• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tip of the iceberg [W:193]

Gardener said:
The only "action" in question involves the desire to use Islam as the basis for political decisions. That is what an Islamist IS -- a person who wishes Islam to be the governing principle for all human endeavor.

An Islamist is not defined by what they do, but by the ideology they follow, and by any reasonable barometer, many hundreds of millions of Muslims world wide are Islamist as are a sizeable percentage of British Muslims.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but "preferring to live under Sharia" is not an ideology, it's a preference. It is not Islamism. You need pro-activity to be a political movement, which Islamism entails.
 
Ben K. said:
Something in scientific circles known as a "control" group. An equivalent sample of the general population, or as you suggest other sub-groups.
Click to expand...

OK, Which 'control group' would you like to have surveyed?
Enough data with which a sizable minority of Islamists could be identified without contradictions.
Click to expand...

How do you define "Islamist". Those who want Sharia Law? And how many Muslims would you want to be interviewed before you accepted the findings?
The only plausible explanation for not wanting to move to an established Islamic state as opposed to converting a secular one would appear to be economic necessity. An imperialistic conspiracy may be another. The material and the spiritual seem to be at odds though...
Click to expand...

Perhaps many put their religion ahead of their economic improvement, or they can make changes in the laws without it effecting the economy. I'm not sure you can not be spiritual and material at the same time. Many from all religions have done it. Some people are just very good at making money but it doesn't follow that they are not good or spiritual people.
You took raw data and formed a conclusion.
Click to expand...

Yes, and unless that data proves to be incorrect my conclusion would likely be accurate.
So you believe the proportion of people that satisfied the criteria we're discussing have engaged in these incidents?
Click to expand...

Yes, i am because these polls have been done frequently and the results are usually similar.

Simple question gets a simple answer.
Click to expand...
.
Not necessarily
Click to expand...
 
Ben K. said:
Sorry, but "preferring to live under Sharia" is not an ideology, it's a preference. It is not Islamism. You need pro-activity to be a political movement, which Islamism entails.
Click to expand...

Islam is the ideology. There is no Islam lite.
 
Grant said:
Islam is the ideology. There is no Islam lite.
Click to expand...

True but the key word in all of Gardener's links is "fundamentalist." There are fundamentalist muslims and there are more enlightened muslims and there are also lapsed muslims. Same with christians, jews, hindus etc etc.

I don't like religious ideologies and I particularly dislike fundamentalist ideologies of any religion but regarding sharia (this is what the thread is about) it has already been found in the UK for some time. One link I read last week said since 1982 but I can't find it now.

In that case, it throws the question of exactly what those muslims want who ask for a sharia "state" as opposed to having access to sharia guidance and courts in the UK. The latter exists and the former never will - so why, when they have had access to financial repatriation assistance since 1999 do so few take it up?

**** EDIT****

Since 2007, they are allowed to exist under the auspice of the 1996 Arbitration act and they may only act on civil cases where the parties voluntarily agree.

Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.
It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.
The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Infinite Chaos said:
True but the key word in all of Gardener's links is "fundamentalist." There are fundamentalist muslims and there are more enlightened muslims and there are also lapsed muslims. Same with christians, jews, hindus etc etc.
Click to expand...

Enlightened Muslims and lapsed Muslims would probably be very similar. The unenlightened ones are the ones we need watch out for though.

In that case, it throws the question of exactly what those muslims want who ask for a sharia "state" as opposed to having access to sharia guidance and courts in the UK. The latter exists and the former never will - so why, when they have had access to financial repatriation assistance since 1999 do so few take it up?
Click to expand...


Because the hard line are not interested in Sharia lite either. They want full Sharia throughout the UK and their argument has been that since Britian is a democracy they have every right to push for full Sharia. It does no good to give them partial Sharia because inevitably they will demand more.

We had a similar situation in Canada where, in the boisterous days of early multiculturalism, Ontario allowed Sharia law in certain instances. It was Muslim women who then petitioned the government to shut down all Sharia courts, however, which they did. A good thing too.
Since 2007, they are allowed to exist under the auspice of the 1996 Arbitration act and they may only act on civil cases where the parties voluntarily agree.
Click to expand...

Because of tintimidation against women in the Muslim community it was claimed by Muslim women that this 'voluntary" aspect was too often ignored. The idea was eventually, and wisely, abandoned.
Click to expand...
 
Infinite Chaos said:
True but the key word in all of Gardener's links is "fundamentalist." There are fundamentalist muslims and there are more enlightened muslims and there are also lapsed muslims. Same with christians, jews, hindus etc etc.
Click to expand...

Of course there are. The issue here is the degree to which the population adheres to fundamentalist beliefs and the extent to which they will go to uphold them -- issues you refuse to address/acknowledge because you are equally fundamentalist in outlook, but yours being multiculturalist politically correct instead of Islamist. The same uber-conformist mindset prevails in both cases, however where truth takes a back seat to dogma.
 
Gardener said:
You really haven't the foggiest idea what an Islamist is, do you?

Islamist - definition of Islamist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Islamist | Define Islamist at Dictionary.com

Islamist - Definition of Islamist

Definition of islamist


Need any more?
Click to expand...

First defintion

1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.
Click to expand...

Pro-activism. there's an "attempt" not a preference.

an advocate or supporter of Islamic, esp. orthodox Islamic, political rule
Click to expand...

the rest deal with advocance and support. I assume you can tell the difference between those and preference.

Many people may prefer a system and yet not advocate it. It shouldn't be hard to differenciate the two, much lest to idetify these results as a sizeable minority supporting Islamism(what proportion is sizeable minority anyway in science speak?).

Prefer:
Like (one thing or person) better than another or others; tend to choose: "I prefer Venice to Rome"
Click to expand...

Advocate
A person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy.
Click to expand...
 
Ben K said:
Someone who would prefer to live under Sharia isn't necessarily an Islamist. There would have to be intent to force that on others. An Islamist may not be a terrorist or demonstrator, they would however need to pro-actively pursue Islamism in some form politically.
Click to expand...
mbig said:
Really? And whose definition is this?
Again we have the fallacious idea Islamist ideal has to be Jihad. This is false.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/islamism said:
Is·lam·ism noun
\is-ˈlä-ˌmi-zəm, iz-, -ˈla-; ˈiz-lə-\
Definition of ISLAMISM

1: the faith, doctrine, or cause of Islam
2: a popular reform movement advocating the reordering of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam
Click to expand...
One can be an Islamist without forcing anything.
If I state I'd like to see a return of a worldwide Caliphate, I'm an Islamist. No 'force' about it.
Wanting Sharia is Islamist. (if not the complete suite)
Death for Apostates is an Islamist view; a reprehensible extremist one as well.
If a Muslim population becomes a majority and votes Sharia Law with No 'force', that's a triumphant Islamist movement.
Click to expand...

Ben K. said:
No, we don't need jihad to define it. There has to be pro-action of any kind.
.....
As the poll shows, less than 50% polled identify with any political mechanism for action. There is very little evidence for pro-action.
Click to expand...
So to be clear.
You initial claim of "must want to force it on others" is False.
Even your current, lesser contention of 'pro-active' is Not needed for Webster's primary (1.) definition, though 'advocacy' is mentioned in the second. Advocacy being as little as telling your friend, voting for Sharia, or zakat for the Mosque who preaches same.

And you are now Claiming, er acknowledging, even with your own definition.... "Less than 50%".. which is a "Significant Minority" and Not a "tiny minority".
This is Contrary to everyone else on Your side. (They, having pages ago also realized this, though by next week will be Lying about it again)

Your posts, as always, are full of dishonest deflections/Faux semantic cleverness.
No doubt you think you can talk your way out of 2+2=4.
Perhaps you can somewhere else.
(Gratuitous deflection sure to follow, but won't be answered lest it is Uniquely straightforward)
 
Last edited:
Gardener said:
Of course there are. The issue here is the degree to which the population adheres to fundamentalist beliefs and the extent to which they will go to uphold them -- issues you refuse to address/acknowledge because you are equally fundamentalist in outlook, but yours being multiculturalist politically correct instead of Islamist. The same uber-conformist mindset prevails in both cases, however where truth takes a back seat to dogma.
Click to expand...

That's about the 3rd or 4th post from you which is about me and not the subject of the thread. None of them remotely address correctly what my views or politics are (see your last accusation regarding my views on the EDL) and you offer nothing to support your view.
 
Diogenes said:
I certainly could not accept anything like this in the US. How can the Brits put up with it?

TIP OF THE ICEBERG - THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR BRITAIN
Click to expand...

Yes I'm sure she feels sad a different tribe has moved in and stroked her tribalism genes the wrong way.

2 of her prejudgements about another "tribe" were wrong.

"nonbelievers don't have to go to hell" wrong. although I doubt she even believes in hell. Generally Atheists are stupid enough, or don't have enough fear of religion, to actually walk in a crowd and antagonize others.

"Islam teaches to respect the laws of the land" wrong.
 
Last edited:
Infinite Chaos said:
That's about the 3rd or 4th post from you which is about me and not the subject of the thread. None of them remotely address correctly what my views or politics are (see your last accusation regarding my views on the EDL) and you offer nothing to support your view.
Click to expand...

I have been reading your dogmatic postings for years, now, and have a thorough understanding of your apologist's mindset.

No need to elaborate further.
 
Gardener said:
I have been reading your dogmatic postings for years, now, and have a thorough understanding of your apologist's mindset.

No need to elaborate further.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem is not a substitute for a well structured and argued position. I asked you for your Pew report mentioned on page 5 of this thread and no reply, I argued that a poll that says 0% of UK muslims are tolerant of homosexuality flies in the face of the fact that there are gay and lesbian muslims in this same country and I also doubted the honesty of responses saying a proportion of muslims in this country would prefer to leave and live in a country / state with sharia law - the population of muslims in the UK has increased rather than decreased.

The only thing you can offer is that there is a "hive mind" in the UK, "lockstepping" its way across the UK and posting dogmatic canards every so often. As for me, you've already been shown to be dishonest twice (once previously and once in this thread) about me.

You refuse to elaborate because you have nothing to elaborate with. You are totally unfamiliar with daily life here in the UK and yet you think you can pigeonhole the UK population and all muslims (including those in the military / in Govt service / running businesses / teaching in schools as well as the unemployed in areas like Blackpool and Rochdale) and convince those living here what you are talking about.

For shame. Actually, if you have any - please provide some evidence to dispute my position; it's called "debate." I doubt your polls for reasons outlined above, the onus is on you to rubbish my position instead of simple ad hominem fallacy.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Ad hominem is not a substitute for a well structured and argued position. I asked you for your Pew report mentioned on page 5 of this thread and no reply, I argued that a poll that says 0% of UK muslims are tolerant of homosexuality flies in the face of the fact that there are gay and lesbian muslims in this same country and I also doubted the honesty of responses saying a proportion of muslims in this country would prefer to leave and live in a country / state with sharia law - the population of muslims in the UK has increased rather than decreased.

The only thing you can offer is that there is a "hive mind" in the UK, "lockstepping" its way across the UK and posting dogmatic canards every so often. As for me, you've already been shown to be dishonest twice (once previously and once in this thread) about me.

You refuse to elaborate because you have nothing to elaborate with. You are totally unfamiliar with daily life here in the UK and yet you think you can pigeonhole the UK population and all muslims (including those in the military / in Govt service / running businesses / teaching in schools as well as the unemployed in areas like Blackpool and Rochdale) and convince those living here what you are talking about.

For shame. Actually, if you have any - please provide some evidence to dispute my position; it's called "debate." I doubt your polls for reasons outlined above, the onus is on you to rubbish my position instead of simple ad hominem fallacy.
Click to expand...

Why should I bother with a true believer such as yourself?

Every time evidence is brought in that contradicts your stupid assertions, all you do is try to make another stupid claim that it is invalid due to your lack of ability to understand how polling works.

All you know is that if the subject is Islamism, your duty is to defend. That is hardly a political position showing anything in the way of discernment.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Ad hominem is not a substitute for a well structured and argued position. I asked you for your Pew report mentioned on page 5 of this thread and no reply, I argued that a poll that says 0% of UK muslims are tolerant of homosexuality flies in the face of the fact that there are gay and lesbian muslims in this same country and I also doubted the honesty of responses saying a proportion of muslims in this country would prefer to leave and live in a country / state with sharia law - the population of muslims in the UK has increased rather than decreased.

The only thing you can offer is that there is a "hive mind" in the UK, "lockstepping" its way across the UK and posting dogmatic canards every so often. As for me, you've already been shown to be dishonest twice (once previously and once in this thread) about me.

You refuse to elaborate because you have nothing to elaborate with. You are totally unfamiliar with daily life here in the UK and yet you think you can pigeonhole the UK population and all muslims (including those in the military / in Govt service / running businesses / teaching in schools as well as the unemployed in areas like Blackpool and Rochdale) and convince those living here what you are talking about.

For shame. Actually, if you have any - please provide some evidence to dispute my position; it's called "debate." I doubt your polls for reasons outlined above, the onus is on you to rubbish my position instead of simple ad hominem fallacy.
Click to expand...

It seems that we are more familiar with what's going on in Europe than many Europeans, and certainly the ones on this thread.

While Europeans are being charged with "racism" when criticizing the religion of Islam, that trend appears to be in one direction only.

There is no way of knowing if the European posters on these boards genuinely believe what they're saying or if they withhold criticism for fear of being charged with a hate crime. Perhaps we can come up with some similar system t blink once for yes, twice for no.o

Lars Hedegaard’s “Racism” Case Goes Before Supreme Court | FrontPage Magazine
 
Grant said:
It seems that we are more familiar with what's going on in Europe than many Europeans, and certainly the ones on this thread.

While Europeans are being charged with "racism" when criticizing the religion of Islam, that trend appears to be in one direction only.

There is no way of knowing if the European posters on these boards genuinely believe what they're saying or if they withhold criticism for fear of being charged with a hate crime. Perhaps we can come up with some similar system t blink once for yes, twice for no.o

Lars Hedegaard’s “Racism” Case Goes Before Supreme Court | FrontPage Magazine
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with Mr Hedegaard however I did agree these two statements on your link -
Islam is not a race and therefore criticism of Islam cannot be racism.

--snip--

We enjoy political freedom and we enjoy freedom of religion. This implies a largely unlimited right to disseminate one’s political persuasion and religious beliefs. That is as it should be. But the price we all have to pay for this freedom is that others have a right to criticise our politics, our religion and our culture.
Click to expand...

Regarding the former, I have no problem with criticising Islam or any other religion and regarding his latter sentence, I have also made my belief in free speech here in the UK pretty clear. However your reason for bring the link up in direct response to what I posted (you quoted me) is unclear. Maybe you can elaborate please? (Remember this is a thread about the UK as the video in the OP is about a muslim protest march in Luton)
 
Infinite Chaos said:
I'm not familiar with Mr Hedegaard however I did agree these two statements on your link -

Regarding the former, I have no problem with criticising Islam or any other religion and regarding his latter sentence, I have also made my belief in free speech here in the UK pretty clear. However your reason for bring the link up in direct response to what I posted (you quoted me) is unclear. Maybe you can elaborate please? (Remember this is a thread about the UK as the video in the OP is about a muslim protest march in Luton)
Click to expand...

It's about the UK, yes, but also 'the tip of the iceberg'.

What's happening in Denmark is happening in the UK, as witness the banning of Geert Wilders entering the country a couple of years ago. This appeasement to radical islam is happening all over Europe and we know it.

We also know that not all Muslims are terrorists, etc.
 
Grant said:
It's about the UK, yes, but also 'the tip of the iceberg'.

What's happening in Denmark is happening in the UK, as witness the banning of Geert Wilders entering the country a couple of years ago. This appeasement to radical islam is happening all over Europe and we know it.

We also know that not all Muslims are terrorists, etc.
Click to expand...

Well in the same way that "0% of muslims are tolerant of homosexuality" is false, then the extradition of Abu Hamza after he serves his 7 year sentence in the UK and the banning of other extremists entering the UK like Al Sharpton etc contradicts your assertion. (I think it was Mancs Skipper pointed that out near the start of the thread). The list includes Fred Phelps, Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, Mike Guzovsky - a christian extremist, a muslim extremist and a jewish extremist.

Who else are we appeasing then?
 
mbig said:
So to be clear.
You initial claim of "must want to force it on others" is False.
Even your current, lesser contention of 'pro-active' is Not needed for Webster's primary (1.) definition, though 'advocacy' is mentioned in the second. Advocacy being as little as telling your friend, voting for Sharia, or zakat for the Mosque who preaches same.

And you are now Claiming, er acknowledging, even with your own definition.... "Less than 50%".. which is a "Significant Minority" and Not a "tiny minority".
This is Contrary to everyone else on Your side. (They, having pages ago also realized this, though by next week will be Lying about it again)

Your posts, as always, are full of dishonest deflections/Faux semantic cleverness.
No doubt you think you can talk your way out of 2+2=4.
Perhaps you can somewhere else.
(Gratuitous deflection sure to follow, but won't be answered lest it is Uniquely straightforward)
Click to expand...

2: a popular reform movement advocating the reordering of government and society in accordance with laws prescribed by Islam
Click to expand...

Advocacy is pro-action. But your championing of the first really takes the biscuit.

1: the faith, doctrine, or cause of Islam
Click to expand...

The first definition includes faith in Islam. Are you really going to claim that being Muslim alone is enough to identfiy an Islamist as you intend to define the term? 100% of Muslims are Islamists? Looks like you beefed up a notable minority to unanimous majority. Except that premise also clashes with the results.

Won't even tackle the claim of hypocricy, since I'm not making any claims that they're politically unrepresented, only pointing out the conflict in one that builds an argument from nebulous polling questions.
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
It's about the UK, yes, but also 'the tip of the iceberg'.

What's happening in Denmark is happening in the UK, as witness the banning of Geert Wilders entering the country a couple of years ago. This appeasement to radical islam is happening all over Europe and we know it.

We also know that not all Muslims are terrorists, etc.
Click to expand...

Well, the EDL are probably the opposite of Choudary and as it happens they were in Denmark recently expressing their free voice along with the Danes of similar opinion and as they hoped others from other countries wanting to have their say

Estimates suggested as few as 160 defence league members from several countries gathered at the inaugural far-right summit in Aarhus for the European counter-jihad meeting, devised to "send a clear message to the leaders of Europe" that Islamism would not be tolerated.

EDL leader Tommy Robinson admitted only 15 supporters from England made the trip, despite earlier speculation that hundreds might attend. By comparison, an anti-fascist demonstration in the same city, to protest against the arrival of the EDL, attracted up to 4,000 people.

-snip-

The low turnout in Aarhus is in fact the second time the EDL has travelled abroad to try to forge alliances. Its first attempt, in Amsterdam in 2010, was widely dismissed as a "damp squib", attracting about 60 supporters who were met with fierce opposition from Ajax football fans and anti-racist supporters. Robinson, the main attraction at the Aarhus summit, was unrepentant despite even fewer of his followers appearing, saying: "Just wait until there are hundreds of us coming in."
Click to expand...

EDL summit in Denmark humiliated by low attendance | UK news | The Observer

Maybe just as most Muslims do not have the time of day for Choudary, it is exactly the same with other extreme people in Denmark and in the UK - that is whether they are European or Muslim most people do not want anything to do with extremists....just saying.
 
Grant said:
OK, Which 'control group' would you like to have surveyed?
Click to expand...

When my answer is clearly in the statement you quoted I'm not sure I'm supposed to take this seriously.

Is general population not enough? Other faiths in the population seperately? First and second generation immigrants in general?
Click to expand...
 
The following sums it up, and within context, for me

"Tackling violent extremism is about confronting and standing up to a small fringe group of terrorist and their extremist supporters. The majority of Muslims are law abiding citizens that respect the core British values and who reject violence"

ACF - Tackling Violent Extremism



Paul
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Well in the same way that "0% of muslims are tolerant of homosexuality" is false, then the extradition of Abu Hamza after he serves his 7 year sentence in the UK and the banning of other extremists entering the UK like Al Sharpton etc contradicts your assertion. (I think it was Mancs Skipper pointed that out near the start of the thread). The list includes Fred Phelps, Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, Mike Guzovsky - a christian extremist, a muslim extremist and a jewish extremist.

Who else are we appeasing then?
Click to expand...

Al Sharpton? The man is clearly an idiot but he doesn't deserve to be banned.

I can see the others being banned because they promote violence. In fact I looked up the 16 banned and all, with the exception of Phelps, promoted violence. But of course Phelps is indefensible.

But it should be made clear that Dane Lars Hedegaard did not promote violence. Nor did Gerrt Wilders of Holland, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff of Austria, Oriana Fallaci of Italy, Michel Houellebecq of France, etc.

Europe

At least Austria understands what the problem is really all about and names their law accordingly. "The Terrorism Prevention Law". The thinking seems to be that if Europeans avoid criticism of Islam they can also avoid acts of terrorism.

http://www.pi-news.org/2010/02/austria-good-night-freedom-of-speech/
 
Last edited:
Grant said:
Al Sharpton? The man is clearly an idiot but he doesn't deserve to be banned.
Click to expand...

My mistake, I misremembered.

Grant said:
-- But it should be made clear that Dane Lars Hedegaard did not promote violence. Nor did Gerrt Wilders of Holland, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff of Austria, Oriana Fallaci of Italy, Michel Houellebecq of France, etc.

Europe

At least Austria understands what the problem is really all about and names their law accordingly. "The Terrorism Prevention Law". The thinking seems to be that if Europeans avoid criticism of Islam they can also avoid acts of terrorism.

Austria: Good night, freedom of speech! - Politically Incorrect – English Version
Click to expand...

This thread is about a muslim march in Luton, you seem to be spreading the net wider at every opportunity so it may be time for a reminder that "Europe" is not a country, there are different laws, languages and customs in different parts. We have not banned Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff - in fact she was speaking at an EDL rally in Luton last year.

With regard to her, I have no problem pointing out that she should have the fight to say what she feels (as long as it doesn't become hate speech) but my problem with her is not hate speech but the idiotic assertion of the "Eurabia Myth." In your link, she clearly states her speeches were for Austria's Freedom Party and she was invited by them to hold seminars to spread her mistruths. I would prefer she and any others who lie to the public about "Eurabia" and "Londonistan" were challenged on their views than banned or convicted.

Interestingly, returning to the point of the thread, I did watch Stephen Lennon talking on BBC's the Big Question about how the EDL were not a racist party and how he was trying to confront the combat 18 and National Front elements which were being drawn to the EDL: inviting a spokesperson for the Freedom Party is beginning to make me doubt the true nature of the EDL.

There are criticisms to be made of islam, certain muslim practices in some countries etc etc as I have lived in muslim countries but any party or organisation that relies on support or brings in known far-right groups to speak on their behalf makes a big mistake in appealing to moderates like myself. We won't engage with radical elements through hatred and the moderates in minority groups have a bigger battle to speak out against radicals when they see the main elements confronting their population with thinly disguised hate speech and preachers of hate.
 
gunner said:
The following sums it up, and within context, for me

"Tackling violent extremism is about confronting and standing up to a small fringe group of terrorist and their extremist supporters. The majority of Muslims are law abiding citizens that respect the core British values and who reject violence"

ACF - Tackling Violent Extremism
Click to expand...

How about Tackling Violent Extremism against Jews, Paul? Are you actively supporting them as well?

Exodus :: SteynOnline
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom