Countering Radicalization in Pakistan: Efforts Must be Initiated From Within the Society

SAVE Pakistan members Shabana Fayyaz and Arshi Salim Hashmi took part in a discussion on countering radicalization in Pakistan at the Pak Institute of Peace Studies.

It is important to challenge the extremist and literalist interpretations of Islam to prevent further radicalization in Pakistan and defeat the militant groups operating in the country.


This was the crux of a seminar organized by the Pak Institute for Peace Studies on July 16, 2010, in Islamabad.


The seminar was arranged to launch the latest edition of the organization’s quarterly journal, Conflict and Peace Studies. The journal contained the finding of a survey that was recently conducted by PIPS to study the trends and patterns of religious radicalization in Pakistan. The findings were further explained in research papers that examined the phenomenon from multiple dimensions.


While the participants of the seminar agreed on the importance of developing counter narratives to defeat the extremist ideology, they disagreed on the strategy. Dr Maqsudul Hasan Nuri, the acting President of Islamabad Policy Research Institute who chaired the meeting, blamed the state for being negligent in this regard. But Dr Shabana Fayyaz thought that these counter narratives must be developed by the civil society, not the state. Wajahat Ali, a journalist, maintained that the state had a role to play. However, he also added that it must try to reclaim its lost credibility first. Speakers agreed that any direct involvement of the state to promote or support a particular set of thought in response to extremists’ ideology will be counter-productive and fraught with various challenges.


Commenting on the topic, Arshi Salim Hashmi, Senior Research Analyst at Institute for Regional Studies opined that Pakistani state has failed to deal with the threat of radicalization on social level. She was of the view that when it comes to public perspective on extremism, it is very important in societies like ours to see the difference between religiosity and religious extremism.


Wajahat Ali stated that religiosity cannot be regarded as a manifestation of radicalization. He further elaborated that in order to formulate effective counter-strategies, it is imperative to understand the phenomenon of radicalization in Pakistani context. The pervasive confusion over the various issues including Pakistan’s decision to support international campaign against terrorism, the U.S drone strikes in Pakistan and the issue of Jihad is manipulated by the militant groups to forward their own agenda. He observed that the average Pakistani takes his religion seriously and wants to see it in the public domain. But unlike the Taliban, he does not want to make it claustrophobic to other people. He wants to progress. But he does not want to abandon his religion.


Mr. Manzar Abbas Zaidi, Director Research at National Counter-Terrorism Authority (NACTA), presented on the issue of radicalization in a conceptual framework. While pointing towards various flaws in academic research on the issue, he said that the term “radical” does not have any negative connotation according to classic linguistic standards. However, in the context of Pakistan, it is defined as a tendency to use a peculiar brand of religion, as the justification for conquest and control over territory, populations and resources. Mr. Zaidi noted that if one has to believe that radicalization is a process, there are four stages of radicalization i.e. Pre-radicalization, Self-identification, Indoctrination and Extremism and a number of social, religious, political and economic factors influence an individual during the process of radicalization. Based on his interactions with imprisoned militants, Mr. Zaidi revealed that those people are happily settled in their thoughts and it will not be an easy task to shake extremists’ convictions. He also negated the general perception about the religious seminaries for their alleged role in promoting radicalization and militancy in society. Militant threat from Madrassa is overblown and this is validated by various researches on this subject, he noted.


Experts’ presentations on the issue were followed by a lively QA session. Responding to a question relating to cultivating counter-narratives to extremist’s ideologies; the chairperson said that our state has been negligent to this challenge of cultivating counter-narratives. Speakers called upon the civil society organizations and intellectuals to come forward and take the lead to undo such hate ideologies. While commenting on the need for defining radicalization in local context, Director PIPS, Mr. Amir Rana asserted that PIPS has already accomplished this task through extensive research and repeated interactions with the leading national and international subject-specialists. Hence, we need to move forward to adopt some practical measures to counter this phenomenon.


This article was posted by the Pak Institute for Peace Studies.

We Muslims Must Move Beyond Medieval Laws, by Ed Husain

Most Islamic nations do not stone or flog women. It is time Iran moved out of the past.

Why are male clerics so obsessed with controlling female sexuality? In an Iranian prison today, a Muslim mother in her forties, Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, awaits her fate for the alleged crime of adultery. She has been in jail for five years, received 99 lashes and awaits the manner of her execution for the crime, now that the authorities say she will not be stoned to death.


I write as a human, Muslim, son, brother to sisters and proud father of two baby daughters. And nothing, nothing warrants a mob of men stoning women to death or lashing them. The vast majority of the world’s Muslims feel the same way. We know that as a fact because, from Indonesia in the Far East to Bosnia in Europe, Muslim-majority nations do not stone people to death for adultery. The Muslim consensus, or ijma in Arabic, therefore, is against such outmoded penal codes.


Sadly, in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Sudan this popular ijma is rejected. They seek a reading of Sharia that is harsh, literalist and disregards human rights. And in that, they are supported by hardline male clerics who draw rulings from medieval textbooks that are defunct in the modern world. This clerical opposition to modernity stems from a crisis of scholarship within contemporary Islam, an institutional failure to understand religious text within a 21st-century context. That paralysis leads to clerical silence on Iran’s desire to stone or lash a woman accused of adultery.


When I meet leading Muslim scholars in private in Syria or Egypt, they readily admit that stoning and flogging belong firmly in Muslim past, but dare not say as much in public lest they lose scholarly credentials among their more conservative peers. Muslim scholars see themselves as transmitters of a tradition rather than as agents of change. But for how much longer will Muslim clerics remain silent? Where is their compassion and humanity? Do our women not deserve better than living in fear of capricious male punishment?


One senior cleric who has broken ranks in Iran is none other than the grandson of the man who founded the “Islamic republic” in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini. His grandson, Ayatollah Hussein Khomeini, has in clear terms, within an Islamic framework, called on his grandfather’s followers to end floggings and stoning of adulterers. As humans, we are not sinless and perfect—as worldly, flawed beings it is not our duty be [sic] judge, jury and executioner on private aspects of people’s lives.


Once upon a time, Jews and Christians implemented Old Testament teachings from the Book of Leviticus, which also advocated stoning adulterers and flogging fornicators. But Jews and Christians understood those instructions within their historical milieu. And Islam adopted these teachings within our tradition. Fortunately most Muslims relegate these practices to history—illustrated by most Muslim-majority states not equating these teachings with state law today. The countries that do, however, shame us all.


Iran is home to an ancient civilization, the proud owners of a rich Persian language and deep culture. Tabriz, where Ms Ashtiani is imprisoned for allegations of adultery, produced poets and dervishes who taught Europe about mysticism and joy of religion. Rumi—a 13th century poet whose work is a bestseller in the US today—was inspired and taught by the mystic Shams of Tabriz 700 years ago.


In the 11th century, Persia gave us the great Omar Khayyam who in his famed Rubaiyyat called for freedom, joy, love, wine-drinking, and, some say, hedonism. Victorian Englishmen found liberation in Khayyam’s poetry. What happened to that Iran?


In Iran today, the practice of mut’a, or temporary marriage, is legal and widespread. A man and woman can contract a marriage that can last for one day, or one year. Critics have lambasted these arrangements as glorified prostitution and demeaning to women. Iran’s clerics are renowned for not only authorizing such fluidity in relationships, but luxuriating in such arrangements themselves; and often with more than one woman at any one time.


Ms Ashtiani has pleaded her innocence repeatedly and still been lashed and imprisoned. But she is not alone—seven other women are in a similar predicament in Iran today. According to the Iranian Embassy in London, Tehran says that Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani will not be stoned. That is welcome news, but not enough. Ms Ashtiani and others deserve more—freedom, compensation, and a repeal of Iran’s penal laws.


As a fellow Muslim with huge respect for Iran’s past and admiration for its cultural and religious icons of Rumi, Hafez, and Sadi, I call on its leaders to live up to the teaching and spirit of the Prophet Muhammad. Be compassionate, merciful and loving: show the world that Iran was, and is, a civilized nation. Release Ms Ashtiani and change the laws. Let Muslim women be proud of their religion and heritage, and not live in fear of it.

This article was first published in The Times on July 9, 2010

Germinating Peace Through Storytelling, by Shabana Fayyaz

Going through the TOT (Training of Trainers) of the ‘Mothers for Change’ SAVE-Pakistan project launched at PAIMAN on the 9th of this month was an extremely rewarding and exciting opportunity to learn a unique technique of ‘Storytelling’ both as a means of connecting and instilling positivism in an otherwise depressing environment.

Though Storytelling has always been an integral part of our daily routines, we very seldom make use of this technique for moving forward and forging positivism in the society. It happens that most of us hear the stories of hardships, sufferings and loss whether at the personal, community or national level and often end up showing sympathy and inaction. What I learned from this workshop was how to move beyond the “sympathy syndrome” and engage in a dialogue with the person (plus community) that has undergone certain experiences (both positive and negative) and work for the common good of the society at large. That is, the value of humanity, peace and tolerance must be preserved and strived for in all the conflict situations whether at the micro or macro level.

The value of active listening and honoring a story (we observed a minute silence after listening to each one of the stories during the session) created a bond of trust and respect – critical to generating hope in the environment. I feel this is needed most in Pakistan is these days. We must act together to reclaim the goodness in our society and be prepared to engage with the extremists through dialogue, debate and discussion.

I feel very passionate to be a part of SAVE’s initiative, “Mothers for Change,” and will be travelling to Peshawar and Charsada this month to observe the training sessions and enlarge the chain of Sisters standing up against extremism and violence in Pakistan. I feel this is a beginning of new life for me both at the personal and professional level ... it will go a long way for the peace within and beyond my homeland.

The Price of Reconciliation, by Robi Damelin

Since when does the loss of a child to the conflict make anyone an expert on military maneuvers, or signify expertise on terrorism and its causes?

How long must the Shalit family beg for the life of their son? How many hours must they spend chasing Knesset members who cannot commit to saving a fellow human being? How many people need to march to Jerusalem and how many concerts will be held until they understand? Would these politicians be so determined and hard-nosed, pontificating about Israel's security, if it were their own child's life at stake?

How many more broadcasts will be aired of bereaved families, showering us with their pearls of wisdom about the security of the state and its dire future if we release the Palestinian prisoners? Somewhere, deep down in their commitment to securing a safe future for the citizens of Israel, is there not also an element of one of our most natural, human traits - revenge? It would be so much more honest if this aspect were actually expressed, instead of being couched in expertise and terms of security. Since when does the loss of a child to the conflict make anyone an expert on military maneuvers, or signify expertise on terrorism and its causes?

Learning from history does not suit the local agenda; it seems that our present leaders have the answers to everything. We know for sure that the prisoners, once freed, will immediately don their armor and rush off to murder the nearest innocent civilian. Apparently we have not learned that some of the most dedicated peace proponents in Northern Ireland sprang from the ranks of the Catholic and Protestant prisoners whose hands were covered in a thick layer of blood.

These political prisoners were released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement - and the world did not come to an end. On the contrary, Northern Ireland has since forged ahead on a path toward a solution. It may not represent the entire answer to the problem, but releasing prisoners was certainly a step in the right direction. "Healing of Memories" is but one of the courses offered by an ex-prisoner who spent 13 years in jail for murdering a Catholic during that conflict. With or without Gilad Shalit, to push the peace process forward the powers that be will have to negotiate the release of the Palestinian prisoners.

Thinking about the children, grandchildren and spouses of the Palestinian prisoners could certainly lead one to the conclusion that they might join the cycle of violence to take revenge in the name of their incarcerated family members. Perhaps this should be taken into account, as opposed to the rhetoric of doom spewing from the mouths of so many of our leaders and members of the public. If we cannot create some hope in the hearts of these families for an eventual release of the prisoners, are we certain that they would just sit back and do nothing?

Almost all the current male Palestinian members of the Parents Circle-Families Forum have served years in jail - and although they are all bereaved, they have chosen to take a stand and wish for reconciliation. Perhaps those individuals and organizations opposed to the release of prisoners should search their hearts and souls to see if an element of revenge is not part of the equation.

The man who killed my son is apparently on the list to be released, and I can only say that if this would return Gilad to his family and ease all of this impossible pain, nothing would be more worthwhile. As an aside, it is clear that there is no revenge for a lost child.

In the final analysis, peace doesn't only mean agreeing on who gets to control what piece of land, or how many are entitled to the right of return; it also means that those who have suffered most - the families of the dead - will not see the killers of their loved ones brought to justice. The price of reconciliation is high, but we owe it to the future of the children, who are our responsibility.

This article was originally published in Haaretz on July 11, 2010.

"Non-Violence Needs Women," by Asma Asfour

It is not easy for a Palestinian woman to say that she wants to work against violent extremism in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. To begin with, as a woman, it is harder to voice criticism while still remaining a legitimate political voice. Moreover, being in a place of national and political conflict where life is continuously stressful, one can find different definitions of the term “extremism”. For example, the Palestinians called the first and second “intifadas” (“uprisings”) patriotic acts against injustice. The same intifadas were labelled acts of violence by the Israeli side. Meanwhile, the recent war in Gaza was seen as a necessary security measure by Israel, while the Palestinians see it as an attack against civilians.

Notions of extremism and violence are shaped by the context in which they occur. As a Palestinian woman who has witnessed the two intifadas, I have been deeply affected—psychologically and politically—by the killing, the shelling, the curfews, roadblocks and the separation barrier. The violence that I have lived through has to a great degree shaped who I am. Moreover, I have been raised to love my homeland, strongly believing in my nation’s right to live in dignity on its land. I find it too difficult to say let us stop demanding our rights just for the sake of peace. That would be something a patriot would never do.

Yet despite being surrounded by violence, I believe in the essential goodness of humanity and do not think that members of modern nations should pay with their lives for myths and historical conflicts. The path of violence does not serve our legitimate struggle for independence.

The fact that violence has been ongoing for more than six generations makes me seriously concerned not only about the possibility of a peaceful resolution, but also about the effects of violence on the daily life of people living in the region. Violence equally affects the perpetrator and the person who suffers from violence. The child who witnessed killing in Gaza cannot be expected to treat others in as calm and gentle a way as a child who grew up far away from killing and shelling.

Living in an environment that adopts violence as a strategy to deal with the Other exacerbates further the negative attitudes and beliefs regarding the Other. Moreover, as we know, violence only begets violence. Eventually, acts of violence directed at an outsider turn inward towards the self. This can lead to internal chaos and divert the nation from its goal of independence. Leaders and non-leaders alike need to study the reasons why the conflict has become so violent and its impact on our societies so that they can work to reduce it.

Palestinian women as Palestinian citizens have much to say in this context. They are the ones who raise men. Partly because they are mothers, women are the real partners in building the future state. In addition, women—who are arguably naturally more predisposed to non-violence—could exercise significant pressure to stop internal violence first and then to form a common vision towards the future state.

As a Palestinian woman and patriot, I cannot cease struggling to attain the rights of my people in a Palestinian state. However, my values dictate that I conduct my quest for rights in a non-violent fashion. Practically speaking, pragmatism itself also dictates a non-violent approach.

I am calling for peace with dignity. This means adopting a new comprehensive strategy that identifies a way to obtain our rights as Palestinians, even if it takes a long time. A non-violent struggle could be the answer that would also lead other nations to support our cause.

Many of my international friends ask me why there is still no resolution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. At this point I realise that people do not know much about the cause and its complexities. The achievement of peace needs brave leaders who believe in humanity and the rights of nations to live in dignity and peace.

Living in peace does not mean Palestinians and Israelis have to be friends with one another; it does not mean selling out the Palestinians’ rights. Peace, as I view it, is finding the best realistic way to live in dignity without war.

This article was originally posted on Common Ground News Service.

Violent Extremism in Pakistan: Youth Speak, by Arshi Saleem Hashmi

On July 2, 2010, Arshi Saleem Hashmi, a Senior Research Analyst at the Institute of Regional Studies and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the National Defense University in Islamabad, held a discussion on violent extremism with Masters level students at the National Defense University.

The questions that set the parameters for discussion were: what is the current situation in Pakistan, and what, in their opinion, is violent extremism? And what is the solution to the problem of militancy and extremism?

The group mainly comprised Masters level students enrolled in the course on Approaches and Perspectives on Terrorism. The ethnic diversity in the group was also interesting, as almost all regions of Pakistan were represented except Baluchistan. Students from the main Swat area, from the tribal belt, from the interior Punjab province, from Islamabad, and from Sindh province took part in the discussion. The diversity was a good factor because it reflected the various viewpoints on the existing situation in Pakistan, on suicide bombing, on Jihad, on military operation and responsibility of the state and political parties. The diversity was a sign of hope as well, for it showed that the majority of the country’s population that comprises youth (18-25 years) is well aware of their surroundings and full of ideas about taking the country forward only if they are provided with some opportunity to express and implement their ideas.

It was also a pleasant surprise to see very concrete ideas and strong opinions among the female students as well as the way they justified their arguments against violent extremism.

The following is a brief analysis of the views expressed by the students on violent extremism in Pakistan:

Violent extremism as expressed by the students of NDU is the demonstration of unacceptable behavior using any means or medium to express views. It justifies or glorifies terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and seeks to provoke others to engage in terrorist activities, and to foster hatred which might lead to sectarian, political and communal violence. It was also stated that violent extremism is a mindset, thinking in absolute terms. It is fundamentally similar to the situation in other states but due to negligence and policies of denial, situation in Pakistan is now out of control.

Students believe that violent extremism is a term used to describe the actions and ideologies of individual or groups outside the perceived political center of a society who are otherwise claimed to violate common social policies.

The reasons for violent extremism in Pakistan are manifold; international and domestic policies as well as religious-cultural factors are responsible. The propagation of a narrative that Islam is an apolitical religion has changed the basic political culture of the Muslim societies such that they remain confused about politics and the role of they would like religion to play. The general consensus among the students was that it is the political Islam that has been promoted and propagated at a state level that led to the situation that we are in now.

Some students, especially those from Islamabad, believe that it is due to a lack of good governance and low literacy rates that Pakistan is facing problems of religious, sectarian and political violence in the form of suicide bombings and targeted killings.

It was a strong opinion of the students that violent extremism and militancy is no longer restricted to the tribal areas, Swat, or areas near Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Militancy has crept into the main cities and now Karachi, Lahore (recent attack on Data Darbar, the Sufi saint’s shrine) and Islamabad are as vulnerable as Pushtun areas.

The students also opined that the current situation in Pakistan is volatile; there is false sense of security at the state level which has contributed a lot to the current chaos. It was discussed that the government needs to be more active in positive ways. The most realistic view of the solution is to adopt a policy shift that would lead to a paradigm shift in our security policy which is in some ways responsible for the situation we are in.

Interestingly, some students believe that it is essential to avoid an “US” versus “Them” mentality while dealing with the militants; that the government needs to declare that those who give up anti-state, anti-people activities are given a chance to become part of the main stream society; that those who are adamant to continue militancy would be dealt with with an iron hand; and that closing all doors for dialogue would further complicate the situation. However, others from more rural areas and victims of militancy argued that military operations to eliminate the enemy are the first step, after which comes development, dialogue and reconstruction.

It was the opinion of the students that the government should develop a system in which the Pak-Afghan border area is properly monitored and there should be a fair verification system to identify Taliban and separate them from the Afghan refugees, who are still in Pakistan in millions. Besides Afghan refugees, the government should monitor madrassas (religious seminaries) and their funding. Charities should also be under close scrutiny of the security agencies as people in general continue to send their donations to various organizations under religious obligations.

Finally, the students reached a consensus that there is a need for open discourse on the real meaning of jihad, the difference between real Jihad (Prophet Mohammed PBUH gave priority to Jihad within oneself to become a better human and called Jihad-e-Akbar, the great Jihad where man is able to control his temptations and lead a clean life, and then Jihad-e-Asghar, the lesser Jihad, the fight against enemy only if you have to defend and no other way is available. The irony is that the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and all other extremist militant groups have taken up the lesser Jihad and made it their main objective) and militancy, criminal violence and political objectives.

Finally, it was expressed that Pakistanis now enjoy more than 60 privately owned channels on news, entertainment and discussions, which can play an important and positive role in making this issue an important part of political discourse in Pakistan.

The Diplomatic Insight: A New Voice (in two languages) For Promoting Understanding

Farhat Akram writes:


Greetings. I am currently publishing and a co-founder of The Diplomatic Insight. I have a great desire to work for peace and development and to take a concrete initiative in order to involve people from around the world. I want to join hands with others to work for peace and be a force for “Change” in the world, while looking beyond class, region, ethnicity, religion, gender and political affiliation.


In this regard my husband and I started an initiative to publish Pakistan's first English and Arabic bilingual magazine and co-founded The Diplomatic Insight. Our baseline idea was to create a forum where individuals from across the seas and a spectrum of backgrounds could come closer together to understand each other through information sharing and knowledge dissemination regarding various events and happenings in this strife torn world.


We believe that understanding of each other and knowing each other will reduce the level of conflict, and this is the main idea behind the whole publication.


The magazine, an English-Arabic bilingual publication, is first of its kind from Pakistan. The principle focus of the publication is to cover the activities of foreign diplomatic missions in Pakistan, the UN Agencies, International Organisations, Multinational Companies, Governmental Departments and Overseas Pakistanis around the globe.


The Arabic section of the magazine primarily emphasises the traditional brotherly love and affection of Arab world and the activities of diplomats based in Pakistan.


Since the UN official languages are Arabic, English and French, we are initially using the first two and intend to start in French in later stages, based on availability of expertise and language abilities.


The Diplomatic Insight aims to connect a widely diverse, multicultural community; to inspire action, provide publicity, and thereby create general awareness of burning issues. It will act as a bridge amongst the diplomatic circles to come together on one platform. Thus it strives to promote peace, interfaith harmony, understanding and cooperation among people, groups, and nations in a strife-torn world.


In addition, the magazine covers a wide range of issues reflecting culture, history of Pakistan. Moreover, besides the valuable outcome of exchange between foreigners, The Diplomatic Insight brings the activities of overseas Pakistanis into the spotlight, who are striving to earn goodwill for their motherland as ambassadors of their country.


The magazine has widened its scope by working with resident special assignment editors and representatives, special assignment editors. At the moment we have contributors from India, Spain, England, Australia, Malaysia/Denmark, Afghanistan, South Korea, and Germany.


We are looking for resident representatives and special assignment editors for the magazine to spread the message of peace and development through dialogue and collaboration. If somebody is willing to connect, kindly send us your short bio and consent to become part of our winning team.


To read The Diplomatic Insight or to find out more, please visit www.thediplomaticinsight.com.

Al Qaeda's First English Language Magazine Is Here

By Marc Ambinder

As the U.S. struggles to manage its efforts to influence opinion about Al Qaeda abroad, Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula has produced its first English-language propaganda magazine.

It's called "Inspire,"  and you can read parts of it below. A U.S. official said early this morning that the magazine appears to be authentic.

"Inspire" includes a "message to the people of Yemen" directly transcribed from Ayman Al-Zawahari, Al Qaeda's second in command, a message from Osama Bin Laden on "how to save the earth,"  and the cover includes a quotation from Anwar Al-Awlaki, the American born cleric who is believed to be directly connected to the attempt to destroy an airplane over Detroit by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on Christmas Day. (The director of the National Counterterrorism Center, Michael Leiter, made that disclosure at a security forum in Aspen, CO, Fox News reported.)

The table of contents teases an interview with the leader of AQAP who promises to "answer various questions pertaining to the jihad in the Arabian Peninsula."  It includes a feature about how to "make a bomb in the kitchen of your mom."

AQAP's first effort to post the magazine to jihadist websites failed Wednesday, as many of the pages were contaminated with a virus. (I half seriously believe that U.S. cyber warriors might have had a hand in that little surprise.)

The U.S. is quite worried about Al Qaeda's new publishing ambitions, which mark a more sophisticated effort to engage the English-language world and to recruit English-speaking Muslims to join the cause.

The copy was obtained from a private researcher. AQAP had advertised for days that the magazine would appear with the interviews specified in the table of contents. It is possible, although not likely, that the magazine is a fabrication, a  production of a Western intelligence agency that wants to undermine Al Qaeda by eroding confidence in its production and distribution networks. The U.S. is engaged in direct net-based warfare with jihadis; this sort of operation would not be too difficult to pull off.

Since I am not completely certain that the clean PDF doesn't contain a hidden virus, I've elected not to post it just yet.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/print/2010/06/al-qaedas-first-english-language-magazine-is-here/59006