People are short and brief. Human skin is slight and effortlessly got over. The substance of the human head are shallow and simple to deny. People are sane creatures. Judicious intends to singularly pick their own principles to love themselves. Request the case simultaneously judge yourself. On Earth, the main occupants are these sorts of animals. Different animals are not inhabitants, others are simply table decorations, seats, or deer heads on the dividers of the house. As pleased occupants, it is outlandish for people to do equity. What will you do when somebody is unique in relation to us? Assault aimlessly so the individual winds up concurring with the contention, not considering, regarding each other's suppositions? I regularly feel wiped out with the contentions of the coachman who is focusing on a bogus triumph. What is it for? At that point on the off chance that you win the discussion, at that point is that right? Isn't excessively correct? Please! Each individual has an alternate head. Each head has an alternate size. Anyway, we need to constrain what's at the forefront of your thoughts to be on others' heads? I disdain it when individuals offer negative remarks, particularly on the off chance that it is identified with the law. A: Usury is haram. B: Ah pompous, extremely haughty, utilizing the salt of usury. At that point if usury is haram, would you like to charge individuals who work at the bank that their work is illicit? At that point if usury is haram, for what reason do you actually utilize banks for exchanges? Have you ever observed that sort of discussion? So what will you do? Protecting individual A by giving contentions or battling for the vote of B with overwhelming contentions? At that point, what do you get? Before, perhaps I would have plunged in the event that I saw such a warmed discussion. It's a disgrace to be only an onlooker. At that point, subsequent to experiencing those long periods of obliviousness and addressing what I got other than sorrow, I quit doing it. I like the conversation. In any case, I don't care for contentions. The principal thing I do when I see two individuals who have restricting outlooks is to take a gander at the perspective they are taking. Provided that this is true, I will re-visitation of the essential law. About usury, for instance. For what reason is A contra? For what reason is B a star? Goodness, one uses a logical point, one uses a strict point. What is the fundamental law? Since I am a Muslim, obviously, I re-visitation of the contention. There are no sections that examine that issue. Gracious, there is! OK, since I have confidence in my religion, at that point I additionally have faith in the laws innate in my religion. At that point, imagine a scenario in which incidentally, I can't move away from all the things that may in any case be marked usury. The significant thing is I trust in reality first. Regardless of whether I can't move away, it's not the law that is off-base. I haven't had the option to do the law appropriately. Not on the grounds that I wasn't right, I accused the law. The fact of the matter is that we attempt to comprehend the perspective the other individual is utilizing. In the event that they are not the equivalent, there is no compelling reason to assault to persuade our most right perspective. In what capacity would it be a good idea for us to manage contrasts? Release it. All things considered, an excellent distinction, isn't that so? Rainbows won't be wonderful in the event that they just have one tone. Parks are additionally not appealing on the off chance that they have vivid blossoms. You and I don't need to concur. Be that as it may, I and you need to shake firmly, there can't be battles! Being diverse is excellent. In the event that you need to have an enormous rice field, why return home! Print the rice fields on your head! So at whatever point and any place you can reap it yourself with results that.