Topic initiated on Tuesday, September 23, 2003 - 8:03 PM
|Democracy in Question|
[One of our respected readers has raised various questions on a weekly message entitled "Islam and Democracy" sent by Studying Islam on 20th Sep03. He has also sent a detailed article in support of his views. He has raised various questions; however his primary question is about the translation of the verse 38 of Surah Shura 42. As asked by him, we have pasted his primary question as well as our response here. You are requested to express your views.]
His email requiring us to respond to his question is:
I want a clear answer from you on the use of the translation -
"The affairs of state of the believers are run by their mutual consultation.
(42:38)" Which is totally WRONG.
You should publish my response first and then give your response if any and clarify why you have used a wrongful translation of the verse 42:38 from Quran. These should be sent to all members.
It doesnt take a mujtahid to open a Translation of Quran or to look it up in the internet and confirm the translation of 42:38 Quran. Islam is not Judaism that it needs a Rabbi/Imam or Mujtahid to simply read or understand the translation of Quran.
[His first email, mentioning this question is]
There are couple of linguistic correction to the previous mail:
Please find the article attached which discusses the issue of Democracy
Islam (Democracy is system of kufr.pdf)
There are few things to note
1. I strongly disagree with the QUATATION given in ur mail as authentic
and taken from QURAN
"The affairs of state of the believers are run by their mutual
THIS IS SO WRONG TRANSLATION. THE WRITE TRANSLATION IS:
And those who respond to their LORD and keep up Prayer, and their rule is
take counsel among themselves and who spend out of what we have given
(Translation by M.H. Shakir Publisher: Tahrike Tarsile Quran INC New York)
There is no bit of mutual consultation. And certainly there is no issue of
ruling aswell. This is literally meaning Muslims should take counsel
help) amongst themselves about matters and should not spend more than what
Allah has given us.
Where did mutual consultation come from here??????????
2. A procedure to elect is not a part of the system itself. Majority
voting system is present in Democracy, Communism, Islam and also in
Dictatorship. This is not a defining factor of a political system.
what defines a political system is what is the legislative and conceptual
goal attached to it.
3. The two aspects of Democracy given is simply flawed understanding of
Democracy. This is not the way the thinkers defined democracy neither it
the way democracy came about as a system. Therefore the two basic aspects
shown in ur mail are WRONG
4. You mentioned: "Keeping in view linguistic considerations, it is
that a consensus or
majority opinion of the Muslims can in no way be overruled"
This is taken in a wrong context. To run a country, the KHALIF of the
Islamic State is not bound by the decision or recommendation of 'Majlish e
Sura'. I.E when it comes to decision making the Khilafa is the absolute
power holder and no other body or system.
5. Your own discussion of the 2nd issue is more or less accepted.
you were totally mistaken in concluding that qualifying this rule that
Allah's laws are implemented we can accept democrcay is totally wrong.
Reason is, democracy itself says there is no need of ANY OTHER's LAWS than
MAN MADE LAWS. And thereby man makes laws for every aspect of the society
e,g, economic, political, criminal laws as opposed to Sharia.
Therefore there is nothing is Democracy which is Islamic.
Please see the attached document for further understanding on the matter.
(If this reply is not circulated to the present students and list members
then I shall be bound to take this issue to the public platform and expose the situation of Studying Islam in all web platforms as necessary.)"
My response to his first question is as follows:
" Wa alaykum assalam
Of course, you should have a clear answer as regards the translation. I think it is only a matter of comparing the translations of the other Muslim scholars and giving due consideration to the context and words of the verse. I have tried my best to address the question raised by you. And please rest assured that your objection as well our response have been pasted to the Discussion Forum of Studying Islam and people have been invited to participate into this debatable point.
The translation that you have quoted is that of Mr. Shakir and you maintain that this is actually the correct translation of the verse in question (42:38). As advised by you, I did look up this verse into translations done by various great scholars. I should very humbly say that I found these translations to be perfectly in conjunction with what our translation of the verse is.
Abdullah Yousaf Ali is a recognized Muslim scholar. His translation as well as of Mr. Pikthal are the most used English translations. Both translate the verse to perfectly corroborate our viewpoint.
Mr. Abdullah Yousaf Ali translates the verse as is under:
who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance. (42:38)
Mr. Pikthal renders the verse into English as follows:
whose affairs are a matter of counsel, and who spend of what We have bestowed on them (42:38)
[if you do not have these translations, you may visit: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/042.qmt.html , there you will find both these translations as well as of Mr. Shakir]
For your reference, I also quote here another translation which is of Mr. N J Dawood:
Conduct their affairs by mutual consent. (42:38) (N J Dawood, The Koran, ed. 1956 P. 153)
Viewing these translations, every sensible person would regard ?conducting the affairs? through consultation dependant on what decision is actually arrived at through consultation. Giving full authority or control to the head of the state would obviously render meaningless the complete message of the verse. It is actually the ?Product? or the ?Result? of the consultation that should be adhered to.
Imam Zamakashri and Bin Kathir also hold this viewpoint. It would be beneficial to quote here what Bin Kathir has written in this regard:
?They would not decide a matter unless they take counsel in order to benefit from their opinions in matters like wars or any other issue of importance. (Tafseer Bin Kathir, Vol. 4, p. 118)?
The interpretation that you offer could only be accepted if they words of the Qur?an were somewhat like: Fil Amri Hum Ushaa Waroon, they are consulted in running the affairs. In this case, the process of consultation would definitely be confined to ?taking consultation alone? and not acting upon it. However the actual words negate this very possibility. The Holy Qur?an says: Amru Hum Shura Baina Hum, their affairs is based on consultation or they conduct their affairs through consultation. I do not think that this leaves any room for such assertion as the ruler would only take consultation and then do what he pleases.
The practice of the companions (rta) of the Prophet (pbuh) also endorses my humble assertion that state affairs should be run according to the majority opinion and not by the ruler himself. The second Khalifah, Hazrat Umar (rta), did not decide on his own the issue of the lands of Iraq (Sawad e Iraq). He had the opinion that these lands should be kept and governed under the supervision of the Islamic state. Initially, this opinion was opposed by the majority of the Majlis Shura but he did not impose his decision on them. Had he followed your interpretation of the verse, it would have been much easier for him to take the initiative and do what he wanted disregarding the opinion of the Shura members. He indeed invested a great deal of effort in convincing the dissident members. And after convincing them and getting their positive response, he implement the decision.
This is just one incident quoted from the life of one Khalifa. I think you will find a plenty of similar incidents which should give you an insight how practically the companions (rta) of the Prophet (pbuh) ruled in their respective reigns.
Keeping the foregoing discussion in view, I very humbly suggest that you please explore translation of other scholars as well and see their interpretation of the verse. The right approach is not to start threatening people merely because your opinion or of the group you like most is not in conjunction with the opinion of other people. A Muslim should always be very humble as regards his knowledge. He should not confess complete knowledge. As any point of contention arises, he should discuss it rather than suggesting kufar on the part of other people. I will welcome any point raised by you, which is based on logic and reasoning and not merely reaction."
The response to his other questions will be posted here as well. As a suggestion, I would request Mr. Naufal to post here his furhter queries in this regards instead of emailing us. This will facilitate an open discussion on the topic.
Editor's Note: The reader sent us a new email stating that he has made some corrections in his first email. I have posted the same in place of his previous one.
Edited by - jhangeer hanif on October 01 2003 17:28:06
Edited by - jhangeer hanif on October 01 2003 17:31:37
Posted - Friday, September 26, 2003 - 10:14 AM
|[I received the following email in response to my answer]|
Mr Jhangeer Assalamulaikum
There are two issues I shall address and sincerely hope you will see what I am talking about:
1. I claimed you mistranslated the Quran.
In the link you given the translations are:(http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/042.qmt.html)
YUSUFALI: Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who (conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We bestow on them for Sustenance;
PICKTHAL: And those who answer the call of their Lord and establish worship, and whose affairs are a matter of counsel, and who spend of what We have bestowed on them,
SHAKIR: And those who respond to their Lord and keep up prayer, and their rule is to take counsel among themselves, and who spend out of what We have given them.
You spotted rightly that I gave the translation of Shakir.
The translation given by your study group initially in the weekly mail which is shown below in red is different from the 3 translations you gave in your recent reply. Can I refer back to the actual mail to which I responded (dated 20th September : weekly message) which states the translation as:
The affairs of state of the believers are run by their mutual consultation.
Following this basic argument once again I am making the same allegation that you have MISTRANSLATED THE QURAN.
The differences between the previous translation your group gave and the ones you mentioned are:
A. Your group has changed 'your conduct' from the authoritative translations - and changed it to 'AFFAIRS OF STATE', and
B. Your group has not mentioned the whole verse. They only mentioned the bit which is enough to suit the agenda of showing that democracy is coherent concept accepted by QURAN. This is why I qiestioned the intention in MISTRANSLATING THE QURAN.
C. How can you put your understanding or anyone else's understanding as VERSE of QURAN? AFFAIRS OF THE STATE and 'your conduct' is clearly not the same thing. ONE DOES NOT HAVE THE LIBERTY IN ALTERING THE VERSE OF QURAN BY CLAIMING HIS UNDERSTANDING TO BE THE VERSE OF QURAN.
PROVED that you have MISTRANSLATED QURAN
Only they know and Allah knows whether it was done willfully or not. I dont want to get into debating about your intention, however, your agenda was very much in line with the mistake - that is why I would not give you the benefit of doubt in this matter personally. And in my understanding, to enhance your agenda they cherrypicked the translation which states 'mutual consultation' rather than cousel or consultation. However, I dont doubt their intentions but these things makes me suspicious to the extreme.
2. ISSUE OF TAFSEER
It is irrelevant for the present purpose. Just few things for you to THINK
a. Mutual consultation - does it refer to democracy? the history of democracy, the way democracy is preached, Democracy as a tool to enhance capitalism lacking any concept of ALLAH. - any of these point towards consultation or Counsel used by Allah in Quran as democracy? Refer back to the article I sent previously.
b. Mutual consultation in affairs does not mean that the political system is itself one of mutual consultation in terms of decision making. I am not aware of any record of Mutual consultation having supreme power over Khalifah's decision when they are in a clash - neither in time of Prophet SW (pbuh) nor in the periods of Khulafaye Rashedeens.
c. The sovereignty in an Islamic State is reserved for ALlah Subhanahuwataala. Where does the sovereginty stay in a republic??? Who is God in the eyes of Republic State?
I shall try to go through some resources and chekc the tafseers on this issue.
Thats all for now and I hope you see the point I tried to make. Please PUT THE WHOLE VERSE in the next weekly update and explain all the tafseers - not just the one that suits your agenda - but also the orthodox Islamic view that given Democracy is man made law and given the way it originated (as a compromised solution between Clergy and Atheists!) democracy and capitalism are not acceptable as taking these means to make laws which suprecedes laws of Sharia in economic, political and social affairs in the society. These systems compartmentalise Islam simply as a religion like christianity which has no role in public affairs. Hope you would be able to publish the article I sent (in PDF format by transfering it to Word format). There is nothing more than Sincerity in seeking the truth that is expected from people who think they teach Quran. Quran is not a compromised solution but the WORDS of ALLAH Subhanahutaala. And there is much to worry if one who fiddles with this. Sincerity is all one needs to see the truth.
Posted - Friday, September 26, 2003 - 10:16 AM
|[My reponse to Mr. Zamir's comments is pasted below]|
Yes, I do see your point and what you really want to assert. We do not doubt your sincerity either and this is why we are trying our best to explain to you the reasons why we translated the verse in the way we did.
We do realize the fact that translating the Holy Qur’an and explaining its meaning is a delicate as well as a demanding job. One must be very careful regarding what he explains about the Book of Allah. In this respect, I share same concerns with you. The Book of the Lord should not be used to propagate the ‘agenda’ of an individual or a group of individuals. It should be explained and presented as it is. I however would like to place before you very humbly that it is actually the linguistic arguments and other contextual evidence that lead the reader to discern the meaning of a piece of material. A student/reader should have the permission to disseminate what he has understood of the Book of God.
You have primarily raised two questions again. The first is about translating the word ‘Amr’ as ‘affairs of state’ and the second is about how supposedly the verse 42:38 could in conjunction with the so called secular system of Democracy.
Please allow me to say that though you have raised an objection regarding our translation, you have missed your previous assertion that no translator has used the word MUTUAL CONSULTATION for the words of the verse. I quote your statement:
“There is no bit of mutual consultation. And certainly there is no issue of
ruling as well. This is literally meaning Muslims should take counsel (seek
help) amongst themselves about matters and should not spend more than what Allah has given us. Where did mutual consultation come from here??????????” (stress added)
I am not using this point to corroborate my point of view. I am just referring to one type of mistake that you may be making without knowing it. As I quoted other translations, you raised the objection that these translation do not now mention the words “affairs of state’. But the point is that I did not try to prove the appropriateness of the words used in our translation. In simple words, what I strived to show was that your interpretation of the verse in the light of Mr. Shakir’s translation was not right. I quote your point:
“This is taken in a wrong context. To run a country, the KHALIF of the
Islamic State is not bound by the decision or recommendation of 'Majlish e Sura'. I.E when it comes to decision making the Khilafa is the absolute
power holder and no other body or system.”
Thus, your assertion that running a country disregarding the opinions of other members of the Shura seemed quite amazing to me. What I tried to do was that I showed you other translations of the verse did not leave room for your assertion. ‘Conduct their affairs by mutual consultation’ definitely means to run the affairs on the basis of consultation. This was to negate the notions that Khalifah is all in all. In short, I did not try to prove the accuracy of our translation, I in fact tried to show you the inappropriateness your assertion.
As you now want to know why we used the words ‘the affairs of state’, I will concentrate on the point. I would also request you to please remain confined to this point in your next email. If you want to raise any objection, I would suggest that you address the only two points that you have discussed in this email.
Your claim is that using the words ‘affairs of state’ is actually mistranslating the Holy Qur’an. As you know very well, the Holy Qur’an has been revealed in Arabic language and it is the usage of the word in the Arabic language and the context where it has been placed which will determine whether it has been rightly translated or not. You have quoted three translations and none of them is cent per cent the same as the other. This shows that giving allowance to the usage of the words and the context, a student has the right to translate the words of the Holy Qur’an to communicate its message. Having said that, I will assert that the word ‘Amr’ has indeed been used in the exact sense of ‘affairs of state’ in the Arabic language. To give you an example, I will quote one couplet of Safiyya-Binti-Muttalib:
‘alaa man mublighun ‘anna Quraishan
Fafeemal ‘amru feenaa wal eemaaroo
Hark! who will deliver our message to the Quraysh that as they do not accept our social position, so they should tell us that why are the affairs of state in our hands and why are we considered worthy of consultation.
This couplet should give you an example regarding the usage of the word. Obviously, this does not talk about their ‘rule’ or ‘principle’. Rather, it talks about running the collective affairs belonging to general people.
The construction of the verse also support of our translation. The pronoun ‘hum’ does relate to the collective affairs of the Muslims. I fail to understand why you insist on relating it to the affairs of the individuals. Certainly, the guidance provided in this verse can be benefited in individual affairs but it should never be confined to the individual affairs alone.
To explain my point, I quoted Imam Bin Kathir. I do no know why you ignored his explanation. I have seen Imam Razi as well in this regard. He says:
Whenever an important event took place, they would get together and take counsel among them. So Allah praised them (saying Amru hum Shura Baina Hum). This means that they do not get alienated with one opinion but they REACH a CONSENSUS or they would not take any step. (Razi, vol 27 P 177)
Now you please decide whether this whole paragraph relates to the collective affairs or otherwise?
Brother, please allow me to say that I do find it inappropriate to disregard the explanations of our early scholars without any reason or logic. You may also see Mulana Mududi as well in this regard.
As regards your question about democracy, I feel compelled to say that you have reacted without understanding our viewpoint. We never maintain that democracy is acceptable in all forms and manifestations. We have said that Islamic system of consultation is in conjunction with democracy in so far laws are not enacted against the Qur’an and Sunnah. In other words, the affairs of state are surely run by majority opinion of the Shura but even then the Shura cannot legislate anything which goes against the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah. My statement before ‘but’ describes a system which is similar to democracy; however the statement after ‘but’ definitely shows that the state system envisaged by Islam is not Democracy in its entirety. This is what was asserted in the weekly message of Studying Islam.
Posted - Monday, September 29, 2003 - 6:44 PM
|We have received the following response from Mr. Zamir.|
There has been long arguments lately. I shall try to jot down the points though there are few other things which may follow later. However, the depth of understanding and knowledge of Studying Islam is under severe doubts to me. Readers will know why, after they read the whole mail.
FIrst Issue: MISTRANSLATION OF QURAN
According to OXFORD DICTIONARY 'Translation' means: 'To change something spoken or written into another language'.
According to the same Dictionary 'Interpretetion' means: 'To explain what something means'
The difference between the two can be clarified as - Translation is either correct or incorrect. It simply transforms words to another language. On the other hand interpretetion is totally different and it is an issue of right or wrong depending on whether the explanation is correct.
The affairs of state of the believers are run by their mutual consultation.
which one of the above where you involved with while stating this Ayat? Was it interpretetion of the ayat or translation? Or was it both?
1. If you where translating your translation is INCORRECT
2. If you where interpreting - You were wrong because you did not state that this is your interpretetion rather you said 'this is verse 42:38 of Quran'
3. If you were both interpreting and translating then you did a serious crime against Islam as this is not permitted because Allah's words can not be twisted and be explained as THE WORDS OF ALLAH. This 'may' make one kafir because of the seriousness of the issue. And this is what you claimed - that as a Muslim you have a right to interpret and translate!!!!!
WHO HAS A RIGHT TO INTERPRET?
ONLY A MUJTAHID.
I beleive I do not need to elaborate what Mujtahid means. Then again, there are still difference of Opinion about Ijtihad still permissible or not. Simply knowing arabic does not make on Mujtahid or able to do Ijtihad.
There is no disunity amongst understanding Muslims that only Mujtahids are able to interpret and not every Muslims as and when about whatever they wish. And certainly NONE has the authority to explain + translate and claim that this is a translation of Quran.
Have you ever seen any Scholar using their own interpretetion + translation?
I do not doubt the issue that Muslims are ordered by Allah to consult amongst themselves to find solutions. However, this does not mean Muslims should be democratic [in the presence political sense of the term] - even in a kafela (group of travelers) someone should be nominated as head and he has to take a decision [Democracy does not own the voting method to judge popular opinion]. Having ONE LEADER is a basic understanding of ruling system in Islam. However, there is no conflict between having a leader to make the final decision and to consult amongst Muslims to find solutions. Muslims are to follow what Allah has revealed and as followed by Prophet SW (pbuh). Where did you find Democracy as a RULING SYSTEM during the life of Muhammad SW and the Khulafaye Rashidan?
Brother,it looks like you wouldnt agree with me and you will keep on argueing for arguments sake. I just want to mention one Sahih Hadith explaining Verse 7 Sura Al Imran : [Sahih Al Bukhari Translated by Muhsin Khan]
Narrated by Aisha (RA): Allah's Messenger Muhammad SW recited the verse:- "It is he who has sent down to you (Muhammad SW) the book (this Quran). In it are verses that are entirely clear, they are the foundations of the book [and those are verses of Al-ahkam (commendments etc)]; and others are not entirely clear. So as for those in whose hearts there is a deviation (from the truth) they follow that which is not entirely clear thereof seeking Al-fitnah and seeking for its hidden meanings; but none knows its hidden meanings save Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: 'We believe in it; the whole of it (clear and unclear verses) are from our Lord.' And none receive admonition except men of Understanding", (V, 3:7) Aisha (RA) added: Then Allah's Messenger Muhammad SW said, 'If you see those who follow thereof that is not entirely clear then they are those whom Allah has named [As having deviation (from the truth)] SO beware of them. [6:70 - O.B] SAHIH BUKHARI 1724
Brother, keep it in mind that you are following the unclear things and giving firm judgments on that basis and thus you have made a deviation from truth as I see it.
Brother, you claim yourself to be a man of understanding and you will be admonished by Allah Subhanahu Wa Taala as you fall under an exception as a reason of your claim.
Brother, There is no debate as to my raising the issue of Mutual consultation. It is not me but you who have taken the responsibility of teaching Islamic Faith in the Web by opening StudyingIslam.org. Thus it makes no sense to even get back to what I said. It is you who has faultered and then you want to justify by showing that I said something different in the first occassion. Makes me wonder where is the logic!
ISSUE 2 DEMOCRACY
Firstly, Please see http://www.1924.org/books/ at the bottom of the page - 'The ruling system of Islam' by Taqiuddin Nabhani. Chapter 13 of the book gives comprehensive elaboration on the role of 'Shura'.
I totally understood your viewpoint and used to have some mistaken ideas about it even several months before. I am a student of law and have done Legal jurisprudence and Government & Politics over 9 years of my academic education. After understanding the Islamic Ruling system, now I do not have any doubt that the basic principle's of these systems are so different that none are compatible to the other and hence no compromised solution is possible. Compromise was and still is done by weak hearted Muslims who are unable to see Islam as a complete code of life which inderectly points towards variation of Imaan.
I quote you:
We never maintain that democracy is acceptable in all forms and manifestations. We have said that Islamic system of consultation is in conjunction with democracy in so far laws are not enacted against the Qur’an and Sunnah. In other words, the affairs of state are surely run by majority opinion of the Shura but even then the Shura cannot legislate anything which goes against the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah.
Give me ONE SINGLE example of Democratic Country where there are no laws contrary to sharia i.e. economic and political laws. (DO NOT confuse voting system -i.e majority opinion measuring method with Democracy pls).
Once you give me one example then I shall get back to the other objections I have.
I have tried my level best in the time I have to explain things to you. I still am firm on the issue that if You do not declare in the next weekly mail a correction as to the translation and put the whole ayats (not just half) then I shall be bound to publicise your web forums misconduct (as I see it) to the contacts I know so that they are aware of your lack of understanding or willful deviation.
Posted - Monday, September 29, 2003 - 6:46 PM
|My reply to the above response is given below:|
"I agree to the definition of ‘translation’ quoted by you. Translation is to change something spoken or written into another language. What I would very humbly request you to please ponder on for a while is whether we have done the same as regards 42:38.
In my previous reply, I tried to show you that the meaning ‘the state of affairs’ for the word ‘Amr’ does exist in Arabic language. For instance, in English, ‘tube’ means a long hollow object which contains some material then ‘tube’ also means an under ground train. It is the context which will help us ascertain what meaning is implied when the word ‘tube’ has been used.
Keeping this so simple a principle in mind, I do not know anyone can declare the translation that we have done as incorrect or misrepresentation. In reality, it is the most befitting translation which is corroborated by the opinion of so many authorities of Islam, some of which I have quoted before.
Please allow me to again say that you have again misunderstood our view regarding democracy. Actually, you are understanding that we are propagating democracy and have indeed launch a movement to show the good points of a democratic government. Let me correct you. The truth is we have only shown a similarity of one aspect of democracy with Islam. Islam does not allow any majority of people to legislate against the Shari’ah. Allah has legislated that there would five prayers in a day or that no believer can marry a polytheist, to quote two examples of law. No parliament has the authority to change these Laws of God through whatever majority. However, matters which are beyond Shari’ah can be decided by the Shura through majority vote. Please first understand our viewpoint and then criticize it.
Posted - Tuesday, September 30, 2003 - 11:39 AM
|It does not require a rocket scientist to decipher what Mr. Hanif is trying to explain. |
I am flabbergasted at what is being debated. I am sorry doesn't make much sense to me.
P.S. I do not think it's the team at studying islam who are arguing for the heck of it.
Edited by - ayesha on September 30 2003 11:42:53
Posted - Wednesday, October 1, 2003 - 8:15 PM
|I completely agree with Ayesha on this point. It seems that the accusations of "arguing for the sake of arguing" are totally misplaced.|
Posted - Wednesday, May 11, 2005 - 10:37 PM
|The person who starts to quote their qualification or thier position in society usuall has an extremely weak point he/she logically and morally finds it difficult to justify. |
Posted - Monday, May 16, 2005 - 12:14 PM
I have not read the entire discussion that took place,but I just want to know the basic meaning of democracy since in this Modern era,the true meaning of democracy has been spoiled according to my understanding and knowledge.
In democratic countries, citizens have right to express their complains and views through media and on other words we can say that they have freedom of expression. Are the Western Countries truely democratic? If not ,then on what basis do the Western Government force Muslim Countries especially Pakistan to restore democracy?
Do Westerns have different meaning of the term democracy?
I hope my concern is clear.
|Reply to Topic