ahmet

yes. why not. because the definition itself allows us to think in that way. I meant, that decision(s) for whom taken by those personalities. Considering this , just respecting to ideas and / or decisions does not mean those decisions. (Something like ... however, if you or someone else mean that there are some "bad" decisions available, well, I am not unavare of that. Understanding & internalizing this section is not easy but should not be difficult also. When a decision is given/defined as a right to anyone, yes , we have to respect to what / which type of decisin he/she would make. if the content is really difficult to internalize or fully well comprehend , then maybe simplyfying steps or step by step might be better. let restrict the issue to two things. intellect is prominent ,right ? in this case, one person may have intellect or not (if it is so much difficult to understand, this might be useful) if you are ready for more complex case, then assume please a person may have a defined proportion of intellect. then it is easy to understand.

well, the handicaps are behind the definitions here. We need to define what "respect" was. So, we need to define it by logical propositions/expressions. for instance what misconduct mean,should be defined. what impoliteness mean should be defined. once we define each of act behind the content of that "emotional keyword" then it is easy how and what to do for each circumstance respectively. I think it is worth to express that, from the point of my view all ideas should be taken via intellect rather than emotions. Emotions do not show truths, whereas intellect always noble and prominent and it is sufficient to take decisions via intellect. all ideas should be assessed / evaluated under the control of intellect. which idea is implausible / impractical/ hare-brained/unethical or just plain silly ?...almost all of these are the result of assessments made by Non-intellectual people. this, I did not really say which idea merited or not , in fact , the core keywpord here is "intellect" (can be figured like "subject" and the object is "decision" .) subject is always responsible for what decisions he/she made. but all we have to respect what decision anyone taken ,right? eventually everyone endures the result of what decision he/she made. I see no complexity. oh, dim. be please simple but clear and intellectual please. not always compelxity ensures good results. ....

we always need to take decisions via/by intellect (not emotions). and "to despise" is emotional...

but through far in the past of history up to now, not just one time ,but multiple times we experienced that it has always been even high potential for any idea to show its face as another "reality". Even, I think you can find some contexts relevant to this issue among your this website's rules (read forum rules and privacy&policy) I think you will perfectly find something for yourself that proves this idea was WRONG. one another important notation here should be that none asks you to believe or accept the nature of truth of any idea.. just respect!

it eventually brings us a mandate duty : to respect all of ideas! to simplify the case by basic examples & and original / real life practices, I can say that almost all of the people nowadays known as 'illuminated' faces ( i.e. everyone who lives nowadays) would most probably accept that a light would NOT OCCUR IN NATURE if we were to correctly follow your this ("wrong" ) idea. also, such examples can be multiplied ..roughly, todays "illuminated" people were in belief that earth was flat in the past (which is wrong) in fact, that stated idea is common paradigm almost all around the people who would like to be known as illuminated faces or modern whereas the universal realities require more sensitive and close examination/vision and (i.e. CORRECT) knowledge. .... as result, i think that closer and more sensitive approaches and works will ensure us to learn general trıuths which are universal and not dependent to any personal practises and / or venue.

this is in fact, not a correct usage of accepted reality amongst Islamic world. Because Islam was in fact available at that time ,when islam had not been available yet. Because according to common sense amongst muslims, christianity was Islam in those days. it seems you confuse something Islam is not an invention (like I commonly do) and it has not belonged to Muhammad (s.a.w.) peheh you blame me with providing simple ideas. I could choke you via my strong mathematical formulas ,eh (but forget it for a while, I won't do that for now maybe later I could.

well, more than the exact queries asked & discussed under this thread, I came to one or more very interesting point(s) and ask question(s) within the scope of this thread. --- under the condition that jesus is expected (or being considered so), can we say that christian world was doubtful across something like their status through the negation of assuming that islam religion would be (ever) wrong selection? (Because, that is a well known paradigm amongst almost all of muslims) --- is christian world also doubtful across the idea which states that islamic - holy quran should be not considered a book that states corrrect explanations ? ...

I think that that was perfectly possible. but will not provide the details.

but catode and anode stimulates me to think so. sorry really if this is my failure. meanwhile, it perfectly seems like I have been degreeded in this joke sequence

mmm both yes and no

I think non -sexual ideas seems better or unisex pahaha. therefore ,both or none of these is correct with high volume of cheerings, best cheers

ahaha ... that is not as that difficult,in fact. (though, I know many blind people !) simply: do not think and feel the difference between you and (assuming you have white skin) and non - white people. try to minimize self ideas. be objective. etc