KARIMOUS VOICES OUT HIS PROBLEM WITH SOME RELIGIOUS ARTICLES
MY PROBLEM WITH SOME RELIGIOUS ARTICLES
Things change with time, what about you? Would you remain old-fashioned?
I believe what made Mufti Menk more influential in people among others of his calibre is his ways of relating issues with the contemporary and the humour he attaches. He never wastes time.
Things change with time, what about you? Would you remain old-fashioned?
I believe what made Mufti Menk more influential in people among others of his calibre is his ways of relating issues with the contemporary and the humour he attaches. He never wastes time.
We often read this Arabian adage that says “Best of speech is that which is short and to the point”; how much have we considered this we say? We virtually all have this problem: we talk at the expense of time, plus impressiveness.
You wanna debunk a particular doctrine, then you resolve to raising myriad of opinions from scholars or excess facts to back your claim. We should beware that people are NOT after how copious you the speaker is. But just make us understand. Demystify the ambiguities. That’s all.
You wanna debunk a particular doctrine, then you resolve to raising myriad of opinions from scholars or excess facts to back your claim. We should beware that people are NOT after how copious you the speaker is. But just make us understand. Demystify the ambiguities. That’s all.
Do we really need to start every article with the ideal greetings and introduction as if it were the Arabic?
Do we ever taught why much have been said, still we have miserable level of responsiveness?
Do we really need to quote three-four-five facts to backup a particular claim?
Have we envisaged a situation where our awe-inspiring speech actually confuses the crowd?
Don’t we find these somewhat superfluous?
Our close pals whom we relate with won’t find it faulty nor tell us. Indeed, an enemy is GOOD at times: they tell you that bitter truth you don’t wanna hear.
Do we ever taught why much have been said, still we have miserable level of responsiveness?
Do we really need to quote three-four-five facts to backup a particular claim?
Have we envisaged a situation where our awe-inspiring speech actually confuses the crowd?
Don’t we find these somewhat superfluous?
Our close pals whom we relate with won’t find it faulty nor tell us. Indeed, an enemy is GOOD at times: they tell you that bitter truth you don’t wanna hear.
Let me share this with you:
“I was to enter a contest, I felt I’m done with writing, and that even Wole Soyinka would but commend me. Thus I shared it with three friends. They did shower the encomiums I wanted to hear. Something pushed me to sharing it with some people whom were neither friends to me. It was actually an unfortunate experience._
_One said: ‘you’ve not written anything.’ Like how do you mean? ‘You’re NOT communicating.’_
_The other person said ‘You need a crash course on grammar!’ What? ‘You have to recast. Your work isn't logical.’_
_While the last person COPYREAD the whole thing and returned it._
_None of these seem pleasing. I was decentralised. And behold, these people were all right! “_
Those were the words you and I would not want to hear.
Those were the words you and I would not want to hear.
Does this makes any sense to you?
You can just ease your nerves by replying 'No' That’s cool.
You can just ease your nerves by replying 'No' That’s cool.
But none receives admonition except men of understanding
© _Abdulwahab Karimous_
0 comments