Hamzah Wald Maqbul – Brunei and Punishing Gay Sex With Death Ribat 04042019
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
So the BBC runs a
an a headline saying Brunei punishes *
with death.
And,
you know, anyone who has any sort of
rudimentary understanding of the Sharia,
knows that this is an entirely sensationalist headline.
I think it's very clear that to the
point,
that that headline was
run, it was also,
unfactual that Brunei had not hitherto nor during
the running of that article actually punished, any
* with death.
And, you know, to be fair, the BBC,
like, later on changed
the, the headline,
to, Brunei to punish * with death,
which is, I guess,
not as factually incorrect. Although I wouldn't I
wouldn't say,
I wouldn't say that it's
a 100% correct either. But,
you know, it it betrays
a a a sort of agenda and a
sort of reaction and a sort of subjectivity
with regards to the matter,
on behalf of,
you know, something that I guess
when, you know, faced with Fox News and,
the other
the other, I guess, like, Iraq war cheerleading
type,
compromised news media,
people somehow look to for some sort of
objectivity and clarity.
I think it's very clear that it's not
it's not there.
And, you know, you know, you can say,
I'm not objective either.
The most objective of people are the ones
who are the quickest to admit their own
subjectivities,
and Allah knows best. So I don't know
about Brunei as a sultanate, as a country,
their history, their people, their courts, their judges,
the how did they canonize
the, the the fit into
an implemented sharia? How competent are they at
hearing cases,
and at adjudicating them?
And really, to be honest with you, the
purpose of this recording is not necessarily to
exonerate Brunei per se,
because I have very little or to no
connection that I know of other than the
fact that they're mostly Muslims and I'm a
Muslim too,
with,
this small
sultanate,
which is,
on on the island of Borneo, which I've
never been to in my life.
But the reason for this recording is what?
Is because
there are a lot of people who,
are Muslims
that, you know, interact with non Muslims on
a daily basis,
at their school, work, businesses,
their neighbors, etcetera.
And they may not know a whole lot
about,
the Sharia and how how it works, how
it functions.
And, headlines like this may be a cause
of embarrassment for them. They may feel like
Islam sounds really barbaric,
And,
you know, because of because of their lack
of understanding of the subtlety and nuance in
the situation,
they they may resort to certain
counterproductive
and non helpful
modes of reaction.
Like, well, I'm not one of those Muslims,
I drink a beer, or,
you know,
homosexuality isn't really punishable by death in the
Sharia,
which is
which is, you know, again,
depending on your understanding of the situation, it
could or could not be.
It could be true or could not be
true.
Or,
you know, I believe that Islam just, you
know, lets a person do whatever they want
as long as they're a good person. These
types of these types of, these types of
counterproductive,
non productive,
reactions which, through which a person will compromise
their own akhirah,
and they're also going to be disingenuous and
dishonest with regards to Islam. So,
you know, if you're interested in educating yourself
and then making a decision
based on,
some information that you may not have had
from before, Insha'Allah,
my, my hope is that this,
this recording will be somewhat beneficial to you.
And, you know, if you listen to the
whole thing and you still, you know, don't
agree with me as undoubtedly many people
will in this recording and have
in the past. That's okay.
Your account is between you and Allah. I'm
not the one who's gonna take you to
account. And
so, you know, I'm not I'm not gonna
trip out about that. Now what I will
say, even if you do continue to disagree,
I think a little bit more information,
for those who didn't know it, it's always
helpful. It even allows the disagreement to be
more helpful.
So
the first thing, I wanted to mention
is,
that
the media and,
I guess colonialist and post colonialist
propaganda seeks to portray Muslims as being
mindless slaves of the law.
And, that is,
for anyone who knows any Muslims, a 100%
not the case. A majority of the Muslim
world doesn't even pray 5 times a day,
unfortunately.
And a majority of the Muslim world,
you know,
may respect the Sharia, but they're not ironically,
they're not religious in their implementation of it
or even in their
understanding of it.
And,
this idea that, you know, Muslims are somehow,
wherever they are,
they're they're somehow like mindless slaves to the
letter of the law.
I believe part of it comes from the
fact that the the Christian tradition doesn't have
a law in the first place.
And so,
as a common old school polemic against Jews,
who they blamed for being people who implemented
the letter of the law, and didn't understand
the spirit of the law.
You know, they they they somehow point Muslims
into the same corner in order to demonize
them. The fact of the matter is is
that, you know,
when you're talking to your non Muslim
friends or neighbors, or even your Muslim friends
and neighbors who are
not so super educated with the Sharia, or
maybe not even so practicing,
the first thing
I would suggest telling them is that, look,
my religion doesn't tell me that I'm gonna
come to your house and stone you to
death.
Rather, this headline of Brunei,
punishes * with death or, Brunei to
punish * with death.
First of all, you have to, you have
to define what does * mean.
And, at this point, I guess if there
are, like, young ones who are listening and
parents are sensitive with regards to what they
hear, which they should be if they're good
parents,
it may be time to, you know, pause,
the recording, listen to it rate later.
But,
the sharia has a had punishment.
It has a sacred mandated corporal and or
capital punishment,
with regards to illicit sexual *.
And this is not limited
to,
homosexuality,
but it includes
illicit heterosexual
sexual *.
Defined as the
the,
the the the the head of the penis
going in completely with within the the the
*
to
the point where it's obscured from vision,
like,
the thread going through the eye of the
needle.
And,
this is both with regards to the law
for
for,
heterosexual illicit sexual *, sexual *,
between a man and a woman that's illicit,
or between,
between 2 men in the act of *
only.
So, the the the idea of *
being punished with death
that, if, for example, you know, by this
definition,
lesbians are already out.
It's completely impossible for them to receive this
hada because of their lack of a
member which is capable of penetration.
And
even then,
*, what does that mean to people?
The,
the,
sexual,
I guess contact between 2 men.
The only type which is,
punishable through the Hadh punishment,
which is which is,
which is defined by,
the the head of the penis being obscured
within the * of another man,
otherwise known as *. That's the only thing
that's that's up for discussion here.
All the other things that are in the
ambit of, like, homosexual relations, if a man
kisses another man,
or, because it's really interesting. Because extremism is
like a pendulum. If you push it too
far to one side, it swings really hard
to the other side.
American
society
is and I think, you know, Western Europe,
especially Britain, is so
so hypersensitive
to
any sort of affection between 2 men
that,
shows of affection and friendship and brotherhood that
are very common in the Muslim world, like
2 men holding hands or a man kissing
another man on the on the cheek or
on the forehead,
God forbid, or,
men embracing or or or, you know,
showing any sort of softness or affection for
one another,
all of the sudden, it becomes an accusation
of homosexuality
to the point where the, you know, that
that civilization
looks at our history
and finds,
homosexuality where there's in fact no homosexuality to
be found. Well,
you know, they they they portray, for example,
the relationship between Mahmud and Ayaz,
his slave, the Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi as being
homosexual.
They portrayed the,
relationship between
Maulana, Rumi,
who for God's sake was like the Hanafi
Mufti of, like, Konya,
and his Sheikh Shamsi Tabriz,
as being homosexual.
Why? Because they showed a great deal of
affection for one another and this society for
some reason,
give all of us, guidance.
They cannot understand why how or why a
man would be affectionate with another man without,
wanting to somehow,
have sexual * with them, or * them,
which is I com I completely, like, I
completely, you know, I was born and raised
in this culture, and I had the same
sensitivities.
But after having traveled the world and thought
about the issue, it completely boggles my mind.
So, yeah. No. It's not like Muslims are
gonna,
are gonna, like, you know, see 2 men
holding hands or or kissing one another or
whatever, and,
you know, you know, line up the rocks
and
stone them. That's not that's not how this
thing works.
So,
I mean, by the way, the hada punishment,
for homosexuality
is also itself a difference of opinion amongst
the scholars of the Sharia.
In the Hanafi mabhab, it is not a
it's not a had punishment. It's something that
the judge has discretion to,
this judge has discretion to
give the death penalty,
or or to
substitute another penalty or waive it altogether
when the the case warrants it. But the
Hanafi Meveb is probably not what's operational in
Brunei, because the Southeast Asian archipelago is predominantly
Shafiri.
You know, they don't run the Hanafi Mavheb
over there. If you wanna know the details
of the Shafirih school, you can contact Mufti
Musa Farber or,
any one of, the Masha'a constellation of wonderful
Shafi'i Ullama. We have, like, Sheikh Abdul Karim,
Yahya, etcetera.
But,
coming back to the issue,
so Brunei,
punishes * with death, goes to Brunei
to punish * with death. And,
now,
knowing the facts,
it should change to,
may possibly
punish,
*
with death.
So we continue.
The fact of the matter is is that
with all,
had the punishments,
and all corporal, punishments,
and and and with the capital punishment as
well, the Sharia prohibits individuals from taking the,
from taking the law into their own hands
and punishing a person,
for a crime,
whatever crime it is, especially the the Hudud,
the
sacred mandated,
punishments from,
from the book of Allah and the sunnah
of the prophet sallallahu alaihi wa sallam.
And so it has to be done through
a court.
And a conviction in court
is based on evidentiary standards, not based on
hearsay.
So what is the evidentiary standard for,
for, all crimes
that that that have that that are had
punishments with regards
to sexual *.
They are that a person come and admit
in front of the judge,
that they did something. Now at this point,
if a person,
is sane,
they will be eligible for the punishment.
If they're insane, they will not be eligible
for the punishment.
If they are sane and they know that
this this,
Iqrar or this confession is going to result
in death, then,
at that point,
the person, if they had a death wish,
they wanted to kill themselves anyway.
There's not really anything you're gonna do in
order to stop them. And the fact of
the matter is very few people will opt
for iqra except for those who do so
out of their own religious conviction,
out of fear that,
that they will be punished in the hereafter
and the desire for expiation in this world
to suffer punishment in order to cleanse their
sins.
That being said, the Sharia actually recommends if
somebody is guilty of one of these crimes
that they not admit to the judge, that
they repent and they keep it to themselves
and they hide it. They don't tell it
to anybody. And there's a hadith of the
prophet
that if the slave is so ashamed of
his sin that he hid it from everybody,
Allah will not expose them, on the day
of judgment. In fact, one of the names
of Allah Ta'ala is a satar, the one
who habitually
and emphatically
screens and veils the faults of the creation
from the the rest of the creation.
So,
at that point, you know,
you have this, like, fear of a
a,
what you call a,
this massive, like, going door to door and,
like, you know, picking up any, you know,
dude who wears, like, tight pink t shirts
or whatever and just stoning him to death.
Now this changes to what? This changes to
somebody who who through their own will and
through their own volition goes and admits,
admits,
their crime in front of a judge.
Interestingly enough,
with regards to Zena, with regards to,
Zena itself,
the
admission can be recanted anytime after it's been
made.
And so,
this is something that,
Moana Amin,
I mean,
once,
I was riding with him in the car,
and we,
we were
remembering some of the the the
some of our very spiritual and,
learned,
who passed before.
So, I had mentioned Mufti Mahmud, who was
the chief minister of the Sarhad, the Northwest
Frontier Province, which is now, later on, known
as the Khaybar Pakhtunhua province. It's the Northwest
province of of of the modern nation state
of Pakistan.
He was a student of Mawlana Said Hussein
Ahmed Madani
a very,
radiant and enlightened and very spiritual man who,
had the respect of his, friends and his
adversaries,
alike. And he was the chief minister of,
of the of Sarhad province until
until the the government
forcibly gave a liquor license,
to
a hotel in in Peshawar.
And, because it came from the federal government,
he was not able to overrule it through
the writ of the law. And so he
he resigned saying that that you people will
be responsible for this in front of Allah.
I'm not going to * because of your,
because of your disobedience under my watch. So
someone,
he said that Mufti Mahmud had actually come
to
to the Benuri town Madrasah when Sheikh Amin
was there so many decades ago.
And, he said I met him and and
and was very impressed with him. And he
said that he had mentioned in one of
his talks that somebody had said why is
it that the Sharia has such barbaric punishments?
And so he said, what do you mean?
He says that why is it that you
have stoning to death? It seems like a
very cruel and medieval and barbaric punishment.
He said even if you wanna give someone
the capital punishment, why wouldn't you just put
a bullet in their head or hang them?
Why do you have to make such a
freak show about it? And, the answer what
was the answer he gave? He said that
if you knew if you knew about the
Sharia, you would know that that the,
the confession
in in the the the the matter of
Zina,
it can be recanted at any time.
It can even be recanted while the while
the stoning is happening that a person can
scream, no, I didn't do it. I didn't
do it. And,
it comes from the Sahaba and from our
Aslaf reports that that in such a case,
they were instructed to stop
the process,
and let them go. Or if the person
being stoned ran from the
the the the the place where, the stones
were coming down on them, that that that
they shouldn't be chased after. Whereas if you
put a bullet in somebody's head,
that will kill them right away. And I
think it's a really beautiful,
illustration
of how barbaric in fact, our modern sensibilities
are, how Nazi they are. That we give
a great deal of, thought to efficiency and
killing, which is a very, I guess, Nazi
concern and preoccupation,
where we lose sight of other things. So
that's one way that a person could get
convicted is if they
go to the judge and admit,
to, the practice of *, which is definitely,
unlawful in Islam.
The second way that they can, get the
conviction
is if 4 people witness the act of
penetration,
like thread goes through the eye of the
needle,
which,
by the way, according to,
according to,
the stronger opinion in the Sharia, that witnessing
has to be eye witnessing. So even a
video wouldn't,
wouldn't count. It wouldn't suffice. They would have
to physically be there and not just see,
2 people doing something that looks like *,
or, or fornication,
but actually witness the the the glands of
the penis enter into the,
enter into,
whatever orifice in question. They have to have
seen it with their own two eyes without
any shock or without any doubt.
And then they have to be upright witnesses
that that go and,
confess this to the court. Now,
witness,
the testimony of witnesses in Islam is something
that that that carries a great deal of
weight.
However, the evidentiary standard is that the witness
has to be an upright witness and almost,
you know, almost,
I would say a majority of
people don't,
don't fit the,
don't fit the the designation of a person
who's an upright witness. A person who doesn't
pray 5 times a day is not an
upright witness. A person who is, you know,
known to,
commit acts of disobedience
is not an upright witness. A person who
is hasn't been seen doing any sin publicly
and flagrantly,
but is just kind of a weird person.
They're not an upright witness. So, you know,
you know, this someone asked me this question,
well, what if the video is not gonna
get somebody,
somebody's,
stoned because of witness, then what about the,
you know, the person who's filming and the
the whatever, the producers and whatever because *
has become so proliferated?
My friend, I can guarantee you there's no
judge in any Sharia court in their right
mind which would accept the witness of a
pornographer.
And the point is what? Is that it's
it's
it's practically impossible.
In fact,
I have through all of my studies and
my travels in the east and the west,
my reading of of the books of the
ancients and the moderns,
I have never come across
any instance,
heterosexual or homosexual, in which this evidentiary standard
was met that 4 people,
who are upright witnesses,
will go to a judge
and present their their testimony that they saw
the penetration happen like the thread goes through
the eye of the needle,
and and the judge accepted it and, gave
the, the the punishment based on that. It's
absolutely it's absolutely,
make such a claim credibly, you have to
have, like, read every book that was written
on this matter and,
have a a a a certain type of
knowledge of
of things that people don't have knowledge of
that I don't claim to have. But at
the same time, you know, if a person
knows me,
they'll know that I'm not a person who
hasn't been around or read read anything at
all. And I have yet to come across
any example of,
of of any Sharia punishment with regards to
illicit sexual *,
heterosexual or homosexual,
where,
where where where the,
the condemning evidence is based on eyewitness. It's
just impossible.
And add to that,
that in the Sharia, if a person brings
a public accusation of
illicit sexual *,
homosexual or, heterosexual,
* or or or or, or fornication,
that person, if they bring the the accusation,
then in the Sharia,
as a procedural matter, if the they don't
meet the evidentiary standard, which is
almost impossible to meet. If they don't bring
the evidentiary standard, if they, for example, only
bring 3 witnesses or 2 witnesses or 1
witness or 4 witnesses,
not all of whom are,
are upright witnesses, deemed to be upright witnesses
by the court. If someone brings, a witness
that is not sufficient in order to garner
a conviction, then the Sharia has it corporate
corporal punishment of lashing
for those people who who brought this case
which was not provable,
thereby quashing any sort of dissent. And this
is known as the law of
means to throw something at somebody. The hurling
of accusations itself is a uh-uh,
is it it had the punishment in our
Sharia.
And, to be honest with you, if you
look at all of this,
you know, Brett Kavanaugh and Joe Biden and
Al Franken and god knows what all of
these people,
who are Bill Cosby and all of these
people who are being hit with accusations.
Some of which are true, but they're murky
from some non discreet time in the past.
Some of which are not true, and you
really don't have a way of adjudicating whether
they are or not. You can say we
we believe,
victims, but you don't know if someone's a
victim. It is theoretically possible that somebody manufactures
an allegation,
which is not true and it does happen.
And I'm not saying that in order to,
like, say that everyone who says, you know,
who makes the allegation is a liar. God
knows. It's it's one of those things you
just don't know.
And if you wanna truly be fair,
you have to admit that there you know,
it's very problematic that that,
that that such, allegations,
there's no way of of of adjudicating whether
they're true or not.
Because of the because of the powerful nature
of
the, the the punishments involved, the Sharia makes
it a crime,
punishable by lashing,
to bring an allegation.
And the allegation may actually factually end up
being true, but legally it's false if you
cannot meet that evidentiary standard. Meaning what? The
the
the law giver,
uh-uh Allah wished for these accusations
not to be made, until and unless they
met a standard of blatant shamelessness,
that is is is is abnormal.
And then thereafter, what people,
their personal, failings are, and their their personal,
habits and addictions and whatnot,
they are to be left in order to
struggle, with themselves in order to rectify them,
or,
if they don't, then the the the accounting
for that is between them and between Allah
So that's the legal angle,
of this. I get the fact that there
are gonna be a lot of people who
are gonna say, well,
you know, we don't consider homosexuality to be
to be a sin.
And, you know, what we say to such
people is,
that's fine. Christians, they believe that Jesus Christ
is the Son of God. We don't believe
it. That's a matter of disagreement.
You know, Jews believe,
that they are God's special chosen people,
at least some of them do. And, you
know, we we believe that they're great people,
but they're not, you know, we don't we
don't that that thing we don't agree with
them about.
You know, some Hindus believe eating meat is
a a a a, an immoral act
and, especially the eating of beef and we
don't agree with them. But, by and large,
you know, we don't lose sleep at night
because people,
differ in their in their beliefs. And every
place has different laws, every place has different
customs,
and,
you know,
the type of scrutiny that Islam receives
for what is essentially just
a basic
issue of different human beings having their different
beliefs,
I feel is unjustified.
But what you know, there are more issues
than just the law here. Right? So if
you don't if you don't you're not a
Muslim and you don't believe what we believe,
that's fine, you know.
Please go ahead and and and do so,
and continue to do so if you wish.
And your reckoning and your account will be
between you and the Lord if you meet
him, which is probably not gonna bother you
too much at this time if you don't
believe he even exists.
So, that that's that's fine.
However,
for those who do believe in the book
of Allah and the sunnah of the Rasool
Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam, and those who don't, you
know, the allegation that somehow Islam is gonna
barbarically go around killing people,
just quote unquote because they're gay. I think
that's that's,
it's a pretty pretty
over the top and sensationalist
way of describing something that they don't really
understand.
But there's again, more than just a legal
issue.
What what what what is more than just
a legal issue? The idea that somehow the
BBC is more incensed
that,
that
gay people will be,
homosexuals will be,
you know,
put to death,
theoretically,
based on an impossible to prove evidentiary standard.
The fact that they just they seem to
feel more
outraged,
with regards to that than, you know,
our brothers and sisters getting droned in Somalia,
and getting droned in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
And, that, you know, Ellen DeGeneres and George
Clooney, never called for a boycott,
of,
of, you know, of of putting gas in
your car,
because of the the absolute bloodbath that happened
in,
that happened in,
what you call in in in Iraq.
That none of them ever,
called for
any sort of boycott or even, the slightest
political pressure even in the form of a
censure. Just empty words,
when,
you know, white phosphorus has rained down on
Palestine on the houses of Gaza. Children are
are being shot by snipers for fun. Children
are being arrested and beaten. Children are being
used as human shields. This, shows that this
is somewhat of a
a disingenuous
claim to say that this is a human
rights concern. It's not a human rights concern.
It is a very political and a very
religious,
zealotry on their part. And one would say,
well, how can you say religious zealotry? They
didn't invoke religion. Liberalism itself,
and its belief that it is a superior,
and it is the supreme universal,
and most moral code
and and way of looking at the world,
that itself is a religion. And the fact
that it doesn't call itself a religion doesn't
mean that it's not a religion.
Rather, it is a an it is a
a set of beliefs that they have that
somehow they have a monopoly over over,
what we consider
truth. And because of that, you know, the
you know, we should inflict punishment on people
who, believe differently than than us.
That is a type of zealotry that I
don't feel,
this recording conveys
even, by me who is a bearded,
whatever, heterosexual
brown Sunni male,
who teaches, like, sunnifirk,
you know, for for a living or whatever.
I I we we we don't go around
and
put down other people's beliefs and other people's
way of life.
At the most, when we disagree, we disagree
and we say why we disagree while
affirming,
everyone's humanity and their right to be respected
even if we have rigorous, disagreements with them
in their belief.
And given that legally this is not going
to result in anything happening,
until and unless there's some sort of extraordinary
circumstance
which
transcends the issue of homosexuality
or lack thereof.
I think, it's just a storm in a
teapot
and it
it betrays, like I said from before,
a type of sensationalism
and a wish to
see the old systems
of belief and of
religion crumble. And if the belief in God
is odious to a class of people, then
Islam is going to be the most odious
because we are the ones who
hold our belief and our faith and our
remembrance of God,
most fervently from amongst all of those people
who claim to believe in Allah
And,
you know, there is a moral obligation that
religion that liberalism
has, which is an irrational one, but it's
they hold it nevertheless,
just like, you know, some people, believe that
the, you know, they they believe irrational things.
There is a
irrational
belief that liberalism has
that all all traditions, structures, modes of rule,
or law that tell you how you should
behave or what you should do,
all of them are completely,
completely empty of any sort of,
of any sort of authority.
Rather, the only rules we live by are
the ones that make us happy and that
we can come together and agree to for
consensus. And this very utilitarian
view of morality,
in and of itself is irrational. Why?
Because,
because if you don't believe that there's any
absolute truth, then this idea of what makes
you happy being good is also, being paraded
as absolute truth. So it should be wrong
as well.
But unfortunately,
most people don't think for
themselves, nor do they think about things or
ponder, things before they can get to that
point.
And you know what? If that's what you
wanna do, that's what you wanna believe, that's
how you wanna raise your kids, knock yourself
out.
But,
but you don't have the right to demonize
me. You don't have the right to demonize
my community, my people. You don't have the
right to,
use
1,000,000,000 of dollars of
of corporate media platform in order to convince
people that, people like myself
who, you know, pray 5 times a day
and wash ourselves after you use the bathroom
and fast in the month of Ramadan,
and,
you know, don't eat pork, and, you know,
consider lying to be a sin, and consider
charity to be a virtue. You don't have
the right to go and tell people that
we're some sort of barbaric maniacs that are
gonna go door to door, and, you know,
whatever. Stone people to death because they,
I don't know, because they,
because they they show, some sort of traits
or propensity toward,
femininity or whatever else, it may be, or
that a woman shows some sort of propensity
for masculinity as tomboy or something like that.
You don't have that right, and it's not
true. And, we also should understand,
that oftentimes these accusations
before,
getting really freaked out about them and,
you know, trying to distance ourselves from from
Islam or trying to explain,
you know, in a very apologetic tone,
what Islam is and then compromise it. We
also, as Muslims, we should understand that there
are people with,
with a religious fervor and a religious zealotry
in their agenda in order to, make Islam,
into something scary,
that it isn't.
And they have an agenda doing so, and
they do so in bad faith.
And,
we should be confident as well that we
don't need to, we don't need to
treat, those types of those types of,
accusations as being serious or some sort of
serious, you
know, question of the morality of Islam or
lack thereof.
Rather, they are what they are. They're just
the, the dogs barking.
And, for us in the caravan, we have
to know that every time the dog barks,
you can't stop the caravan. It has to
move on. Allah
give all of us so much Tawfeeq. If
you felt any benefit in this
recording, please share it with your, with, you
know, those who you think will benefit from
from it. And,
if you wish to, please, do see the
work that we do at rebat.org,
r I b a t dot org,
online, or or attend any of our classes
in person that are listed online. All of
our classes are free, and all of the
work we do is free of charge. And,
anyone who, sees benefit in it or value
in it is welcome to come to the
website and support.
But the best support is by what? Is
by,
listening and, taking the classes, and if anything,
that you hear or learn therein is of
benefit,
implementing it in your life,
that is the best of support. Allah
give it to all of us.