has revealed? If they aren't closest, then who is?

These countries are mixed societies, you can say half inspired by west and half inspired by islam. They are not perfect Islamic states. Whenever there will be islamic state in future you will see it.

hivizman

dead one wrote: »

The conspirators don't want islamic state on earth, that is main reason why jews finished Ottoman khilafat in 1924 with the help Britisher. Whenever there was islamic state on earth jews were unable create a separate state for themselves.

We are getting into the realms of bizarre conspiracy theories here. The caliphate was abolished by the nationalist government of Turkey under Mustapha Kemal (Ataturk) as part of that government's overall secularising policy. Ataturk said in 1924: "Our Prophet has instructed his disciples to convert the nations of the world to Islam; he has not ordered them to provide for the government of these nations. … The notion of a single Caliph exercising supreme religious authority over all the Muslim people is one which has come out of books, not reality."

Given that the British, together with allies, had occupied parts of Turkey in the aftermath of the First World War and that Ataturk was one of the leaders of the anti-British Turks, it does not make sense to suggest that the British were a party to the abolition of the Caliphate.

A recent book by Sean Oliver-Dee, The Caliphate Question: The British Government and Islamic Governance (Lexington Books: 2009), suggests that the abolition of the Caliphate was welcomed by some within the British Government because it could be seen as the removal of a potential focus of resistance to British rule over Muslims around the world (in the early 1920s, perhaps as many as half of all Muslims lived in land under British control). However, others regretted the abolition, because they believed that it might make Muslims in territories controlled by the British, particularly India, look within their own communities for leadership, thus eventually threatening British control.

oceanclub

hivizman wrote: »

We are getting into the realms of bizarre conspiracy theories here. The caliphate was abolished by the nationalist government of Turkey under Mustapha Kemal (Ataturk) as part of that government's overall secularising policy. Ataturk said in 1924: "Our Prophet has instructed his disciples to convert the nations of the world to Islam; he has not ordered them to provide for the government of these nations. … The notion of a single Caliph exercising supreme religious authority over all the Muslim people is one which has come out of books, not reality."

Given that the British, together with allies, had occupied parts of Turkey in the aftermath of the First World War and that Ataturk was one of the leaders of the anti-British Turks, it does not make sense to suggest that the British were a party to the abolition of the Caliphate.

Thank you for stating the obvious there, hivizman(*); I was going to respond also, but I hopefully the words of a moderator here have more weight (I'm sure I'd probably just be dismissed as a Zionist).

Just to add that the allegation that the Western powers were against the Ottoman Empire during its latter phases doesn't accord with actual history. The Western powers considered the Empire a stabilising force and propped it up, indeed going to war on its side against Russia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_War

The Ottoman Empire (and Empire it was) was mainly brought down by the forces of 19th nationalism, which included Turkish nationalism, which saw their best chance during WW1. The Empire had itself been in a slow decline for hundreds of years by that stage; it had stopped expanding in the late 17th century. Arabs themselves revolted against the Empire: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt.

The allegation that a small scattering of Jews across the world somehow brought down a mighty empire is just nonsense.

P.

(*)Sorry, just re-read that bit and it sounds like I'm being sarcastic but I'm not! Or at least, my sarcasm isn't aimed at you.

dead one

oceanclub wrote: »

The allegation that a small scattering of Jews across the world somehow brought down a mighty empire is just nonsense.
.

That is true if you accept it or not. On the 31st of August, 1876 (1293 H) Sultan Abdul Hameed was given the Khilafaship of ottomon state, the people pledged allegiance and loyalty to him In 1901 the Jewish banker Mizray Qrasow and two other Jewish influential leaders came to visit Abdul Hameed, they offered to give him :
1) Paying ALL the debts of the Ottoman state.
2) Building the Navy of the Ottoman state.
3) 35 Million Golden Leeras without interest to support the prosperity of the Ottoman state.
In Exchange for
1) Allowing Jews to visit Palestine anytime they please, and to stay as long as they want "to visit the holy sites."
2) Allowing the Jews to build settlements where they live, and they wanted them to be located near Jerusalem.
Abdul Hameed refused to even meet them, he sent his answer to them through Tahsin Pasha, and the answer was "Tell those impolite Jews that the debts of the Ottoman state are not a shame, France has debts and that doesn't effect it. Jerusalem became a part of the Islamic land when Omar Bin Alkhattab took the city and I am not going to carry the historical shame of selling the holy lands to the Jews and betraying the responsibility and trust of my people. May the Jews keep their money, the Ottoman's will not hide in castles built with the money of the enemies of Islam." He also told them to leave and never come back to meet him again. With the Jews and Zionists in the game the set was complete, and the play of the end of the Ottoman state was about to start. The Jewish money was an important asset to finance the destruction of the Ottoman state to build the Zionist state in Palestine, the state that Jews wanted so badly they were willing to risk anything for.

oceanclub

dead one wrote: »

That is true if you accept it or not. On the 31st of August, 1876 (1293 H) Sultan Abdul Hameed was given the Khilafaship of ottomon state, the people pledged allegiance and loyalty to him In 1901 the Jewish banker Mizray Qrasow and two other Jewish influential leaders came to visit Abdul Hameed, they offered to give him :
1) Paying ALL the debts of the Ottoman state.
2) Building the Navy of the Ottoman state.
3) 35 Million Golden Leeras without interest to support the prosperity of the Ottoman state.
In Exchange for
1) Allowing Jews to visit Palestine anytime they please, and to stay as long as they want "to visit the holy sites."
2) Allowing the Jews to build settlements where they live, and they wanted them to be located near Jerusalem.
Abdul Hameed refused to even meet them, he sent his answer to them through Tahsin Pasha, and the answer was "Tell those impolite Jews that the debts of the Ottoman state are not a shame, France has debts and that doesn't effect it. Jerusalem became a part of the Islamic land when Omar Bin Alkhattab took the city and I am not going to carry the historical shame of selling the holy lands to the Jews and betraying the responsibility and trust of my people. May the Jews keep their money, the Ottoman's will not hide in castles built with the money of the enemies of Islam." He also told them to leave and never come back to meet him again. With the Jews and Zionists in the game the set was complete, and the play of the end of the Ottoman state was about to start. The Jewish money was an important asset to finance the destruction of the Ottoman state to build the Zionist state in Palestine, the state that Jews wanted so badly they were willing to risk anything for.

Searching for "Mizray Qrasow", I find 391 hits. I noticed that you've just copied/pasted your post from another page:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.greek/2009-04/msg00184.html

Funnily enough, the only instance of Mizray Qrasow's name I can find pops up in the exact same piece of text. And Google Books reveals absolutely no source for this. Do you have a primary source for this story?

**

Let's accept what you say is true. Your argument is along the lines of - Marilyn Monroe was upset at the ending of her affair with JFK - ergo, MM assassinated him. That is, you've established a motive, but nothing else. We already knew that Jews wanted a Jewish homeland; it's hardly surprising that a wealthy Jew might decide to try offering money.

It's a big leap between that and, well, their engineering the downfall of the Ottoman Empire.

And the other problem is, every other ethnic group in the Ottoman Empire, including Arabs, also had the exact same motive.

And you're still ignoring World War 1, Greek nationalism, Arab nationalism, Turkish nationalism, Serbian nationalism, and the fact that the Empire was already collapsing.

Can you explain why this shouldn't be dismissed as just another self-pitying Islamic Jewish conspiracy theory?

P.

dead one

oceanclub wrote: »

Searching for "Mizray Qrasow", I find 391 hits. I noticed that you've just copied/pasted your post from another page:

Where i said i haven't pasted anything. Look friend this is internet whenever i paste anything it's not difficult to find where i have pasted it. So point is if you ignore the facts, they still remains facts.

oceanclub wrote: »

Funnily enough, the only instance of Mizray Qrasow's name I can find pops up in the exact same piece of text. And Google Books reveals absolutely no source for this. Do you have a primary source for this story?

I hope you will find this name in biography of sultan hameed
here is link

http://www.al-dawah.dk/boger/engelske/pdf/Biography_Of_Sultan_Abdul_Hameed_II.pdf
If You can't find anything on net it doesn't mean thing doesn't exist. Google is work of human and remember human aren't perfect in their work. Still there are many thing which you can't find on net

oceanclub wrote: »

And you're still ignoring World War 1, Greek nationalism, Arab nationalism, Turkish nationalism, Serbian nationalism, and the fact that the Empire was already collapsing.

This nationalism was part of plan. This nationalism was used as secret plan to destroy ottoman empire.
i hope you will find the fact

"After Waterloo [1815] London became the money market and the clearing house of the world. The interests of the Jew as a financial dealer and the interests of this great commercial polity approximated more and more. One may say that by the last third of the nineteenth century, they had become virtually identical." ("The Jews" 1922)

In the next few articles, I am going to explore the thesis that the British Empire was a Masonic proxy, and that British & American imperialism derived its moxie from the perverse desire of Cabalist bankers to own and control everything. The Illuminati bankers (i.e. the "Crown") colonized England & the US as well as the world. The "Jewish Conspiracy" was the British Empire now repackaged as the New World Order. Of course, now it encompasses everyone with a stake in "globalism."
http://www.henrymakow.com/englands_jewish_aristocracy.html

oceanclub

dead one wrote: »

Where i said i haven't pasted anything. Look friend this is internet whenever i paste anything it's not difficult to find where i have pasted it.

I previously included the link to the site which you copied; here it is again:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.greek/2009-04/msg00184.html

Here's the start of that article (dated 2009):

In 1901 the Jewish banker Mizray Qrasow and two other Jewish
influential leaders came to visit Abdul Hameed, they offered to give
him :

1) Paying ALL the debts of the Ottoman state.
2) Building the Navy of the Ottoman state.
3) 35 Million Golden Leeras without interest to support the prosperity
of the Ottoman state.

Here's the text you posted:

In 1901 the Jewish banker Mizray Qrasow and two other Jewish influential leaders came to visit Abdul Hameed, they offered to give him :
1) Paying ALL the debts of the Ottoman state.
2) Building the Navy of the Ottoman state.
3) 35 Million Golden Leeras without interest to support the prosperity of the Ottoman state.

The text is identical. Even the formatting is the same.

The link you posted is to a document without any quoted sources. As history, it's useless.

This nationalism was used as secret plan to destroy ottoman empire.

19th century nationalism was a secret Jewish plan?

You're a lunatic.

P.

dead one

oceanclub wrote: »

I previously included the link to the site which you copied; here it is again:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.greek/2009-04/msg00184.html

Here's the start of that article (dated 2009):



Here's the text you posted:



The text is identical. Even the formatting is the same.

The link you posted is to a document without any quoted sources. As history, it's useless.



19th century nationalism was a secret Jewish plan?

You're a lunatic.

P.

If you don't believe don't believe, You will find his name everywhere.

Abdul Hamid II famously refused to even meet the Jewish banker Mizray Qrasow when, in 1901, he offered to pay off the empire's debts and build it a navy in exchange for the right to build colonies and buy Arab land in Palestine. Abdul Hamid told one of his aides, "Tell those impolite Jews that I am not going to carry the historical shame for selling holy land to the Jews and betraying the responsibility and trust of my people."
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/israel-and-turkey-are-drifting-apart-1.569958

Do you think all these people are fool spreading lies. Now think why detail isn't present on net;)

oceanclub

dead one wrote: »

If you don't believe don't believe, You will find his name everywhere.

Do you think all these people are fool spreading lies.

There are billions of people who claim that Jesus was the divine son of God. I presume they all can't be fools either?

P.

hivizman

The story of "Mizray Qrasow" appears in a lot of websites, but there is effectively only one source, copied over and over. This is a document called "Biography of Sultan Abdul Hameed the Second and the Fall of the Islamic Khilafa", which does not appear to have a named author. The name does not look like a Jewish name to me, and I suspect that it has been mistransliterated - the first name is more likely to be "Mizrahi" and the second name "Krasow", but seaching these and other variants on Google hasn't come up with anything helpful.

There is evidence in the Ottoman archives that Theodor Herzl, considered to the the father of modern political Zionism, visited Sultan Abdülhamid II in May 1901 to discuss the possibility of buying land in Palestine for Jewish settlers (to come mainly from Russia and Eastern Europe). This is documented in a paper by Mim Kemal Oke "The Ottoman Empire, Zionism and the Question of Palestine (1880-1908)", in International Journal of Middle East Studies (Vol 14, No. 3, 1982, pp. 329-341 ). I don't have access to the full text of this article, but there's a fairly extensive summary here.

So it is possible that "Mizray Qrasow" was associated with the financing of Herzl's proposal.

So the bare bones of the story, that Zionists offered Sultan Abdülhamid II a large sum of money in exchange for settlement rights in Palestine, is quite likely to be true. However, the conspiracy theory implications of the refusal of this offer are much less plausible than the consensus view among Western (and most Turkish) historians that the abolition of the caliphate in 1924 was an aspect of Mustafa Kemal's policy of secularisation.

Andrew Mango, in his biography Atatürk (John Murray, 1999), goes into rather more detail - it appears that Kemal was originally prepared to tolerate Abdülmecit, the cousin of the last Sultan, in the role of Caliph, but quickly decided that Abdülmecit could become a focus of opposition to the new nationalist government of Turkey. This was exacerbated when a proposal was made that the Caliph should be regarded as the Turkish head of state, a position that Kemal occupied as President. The abolition of the Caliphate was associated with the secularisation of the religious schools (medresses) and the nationalisation of the religious foundations (vakif), but it also operated to remove a potential rival to Kemal.

partyatmygaff

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Dont these countries use shariah law? In what way do they not judge themselves what god has revealed? If they aren't closest, then who is?

I would just like to add that Egypt does not use Sharia Law, thankfully. I do believe Iran does.

goose2005

dead one wrote: »

Islam is only way to bring peace in the world because it message of last of prophet. Hope you will get the point.

But if Islamic law brings peace, why is it that as soon as Muhammad died, Islam collapsed into schism and civil war?

Marcusm

When I clicked on this thread, I supposed that it would involve a discussion of the relevant absoluteness of Islamic law (Shariah) in Saudi Arabia and Iran. I assumed that there would be comparisons of the absolute monarchy in Saudi Arabia backed up by the religious authorities and the quasi elected position of the government in Iran.

At no stage did I imagine that it would involve an obscure discussion on the abolition of the Caliphate in Turkey after the First World War. PErhaps I was naive. I do find it odd however that as Idn Saud came to power (and took the holy places of Mecca and Medina) at or around this time that he did not transfer the Caliphate back to his kingdom. That may have been something to do with the fact that he could not trace his lineage from Muhammad, unlike say the Hashem (formerly Sharifs of Mecca and now represented by the King of Jordan, having also held the Kingdom of Iraq) and the Aga Khan (that great friend of Ireland) who is a direct descendant of Muhammad through one of his daughters (?Fatima).

Even if all the world adhered to Islam, I doubt that it would be peaceful as there are as many different forms of Islam as there are of Christianity and we know the discord that such small differences can sow.