International, Politics, Religion, Society

Cleric: Killing Kurds Who Convert To Zoroastrianism Is “Legitimate”

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

In another example of attempts to legitimize murder for apostasy, an Islamist Cleric of the Kurdistan Islamic Group (KIG) declared in an interview with the BBC that Kurds who leave Islam to convert to Zoroastrianism are to be murdered; or in his words “Killed and Executed.”

The cleric extended his hand of mercy by allowing those converts three days to regret their decision but thereafter are to be executed.

In an almost brutal irony, Mulla Hassib from Sulaimani said that Islamic religious tenets permit such executions, but ISIS’ practice of killing apostates is partially correct but he criticizes the terrorist organization for spreading the religion by means of “violence”.

Kurdistan is home to many diverse religious and ethnic groups, including Christians, Zoroastrians, Yazidis, Kakayis, and Muslims both Sunni and Shi’ite. For centuries these ethnic groups enjoyed relative harmony in a world so otherwise often bitterly divided. Yet with the decade long strife and war besieging the region extremists have sown discord in such a fashion that lesser degrees of repression and intolerance have gained adherents. Sunni hardliners having ties to ISIS and groups within Iran are influential as is the KIG’s leadership which has ties with the Iranian government.

faravahar-zoroastrianismThe intolerant actions by a few Islamist leaders is likely in part due to a rise in Zoroastrianism within the Iraqi Kurdistan region. Zoroastrianism predates Christianity and Islam by centuries and is regarded as a precursor by some to these religions. Its decline began with the Islamic conquest of Persia from 633 to the mid 650s. While today the religious faithful are estimated in the low 100,000s worldwide, a resurgence of the faith is showing marked gains in Iraqi Kurdistan. A movement exists to gain official recognition status by the Kurdistan Regional Government. Culturally Kurds have a strong interweaving with the religion and the Kurdish language is derived from the Avesta, the religion’s sacred book.

Some Kurdish scholars, such as Mariwan Naqshbandi, the spokesperson for Iraqi Kurdistan’s Ministry of Religious Affairs, credits much of the transformation to be out of individuals’ reaction to strife and conflict within Islam and the extremism plaguing areas of Iraq and Syria.

“The people of Kurdistan no longer know which Islamic movement, which doctrine or which fatwa, they should be believing in.”

He affirms that the interest in Zoroastrianism is a symptom of the disagreements within Islam and religious instability in the Iraqi Kurdish region as well as in the country as a whole. According to an interview with Niquash, Mariwan stated that “For many more liberal or more nationalist Kurds, the mottos used by the Zoroastrians seem moderate and realistic. There are many people here who are very angry with the Islamic State group and it’s inhumanity.”

Kurdistan’s first official Zoroastrian Temple opened last year in Sulaimani. Let us hope it may by one to escape the violence.

By Darren Smith

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

Photo Credit: BBC
Image Credit: Kevin McCormick

46 thoughts on “Cleric: Killing Kurds Who Convert To Zoroastrianism Is “Legitimate””

  1. The respons from the Kurdistan government have come:

    Kurdish Cleric to Be Prosecuted for Remarks Against Zoroastrians.

    The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Ministry of Endowment and Religious Affairs has summoned the Kurdish cleric who has recently said the killing of those who converted from Islam to Zoroastrianism is legitimate.

    Mariwan Naqshbandi, a ministry official, told BasNews that Mulla Hassib will be questioned for his latest statements, and legal procedures will be put in place against him if the threatenings are proved to be correct.

    He confirmed to BasNews that the representative of Zoroastrians at the Ministry of Endowment and Religious Affairs will also file a complaint against Mullah Hasib on Sunday.

    Naqshbandi made it clear that no such harsh statements will be tolerated in the Kurdistan Region as every individual has the right, according the law, to practice his or her religion freely.

    Mulla Hassib, a member of the Kurdistan Islamic Group (KIG), has said the Kurdish Muslims who are leaving Islam to join Zoroastrianism or any another religion, must be given a period of three days to regret their decision or “they must be killed, executed”.

    With the peaceful coexistence and ethno-religious diversity being exercised for a long time in the region, Mulla Hassib’s remarks have sparked a widespread outrage among people and heated debates on the social media, mainly slamming his views which are being compared to those of the IS jihadists in Raqqa and Mosul.

    1. Amazing how we “Orientalists” and Kurdish victims of Sharia supremacist, Arab supremacist Islamic colonialism arrive at the same place. Isn’t it?

  2. Kurdish Cleric to Be Prosecuted for Remarks Against Zoroastrians

    Basnews English 05 February 2017 K

    http://www.basnews.com/index.php/en/news/kurdistan/328252

    SULAYMANIYAH — The Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) Ministry of Endowment and Religious Affairs has summoned the Kurdish cleric who has recently said the killing of those who converted from Islam to Zoroastrianism is legitimate.

    Mariwan Naqshbandi, a ministry official, told BasNews that Mulla Hassib will be questioned for his latest statements, and legal procedures will be put in place against him if the threatenings are proved to be correct.

    He confirmed to BasNews that the representative of Zoroastrians at the Ministry of Endowment and Religious Affairs will also file a complaint against Mullah Hasib on Sunday.

    Naqshbandi made it clear that no such harsh statements will be tolerated in the Kurdistan Region as every individual has the right, according the law, to practice his or her religion freely.

    Mulla Hassib, a member of the Kurdistan Islamic Group (KIG), has said the Kurdish Muslims who are leaving Islam to join Zoroastrianism or any another religion, must be given a period of three days to regret their decision or “they must be killed, executed”.

    With the peaceful coexistence and ethno-religious diversity being exercised for a long time in the region, Mulla Hassib’s remarks have sparked a widespread outrage among people and heated debates on the social media, mainly slamming his views which are being compared to those of the IS jihadists in Raqqa and Mosul.

    1. I guess the Kurdistan Regional Government must be dangerously infested with Orientalists as we all have the exact same understanding of this cleric’s comments and the dangers he and his group poses.

  4. Typical orientalism to be expected from this blog and d smith and jt in particular.

    1. the representation of Asia, especially the Middle East, in a stereotyped way that is regarded as embodying a colonialist attitude. I looked up the word “orientalism”. You are so right.

      1. anonymous, too – would you define “typical orientalism” as opposed to “ordinary orientalism” or “exceptional orientalism”? Enquiring minds want to know.

    3. You know-nothings amuse me. Do you want to talk about a colonialist attitude? What happened to the Buddhists who had built the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan?

      What happened to the Bamiyan Buddhas?

      Muslim slavers enslaved many times more Africans than the West ever did. The Islamic slave trade started in the 7th century, many hundreds of years before the Atlantic slave trade, and Saudi Arabia at least didn’t make slavery (technically) illegal until 1960. Those African slaves were sold throughout the Islamic world. Where are their descendants? There are descendants of African slaves in North and South America. Where are those populations in Saudi Arabia or Turkey?

      What country was the last country to make slavery technically a crime? Hint: it was a Muslim country.

    1. Sure. Isn’t that what the enlightenment was about? No “Divine Right of Kings”? Natural rights? I would expand your statement and declare ALL that believe they have the right to govern as if they are above the law are the danger to humans.

  7. “The only circumstances under which most people adopt any religion is under heinous threats for doing otherwise.”

    Only and most? Heinous threats? You’re hanging with the wrong crowd. Most folks I know follow religion for the glorious promise. Even the “heinous threats” that you may rightly fear are not imposed in this life like “most” Islamic clerics want people to believe. Your attempt to foist the atrocities committed by adherents of Islam onto the very people they brutally murder is no better than this cleric and deserving of those heinous threats. The funny thing is, you may not believe in religion or even God, but God believes in you.

  8. The only circumstances under which most people adopt any religion is under heinous threats for doing otherwise. Whether those threats come from parents or community, most people would go through life much happier without either religion or the heinous threats that enforce it. Some men enjoy attacking, dominating, and killing and religion is just a handy excuse as is “animal management”.

    1. So then why did people adopt Christianity in the first three centuries of its existence when it was illegal and the Romans were ruthlessly persecuting the Christians? It was the exact opposite of what you claim. No one was forcing anyone to join. The heinous threats coming from parents, the community, and the Emperor is that you’d die a horrible death if you DID adopt the religion. But the early Christians risked persecution, humiliation, and violent and painful deaths because they were happier with it than without it.

      Why is it you atheists have to lump all religions together so badly that in order to do so you have to paint with such a broad brush and overgeneralize so much you end up being just flat wrong? Islam is the only major religion in the world that was born “sword in hand” and was actually spread by heinous threats that the early Muslims would actually carry through on. As will many of today’s Muslims. And in addition to the stick Muhammad’s carrot consisted of promises that if men became Muslims they could raid into the non-believers and seize their property, their gold, make slaves of their women, and if they were killed fighting to force people to worship Allah they’d spend an eternity in a beautiful garden eating all sorts of delights, drinking wine that was forbidden on earth and deflowering thousands of virgins. 72 virgins, Allah’s specially designed heavenly sexbots called Houris, are just a minimum. A really good Muslim will get thousands of them.

      In case anyone is wondering, there really isn’t much waiting for the few women who might make it into the Islamic paradise. But Muhammad said most of them are going to hell for not being ungrateful and disobedient to their husbands anyway.

  9. Perhaps we should bar all Islamic “Clerics” from entry into the U.S. We cannot have these promoters of terrorism stirring up our own muslims.
    We should give the Kurds a positive status of “refugee” and consider them on a one by one basis in letting them in.

  10. Oh Darren, there you go again injecting your white, privileged, Christian sensibilities into the very legitimate debate among 7th Century idolaters over which ancient superstition they plan to worship. We all know the death penalty for apostasy is a long-standing, Mohammed-approved method of advancing the “One True Religion” and who are we spoiled, imperialistic Westerners to even mildly criticize the perfectly true words of the Prophet? (Allah be braised!) In fact, I advance the sane proposition that it’s “hands off” as the tribes fight it out in a caged death match as we supply the basic weaponry. Once we have a true winner and natural selection has taken its course, then we can finally get the most holy triumphant one in the crosshairs and solve the “Barbarian Question” once and for all.

  12. But does Islam also allow for the killing of Clerics for the spread of Blasphemy ?

    1. Most definitely. It doesn’t just allow for it, Islam demands that clerics be executed when they spread blasphemy.

      http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/09/11/the-moderate-martyr

      “…The Medinan verses, directed not to Muhammad alone but to the community of early believers, became the basis for Sharia as it was developed by legal scholars over the next few centuries—what Taha calls the “first message of Islam.” In Taha’s revisionist reading, the elevation of the Medinan verses was only a historical postponement—the Meccan verses, representing the ideal religion, would be revived when humanity had reached a stage of development capable of accepting them, ushering in a renewed Islam based on freedom and equality. Taha quoted a Hadith, or saying of the Prophet, that declared, “Islam started as a stranger, and it shall return as a stranger in the same way it started.” This “second message of Islam” is higher and better than the first, delivered by a messenger who came to seventh-century Arabia, in a sense, from the future. And, in the twentieth century, the time had come for Muslims finally to receive it. Taha offered a hermeneutical way out of the modern crisis of Islam, allowing Muslims to affirm their faith without having to live by an inhumane code…”

      Unfortunately for Mahmoud Muhammad Taha the Quran in verses 2:106 and 16:101 provides its own rules for interpretation. Whenever two verses conflict, the verse that came later abrogates the earlier verse. Since Taha had to ignore that to come up with his peaceful, tolerant Islam in which shed its inhumane code and women and men are equal, non-Muslims and Muslims are equal, Muslims are not to kill in the name of Allah, and Muslims aren’t executed for leaving Islam, the Sudanese government and religious authorities charged him with blasphemy. The Quran is the uncreated, eternal word of Allah himself, dictated in perfect form by the angel Jibril (Gabreal) to Muhammmad, and Taha was going against it. So they hung him in 1985.

  13. What was the point of this article? We already know the peaceful religion of Islam…all roads lead to violence.

  14. I’d swear that I bought a falafel from that guy in the photo, right off of Broadway, in NYC, the other day. I distinctly remember him–he gave me an extra dollop of tahini on my falafel and asked Allah, aloud, something about why infidel chicks–especially the wild and Crazy American ones–are so hard to resist. Yep. That was him, alright. I’d know the turban anywhere.

  15. As most of the regulars know I’m a backer of giving the Kurds back their country regardless of what Iran, Iraq, Turkey and pehaps parts of Syria think. My reason is simple do you send the mongoose after the cobra or do you use your own hand when the shot gun is out of ammunition or the use is not allowed.

    Kurds take care of the problem we get a chance to put our noses out of their mid east business and start over with the usual diplomatic and trade stuff. With these others your finding your self between Iraq and a hard place and the answer is either I ran or I sees and learned to gobble. Really bad metaphor

    If there is no country in existence with which a new USA government can get along without inviting more urban renewal in NYC then create or recreate one. and his time do it right. The Kurds may do in thier own but they don’t do in minority religions and other ethnic backgrounds.

  16. “In another example of attempts to legitimize murder for apostasy, an Islamist Cleric of the Kurdistan Islamic Group (KIG) declared in an interview with the BBC that Kurds who leave Islam to convert to Zoroastrianism are to be murdered; or in his words “Killed and Executed.””

    I’m curious what Darren Smith means by this? There is no need to have any further attempts to “legitimize” killing apostates. It’s settled black letter law in every school of Sharia, both Sunni and Shia, that apostates must be killed. At least all male apostates. In some shools females are supposed to be killed as well, but in others such as the Shia Jafari school, because women are weaker physically and intellectually and therefore inferior to men in every respect, women are to be locked up for life, beaten five times a day, and receive a bare minimum of food. Which is exactly the sentence women who apostatize in Iran get (as soon as they reprent they are released).

    There are probably a dozen verses in the Quran I could choose from that show Muhammad has absolute authority over all Muslims, for all time. There is no punishment for apostasy in the Quran, but Allah commands Muslims to obey Muhammad just as they obey Allah. If Muslims do not obey Muhammad, they are not obeying Allah, and are apostates themselves.

    Surah 4:65 An-Nisa (The Women)

    “But no, by your Lord, they will not [truly] believe until they make you, [O Muhammad], judge concerning that over which they dispute among themselves and then find within themselves no discomfort from what you have judged and submit in [full, willing] submission.”

    Surah 33:36 Al-Azhab (The Combined Forces)

    “It is not for a believing man or a believing woman, when Allah and His Messenger have decided a matter, that they should [thereafter] have any choice about their affair. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger has certainly strayed into clear error.”

    Muslims must make Muhammad judge in all things, once he has ruled on a matter they must submit fully with no outward or inward signs of discomfort with the decision (and Allah knows!) or they are not Muslims any more (they don’t truly believe). Muslims have no choice in the matter forever after Muhammad has decided a matter (and therefore Allah, as Muhammad would never decide anything contrary to Allah’s will) and if they disagree they are choosing the path to hellfire (strayed into clear error).

    So, what has Muhammad decided on as the punishment for apostasy?

    Sahih al Bukhari – Book of Apostates

    ” (2) Chapter: Al-Murtad and Al-Murtaddah

    Narrated `Ikrima:

    Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to `Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn `Abbas who said, “If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah’s Messenger forbade it, saying, ‘Do not punish anybody with Allah’s punishment (fire).’ I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah’s Messenger, ‘Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'”

    Reference : Sahih al-Bukhari 6922
    In-book reference : Book 88, Hadith 5
    USC-MSA web (English) reference : Vol. 9, Book 84, Hadith 57
    (deprecated numbering scheme)”

    Sunan Abu Dawud – Book of Prescribed Punishments (Kitab Al-Hudud)

    “(1) Chapter: Ruling on one who apostatizes

    Abd Allah (b. Mas`ud) reported the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) as saying:
    The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah should not be lawfully shed but only for one of three reasons: married fornicator, soul for soul, and one who deserts his religion separating himself from the community.

    Grade : Sahih (Al-Albani)
    Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 4352
    In-book reference : Book 40, Hadith 2
    English translation : Book 39, Hadith 4338”

    Sunan Ibn Majah – The Chapters on Legal Punishments Sunan Ibn Majah – The Chapters on Legal Punishments

    “It was narrated from Abu Umamah bin Sahl bin Hunaif that:
    `Uthman bin ‘Affan looked at them when they spoke of killing. He said: “Are they kill threatening to kill me? Why would they kill me? I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: “It is not lawful to shed the blood of a Muslim except in one of three (cases): a man who commits adultery when he is a married person, then he should be stoned; a man who kills a soul not in retaliation for murder; and a man who apostatizes after becoming Muslim.’ By Allah (SWT), I never committed adultery either during Ignorance days nor in Islam, and I have never killed a Muslim soul, and I have not apostatized since I became Muslim.”

    Grade : Sahih (Darussalam)
    English reference : Vol. 3, Book 20, Hadith 2533
    Arabic reference : Book 20, Hadith 2630

    It was narrated from Ibn`Abbas that the Messenger of Allah said:
    “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.”

    Grade : Sahih (Darussalam)
    English reference : Vol. 3, Book 20, Hadith 2535
    Arabic reference : Book 20, Hadith 263”

    These are all Sahih hadiths; genuine, the highest grade of hadith. They can’t be disputed, and it couldn’t be more clear. Muhammad commanded Muslims to kill apostates. The last hadith refers only to someone apostatizes from Islam and converts to another religion such as Zoroastrianism. The Muslims could care less if a Jew became a Zoroastrian, or a Zoroastrian became a Christian. But once someone is born or chooses to become a Muslim then the Muslim can not convert to another religion or no religion without being sentenced to death.

    I don’t know if Mr. Smith understands how this works. This Cleric can’t legitimize anything on his own. In fact, he has no choice in the matter because Muhammad decided the matter at the beginning of Islam and if he were to disagree with Muhammad’s decision that apostates must be killed then he himself would be an apostate.

    Islam means submission. A Muslim is one who submits to Allah, and because Allah commanded it to Muhammad’s decisions and rulings (Muhammad commanded Muslims to submit to the rightly guided Caliphs just as they submitted to him, so for Sunni Muslims Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali are also sources of religious authority while Shia reject that particular hadith and recognize only Ali’s authority)

    No one, not even the head of Al Azhar University in Cairo, can legitimize anything on his own authority. The head of Al Azhar could issue a fatwa and his opinion would carry no further weight outside of how well sourced it is in the Quran and the hadith.

    1. She may not be a Professor after all. Her name may be Rebecca Goyette, some sort of weird performance artist. I saw a Tweet last night with this link:

      http://www.rebogallery.com/

      It is interesting, but more of a “Look at me pretend to be an artist” sort of works, than anything else. IMHO.

      Then I found this link tonight:

      http://www.rebogallery.com/

      The poster looks like he is associated with The Daily Stormer, and those guys are wild and sarcastic as get out. You never much know when they are hamming it up for shock value, or are serious. But, they aren’t out shutting down Liberal speakers so they can’t be too bad.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl reporter

  18. Give me one good reason why we should keep Mullah Hassib and followers from entry to the United States of America, can’t do it can ya. You pesky conservatives shame on you the Mullah is a real salt of the earth guy. Why President Trump I’m sure a judge in Seattle will vouch for him. Hassib and his followers are just a bunch of peachy guys who just want to assimilate into American society.

        1. Of course it isn’t a hijab. The whole point of a hijab is to cover a woman’s hair.

          A lot of Arabs really want to rape a blond girl, that’s why they try to get to Sweden. But they’ll probably like that look so some of them may just stick around for the now-traditional New Year’s Eve Molest Fest. She might as well go ahead and get her “Enjoy difference, start tolerance” tramp-stamp tattoo now, for her attackers entertainment. In Arabic, of course.

          I have no idea who thought this commercial is even sane, let alone a good idea. Probably the same people who thought handing out cards with the circle and diagonal line symbol telling the new “migrants” what not to do. You know, circle with line through it to non-verbally communicate the message “don’t hit the two gay men when they’re kissing” or circle with line through it to communicate “don’t throw rocks at the transvestites,” or circle with line through it to express the idea “don’t walk around grabbing girls’ butts or putting your hands up their skirts.” I have it on good authority the invaders got a good chuckle out of that one. They thought it was cute the subject people were trying to tell their conquerors how to behave.

          I can’t believe how dense these Europeans are. When the “migrants” would go to the pool and defecate in them, the Euroweenies thought the Middle Easterners just didn’t know what a swimming pool was and they needed to explain what not to do in them.

          They have swimming pools in the Middle East. They would never do that at home. But the “refugees” didn’t speak enough German to say in words exactly what they thought of their new hosts, so they had to show the Germans the only way they knew how.

  20. Zoroastrianism, while an early monotheistic religion, is unlikely to have had much influence on Abraham and hence the establishment of the three desert religions, Judism, Christianity and Islam, by what is claimed to be his descendents.

    But the evidence is slight.

    1. The timeframe on Zoroastrianism is difficult, but in any case it is different enough from Genesis which is from family records of Abraham that it can’t be a precursor, more likely Zoroaster’s quest to find truth was triggered by hearing of YHWH. Genesis and Exodus and/or Numbers shows that Yahwehism was in existence prior to Abraham and concurrent in a few places to Moses, the priest of ?Midian being a Yahwehist, Melchizedec was a priest of The Most High God i.e., YHWH and Abraham paid tithes to him.

      Zoroasterian scriptures are apparently all altered from the original cult, only the Gathas having original material in them. Exactly what Zoroaster taught then is open to question. For instance, in a book on the Soma and sacred mushroom, the fly agaric in use by shamanic groups in Asia, Zoroaster is quoted as denouncing the urin of drunkenness, yet soma some kind of intoxicant probably originally the fly agaric was in use later as part of Zoroastrianism probably the shamanic element corrupted the monotheistic element. The depictation of a war between good and evil seems to blame evil on the top deity, but some versions have an apocalyptic ending where evil will be destroyed, the Wise Men or Magi who visited Jesus were probably Zoroastrians who had adopted the information from Daniel from the days he was in charge of wise men in Babylon.

      While the complex demonology and warped versions of the theology influenced Judaism and Gnosticism, the influence theologically was more from Abraham than vice versa.

      I suspect that Chedorlaomer in Genesis is Jamshid.

      In Eblas was found two categories of eponymous (deity honoring) names, those that ended in -el a general term for “god” that could mean anything, and -ya much more specific. though an effort was made to discredit the connection between Ea/Ya and north semitic Ya or YH when you ask, who is the god of Noah? you get “ea” of whom a poem about seven categories of demons it is said that they are afraid of him, they are partners with or friendly with the other “gods” of Mesopotamia but AFRAID OF EA.

      This apparently means “HE Who IS,” the self existent One aka “I AM.” to this was added WH referring to be Creator of all. Like with the gnostic pantheons, Ea was knocked down to being a descendant of other “gods” he must have been the same as YHWH Whose cultus suffering under lies (mythology) and corruption gradually dithered out, and YHWH renewed it in Abraham and
      set the stage for the Incarnation of YHWH The Trinity’s Second PErson aka JEsus Christ.

      When Delitzsch noticed the similarity, this was a scandal in Germany because the protestants there had in their intellectual format tended to view Yahwehism as a product of the genius of Hebrew thought and culture as if He is just a concept or idea. Genesis says in Seth’s time men began to call on YHWH, the adding of WH was probably a scribal anachronism. the statement that HE had not been known by His name YHWH before Moses would be accurate enough if HE was was only
      called Ya or Ia. In ORthodox Christianity Hallelujah pronounces Hallelu – eeahh. The knowledge of the pronunciation of The Name would have been brought into Christianity by the priests who recognized Jesus ad the MEssiah, which Numbers prophecy says would come when a non Judean sat on the throne of Judah (that a law giver and ruler would not cease from Judah until Shiloh comes, and reference to a donkey colt which Jesus rode into Jerusalem.) Daniel’s time frame dead ends in the Roman times. The indications of a dying Messiah and an immortal always ruling Messiah were confusing to Jewish rabbis, some of whom figured there’d be a messiah son of Joseph who would die and a Messiah son of David who would never die. They didn’t think of a Resurrection.

Comments are closed.