@flyethiopian your service at Bole Airport airport for our wheelchair passengers was simply pathetic. Shame on yourselves. No one to assist with pushing the wheelchair. You are a disgrace and simply awful. No assistance and no respect.
@emirates@EmiratesSupport Disappointing state of the aircraft. EK713 right now. Why can’t you be giving us newer aircraft. This has been the case since you started flights on this route.
@emirates@EmiratesSupport
Pathetic service by your ground staff in Lusaka. Waiting to collect baggage for 30 minutes and only one staff offloading. Please improve your service. This is total inconvenience to passengers.
The unfortunate reality in contemporary scholarly discourse is that when a scholar criticises another, it is often without due regard for the principles of fairness, context, and proper verification.
In many instances, the scholar being criticised has:
– issued a public retraction or repentance,
– clarified the context or circumstances of the statement,
– or offered a scholarly explanation that removes any ambiguity.
More troubling, however, is that the critic himself may be:
– consciously distorting the facts,
– misinterpreting the statement through a superficial or biased reading,
– or relying on misinformation without having verified the accuracy of the report.
Such trends undermine the sanctity of scholarly engagement and breed division, especially when polemics are prioritised over sincere counsel and when reputational harm is inflicted without exhausting the avenues of clarification, dialogue, and ḥusn al-ẓann. True academic integrity demands restraint, verification, and justice—qualities that are unfortunately lacking in many of these confrontations.
The sad reality today when one scholar criticizes another is that, in many cases, the one being criticized has:
– publicly repented and retracted,
– or explained the context,
– or provided clarification.
Even worse, in many cases, the one criticizing is:
– blatantly lying,
– misinterpreting,
– or misinformed.