Fact-Check and Rebuttal: The Problem of American Imams and the Failings of FACE
On September 30, 2021, an article titled, “The Problem of American Imams and the Failings of FACE” was published by an individual named Haytham Soliman, who had been in contact with FACE representatives since November 2019. Below are detailed accounts of encounters with Haytham leading up to the article’s publication and a subsequent rebuttal to the main points listed in the piece.
On September 21, 2021 Haytham reached out via email to the FACE Board of Directors (BOD).
In response to this email, the BOD exchanged correspondence and a willingness to discuss the concerns raised, especially the desire for the BOD to conduct an audit. The BOD kept in regular contact with Haytham and agreed to meet on September 29th at 12:15pm CST over Zoom to have a good-faith discussion to address Haytham’s grievances. The entire BOD and staff made themselves available with the exception of one member who could not rearrange their schedule on such short notice. The team spent an hour discussing a portion of the points highlighted for review in the article, the first item discussed being the requested audit and an offer made by Haytham not to release the article if the board agreed to audit the investigative process and displayed a commitment to process improvement.
In January 2020, during FACE’s annual strategic planning session (which was recorded), the FACE team scheduled an audit in Q4 to specifically review current processes and make improvements based on the experiences and feedback received from stakeholders. Since Haytham specifically requested the audit, FACE was glad to inform him that the demand was scheduled to be met and there was already a commitment to process improvement wherever necessary, taking his specific feedback into direct consideration. FACE detailed that in the beginning of Q4 (i.e. October), there would be another strategic planning session to outline the structure of the audit, which would take place during November and December. FACE offered to meet again with Haytham prior to that session to go through his grievances in much more detail as the current call didn’t allow for enough time to give each grievance its due attention. Haytham agreed to this meeting.
To say that Haytham’s decision to release this article is disappointing, despite FACE’s embrace of his critique with open arms as well as a willingness to use this opportunity for improvement, would be an understatement. The level of manipulation it takes to threaten the release of such an article in exchange for a seat at the table, and then despite being given that seat wholeheartedly, still releasing the article is on its own deeply troubling. However, on top of that, releasing it knowing the repercussions to a tiny, brand new, women and survivor-led nonprofit, and completely disregarding the correction of false information within that article, is downright shameful.
Below, FACE will respond to Haytham and rebut the misinformation that is rampant in his article. A few points made in the article were not included due to repetition, which is compensated for in other points.
Fact-Checking and Rebuttals
1. FACE did not make its investigation process public until 2020 when it published a flow chart and a video describing its procedures.
FACE published the flow chart and the first explanation videos of its process in 2019, 1 year after it began full-time operations and the foundational process had been codified. The video shared in this article is a Facebook Live FACE conducted in an effort to continually disseminate this information to help people understand what FACE does and pivot to more online presentations during the lockdown. FACE had delivered this presentation in various forms in person as early as the Fall of 2018.
2. As I understand it, there are five stages through which every investigative report has to go through before publication. They are as follow (in order):
1. An allegation is received through FACE’s website. This is called a “report.”
2. An interview is conducted to determine if an investigation is warranted.
3. An investigation is commenced, and an “investigative report” is written detailing the findings.
4. The “investigative report” is reviewed, and feedback is offered.
5. The feedback is incorporated, and the “investigative report” is published.
This information in much more detail can be found on the FACE website’s FAQ. Most investigations fall within a standard operating procedure that consists of a 7-step model that guides an allegation from start to finish. The approach may be modified when extenuating circumstances arise (e.g. when an allegation is made publicly, resulting in a widespread community reaction). Typically, the 7 steps entail: intake, background check, interviews, substantiation, report draft, review, and publication. Please see the flowchart below that goes into detail regarding these steps.
3. The third stage of the process is where FACE investigates the allegations to determine if they are true (i.e., substantiating the claims). The evidentiary standard used in substantiating the allegations is unclear.
FACE determines whether or not there is a preponderance of evidence sufficient to substantiate (i.e. from the Latin word substantiare meaning “given substance to”) that warrants a documentation of the substantiated finding, and in some cases, a publication of the warning to help other communities protect themselves. See FACE’s FAQ here.
4. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term “justice” as the “maintenance or administration of what is just, especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.” In practice, a system of justice has three main elements: (1) fair and equitable rules, (2) unbiased processes to implement these rules, and (3) an impartial execution of the rules and the processes to reach a just outcome to the extent humanly possible. Thus, any unjustified tilting of the scales will inevitably lead to injustice. In the case of FACE, the investigative process fails to achieve acceptable levels of fairness in all three elements in design and practice.
This general definition of justice does not compensate for the realities that marginalized and minority groups face (women, religious minorities, people of color, etc.) when attempting to redress harm. Furthermore, FACE is NOT an adjudicatory body whose mission is to “dispense justice” or a judgment that can be enforced in order to take punitive action against the accused. FACE aims to determine if credible allegations have sufficient support, which is similar to the threshold applied within civil court systems where there needs to be a “preponderance of evidence” to substantiate an allegation.
FACE explicitly does NOT seek to “prove beyond a reasonable doubt” which is a measure only employed within criminal court proceedings for an adjudicatory process that has the ability to enforce punitive measures beyond monetary damages.
While FACE strives to contribute to the cultivation of an environment that is safe and just and seeks to provide an alternative path towards judgment that centers victims in that process, FACE is not capable of, nor does it attempt to be capable of, dispensing justice.
5. FACE’s investigative system is fundamentally prejudicial because it is (i) biased, (ii) predominantly run by unqualified investigators, and (iii) is filled with errors, unknowns, and ambiguities.
FACE runs objective investigations that mitigates potential false reporting which is evident in the published investigative process and substantiating technique detailed here.
6. At the point where FACE is able to substantiate an allegation, it is not required to remain unbiased and FACE absolutely tailors its actions and communications in such a way as to more robustly support victims and survivors as well as the community at large.
As an initial matter, I think it is important to describe the idea of due process briefly. “Due process” serves as a check-on-the-power of any institution (including employers in certain circumstances) to ensure that the process of taking certain “property” from people subject to this institution’s power is fair. In general terms, a system that employees “due process” protections is one that (i) gives its subjects an advance notice before taking away their property and (ii) allows them the opportunity to defend themselves against the allegations asserted against them.
In the context of FACE, the “property interest” is the subject’s reputation and, in most cases, their employment too. The “advance notice” would be a list of defined rules that are adequately promulgated (i.e., published and distributed). The idea here is that no set of violations can be binding unless those to whom it applies know of them so that they can avoid them, even if actual knowledge of these violations is absent for a particular individual. In other words, a “secret law is no law at all.” The second component of due process is the “opportunity to be heard,” where opposing parties are given a chance to present their evidence and arguments to support their position. None of these elements are found in FACE’s investigative system.
In a video published on Facebook in April 2020, Alia explicitly declared that FACE’s investigative process does not employ the elements of due process. In the excerpt below (starting at minute 28:55), Alia first confused due process with the evidentiary standard used in criminal cases, then went on to differentiate between employment-type violations from the criminal system, neither of which applies to FACE’s mission of holding Imams accountable. She said (lightly edited to improve readability): “Now some people oftentimes will say, “excuse me sister Alia, but that is not due process?” … Through my work, I’ve come to understand … due process … [as] a process for which to hold somebody criminally responsible. When we hear “beyond a shadow of a doubt” in a court trial or a criminal process and hearing, the idea of due process is if you’re going to take someone’s rights away, [like] you’re going to incarcerate them, put them on suspension or probation, [or] there’s going to be some harm that comes to them, some – you know – monetary harm, etc. When you’re trying to hold somebody accountable for a work purpose [like] if somebody violates ethics and protocol in an employment environment or [in] a community setting, due process is not applicable in that same way.”
It is unclear what Alia means by asserting that due process is not applicable in “a community setting.” More importantly, FACE does not employ the individuals it investigates. It never received (or even sought) a mandate to regulate religious leadership. In other words, FACE is an entirely self-proclaimed investigative body. From the beginning and until today, FACE’s main aim was to hold “abusive religious and community leaders accountable” by issuing reports substantiating abuse allegations (i.e., by making a judgment call according to its processes). In doing so, FACE sees itself as a soldier fighting to “foster safe community environments.” Yet, Alia openly admits that FACE does not consider “due process” in carrying out its mission. Instead, FACE’s investigative system is devised to “out” those accused of abuse irrespective of what the accused has to say about the relevant accusations:
“Now we want to be fair. We want to give people an opportunity to share information with us. Even, let’s say that we don’t approach somebody for comment, which again, it’s happened, but it’s an unlikely scenario, let’s say we don’t approach somebody for comment, okay? They have all the freedom in the world to send us an email. They themselves can go on their own social media platforms and talk about it. They can, you know, talk to whatever media outlet that [they] want to. We don’t inhibit the accused in any way from speaking [or] from having their first amendment rights honored.”
In other words, Alia wants the accused to take the initiative and reach out to them, the investigators, instead of the other way around. The irony here is that Alia advised the exact opposite when she was a CAIR executive director. She tweeted a video urging the community to “politely decline the interview [with FBI investigators] and say that you’ll happily sit down with them in the presence of your attorney.” While the FBI is not the same as FACE, the concept is the same. When one is being investigated, why would they carry the burden of clearing their name as opposed to FACE having to prove the violations?
FACE does not apply criminal legal thresholds like due process within its framework. There were four attorneys that contributed to FACE’s foundational process and helped instill key understandings of due process and the place they have or don’t have in this new discipline.
“Due process [is] a course of legal proceedings according to rules and principles that have been established in a system of jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private rights.” Read the full article here.
The FACE process as it pertains to reaching out to the accused subject of the reports more closely resembles the process by which investigative journalists use. Further, FACE readily updates its publications to include updated information. FACE also follows the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics when publicizing investigation findings. Here is an excellent NPR article that illustrates the conversations to be had around how long to give the Subject of an investigation to respond before publication.
Comparing a tiny, nascent, women and survivor-led nonprofit that is trying to help victims of abuse and warn community members about leaders engaging in abusive misconduct WITH THE FBI - one of the most systematically and historically corrupt and harmful law enforcement agencies with decades of documented harmful practices as well as a key player in the subjugation of Muslims, the Black community, and other marginalized and minoritized groups - serves as clear evidence that Haytham’s intent is to silence victims by drawing a false equivalency to an oppressive power.
It is part of FACE’s policy and SOP to reach out to the accused before the report is published. They are not obligated to respond to FACE, but how/when FACE reaches out and the methods used to attempt contact with them are methodically documented. Once it is made clear that the Subject does not intend to respond, FACE publishes its findings.
7. Perhaps one of the most unambiguous statements made by Alia that directly contradicts the organization’s commitment to uncovering the “objective truth” was when she said in the same video cited above:
“For our purpose, because we are victim-centered like I said, we’re not here to give a bully pulpit to people who we substantiated abuse allegations against. So that’s kind of the essence behind that process.”
This statement makes it clear that FACE’s system equates allowing the accused to give their side of the story to giving them “the bully pulpit.”
This is a gross mischaracterization and ignorance of the term “bully pulpit.” FACE will absolutely give the accused an opportunity to respond as a rule. What FACE will not do is cater to the subject of the investigation and grant them use of the FACE platform to do as they please and share information unchecked; especially when the allegations have already been substantiated (established a preponderance of evidence to support).
Bully Pulpit - a public office or position of authority that provides its occupant with an outstanding opportunity to speak out on any issue. A main feature of a “bully pulpit” is the unencumbered nature of the platform and the expansive reach of such a platform to share one’s views.
8. Such an approach does not aim for or lead to an objective system. Instead, it is the very definition of bias and is markedly unjust. In fact, Allah reproached prophet Dawud alayhi assalam when he judged between two adversaries after only listening to one side and not the other.
Again, this is a ridiculous and obvious false equivalency, and it is embarrassing Haytham should use it in this context. Dawud (AS) was dispensing a FORMAL judgement between 2 brothers arguing over SHEEP and whether or not one man with a lot of livestock should be entrusted with the other brother’s one sheep. In today’s terms, Dawud (AS)’s formal judgment would carry the power to enforce his decision between the two brothers in what is essentially a property management dispute. Not only is FACE intentionally incapable of rendering enforceable judgment on anyone that would dispense any possible punitive measures, but a business debate over sheep is an incomparable dispute with religious leaders who abuse others.
9. According to Fatih (and to FACE’s report), the first time FACE reached out to him was on August 28, 2021, a mere two and half days before the report’s publication. That is, FACE reached out to the accused after (i) they completed the investigation, (ii) reached a conclusion on the allegations, (iii) wrote the report, and (iv) the reviewers reviewed the report. According to Fatih, FACE reached out to Fatih with a deadline of 48 hours and did not inform him of the allegations or the evidence against him. Similarly, Hassan Shibly, who has been under investigation by FACE since January 13, 2021, also told me that FACE investigators hadn’t contacted him regarding the substance of the investigation.
FACE began reaching out to Seferagic through third parties that had direct access to members of his team on August 12th. There was no response, thus this wasn’t seen as necessary to include in the report. One week before the targeted publication date, FACE reached out again through additional third party contacts with no response. Finally, 3 days prior to the publication, FACE was able to obtain a direct contact to his manager through his cell phone and another third party. FACE also sent an email directly to them through a public email. The manager did not reply directly to the outreach over his cell phone, email, or personal Instagram account, but instead responded through the third party. The manager opted to communicate through the intermediary who conveyed that they “had moved on from that subject” and were “in a good place now” and didn’t want to get involved. FACE considered that sufficient notification of their response hence, the report was then published. Had they responded with a willingness to speak and share their position, FACE would have absolutely listened to what they had to say, and if necessary, delayed the findings to give their response the proper attention, for which there is established precedence for.
This brings us to a great example of what happens when the subject of an investigation does reply, which can be seen through the report on Moataz Moftah where it details the initial 2-hour conversation with him. The report findings were delayed for over a month to work through the information and contacts provided by him. Once FACE had followed up on his leads and referrals, with at least 2 of them further substantiating the abuse, another hour-long conversation was had to discuss.
Finally, Hassan Shibly, just like the majority of the subjects whose conduct has or is being investigated, has and will have an opportunity to present any comment or information he wishes in consideration of the allegations made against him. The allegations against Hassan are still being investigated. However, as Hassan is well aware, he reached out to FACE at the very onset of the investigation into his conduct to share items for consideration and to complain about the involvement of the FACE Founder, Alia Salem. The BOD took his grievance, and other inquiries about a conflict of interest existing, into thoughtful consideration. Out of an abundance of caution to mitigate even a perceived conflict that would weaken the credibility of the findings, Alia was requested to recuse herself from the case, which she did so willingly and immediately. She has no access to the investigative elements, evidentiary support, or victims, and is not permitted to attempt or be privy to any conversation with the investigators, board members, or sources.
FACE highly recommends that for those individuals being investigated, especially if they know they are being investigated, to respond to FACE immediately in its request for comment, or reach out to FACE at any point to share information they feel is relevant to consider.
10. The reality is that FACE never envisioned the accused’s participation as a pillar of its investigation, as evident by Alia’s statements above.
This statement is 100% accurate. Whether it’s unfair or not is completely subjective and does not amount to excluding the accused from FACE’s process no matter how much hysteria they throw at FACE for daring to take on this work and do it in a victim-centered capacity.
That being said, a major pillar of FACE’s process is to be victim-centered and make sure the path that allows victims to come forward safely (as much as it can be safe) is as unencumbered as possible. Furthermore, a pillar of the process is to address the needs of victims/survivors as well as the health and safety of the community and vulnerable populations. FACE is not an adjudicatory body and does not have the power to make and enforce judgment. FACE has an objective but community-focused process that begins by holding two truths together simultaneously; 1) The vast majority of victims, especially survivors of sexual violence, are telling the truth when they come forward and 2) The reputations of the accused and the institutions they are affiliated with are prioritized over the safety, reputations, and rights of victims and the community at large.
As an entity created in an ABSOLUTE VOID of accountability structures, FACE uses this Hadith as its guiding principle:
“Verily, Allah the Exalted will not punish a community for the sins of a few unless they see evil appear among themselves and they are able to reject it but do not. If they do so, then Allah will punish the entire community along with the sinners.” Source: Musnad Ahmad 17627; Grade: Hasan (fair) according to Ibn Hajar
11. FACE’s primary mission is to pass a judgment on allegations of abuse by either substantiating them or finding them invalid. However, FACE’s system does not include an appellate body that can independently overturn the findings of its investigators.
FACE has been attempting to create a Board of Advisors since 2017 that has this ability and that includes religious scholars willing to publicly vet the reports and findings. FACE approached 24 different scholars, who cited personal, but mostly professional reasons for not wanting to publicly align with such a new organization doing such difficult and controversial work and risk being perceived poorly by the community, or because their current affiliations would not condone it.
However in Q2 of 2021, FACE began work on its strategic plan line-item to proceed with an appellate & grievance process that was planned from the beginning. In Q3, FACE began tapping specific individuals, including the identification of a suitable chair for the committee. FACE also created a website page and form (not public yet) for grievances (see screenshot below) which would serve as a routing mechanism, based on the selections, to notify the right team members, including the oversight committee, to address concerns and appeals.
Lastly, the oversight committee would be responsible for reviewing and critiquing investigation findings to ensure they meet the standard of substantiation for the intended publication. Regardless, FACE has ALWAYS responded to grievances without this streamlined and more robust process. Haytham knows this well because he did the same and we responded immediately and repetitively. The day prior to him publishing this article, the entire FACE team met with him.
12. The combination of the elimination of due process and the absence of an independent appellate body with the power to overturn the findings of FACE’s investigations places an enormous amount of unchecked power in the hands of the investigators—both of whom, by their admission, are not trained or certified to conduct investigations.
Investigating allegations of abuse is not rocket science. Since FACE’s first full year of operations, it has constantly sought to equip itself with training on investigations and conducting trauma-informed interviews. The rigor that goes into every single report is a source of international praise and recognition. None of this training and skill-building has been more beneficial than learning from and shadowing a professional compliance investigator who advises and oversees FACE’s investigative process and reviews the reports thoroughly.
Having said that, the FACE team would love nothing more than to be able to hire even more qualified and competent investigators to focus on this work. The current FACE staff is eager to focus on roles and responsibilities that more succinctly align with their primary skill set, so if anyone would like to fork over $300K so FACE can hire some investigators and pay its current staff a competitive salary, please email admin@facetogether.org!
13. FACE’s system is fundamentally unfair because it is filled with errors, ambiguities, and unknowns. Since its inception in 2017, FACE has not published a list of charges – or code of conduct of sorts – that outlines a list of violations (whether physical, sexual, financial, or spiritual). This goes to the “notice” concept of due process mentioned above.
FACE has an internal list of transgressions and elements (characteristics) that is used as a guide on how to approach allegations of misconduct. With each investigation, there is something new that needs a definition. This type of dynamic document is a proprietary tool for our work and is not something FACE feels is necessary to share. Again, FACE is not an adjudicatory body passing down judgment to be enforced.
If a leader needs FACE to display a detailed list of specific abuses so they know what type of abuse they should avoid, then we have a much bigger problem. Beyond that, the definitions for the types of abuse investigated would be sufficient and can be found here beneath FACE’s mission and vision. Below is a screenshot of the definitions. Please don’t engage in either of these and you should be fine.
.jpg){kind=link}
14. Such a vacuum is problematic because it frees FACE from any restrains in its reach. In other words, FACE has unrestricted discretion to create its own set of violations on the fly and without any independent oversight or a defined process. This unchecked discretion allows FACE to create violations to fit the “crime,” not the other way around. For example, in its report on Abo Ras, FACE concluded that the accused committed “clergy misconduct.” See p4 of Abo Ras’ report. FACE then defines the term for the first time since its inception in footnote five as:
[A] broad term that encompasses violations by clergy persons or religious leaders who actively transgress the ethical boundaries of their position.
How can one defend against this charge? Where is the list of ethical boundaries to determine if Abo Ras’s actions constitute a violation of this charge? There is none. Who came up with this secret list, and based on what process? No one knows. In an attempt to clarify the definition, the report provided an example. Yet, the example fits the exact alleged violation asserted against Abo Ras in what can only be described as laser-like accuracy. It’s as if the example was explicitly created to fit Abo Ras’s actions. This hindsight criminalization of acts is not only profoundly unjust but the retroactive application of the violation on the fly is terrifying.
What’s terrifying is that Abo Ras was secretly marrying his students’ mothers, his subordinates, and his congregants AND he is still gainfully employed. Haytham forgot to mention that there was an imam’s council who issued a letter to Abo Ras’s employer stating they had substantiated several elements of misconduct and advising them to remove Abo Ras from his position immediately. Abo Ras is a member of CLERGY and he engaged in MISCONDUCT. FACE detailed it and defined it.
15. The absence of a promulgated list of rules creates an environment that enables FACE to piecemeal violations based on various systems (e.g., Islamic, legal, and ethical systems). In fact, that is exactly the case in the published reports where FACE used a mixture of legal charges, Islamic violations, ethics violations, and made-up charges.
This interdisciplinary methodology is what FACE prides itself on and has made zero attempt to appear otherwise. In fact, FACE won a $50K grant and fellowship in 2019 because of it. The fact that FACE has created a completely new field within this industry using an interdisciplinary approach to investigate and publicize abusive misconduct at the hands of religious and community leaders despite the lack of public support by most religious leaders is groundbreaking. Absolutely, FACE has a unique, innovative, and comprehensive approach to this topic. FACE would love to be apprised of when an Islamic Tribunal is founded to pass judgment on these leaders. (The last one was coincidentally run by Zia Sheikh who was taken to court by his victim and ruled against by the judge for $2.5 million for counseling malpractice and sexual exploitation.)
16. The list included two Imams and an investigator in an international non-profit. Alia told me the names of the Imams (on the condition not to publish them), but she refused to share with me the investigator’s name. It is noted that the published reports do not list the names of any religious figures as having reviewed the document before its publication.
Haytham asked those questions over 9 months ago. FACE has since begun listing the investigator’s name on the reports he reviews. There was an agreement not to identify him because of the sensitive nature of his work and the policies in place with his job.
17. The chronic underfunding of FACE adversely affects its ability to substantiate the allegations asserted against the accused fairly.
This is true for the cases FACE hasn’t been able to get to. It is indeed unfair for victims to have to wait so long because funding for this work is so difficult to obtain, not to mention the lack of public support from leaders who this work is built to help.
18. Because FACE has around 38 open cases and only two investigators, the current load of investigations will take at least 11 years to be substantiated, 3 assuming that the investigators work on one case at a time. But even if the untrained investigators work on three cases at a time, the investigation of some of these open cases would not start until 3.5 years from today! How is that fair to the victims? How just is this for the accused?
From Haytham’s mouth to Allah’s abode! FACE is trying the best it can. Instead of spending time investigating cases, FACE has spent the last week engaging Haytham on his bad faith critiques and false promises and correcting these careless mistakes he made despite being told repeatedly that his information was inaccurate.
19. FACE has not filed the required tax forms with the IRS for 2019 and 2020 yet. It only filed Form 990-N for 2017 and 2018. These forms indicate that FACE received less than $50,000 in income in these two years.
This is a complete fabrication. FACE has filed its 2019 and 2020 990s and Haytham was told as much, but he decided to ignore that information. The fact that the IRS is behind on posting is not FACE’s fault. 2020’s taxes weren’t even due until November because of an extension. Haytham doesn’t seem to know how non-profit taxes work or the fact that the world is still in the throes of a global pandemic that has delayed every process imaginable.
20. More importantly, further research appears to suggest that FACE lost its non-profit privileges in Texas some time ago “as a result of a tax forfeiture or an administrative forfeiture by Texas Secretary of State.” FACE appears to have not paid its franchise taxes to maintain its non-profit status in Texas,4 putting into question the organization’s status as a legal entity.
In early August 2021, FACE updated its office address with the Texas Secretary of State to obtain an updated certificate of good standing. That is when FACE was apprised of the fact that the Texas SOS’s office was missing a form from FACE’s 2017 filing and needed to resolve it to restore FACE’s good standing. FACE filed the amendment immediately and the SOS said it should be processed within 6-8 weeks. FACE’s registration and federal non-profit status is still very much in effect and in good standing.
In conclusion, this is incremental work that requires adjustments and improvements along the way, and FACE acknowledges and invites people to work alongside us to do so. However, FACE rejects the idea that the perpetrators of injustice and abuse should not be held to account, and that victims of abuse should be sidelined while FACE spends years perfecting its craft. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in his last sermon said, “Today I have perfected for you, your religion.” However, he didn’t wait until that day to teach Islam. He taught it from day one. And built upon it. FACE is working to build something new, and however incomplete, it deserves to exist. We call upon all those who stand on the side of survivors to join us.