What incompatiblity? Whose liberalism? Which Islam?

Last night I went to see The City Circle debate 'Islam is incompatible with liberalism'. It was good to see that the room was packed, mainly with young Muslim students and professionals. The format was quite simple: the speakers were given around 10 minutes to argue their case, and then the debate was open to questions or comments from the floor. First I present a precis of the arguments and then my own views.

The argument for the motion that Islam is incompatible with liberalism
Alice Kneen, a PhD candidate in her final year and graduate of Magdalene College, Cambridge, started off by presenting her case for why she believes Islam is not compatible with liberalism. Most of her arguments were based on the data she'd gathered during her research with Muslims living in Oldham (she lives and works in the Greater Manchester area herself). Her basic arguments were that "as value systems", liberalism and Islam cannot be reconciled; there are fundamental points over which the two disagree that makes them incompatible. As examples she cited liberty and freedom of belief promoted by liberalism as against the lack of such freedoms in Islam; the Muslim belief in the Qur'an as God's Word as opposed to the humanism of liberalism; and the notion of equality between men and women defended by liberalism and opposed in Islam. She said that she had noticed a difference in views between generations. Older, first generation, Muslim Oldhamites had different views to some of their children; the younger Muslims were more 'strict in their Islam'. She said that the belief that Islam was a superior religion than other beliefs was at odds with how liberalism sees people of different beliefs and views. Kneen also heavily criticised Tariq Ramadan and Ziauddin Sardar. Her claim was that they were 'liberals first and Muslims second', because they espouse 'liberal values' and she couldn't see how they could make 'Islam compatible with liberalism', whilst at the same time 'believing in the Qur'an as God's Word'. Lastly, she said that social cohesion had started to break down (giving us the Home Office definition of social cohesion), and cited the race riots in Oldham as an example of why Islam was not compatible with liberalism. In her own words, it was 'impossible to measure social cohesion', but was 'easy to measure where it was breaking down'.

The argument against the motion that Islam is incompatible with liberalism
Dr. Richard Stone, was chairman of the old Commission on British Muslims and Islamophobia and holds a number of key positions in numerous organisations, was opposing the motion presented by Kneen. Essentially, Stone's argument against the motion was firstly about about how one should approach minority groups (and gave us numerous parallels to his time as a young Jew living in Britain). Secondly, that his own experiences were at odds with Kneen's pessimistic views, although he conceeded that her fieldwork was far more rigorous than his own perceptions. According to Stone, the approach to Muslim communities ought to be, in the first instance, asking them what they need in order to better integrate with 'mainstream' society (like access to better healthcare, jobs, education and housing). He said he found that Muslim communities he'd visited, also in the north of England (he gave Beeston as an example, from where two of the London bombers came from), were happy to integrate; they disliked the isolation they experienced and wanted to meet and interact not only Muslims from across Britain, but also non-Muslims. He said that what was needed was dialogue and interaction between Muslims and others to marginalise the 'literalist' and 'extremist' voices.

The panel also included a chair (a South African Muslima, whose name escapes me) and one of the co-founders of The City Circle, Asim Siddiqui. The role of Siddiqui was to question the assumptions of Kneen. His basic argument focused on the point that Kneen had, unfairly he felt, given due prominence to one particular 'interpretation of Islam' and of calling this True Islam as opposed to other (weaker?) forms of Islam as lived and thought of by, say, the Muslims in the audience or Tariq Ramadan. In addition he said that taking the 'core values of Islam and the aims of the the shari'ah' that there was there needn't be too big a clash between Islam and liberalism.

My thoughts on the debate and views from the audience
While I thought the topic of the debate was an interesting one, overall the debate was poorly organised and poorly argued by both sides.

I don't think Stone presented a very good case against Kneen's points. Perhaps a polemical debate isn't his cup of tea? Given his history as a founder of Alif-Aleph UK and the Jewish Council for Racial Equality, I think he is more at home in reconciliatory discussions, rather than a heated debate where giving complex, philosophical, points rhetorical force is important. From his ten minutes I could not see why Kneen's thesis was faulty, other than knowing that some Muslims he'd met were friendly towards him (he was also complimentary to Muslims who showed outward expressions of their faith, saying this had allowed more observant Jews to wear symbols of their religion); and that some Muslims wanted better access to facilities. The fact that, once his ten minutes was up, Stone contributed little merely underlines my point.

Kneen's arguments were flawed on several points too, although I don't think her basic belief was wrong, per se (for reasons I'll come onto). It was fair of her to ask the question and to make the case. She is, afterall, only propogating her views (as she admitted when she said that the one thing liberals like her could learn from Islam was the concept of da'wah). However, her arguments were marked by sloppiness. For a start, for a research student in the final year of her PhD (and a graduate of such a prestigious university) to make such a basic error regarding the supposed Qur'anic verse on stoning (there is none!) is quite poor. This doesn't dismantle her arguments, but it's just a little sloppy and factually incorrect.

At first she made little attempt to define both liberalism and Islam; questions from the floor made this point too. In response she said that liberalism was best defined as being 'progressive', accepting of 'uncertainty', and of utilising 'rational methods of inquiry'. Although the very idea of Progress in human history is questionable, her strongest point on showing that Islam was incompatible with liberalism would have been a case for moral progress as described by liberal theories. This idea would be contradictory to many widely held Islamic beliefs; although, for some reason, she didn't drive this point home. However, uncertainty and the use of rational methods of inquiry are not unique to liberalism and not even anathema to Muslims (just read al-Ghazali). Would she have argued for the uncertainty of reason, through which she grasps the world? She certainly wasn't arguing for a postmodernist view, given that she asked for liberalism not to be conflated with moral relativism (notwithstanding the point that liberalism is itself a contested tradition). And how can one reconcile social cohesion, which must require some element of certainty in thought and practice, whilst stressing the role of uncertainty in liberalism? It appears her own uncertainty was itself limited by more pressing needs (the need for moral certainty and a cohesive national identity). What's more, Kneen didn't actually present any data which showed the audience that her description of liberalism was held by most Britons!

I found her usage of the race riots in Oldham to prove that 'Islam was incompatible with liberalism' quite strange to say the least. Was the Brixton riot the 1980s -- and the numerous race riots across Britain involving predominantly black Britons -- proof that Afro-Caribbean identities and beliefs were incompatible with liberalism? No; in fact, after those race riots different questions were asked of policing and social deprivation. Why ignore these questions in relation to the riots in northern England involving South Asian (nominally Muslim) youths?

Her definition of Islam was no less problematic. Her fieldwork had given her access to a wealth of data amongst Muslims in Oldham and their views. It was wrong for Muslims who disagreed with her to argue against this data (as some tried to do). But how far can should the views of her sample be privileged over other views? On what basis can her problem (that Muslims she met professed that their beliefs were not compatible with liberalism) be 'Islamised'? What about factors such as income, education, ethnicity? Islamic thought and practice, afterall, does not exist in a vaccum as is assumed by some Muslims and their critics. She could, of course, make a scriptural argument, and this she did tried to do. But again, how far do you extract a religious text away from how the religious tradition is living, especially if you're not a believer in that text? We interpret everything we read. There is nothing to say a literal reading holds first sway other than convention; one needs to make such an argument. The difference between Islam and Muslims, between what is claimed to be in a text and between what element is living, is not always an easy question to answer; it would be unfair to assume Kneen could answer that question. But she should at least have recognised this point on her part, and maybe even try to explain it away. One early questioner asked on what basis her arguments were raised considering that Muslims were in a minority in Britain and implementation of some facets of Islamic law (like the penal code) would simply never occur; she had tried to anticipate this question by raising a hypothetical situation where Britain became an Islamic state, although that is too complex a situation to ever answer (consider that if such a situation did occur, Islam would have developed quite differently to, say, Islam in the Gulf).

In the end I think a lack of clarity undid her arguments, although as I said earlier she was not wrong to make her basic point. She framed her question in an incorrect manner. When she says 'Islam' is incompatible with 'liberalism' she needs to be clearer as to the scope of incompatibility she is talking about and what she means by Islam -- at points some of her reponses to questions from the floor merely sounded like the Our Way of Life trope used by so many ardent right-wing nationlists, by insinuating that Muslims did not fit in with the 'British way of life' (she didn't say this explicitly, but that was a conclusion one could draw). What some Muslims tried to do, including Siddiqui (perhaps his best contribution all night), was to ask Kneen if she would reconsider her views given that there may be some common ground between some Islamic values and some liberal values she was outlining (for example, social welfare). I wasn't quite sure of her answer on this point; when pressed again about what she meant by liberalism and the possibiliy that Muslims and liberals shared some common goals she first resorted to calling upon the Englightenment basis of liberalism to distinguish it from Islam, then switched and said that 'basically, liberalism comes from a Judeo-Christian ethic'! (Although one could make an argument that some founders of the Enlightenment were not necessarily opposed to God or even religion, but attacked the hypocrisy, greed and prejudice of the political and religious authorities. She, however, didn't make that argument and conceeded that it wasn't only Islam in her eyes that was at odds with liberalism after some in the audience pointed out other beliefs like Evangelism, orthodox Judaism and Roman Catholicism as well as the existence of the Bible.)

I wanted to ask her a question towards the end but wasn't given the chance: what was her solution? Now that there are close to two million Muslims in the UK, how should the problem she had identified be solved? Perhaps I'll have to wait for her Radio 4 show later this summer.

Throughout the night Siddiqui, as well as some members of the audience, stressed the point on the possibility of reinterpreation of source texts and of pluralism in Islamic history. A couple of members of the audience pointed out the advancement of arts and science in Andalucia; so free inquiry and toleration for other beliefs did not pose any problem for Islam in theory. Siddiqui cited the use of ijtihad (in matters outside ibadat), as many liberal Muslims do (I use liberal here in the strictest sense to mean thinking outside defined authoritative paradigms), as a way out of some of the more 'literalist' interpretations. However, ijtihad is a technical term in Islamic legal literature and I think many progressive and liberal Muslims would do well to remember that (this means they need to engage with the Islamic legal tradition, rather than try and ignore it and simply shout ijtihad at every uncomfortable issue). This sort of invocation of ijtihad by some Muslims is lazy thinking and verges on intellectual dishonesty. I think it would be equally dishonest of Muslims, including liberals, to say that every point of liberalisms (plural) are in total agreement with either historical Islamic values or Islamic values that could be drawn from a combination of reason, text and heart. If Muslim liberals want to fight a case, their strongest ground is on trying to point out common views and values that are shared by both liberals and Muslims -- but for this to work, those with the power outside of the Muslim communities will have to be accomodating of difference. Siddiqui also made a fundamental error when he described a variety of Islamic values and beliefs that were not necessarily antithetical to Kneen's liberalism, but failed to mention the most fundamental one: tawhid (unicity of God) which is a distinctly Islamic belief (if I'm being very generous I'd say he was thinking of practical matters rather than doctrinal ones). Not surprisingly Stone, as a religious liberal, was in full agreement with Siddiqui urging liberals like Kneen not to exclude progressive and liberal voices amongst Muslims by attack the entirity of Islam.

Ultimately I am not sure I learnt anything new, albeit the evening wasn't totally wasted. I already knew that there are liberals who are hostile to religion, and to Islam in particular. I already knew that there are Muslims who are equally hostile to any sort of liberal thought and of Muslims who are calling for ijtihad without giving it too much thought. What was needed last night was, perhaps, a scholarly Muslim perspective, whether from an orthodox angle or a progressive one.

Update (04/06): Yusuf Smith was also at the debate. See his review.

Comments

[sporty muslimah]

As an Oldhamer, that was a good read!

[sporty muslimah]

Aplogies, my manners

Asslamualaikum

[Celal]

A nice report on the debate, Thabet. Too bad you did not have an opportunity to voice some of your thoughts and questions at the time.

I obviously wasn't there myself but on the basis of your report I think one of the reasons why the discussion/debate did not seem focused was perhaps due to failing to define Liberalism as a political philosophy. In the absence of such a definition it's not surprising that the discourse was all over the place.

Rather, it seems that most people in the room were seeing Liberalism as being a set of *specific* values reducible to and comparable with another set of *specific* values engendered and propounded by the holy texts (Koran/Hadith) themselves. This, in my opinion, is a category mistake and a non-starter and both Siddiqui and Kneen evidenced this confusion.

Siddiqui seemed to be headed in the right direction when he was seeking to make a point about "common ground" in the area of "social welfare". But then he went astray with his comment about "aims of shariah", in my opinion.

Kneen was on the right track when she suggested the Enlightenment was the basis of Liberalism but then muddied the waters herself by appealing to the Judeo-Christian tradition.

What should have been expressed by somebody but wasn’t is that is that Liberalism has it true basis in its emphasis on the INDIVIDUAL. Also nobody mentioned that the Cartoon Controversy might have been one indication that Islam and Liberalism are NOT compatible with each other.

Not everyone believes that Christianity and Liberalism are necessarily compatible with each other either. One good example is Robert Kraynak, a Roman Catholic political philosopher, who believes that Christianity has been co-opted by Enlightenment Liberalism and the result is a new hybrid which he calls Kantian Christianity.

This hybrid (KC), he claims, is not the true historical Christianity of the texts and church tradition and I tend to agree with him. He says that KC is at the root of the contemporary culture of unlimited rights (i.e. rights to abortion, rights to homosexual marriage etc) and is now actually hostile to genuine Christianity. He is thus no defender of Liberalism and sees the solution in a constitutional monarchy set up on Augustine principle of the Two Cities.

Now it seems to me what would be really interesting to show is whether Islam (however it is defined either traditionally or the way people like T. Ramadan might define it) is compatible with Kantian moral imperatives and Kantian individualism.

Only after such an exercise could one conclude one way or the other on the matter of the compatibility of Islam and Liberalism.

[thabet]

Sporty: Thanks for your comments.

Celal: Thanks for your comments. I'd agree that people were looking for specific points to see where liberalism and Islam met, based on practical matters.

What should have been expressed by somebody but wasn’t is that is that Liberalism has it true basis in its emphasis on the INDIVIDUAL.

Kneen did try and mention the point early on that liberalism places its emphasis on liberty (for the individual). However, the question then asked of her was: well, how does this affect Muslims in Britain, because the political and legal structures in Britain are not taken from any Islamic texts/history? She was primarily concerned with the point that Islam in Britain, according to her research, was at odds with liberalism.

Also nobody mentioned that the Cartoon Controversy ...

Most, if not all, newspapers in Britain did not publish the cartoons, however. But we're not going to say Britain is not a liberal society. And contrary to some silly claims, Muslims in the UK do not hold any great political power. In fact, quite the opposite.

I think you're last point on Kantin ethics is the most important one; specifically, how well do Muslim beliefs sit with his 'religion within the bounds of reason'? It did cross my mind at one point during the evening, but I can't quite remember why I never followed it through. Some people did mention the existance of other beliefs, like Roman Catholicism, which may not sit well with Kneen's liberalism (or KC as you call it). Strictly speaking, as this was a debate on Islam and liberalism, those concerns were not valid in the course of the debate, although she did address those points.

[Ismaeel]

Liberalism emerged out of the need for Christians denominations to stop slaughtering each other in Europe, it evolved to protect religious minorities, the idea it is rooted in judeo-christian values is laughable.

I agree that the City Circe are both intellectually lazy and dishonest. So are people like Ramadan and Sadar. They are only interested in making Islam acceptable to liberals, so that they can be accepted by their liberal mates. It's very sad indeed and in some senses they are not much different from the likes of Irshad Manji.
At the end of the day Islam is Islam and it is at odds with a fair amount of what constitutes liberalism and the liberal consenus. Does that mean Muslims can't live peacefully within a Liberal society, of course it doesn't. It means that they will compete with their values against other groups with their values as is what happens already.

[thabet]

You might disagree with Ramadan or Sardar (of the two Ramadan is more rigorous than Sardar); so might a majority of Muslims. But to equate them with Manji is off the mark. I would say that is also intellectually lazy and dishonest.

The point to remember is that there probably no "one" liberalism.

[haroon]

Agreed. A wonderful post, and I wish I could've been there, too.

What is liberalism? That's a damn huge question, too. After all, if we find the Enlightenment as its root, we fairly have to ask which Enlightenment, when and how? The German, Scottish or American? How come Americans have different attitudes to religion than the French, yet both lay claim to an Enlightenment tradition?

It seems like Kneen was trying too hard to create a unitary liberalism that couldn't benefit from alternative points of view. How, after all, do Orthodox Jews take part in societies like England if their views are as rigid as Islam's, in many respects, and opposed to Kneen's liberalism...?

[Ismaeel]

Salaam
i said Sadar and Ramadan were like Manji in the sense of trying to please their liberal mates, nothing else. I'm well aware of the vast gulfs between the three of them and Manji can't even really be considered a Muslim considering what she has said about the Qu'raan and the Prophet (SAWS). So apologies if that wasn't clear, i have elsewhere equated the SWP with the BNP on the basis of a single issue, i'm not trying to make generalisations but show what dubious bedfellows u attract by adopting a similar line of thinking.

[Celal]

After all, if we find the Enlightenment as its root, we fairly have to ask which Enlightenment, when and how? The German, Scottish or American? How come Americans have different attitudes to religion than the French, yet both lay claim to an Enlightenment tradition?

There is a demonstable continuity between Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, the American Founding Fathers and the founding documents of the United States of America.

French attitudes to religion in society in its own Enlightenment tradition exhibits a sharper reaction to the greater amount of violence inflicted against Protestants (see St Bartholomew's Day massacre).

This was not the experience in England and Scotland where the Protestant reformation was more of top down affair.

do Orthodox Jews take part in societies like England if their views are as rigid as Islam's, in many respects, and opposed to Kneen's liberalism...?

Jewish interest in theoracy has a definite Land component associated with it and outside of this piece of real estate Jews, even Orthodox Jews, have never really had any problem living under any form of government which is non-theocratic.

However, theocatic ambitions of the kind associated with Islam and the various examples of Islamic states constitute a more direct threat and sustained challenge to Enlightenment principles.

[Sunny]

"At the end of the day Islam is Islam and it is at odds with..."

Which version of Islam are you referring to Ismaeel? If there's one thing I know, it's that every Muslim mate of mine has their own version of looking at the religion.

Anyway, you just wanted to whip that old hobby horse of insulting Sardar and Ramadan didn't you? ;)
Is everyone who can engage with non-Muslims an Uncle Tom to you?

Thabet - an excellent read and thanks for writing it. I wish I could have been there, only to ask a few annoying questions.

[shariq]

Agreed that this was a brilliant post. However Haroon, reading this has made me glad that I couldn't attend :p

Kneen judging Islam's compatibility with Liberalism from data gathered in Oldham is almost laughable. As has been alluded to, I think an even bigger problem is the assumption that the absence of liberalism means talebanism.

Apart from that, Ismaeel you need to be more tempered with the use of the word dishonest. I can understand why you may disagree with Sardar and you're entitled to that opinion. However to label him dishonest by resorting to amateur psychology (he does it to please his liberal mates), is in my opinion wrong.

From my own encounters with Sardar's work, I've found him to be fiercely independent. If you've read his book 'Desperately Seeking Paradise', I can't see how you could question his intellectual honesty.

[Ismaeel]

Shariq,

I've read some of Sardar's contributions to the New Stateseman and that's why i hold the opinion he's out to please his liberal mates.
However although i have read Ramadan's Western Muslims and Manjis Trouble with Islam today, i haven't read desperatly seeking paradise so maybe i should...

Sunny, there are pleanty of people who engage with non-Muslims who i respect as well you know from other conversations we have had.

As for there being many different interpretations of our religion, again that is true but only to a point which is limited by the diversity of authentic scholarship which is diverse and rich enough for our needs.

[shariq]

Ismaeel be sure to read Desperately Seeking Paradise. I'll go out on a limb and say that you'll almost definitely find it an enjoyable read.

In particular make sure you don't miss his stinging critique of liberalism. Yes it surprised me as well, but like most of his writing his argument is both coherent and intelligent.

[shez123]

Just one or two corrections, you say Kneen was 'sloppy' for stating that the stoning was in the Koran, to be precise she did not state this, she quoted Ramadan as saying that he would not condemn stoning because it was in the Koran (i.e. she was saying that Ramadan said that, not that she believed it to be the case). This was an error that was famously made by Tariq Ramadan on the BBC, Kneen was merely quoting him. She was saying that Ramadan had said that and hence really she was having another dig at Ramadan.
Another correction, Kneen did not say that the riots proved incompatibility. She was asked how to measure 'cohesion'and she said that it was easier to measure a lack of cohesion, and she cited the riots as one demonstration of a breakdown of cohesion.

[shez123]

Another correction-(to Shariq)- Kneen stated that she had studied the texts AND the empirical evidence in the North (Oldham, Bradford, etc.). I think that this is an intelligent approach, since the texts maybe irrelevant to Muslims living today, one really does need to do both to make any meaningful statement.It is a bit unfair to misrepresent an intelligent researcher who does appear to have taken a full approach to the question. Had she ONLY read the texts I think your criticism woud be that 'she needs to talk to Muslims', 'nobody follows that', or such like. It does seem unfair to criticise the method when this does appear the most intelligent method. Or is it just the conclusion to which you object? If it is the conclusion Shariq, then you should really say so. I believe that the conclusion, using the defintions given, is correct. I also belive that Kneen used an intelligent method.

[thabet]

...she quoted Ramadan...

I don't recall her quoting Ramadan on this. Even if she did, a quick check of primary sources is not beyond a PhD student.

Kneen did not say that the riots proved incompatibility

Her various 'tests' for 'incompatibility' included social cohesion. Or why else did she mention it?

[shez123]

Hi Thabet,
"I don't recall her quoting Ramadan on this", she did, what she actually said was something like 'Tariq Ramadan refused to condemn stonings saying it is in the Koran'(I can't remember exactly!), which is what he did say on the BBC. I guess that she knows it is in the Hadiths, but obviously Ramadan does not!When quoting someone it is not necessarily indicative of what they know or not, one is merely quoting what another person said.One could say 'Jo said the moon is made of green cheese'-this would merely be quoting Jo, not illustrative of the speaker's opinion of whether the moon is made of green cheese.
"Or why else did she mention it?"-she mentioned it because she was asked a specific question as to how one could measure cohesion, and that is the context in which she mentioned it, so yes it is related but she mentioned it in response to a specific question as to how one could measure cohesion (she replied it is easier to measure lack of cohesion and this is obvious in matters such as segregation, tensions and the riots etc.)
Thabet-just out of interest, what is your opinion of Sadar? I know there are some opinions above, but what do you think?

[thabet]

shez: Well since I don't have a transcript or recording of the event, and unless you do, we can agree to disagree over her quoting of Ramadan. As I did say, that doesn't distract from her major point.

As for the social cohesion issue, again, I don't have a transcript/recording. However, since she raised it initially in the context of 'compatibility' between Islam and liberalism, it is a clear that she believes that too many Muslims with 'illiberal' interpretations can lead to a breakdown in social cohesion.

My views on Sardar: he has some very useful things to say as a cultural critic. However, his understanding and scholarship on Islam and Islamic history is poor, imho. I think there are better people out there than him if someone is interested in a serious understanding of intellectual/social developments in Islam. And I can sympathise with his views on Islam, if not fully agree with everything he has to say. For example, I would reject the idea he is like Irshad Manji; it does not appear he is merely out to make some money on the back of his 'dissident' views on Islam.

[shez123]

Thank you Thabet.
I agree with you that Stone is not really a debater, he always strikes me as though he wants a pat on the head. My disappointment of the evening was partly Stone's lack of addressing the issues Kneen brought up, but also a more general lack of debate. I would have liked the 3 speakers to actually debate together. The only interaction was when Kneen challenged Sidiqqi about his misuse/abuse of the term 'ijtihad' and that was ignored. I think that the format could have been better designed. Also, the manner in which audience questions were asked in rounds of three and then the chair chose a question from them was not ideal. But I did enjoy the evening. A better designed format may have enabled a more vigourous and interesting debate (probably not from Stone!). I was also disappointed that Kneen was not allowed to sum up, that could have been interesting. I know that the chair did apologise to her for not allowing her to sum up, which was a loss. Even better if she had summed up and then some final questions. It was good, but a better designed format would have made it excellent.

[K Aldous]

"... error regarding the supposed Qur'anic verse on stoning (there is none!) ...".

Perhaps not, but this unfortunate omission is corrected in Hadith 340:

"... We do not find the punishment of stoning to death in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning to death is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established."

[Dalton]

It does work for me, thanks
http://filecraft.com

[send gifts to Pakistan]

Excellent post and wonderful blog, I really like this type of interesting articles

[fat burners]

Do they also take fat burners?

[Buy Phen375]

Good work! Your post is an excellent example of why I keep comming back to read your excellent quality content that is forever updated.

[best fat burners]

really interesting aricle thanks for sharing it with us we like it