Академия Корана:Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān/Ambiguous

Leah Kinberg, "Ambiguous" in: Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān, General Editor: J. D. McAuliffe, Georgetown University, Washington DC.

A concept in qurʾānic exegesis which bears upon the controversial issue of the amount of interpretive license which may be taken in commenting on God’s word. The root sh-b-h is attested several times in the Qurʾān. In reference to the Qurʾān or its verses, the active participle mutashābih (or mutashābihāt) appears twice with the sense of «ambiguous» or «similar».

q 3:7 states that the Qurʾān consists partly of muḥkam verses and partly of mutashābih: «It is he who sent down upon you the book (q.v.), wherein are verses clear (āyāt muḥkamāt baḥr, pl. biḥār, 97a) that are the essence of the book(umm al-kitāb), and others ambiguous (mutashābihāt)». Numerous commentators, while examining q 3:7, mention two other verses which seem to contradict it. They are q 39:23, which states that all the verses of the Qurʾān are mutashābih: «God has sent down the fairest discourse as a book consimilar (kitāban mutashābihan)» and q 11:1 in which all the verses of the Qurʾān are characterized as clear: «A book whose verses are set clear (uḥkimat āyātuhu)». Al-Zarkashī (d. 794/1392), on the authority of the commentator Ibn Ḥabīb al-Nīsābūrī (d. 406/1015), argues that these passages present three different statements on the nature of the Qurʾān: the Qurʾān as clear (muḥkam), as ambiguous (mutashābih) and as a combination of the two. He characterizes the verse that supports the idea of the compound nature, a Qurʾān made up of clear verses and ambiguous ones (q 3:7), as the «correct» one (ṣaḥīḥ, Burhān, ii, 68; cf. Suyūṭī, Itqān, iii, 30).

The relation between the two components of the Qurʾān is governed by the meaning ascribed to the word mutashābih, for which the exegetical literature offers a variety of definitions. The meaning of «similar» is used to document the miraculous nature of the Qurʾān. On the other hand, the term interpreted as «ambiguous» has wider implications and bears upon three central qurʾānic issues: 1. The juridical validity of the Qurʾān, where the ambiguous verses are contrasted with the clear ones. 2. The question of the validity of interpreting the Qurʾān, where the ambiguous verses are used to argue the cases for and against interpretation. 3. The inimitability (q.v.) of the Qurʾān (iʿjāz al-Qurʾān).

Similar verses

Similarity between verses may manifest itself either in the wording (lafẓ) or in the meaning (maʿnā) of the verse. Accordingly, mutashābihāt are sometimes defined as verses in which the same words are used to mean different things (Ibn Qutayba, Taʾwīl, 74; Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, iii, 114, 116) or else as verses that use different words to express a similar sense (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, iii, 115-6; see L. Kinberg, Muḥkamāt, 145). In a widely-repeated definition, wording and meaning appear together and the similar verses are presented as those that «resemble one another in rightness and truth (al-ḥaqq wa-l-ṣidq), i.e. meaning, and in beauty(al-ḥusn), i.e. wording» (Baghawī, Maʿālim, i, 426). Naturally, the resemblance of verses can occur only in cases of repetition. This explains why repetition is presented as one of the characteristic features of the mutashābih verses. The correlation between the repetition of the mutashābih verses and their resemblance is treated in one of the definitions adduced by al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) where mutashābih verses are those in which the words resemble one another when repeated in other qurʾānic chapters (Tafsīr, iii, 116).

Similar verses and the inimitability of the Qurʾān

Each of the definitions dealing with the resemblance and the repetition of the mutashābih verses touches upon the inimitability of the Qurʾān. The relation between the inimitability (q.v.) of the Qurʾān and the mutashābih verses can be understood through the dichotomy of wording and meaning mentioned above. In his commentary on «It is he who sent down upon you the book, wherein are verses clear that are the essence of the book, and others ambiguous» (q 3:7), Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 606/1210) combines the verse under discussion with two verses already mentioned, q 11:1 and q 39:23, as well as «If [the Qurʾān] had been from other than God, surely they would have found in it much inconsistency» (q 4:82; see difficult passages). Based on the four verses, he concludes that the mutashābih verses are those which repeat, resemble and confirm each other, and they prove the miraculous nature of the text. There are no contradictions in the Qurʾān. Rather, its verses confirm and reinforce one another. Simultaneously, the Qurʾān is also defined as consisting of muḥkam verses, namely, verses written in an inimitable way. Thus these two features, i.e. noncontradictory confirmed messages and an inimitable style of language which cannot be produced by mortals, attest to the divine source of the Qurʾān (Rāzī, Tafsīr, vii, 180).

Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1200) offers a different explanation for the correlation between the inimitability of the Qurʾān and the mutashābih verses. Trying to find a reason for the existence of the mutashābih verses in the Qurʾān, he argues that stylistically the muḥkam and the mutashābih verses represent the two major forms of expression used in the Arabic language, the concise (mūjaz) and the allusive (majāz). God has included both styles in the Qurʾān to challenge mortals to choose either style should they attempt to produce a Qurʾān similar to that brought by Muḥammad. However, no one can ever meet this challenge and the Qurʾān therefore, with its two styles, the muḥkam and mutashābih, will forever remain inimitable (Zād, i, 350-1; cf. Ibn Qutayba, Taʾwīl, 86).

Mutashābih meaning «ambiguous»

A common way to treat the terms muḥkam and mutashābih is to contrast the clarity of the first with the ambiguity of the other. As was mentioned, this contrast bears upon some of the most prominent qurʾānic issues: the abrogating and abrogated verses (al-nāsikh wa-l-mansūkh, see abrogation), the authority to interpret the Qurʾān and the inimitability of the Qurʾān.

Ambiguous verses and the abrogating and abrogated verses

Among the definitions that contrast the muḥkam with the mutashābih, there is to be found the presentation of the muḥkam verses as abrogating ones (nāsikhāt) and the mutashābih as abrogated ones (mansūkhāt). A widely-cited definition represents the muḥkam as the abrogating verses, the verses that clarify what is allowed (ḥalāl), the verses that clarify what is prohibited (ḥarām), the verses that define the punishments (ḥudūd, see boundaries and precepts) for various offenses, the verses that define the duties (farāʾiḍ) and the verses that one should believe in and put into practice. Conversely, the mutashābih verses are the abrogated ones, the verses that cannot be understood without changing their word order (muqaddamuhu wamuʾakhkharuhu), the parables (amthāl), the oaths (q.v.; aqsām) and the verses in which one should believe, but not put into practice (Ibn ʿAbbās, Tafsīr, 124; Abū ʿUbayd, Nāsikh, 4; Ibn Abī Ḥātim, Tafsīr, ii, 592-3; Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, iii, 115; Baghawī, Maʿālim, i, 426; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, Muḥarrar, i, 400; Qurṭubī, Jāmiʿ, iv, 10; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, i, 345; Suyūṭī, Durr, ii, 5; Shawkānī, Tafsīr, i, 314). The muḥkam are presented here as the verses that deal with essential matters whereas the mutashābih verses are held to deal with secondary matters. This is the way to understand the comparison made in the qurʾānic text itself. q 3:7 defines the muḥkam verses as «the essence of the book» and the mutashābih as the rest.

Another way to examine the juridical value of the terms is to consider them as two kinds of divine commandments (q.v.). In this case, the muḥkam verses contain the commands that are universal and never change, whereas the mutashābih verses contain the commands that are limited and do change. The muḥkam contain the basic commandments, shared by all religions, such as obeying God and avoiding injustice. The mutashābih verses, on the other hand, contain the practical aspects of these commandments and may vary from one religion to another, e.g. the number of required prayers and the regulations concerning almsgiving and marriage (Rāzī, Tafsīr, vii, 183; cf. Māwardī, Nukat, i, 380). In this interpretation, the distinction between abrogating and abrogated verses becomes meaningless because the chronological element is replaced by a question of universality. This means that the muḥkam verses are defined as those that are universal to all of the revealed religions and the mutashābih verses are those that contain what distinguishes Islam from the other revealed religions.

Ambiguous verses and the authority to interpret the Qurʾān

Several commentators recognize three kinds of mutashābih verses: those that cannot be understood, those that can be examined and understood by everyone and those that only «the experts» (al-rāsikhūn fī l-ʿilm) can comprehend (e.g. Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir, iii, 296). The muḥkam are defined as clear verses that require nothing to be understood whereas the comprehension of the mutashābih requires explanation (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, iii, 116-7; ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Mutashābih, i, 13; Māwardī, Nukat, i, 369; Baghawī, Maʿālim, i, 428; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, Muḥarrar, i, 401; Rāzī, Tafsīr, vii, 184; Qurṭubī, Jāmiʿ, iv, 9; Suyūṭī, Itqān, iii, 3; Shawkānī, Tafsīr, i, 314). A different set of definitions represents the muḥkam as verses that contain or permit only one interpretation whereas the mutashābih are those that may be interpreted in more than one way (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, iii, 115-6; al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām, ii, 281; Māwardī, Nukat, i, 369; Wāḥidī, Wasīṭ, i, 413-4; Baghawī, Maʿālim, i, 427; Ṭabarsī, Majmaʿ, ii, 15; Qurṭubī, Jāmiʿ, iv, 10; Suyūṭī, Itqān, iii, 4; Shawkānī Tafsīr, i, 314). While there is no room to doubt the instructions supplied by the muḥkamāt, the ambiguity of the mutashābih verses may create a situation in which the believers become confused, not knowing which direction to choose. They may then tendentiously interpret these verses in favor of their own personal interests.

This raises the question as to whether any exegetical effort should be made to eliminate the vagueness of the mutashābih verses and two contradictory attitudes developed. Some scholars claimed that the mutashābih verses are meant to remain ambiguous and any attempt to interpret them might lead the believers astray. Only God knows their true meaning and this is the way it should stay. Others maintained that the mutashābih are meant to be illuminated. Not only does God know the meaning of these verses, but the scholars of the Qurʾān also know it. Their duty is to supply the interpretation of them and this may vary among the different scholars since the mutashābih verses may be interpreted in a variety of ways. These two opposing views on the validity of interpreting the mutashābih verses parallel those on the interpretation of the Qurʾān as a whole.

Ambiguous verses as those that should not be interpreted

The basic argument against the interpretation of the mutashābih is that knowledge of these verses is limited to God (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, iii, 116; Māwardī, Nukat, i, 369; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, Muḥarrar, i, 401; Qurṭubī, Jāmiʿ, iv, 9; Abū Ḥayyān, Baḥr, ii, 381; Ālūsī, Rūḥ, ii, 82). As such, they concern matters about which no mortal has clear knowledge. To show that the essence of the mutashābihāt cannot be grasped by human beings, several topics defined as mutashābih are mentioned: resurrection day (Māwardī, Nukat, i, 369; Baghawī, Maʿālim, i, 427; Rāzī, Tafsīr, vii, 184; Qurṭubī, Jāmiʿ, iv, 10; Abū Ḥayyān, Baḥr, ii, 381; Zarkashī, Burhān, ii, 70), the appearance of the Antichrist(al-Dajjāl) before the end of days, the return of Christ (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, iii, 116) and the prophesied day the sun will rise in the west (Māwardī, Nukat, i, 369; Baghawī, Maʿālim, i, 427; Abū Ḥayyān, Baḥr, ii, 381), among others (see antichrist, apocalypse, resurrection, last judgment).

A different argument contends that the mutashābih are those verses whose meaning can be easily distorted (Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, iii, 116; Ibn ʿAṭiyya, Muḥarrar, i, 401; Qurṭubī, Jāmiʿ, iv, 9; Suyūṭī, Durr, ii, 5; Shawkānī, Tafsīr, i, 314). This should be understood in light of the second part of the key verse «As for those in whose hearts is swerving, they follow the ambiguous part, desiring dissension and desiring its interpretation» (q 3:7). The commentators who correlate the mutashābih and dissension (q.v.) adduce a number of qurʾānic verses in support of their position. One such example is presented by al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505) on the authority of Saʿīd b. Jubayr (d. 95/714): To justify their ideas, the early sect of the Khārijīs (q.v.) employed «Whoever fails to judge according to what God has sent down is a wrongdoer» (q 5:47) and «Then the unbelievers ascribe equals to their Lord» (q 6:1) to support their controversial doctrines. When the Khārijīs faced the injustice of a leader, they read these two verses together and, by assuming correlation between the two, they set forth the following argument: He who does not judge according to the principles of justice is an unbeliever. An unbeliever is a polytheist (mushrik) who ascribes equals to God. Thus a leader who acts in this manner can be deemed a polytheist (Durr, ii, 5). The technique used here joins two verses that were not necessarily meant to be combined and draws conclusions from this juxtaposition. By so doing, the Khārijīs were able to prove that their teachings — such as espousing that a caliph should be deprived of his position for acting improperly — are anchored in the Qurʾān and thus fully authorized.

Another example of the correlation between the mutashābih verses and dissension deals with the controversial issue of free will versus predestination (see freedom and predestination). The rivals are the rationalist Muʿtazilīs (q.v.) and the conservative Sunnīs. Both sides refer to the same verse, q 18:29 which states «Say, ‘The truth is from your Lord.’ So whoever wishes, let him believe and whoever wishes, let him disbelieve». The Muʿtazilīs define the verse as muḥkam, i.e. the kind of verse that should be followed since it favors the argument for free will. The Sunnīs, who do not accept the idea of free will, define this verse as mutashābih, i.e. the kind of verse that should not be followed. q 76:30 presents the opposite view: «You cannot will [anything] unless God wills it». The Muʿtazilīs define this verse as mutashābih since it contradicts their view, but the Sunnīs define it as muḥkam because it favors the idea of predestination. By shifting the terms, it became possible to endorse or refute an idea according to one’s needs (Rāzī, Tafsīr, vii, 182; Abū Ḥayyān, Baḥr, ii, 382). The same method was applied to other verses on topics such as the disagreements between the proponents of determinism (Jabriyya ajrama, 112b) and the proponents of indeterminism (Qadariyya), or the issue of whether believers will see God in the afterlife (Rāzī, Tafsīr, vii, 185; Abū Ḥayyān, Baḥr, ii, 382; cf. L. Kinberg, Muḥkamāt, 159).

The correlation between the mutashābih verses and dissension was also mentioned in the discussion of the reasons for the existence of the mutashābih in the Qurʾān: God revealed them to test the people. Those who do not follow the mutashābih will be rewarded as true believers, while those who follow them will go astray (Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād, i, 353). The same idea is mentioned along with the fact that the mutashābih can be easily distorted. Although established and profoundly elaborated, the negative approach to the interpretation of the mutashābih was not the only one adduced in the exegetical literature. No less detailed were the arguments favoring their interpretation (see exegesis of the qurʾān classical and medieval).

Ambiguous verses as those that may be interpreted

The perception of the mutashābih as ambiguous verses was used to argue, as shown above, against their interpretation. The same perception, however, is also used to support and encourage their interpretation. Although contradictory, the two approaches had a common starting point: Ambiguous verses are dangerous in the sense that a wrong interpretation might mislead the believer. With this idea in mind, some scholars recommended avoiding any examination of these verses whereas others encouraged the interpretation of them, but prescribed caution with regard to the steps that need to be taken in this process. One precaution is to check the mutashābih against the muḥkam. This is expressed in a set of definitions which oppose the muḥkam and the mutashābih regarding the dependence of the latter. The muḥkam are defined as independent verses that need no explanation (Māwardī, Nukat, i, 369; Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād, i, 350; Abū Ḥayyān, Baḥr, ii, 381) nor reference to other verses to be understood (al-Naḥḥās, Iʿrāb, i, 355; Qurṭubī, Jāmiʿ, iv, 11; Shawkānī, Tafsīr, i, 314). Conversely, the mutashābih are dependent verses that cannot be understood without consulting or comparing them to other verses (Baghawī, Maʿālim, i, 427; Zarkashī, Burhān, ii, 68). The mutashābih’s dependence on the muḥkam derives from the clarity of the latter and the ambiguity of the former. The muḥkam, by interpreting the mutashābih, clears away any misunderstanding that might mislead the believer (Rāzī, Tafsīr, vii, 185). It thus can happen that when a believer consults a muḥkam to understand an ambiguous mutashābih, he finds his way to the true faith (Rāzī, Tafsīr, vii, 185; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, i, 345). When a mutashābih is not interpreted in accordance with a muḥkam, those who rely on it will go astray (al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām, ii, 281). In light of this argument, the muḥkam are regarded as «the essence of the book» (umm al-kitāb, q 3:7) or «a source to which other verses are referred for interpretation» (Suyūṭī, Itqān, iii, 9).

Thus the ambiguity of the mutashābih verses creates the need to scrutinize them. Had the Qurʾān consisted only of muḥkam verses, there would have been no need for the science of the interpretation of the Qurʾān to develop (Rāzī, Tafsīr, vii, 185-6). Had every verse been clear to everyone, the difference in people’s abilities would not come to the fore. The learned (ʿālim) and the ignorant (jāhil) would have been equal and intellectual endeavor would cease (Ibn Qutayba, Taʾwīl, 86; cf. Rāzī, Tafsīr, vii, 185). Behind this perception is the notion that the mutashābih are verses that make people think when they try to identify them and use their own judgment in interpreting them. Consequently, it can be said that they are presented as verses that stimulate people and put them on their guard. It seems that the mutashābih are perceived as the conscience of the believer and indicate the level of his religious knowledge. Due to their ambiguity, dealing with them requires a high degree of religious discernment. The more profound the person, the better his decisions and thus the more pleasant his condition in the next world. This issue is thoroughly discussed in the commentaries with regard to the status of «the experts in knowledge» (rāsikhūn fī l-ʿilm) mentioned in q 3:7.

Ambiguous verses and the inimitability of the Qurʾān

As indicated above, the features of the mutashābih as «similar verses» are held to supply proof of the miraculous nature of the Qurʾān. Additional evidence of this was found in the features of the mutashābih in the sense of «ambiguous verses». This derives from two opposing attitudes toward the interpretation of these verses, opposition to interpreting the mutashābih and support for their interpretation.

Almost every commentator identifies the «mysterious letters» (fawātiḥ — or awāʾil al-suwar, see letters and mysterious letters) of the Qurʾān as mutashābih (e.g. Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, iii, 116-7). These are the letters that occur at the beginning of certain sūras and whose meaning is unclear. The significance of the mysterious letters, as well as the other mutashābih verses, is considered a divine secret known only to God himself. Both should be regarded as parts of the book that God has prevented his people from understanding. Their concealed meaning points to the divine source of the Qurʾān and thus attests to its miraculous nature (ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Mutashābih, i, 17).

The ambiguity of the mutashābih verses enables believers to interpret them in more than one way. This means that the Qurʾān accommodates more than one approach to a given issue and that different trends in Islam are likely to find their ideas reflected in the Qurʾān (ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Mutashābih, i, 26, 28. See also L. Kinberg, Muḥkamāt, 158, 168). This allows the holy text to serve as a source of answers and solutions to any problem at any time and represents one of the central aspects of the miraculous nature of the Qurʾān.

In examining the different attitudes toward the interpretation of the Qurʾān, H. Birkeland (Opposition, 9) states that the opposition to qurʾānic exegesis was never comprehensive and was aimed at the usage of human reasoning (raʾy). The validity of tafsīr bi-l-ʿilm, i.e. exegesis based on ḥadīth (the records of the pronouncements and actions of the prophet Muḥammad, see ḥadīth and the qurʾān) was, in H. Birkeland’s view, never disputed. Support for this theory can be found in the way the term mutashābih is treated in the exegetical literature as well as in its relation to the term muḥkam. The prohibition of interpreting the mutashābih verses may be understood as a reflection of the opposition to the use of human reason. At the same time, allowing the interpretation of these verses seems to be conditional upon the usage of ḥadīth as a means of interpretation. Indeed, Muslim scholars have traditionally not regarded the employment of ḥadīth to illuminate a qurʾānic verse as interpretation, but rather as a means of confirming the message included in the verse. Consequently, a verse in harmony with a reliable ḥadīth may be relied upon as a source of guidance. Such a verse would be defined as muḥkam. The mutashābih, on the other hand, can never be regarded as authoritative. Both the need of various streams in Islam to have their distinctive ideas anchored in the Qurʾān and the injunction to follow only the muḥkam verses may explain the variance in the identity of the verses which different groups view as muḥkam and mutashābih. As shown above, a verse defined by one scholar as mutashābih may be characterized as muḥkam by another. The flexible way in which the two terms were used enabled the commentators to adapt a verse to their needs by defining it as muḥkam. In so doing they were actually using their own independent reasoning presented as ḥadīth.

See also

• traditional disciplines of qurʾānic study.

Bibliography

Primary

• ʿAbd al-Jabbār, Mutashābih
• Abū Ḥayyān, Baḥr
• Abū ʿUbayd, Nāsikh
• Ālūsī, Rūḥ
• Baghawī, Maʿālim
• Fīrūzābādī, Baṣāʾir
• Ibn ʿAbbās (attributed), Tafsīr Ibn ʿAbbās al-musammā Ṣaḥīfat ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib ʿan Ibn ʿAbbās, Beirut 1991
• Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī, Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm, 10 vols., Riyadh 1997
• Ibn ʿAṭiyya, Muḥarrar
• Ibn al-Jawzī, Zād
• Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr
• Ibn Qutayba, Taʾwīl
• al-Jaṣṣāṣ, Aḥkām
• al-Naḥḥās, Iʿrāb
• Qurṭubī, Jāmiʿ
• Rāzī, Tafsīr
• Shawkānī, Tafsīr
• Suyūṭī, Durr
• id., Itqān
• Ṭabarī, Tafsīr
• Ṭabarsī, Majmaʿ
• Wāḥidī, Wasīṭ
• Zarkashī, Burhān

Secondary

• M. Ben Milad, Ambiguïté et mathānī coraniques
• Pour une théorie générale de la polarité dans la culture arabe, in J. Berque and J.P. Charnay (eds.), L’ambivalence dans la culture arabe, Paris 1967, 366-81
• H. Birkeland, Old Muslim opposition against the interpretation of the Qurʾān, Oslo 1955
• A. von Denffer, ʿUlūm al-Qurʾān. An introduction to the sciences of the Qurʾān, n.p. 1983
• Y. Friedmann, Shaykh Aḥmad Sirhindī. An outline of his thought and a study of his image in the eyes of posterity, Montreal 1971
• L. Kinberg, Muḥkamāt and mutashābihāt (Koran 3/7)
• Implication of a koranic pair of terms in medieval exegesis, in Arabica 35 (1988), 143-72
• M. Lagarde, De l’ambiguité (mutashabih) dans le Coran, in qsa 3 (1985) 45-62
• J. McAuliffe, Text and textuality. q 3:7 as a point of intersection, in I. Boullata (ed.), Literary structures of religious meaning in the Qurʾān, London (2000, 56-76)
• Z. Muṣṭafā, Dirāsāt fī l-tafsīr, Cairo 1967-8
• S. Syamsuddin, Muḥkam and mutashābih. «An analytical study of al-Ṭabarī's and al-Zamakhsharī's interpretations of q 3:7,» in Journal of Qurʾānic Studies 1 (1999), 63-79
• G. Sale, The Korān, London 1900
• Ṣ. al-Sāliḥ, Mabāḥith fī ʿulūm al-Qurʾān, Beirut 1965
• K. Versteegh, A dissenting grammarian. Quṭrub on declension, in K. Koerner, H.J. Niederehe and K. Versteegh (eds.), The history of linguistics in the Near East, Amsterdam 1983, 403-29
• id., Arabic grammar and qurʾānic exegesis in early Islam, Leiden 1993
• S. Wild, The self-referentiality of the Qurʾān
• Sura 3,7 as an exegetical challenge, in J. McAuliffe et al. (eds.), With reverence for the word. Medieval scriptural exegesis in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, Oxford (forthcoming)