Al-Baghawi relates in his Tafsir (under verse 55:3-4) from the eminent Tabi’i, Tawus ibn Kaysan (d. 106), that he said: “He (Allah) created man, meaning Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace), and taught him the description, meaning the description of what was and what will be, as he would describe [accounts of] the earlier peoples and the later peoples and the Day of Recompense.”
Thus, it is clear that what is meant by this usage with respect to the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is the knowledge he brought of the earlier people, the later peoples and of eschatology. Such knowledge is also found in the Qur’an, which is why, for example, Ibn Kathir says about the Qur’an: “Indeed the Qur’an contains every beneficial science, of the description of what came before and knowledge of what is to come…”
The “knowledge of what was and what will be” when used with respect to the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) and the Qur’an, therefore, refers to the limited knowledge of the past and future documented in the Qur’an and hadith. They do not mean all-encompassing knowledge.
However, when it is used with respect to Allah, this phrase means all-encompassing knowledge.
Strangely, it appears GF Haddad concedes this:
But Ahmad Rida Khan, who it seems Haddad is defending in this article, said exactly this in al-Dawlat al-Makkiyyah and other works: that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) was given knowledge of literally “all that was and will be” (جميع ما كان وما يكون). Does Haddad therefore accept that he was wrong?
But, apparently going back on this caveat to Ibn Khafif’s statement, Haddad then quotes his teacher saying:
“The Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, possesses knowledge of all that is and knows the created universes in the same way that one knows a room in which one sits. Nothing is hidden from him.”
As proof he says:
In short, he is using description of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) in the Qur’an as a “witness” as proof that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) knew and saw all that is and was. This, however, ignores the explanation of “witness” in the recognised Tafsirs and from the explanations of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) himself.
According to the Tafsirs, there are two possible meanings of “witness” when used in these verses (4:41, 2:143 and others), as Ibn al-Jawzi mentions in Zad al-Masir (although, he divides them into four):
1. He bears witness that he conveyed the message based on his knowledge of himself, and he witnesses that the earlier prophets conveyed the message based on the knowledge he received from revelation. This interpretation is consistent with other verses of the Qur’an (7:6, 28:85 and others) which show the Prophet will bear witness that he conveyed the message. This ummah will bear witness that the previous prophets conveyed the message, and it is clear this “witnessing” is not by means of having seen Nuh (‘alayhissalam) and the other Prophets, but by the knowledge this ummah has received from revelation. The narration above, which Haddad quotes, clearly states this is the kind of “witnessing” that is meant. If this interpretation is taken, it cannot possibly be used to mean that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is omnipresent.
2. A second interpretation is that he witnesses over his ummah in terms of their acceptance or rejection of him. However, this meaning is applicable only for as long as he lived amongst them (i.e. only for the Sahabah and the disbelievers of his time), but when he passed away this type of “witnessing” ended, as explicitly mentioned by the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) himself in the explanation of this verse:
In the commentary of 4:41, al-Tabari narrates with a sound chain from the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) that he said after this verse was recited to him by ‘Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud, quoting the statement of ‘Isa (‘alayhissalam):
“I was a witness over them for as long as I was among them, and when You took me (i.e. when I passed away), You was the Watcher over them. You are Witness over all things.” (Qur’an 5:117)
[Chain: ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad al-Zuhri, thiqah acc. to Abu Hatim and al-Nasa’i – Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, undisputed hadith master – ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘Utbah al-Mas’udi, thiqah acc. to many hadith critics – Ja’far ibn ‘Amr ibn Hurayth, a narrator in Sahih Muslim, declared thiqah by al-Dhahabi – Sahabi, ‘Amr ibn Hurayth]
This narration is also found in Sahih Muslim.
A narration found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim mention that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) in fact repeats this statement of ‘Isa (‘alayhissalam) on the plains of Resurrection when he is told that he has no knowledge of what some people from his ummah innovated after him.
This is, therefore, clear proof from the words of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) himself in authentic hadiths that if we take the meaning of witnessing the response of his ummah from the characteristic of “witness” it only applies to his companions, those with whom he directly interacted, and it does not extend beyond them.
In explaining verse 4:41, al-Razi said:
“Allah will make you [the Prophet] witness over these, meaning his people that were addressed by the Qur’an who he saw and knew of their conditions. Furthermore, the people of every age will bear witness over other than them from those whose conditions they saw. Based on this, ‘Isa, peace be upon him, said: I was a witness over them for as long as I was among them.'”
Al-Qurtubi says of this verse that the intent is that he will be witness over the Kuffar of Quraysh. Then he said “it was said: the demonstrative noun is for the whole ummah,” but he alludes to this being a weak view by using the phrase “it was said.” Also he presented as proof of this view a narration that is clearly weak (as there is a majhul narrator in the chain, and it is maqtu‘ anyway).
Hence, although Qurtubi presents the interpretation Haddad asserts as the interpretation of this verse, it is prefaced by an indication that it is weak, and it is demonstrably supported by weak evidence.
So the notion that “shahid” implies the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is aware of the deeds of the entire ummah is supported by weak evidence and clearly contradicts the stronger evidences.
Moreover, there is clear evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) did not know how all of his ummah responded:
First, the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam)’s repetition of ‘Isa’s statement for himself both in this world and in the afterlife, as explained above.
Second, verse 5:109 of the Qur’an indicates according to some interpretations that the prophets (all of them) are unaware of the full details of the conditions of their peoples’ response to them, which is why they said “We have no knowledge.” In fact, Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari said in the exact place where Haddad quotes him from his commentary of Mishkat:
“This [witnessing] does not negate His statement: “the day when Allah will assemble the messengers and will say to them, “How were you responded to?” They will say, “We have no knowledge. Surely You alone have the full knowledge of all that is unseen” because response is different to conveying, and it (i.e. the response of their peoples) requires details the essence of which is comprehended only by Allah, as opposed to conveying itself which is from obvious necessary knowledge.”
Third, the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is told about some of the innovators from his ummah on the plains of Resurrection by the angels إنك لا تدري ما أحدثوا بعدك and لا علم لك (“You do not know” and “You have no knowledge of what they innovated after you”), as recorded in the Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim, which is clear evidence that even after death and on the plains of resurrection, he is unaware of the actions of some of his ummah. This is also proven by the hadiths from Bukhari and Muslim which say he will only recognise his ummah by the white marks on them (ghurran muhajjalin) from the traces of wudu’ (and not from his previous knowledge of them).
Fourthly, in a hadith al-Tirmidhi said is “sahih,” he narrates the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) said: لا أراكم بعد عامي هذا (Perhaps I will not see you after this year of mine).
Fifthly, with respect to the earlier peoples, there are many verses of the Qur’an which explicitly say the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) was NOT present where certain significant events happened to earlier peoples and prophets:
“And (O prophet,) you were not there at the Western side (of the mount Tur) when We delegated the matter to Musa, nor were you among those present… And you were not dwelling among the people of Madyan, reciting Our verses to them, but it is We who do send messengers. And you were not at the side of (the mount) Tur when We called (Musa)” (28:44-5)
“Nor were you among those present” – the word used for present here is “shahid.” So this verse clearly negates the meaning of shahid as being present and witnessing. And when it affirms “shahid” for him in other verses it is either according to another meaning of “witness” or restricted to those he interacted with.
Ibn Kathir says under the commentary of this verse:
“You were not present (haadir) at that [event], but Allah inspired it to you.”
As Ibn Kathir mentions under the commentary of this verse, this is in fact proof of the Prophethood of the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasalam) as he was not present amongst earlier peoples, and yet related their tales. Ibn Kathir quotes similar verses:
“You were not with them when they were casting their pens (to decide) who, from among them, should be the guardian of Maryam, nor were you with them when they were quarrelling.” (3:44)
“You were not with them when they determined their object, and when they were planning devices.” (12:102)
Hence, the verses of the Qur’an explicitly state that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasalam) was not present with Musa (‘alayhissalam), Maryam (‘alayhassalam), Shu‘ayb (‘alayhissalm) and Yusuf (‘alayhissalam) at significant events in their lives. Hence, he was not a witness over them in the meaning GF Haddad would like us to believe.
Haddad quotes Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari saying:
Haddad in fact missed out a sentence in between which makes the above paragraph unclear as to the intent of Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari when he says, “In this is a remarkable warning…”
After he quotes verse 3:81, Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari goes back to the original hadith, which states: “The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: ‘Then you (the ummah) will be brought.’” And then Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari explains, “In this there is a remarkable warning…” But Haddad missed out the quotation of the hadith and moved straight onto this commentary.
When Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari says “hadir nazir” with respect to the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam), he is using it in the very obvious sense that is indicated by this phrase from the hadith. The hadith says the ummah will be brought to the place where Nuh (‘alahissalam) was, at the place of “the greatest inspection.” This shows the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alahi wasallam) was already present there as he was not “brought” there. All this means is that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) was present at the place where this “inspection” was happening. It does not mean he is “omnipresent”!
Again, Haddad uses unclear and weak interpretations of verses to prove his belief. The Qur’an says: “Those in whose heart is deviation, they follow what is unclear from it [i.e. the Qur’an], seeking discord.” (3:7) As for the true meanings of these verses:
“The Messenger is among you” (49:7) was said with respect to a particular situation amongst the Sahabah. The address is clearly to the Sahabah. Ibn Jarir al-Tabari says in the explanation of this verse:
“He (Exalted is His Mention) says to the companions of the Prophet of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace): Know, O believers in Allah and His Messenger, that the Messenger of Allah is amongst you.”
This is also clear from the following part of the verse, “Had the Prophet obeyed you…” The Prophet obviously cannot obey those after the Sahabah, so the address is clearly to the Sahabah.
As for verse 9:94, it is talking about the munafiqun who stayed behind from battle, that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) will see if these munafiqun repent or not. Haddad also quotes a similar verse which clearly disproves his claim: “Allah and His Messenger and the Believers will see your conduct” (9:105) – so do the believers hear and see the deeds of all human beings as is being implied here of the Messenger?!
Even though this verse clearly disproves the interpretation Haddad is trying to take from it, he still attempts to salvage this belief by saying the Prophet’s way of seeing is like that of Allah (!), and he uses words that are almost polytheistic in nature and certainly disrespectful of Allah:
Whereas, no such thing is done. Instead, the verse is making a simple observation that eventually the munafiqun will be exposed and all will see them for what they are.
Then Gibril Haddad quotes three hadiths to “prove” the doctrine of hazir nazir and omnipresence:
This hadith does not mean the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is aware of all the actions of his entire ummah. Firstly, Mawlana Manzur Nu’mani points out in his Bawariq al-Ghayb that this hadith is clearly talking about the ummat al-ijabah only. There are two usages of “ummah”: one, all the people to whom the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) was sent, believer or otherwise – this is “ummat al-da’wah”; and second, those who responded to the message and accepted it – this is “ummat al-ijabah.” The reason it is clear the hadith is only talking about the latter is that the Prophet says: “if I see evil I will ask forgiveness of Allah for you.” Seeking forgiveness is not permitted for non-Muslims, so this only refers to Muslims. Therefore, all murtaddin, kuffar, munafiqin and zanadiqah are excluded from this hadith, which is a large proportion of people. Therefore, it certainly does not prove the Barelwi doctrine of Hazir Nazir or Haddad’s doctrine of “omnipresence.”
Furthermore, in order to harmonise this narration with the earlier stronger and more authentic narrations, it must be understood as a “general presentation” (‘ard ijmali) and not a “detailed presentation” (‘ard tafsili). Meaning, the actions are presented in a general way, without there necessarily being specification of the time, place, nature, doer etc. of the action.
In this way the hadith is consistent with the other more authentic and stronger Prophetic sayings: “I was a witness over them for as long as I was amongst them…” (which he says both in this world and the next) and that he will be told: “You have no knowledge of what they invented after you” and “Perhaps, I will not see you after this year of mine.”
The Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, said: “My Lord came to me in the best form” – the narrator said: “I think he said: ‘in my sleep’” – “and asked me over what did the Higher Assembly (al-mala’ al-a‘lâ) vie; I said I did not know, so He put His hand between my shoulders, and I felt its coolness in my innermost, and knowledge of all things between the East and the West came to me.”
It is not authentic according to the preferred view. See for its grading and explanation here:
(3) The staying back of Sayyidina Gibril, `alayhis salaam, at the point the Pro¬phet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, went beyond the Lote-Tree of the Farthermost Boundary (sidrat al-muntaha) and heard the screeching of the pens writing the Foreor¬dained Decree then saw his Lord, although Gibril is the closest of all crea¬tures to Allah U and the angels do see Him according to Ahl-al-Sunna.
How exactly does this prove the Prophet is “omnipresent”? His hearing of the scratching of the pens is also mentioned in Bukhari and Muslim. It is clear Haddad will quote and reference anything to make his article longer and citations appear more impressive so people will think the claim that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is omnipresent is proven by incontestable evidence.
Haddad then says:
The Arabic does not say “fi buyuti al-muslimin” but “fi buyut Ahl al-Islam.” Of course this doesn’t make any difference to the meaning, but it shows Haddad’s sloppiness when he pretends to be all careful and technical. Moreover, he appears to accuse Mawlana Sarfraz Khan Safdar of misquoting as he quoted it as “hadiratun” instead of “hadirun” (which mean the same thing), whereas Mawlana Sarfraz Safdar was merely relying on a different edition (as will be shown below)!
It’s actually 2:118
What ‘Iyad cited from al-Athram is only narrated by al-Tabari in his Tafsir from Ibn Jurayj, from ‘Ata’ al-Khurasani (d. 135):
In order to assess the validity of this athar, it is not enough to grade the last person in the chain i.e. ‘Ata’. All the narrators in the chain need to be assessed. Al-Tabari’s shaykh in this sanad is: al-Qasim ibn al-Hasan who is unknown (Mu’jam Shuyukh al-Tabari p. 407). His shaykh is Husayn ibn Dawud al-Missisi Sunayd, the scholars had mixed views about him; Shu’ayb Arna’ut and Basshar ‘Awwad Ma’ruf concluded he is weak. Thus, the chain leading to ‘Ata’ is weak to begin with, so this narration is not dependable upon.
Now, we move on to where GF Haddad attacks Mawlana Sarfraz Khan Safdar:
Recently, a Deobandi writer forwarded the strange claim that al-Qari’s text in Sharh al-Shifa’ actually stated, “NOT THAT his soul, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, is present in the houses of the Muslims”(lâ anna rûhahu hâdiratun fî buyûti al-muslimîn)
Firstly, this “claim” is not “recent” which I will explain later.
The Arabic which Mawlana Safdar mentioned is “fi buyuti ahl al-Islam” not “fi buyuti l-Muslimin.” It’s right there on the page that Haddad references (p. 167 of Ankhoh ki Thunduk).
He says this “is diametrically opposite to what al-Qari actually said” but if he looked at the entire section from Aankhoh ki Thunduk, Mawlana Sarfraz Khan Safdar proves clearly from Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari’s own writings that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is not seeing, hearing and present in every place. He quotes Mulla al-Qari from his treatise al-Durrat al-Mudi’ah fi al-Ziyarat al-Mustafawiyyah, saying:
“From the greatest benefits of Ziyarah is that when the visitor sends blessing and peace on him near his grave, he hears it, with a literal hearing, and he replies to it directly, as opposed to the one who sends blessing and peace on him from far, because that does not reach him except indirectly…”
And then Shaykh Safdar says such explicit quotes cannot be overridden by ambiguous ones. In fact, Mawlana Safdar has a full treatise called “Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari aur Mas’alah Ilm al-Ghayb wa Hazir wa Nazir” in which he shows with extensive documentation, mainly from Mirqat al-Mafatih, that Mulla ‘Ali Qari definitely did not subscribe to the Barelwi doctrine of “Hazir Nazir”.
You can download the treatise here:
What Mawlana Safdar ascribed to Mulla Qari is consistent with what he wrote in other places.
Furthermore, in this treatise, Mawlana Safdar explains that if this passage is as it is in the printed edition, it does not make any sense. If it means literally the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) is present because it says to send salam on him when entering the house, it would mean all the prophets and righteous slaves are also present, as the supplication includes all of them, so why specify his soul and not mention theirs? This is why Mawlana Safdar says the manuscripts which have “la li anna” is more plausible, and more consistent with Mulla ‘Ali Qari’s writings both in Sharh al-Shifa and elsewhere.
In Sharh al-Shifa itself, shortly after this passage, Mulla Ali Qari says that the one who recites salawat away from the grave, it reaches the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) through the medium of angels. Did he contradict himself in the same book?
That one can actually dare to make the above claim is only because of ignorance of the Arabic language since al-Qari prefaces the statement with the word “meaning (ay),” which would be grammatically incorrect if it were followed by a disclaimer such as “not that his soul is present in the houses of the Muslims.” The truth is that no such word as lâ has been dropped because there was no such word there in the first place, and the claim that there was is nothing short of tampering (tahrîf).
Note, he says this is “nothing short of tampering,” but that would only be the case if Mawlana Safdar did not base his claim on any reliable manuscript evidence. In fact Mawlana Safdar is simply quoting the research of Mawlana Yahya Kandhlewi (d. 1334 H) (the father of Mawlana Zakariyya Kandhlewi, and student of Mawlana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi) who wrote a book called “Mas’alah Ilm al-Ghayb” in which he said that he has seen some hand-written copies of Sharh al-Shifa where it says “La li anna ruhahu…”
As for Gibril Haddad saying this is grammatically incorrect: firstly, he has given no proof for this claim from any work of Nahw. It is possible Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari meant (as Mawlana Safdar says he meant): “Meaning, not that his soul is present in the houses of the people of Islam, but that it reaches him through the medium of angels” which makes perfect sense. Secondly, in Mawlana Yahya Kandhlewi’s description of the manuscript he does not mention “ay,” so it may be that the original read: “la li anna ruhahu..” without “ay” at the start; which Mulla ‘Ali al-Qari probably said to clarify that it reaches him by the medium of angels.
When this is possible, the evidence drawn from this passage is negated (إذا جاء الاحتمال بطل الاستدلال), as Shaykh Safdar goes on to say. GF Haddad says:
Furthermore, the word al-Qari used for “present” is hâdir in the masculine, not hâdiratun in the feminine, as rûh can have either gender but the masculine is more appropriate here to refer to the Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam,
The edition used by Mawlana Safdar (the Azhariyyah edition) has it as “hadiratun” and not “hadirun” (volume 3, page 464). You can download the third volume here:
Yes, the edition Haddad used says “hadirun.” But how does he know which it is that al-Qari used?
For more details about the allegation of tampering against Mawlana Safdar, see http://razakhanimazhab.com/home/difa…08-06-10-55-37
Furthermore, are Hâdir and Nâzir among the Divine Names and Attributes? Imam Ahmad al-Sirhindi was quoted to say: “Allah Most High is aware of each and every minor and major condition and isHâdir and Nâzir. One should feel shame before Him.”[17
Shaykh Safdar explains in detail in what context and based on what evidence “hadir” “nazir” can be said of Allah in the book Haddad supposedly had access to, Ankhoh ki Thunduk.
Mawlana Safdar says on page 15: “There is no doubt that Allah Almighty is not in need of place and location…” He goes on to say Allah’s names are not limited to 99 but some scholars counted up to 1000 transmitted names. Mawlana Safdar also explains that it is allowed to translate the attributes into other languages, and there are some Urdu translations where “shaheed” is translated as “haazir” and “baseer” as “naazir”. (p. 16) Then mawlana Safdar quotes a number of verses and hadiths in which it states Allah sees using the verb نظر ينظر. And, in fact, the very word “Nazir” is found in a hadith recorded in al-Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Mustadrak for Allah:
إن الله مستخلفكم فيها فناظر كيف تعملون
Furthermore, regarding “hadir,” the Qur’an says “وما كنا غائبين” (We are not absent) and when some Sahabah called out dhikr to Allah in a raised voice, the Prophet said: “إنكم لا تدعون أصم ولا غائبا” (You are not calling a being that is deaf or absent). The implication is clear: Allah is not absent, He is present, which is “hadir” in Arabic. Mawlana Safdar quotes the famous Sufi master, Shaykh ‘Abd al-Quddus Gangohi (d. 944 H) that he said: “Allah Almighty is present (haadir) and not absent (ghaa’ib).”
But Haddad himself said: “Prophetic Attributes are tawqifi” so how can he attribute these things to the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) without proof? It’s not the opposition that needs to bring proof that he is not haadir naazir, but according to his own principle, he is the one that needs to present proof that he is.
In fact there is plenty of proof that the Prophet (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasalam) is not hadir and nazir in the sense Haddad intends it, i.e. omnipresent. Many of these proofs have already been discussed above.
If it comes to scholarly quotations, they should accept that the attributes of Hâdir and Nâzir are applied to the Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, by the Ulema of Ahl al-Sunna such as Mulla Ali al-Qari as cited above, and countless others such as the Friends of Allah known to keep company with the Prophet, sall-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam, day and night, among them Shaykh Abu al-‘Abbas al-Mursi, Shaykh Abu al-Hasan al-Shadhili, and Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Aziz al-Dabbagh, probably also Shaykh Ahmad Sirhindi himself – may Allah sanctify their secrets.
He doesn’t give any references for the statements of Shaykhs Abu al-‘Abbas Mursi, al-Shadhili, al-Dabbagh and al-Sirhindi, and if they did use it, they probably meant “hadir” figuratively to mean “as though he is present.”
As for Mulla ‘Ali Qari’s usage, it was clearly said in the specific context of the “inspection” in which the Prophet will be present and seeing. It is not meant in the meaning Haddad intends it, i.e. omnipresent and seeing everything. This was explained above.
The Prophet’s (sallAllahu ‘alayhi wasallam) blessed body and physical being is confined to his Noble Grave. He may be present in other places only in the sense of a “likeness” (mithal) appearing elsewhere, not his physical being. It is not possible for someone to be in two places at the same time. For more detail, see: https://barelwism.wordpress.com/2012/…s-omnipresent/
So the Mufti was correct when he said: “Rasulullah, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, does not arrive at any “Eid-e-Milad-un Nabee,” function. He is in his Rawdha-e-Mubarak (grave) at Madinah Munawwarah and will emerge from it at the onset of Yawmul-Qiyaamah, or the Day of Judgement”
As for a likeness appearing, that is another matter.