Forget Qur'an, has anyone ever read risale-i-nur?

[Warrior]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] [MENTION=25763]Dreamer[/MENTION] please warn Mole he's derailing my thread with his nonsense trolling EDIT: I've sent in multiple reports, please review them.

 

[Dreamer]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] [MENTION=25763]Dreamer[/MENTION] please warn Mole he's derailing my thread with his nonsense trolling EDIT: I've sent in multiple reports, please review them.

I can assure you, we receive and review all post reports that come through, and I thank the members that do bring questionable posts to our attention. The time it takes for us to review reports however, is dependent on our individual schedules and ability to come to consensus for action (if warranted) in reasonable time.

However, I should mention, and remind anyone that is unaware, that members do not own their threads. You are granted certain liberties within public/private blogs and within the Support and Advice subforum, but the direction and evolution of a thread is up to the members that participate. It is possible we may split a thread if divergent banter and conversation is expanded too far, but a few off-topic commentary posts within a thread is not explicitly against the rules, though frustrating for the OP it may be. (Any post that breaks the rules, of course, will be dealt with)

 

[Sacrophagus]

Greetings, [MENTION=35211]Warrior[/MENTION].

I just so happened that I renewed my interest in Quran lately, and I'm reading it with a zero-based, centered and compassionate eye instead of cherry picking in condemnation. In the same thematic, I've researched Risale-i Nur, and I'm quite interested.
I'll post my review once I've gone through it.

 

[Warrior]

Greetings, [MENTION=35211]Warrior[/MENTION].

I just so happened that I renewed my interest in Quran lately, and I'm reading it with a zero-based, centered and compassionate eye instead of cherry picking in condemnation. In the same thematic, I've researched Risale-i Nur, and I'm quite interested.
I'll post my review once I've gone through it.

you should download it as an app, it's free that way!

 

[Warrior]

Greetings, [MENTION=35211]Warrior[/MENTION].

I just so happened that I renewed my interest in Quran lately, and I'm reading it with a zero-based, centered and compassionate eye instead of cherry picking in condemnation. In the same thematic, I've researched Risale-i Nur, and I'm quite interested.
I'll post my review once I've gone through it.

glad to hear it! PM me if there's anything you don't understand.

 

[Warrior]

Greetings, [MENTION=35211]Warrior[/MENTION].

I just so happened that I renewed my interest in Quran lately, and I'm reading it with a zero-based, centered and compassionate eye instead of cherry picking in condemnation. In the same thematic, I've researched Risale-i Nur, and I'm quite interested.
I'll post my review once I've gone through it.

also, youre non muslim, right?

 

[Sacrophagus]

you should download it as an app, it's free that way!

I don't mind buying it to express my gratitude to the author.

glad to hear it! PM me if there's anything you don't understand.

You're being really helpful, I appreciate that.

Also, if someone is not being so courteous and scholarly, don't let it crawl under your skin.

also, youre non muslim, right?

"We're all born Muslim upon Fitrah".

 

[Warrior]

I don't mind buying it to express my gratitude to the author.



You're being really helpful, I appreciate that.

Also, if someone is not being so courteous and scholarly, don't let it crawl under your skin.



"We're all born Muslim upon Fitrah".

ah, so are you a convert?

 

[Warrior]

I don't mind buying it to express my gratitude to the author.



You're being really helpful, I appreciate that.

Also, if someone is not being so courteous and scholarly, don't let it crawl under your skin.



"We're all born Muslim upon Fitrah".

haha I'm not quite sure buying it to express gratitude to the author would help much since the author died in 1960, but I can still appreciate the sentiment.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't mind buying it to express my gratitude to the author.



You're being really helpful, I appreciate that.

Also, if someone is not being so courteous and scholarly, don't let it crawl under your skin.



"We're all born Muslim upon Fitrah".

also, thanks, I'll be sure not to let him crawl under my skin.

 

[Sacrophagus]

ah, so are you a convert?

I was always interested in theology, and I would not say that I was part of any other religion.
I like to see it as your relationship with the Creator, Allah, as opposed to be a vessel or an image that reflects another religion. No one can represent a religion or an idea to its full potential, since all of us are prone to err.

haha I'm not quite sure buying it to express gratitude to the author would help much since the author died in 1960, but I can still appreciate the sentiment.

Expressing unconditional gratitude always helps. In many ways you and I cannot fathom.

 

[Red Herring]

Naturally the first thing you do is insult me personalllly by callling me bigoted and prejudiced, and then you make a personally insulting gesture, "doh".

I said your statement was bigoted, prejudiced and false. I did not say anything about you as a person. There is no reason to take disagreement with your posts or your opinions so personally.

This will excite the bullies on Central who. oppose free speech and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

What bullies? Who here opposes human rights? Disagreeing with you and calling out a factually false claim is neither bullying nor against human rights.

I shouldn't be surised as decades ago the Left allied themselves with Islam and against liberal democracy and against The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

This is baseless nonsense.

And you have chosen the Left against common decency.

This is not just nonsense but a personal insult against me as a person.

And by the way, it is Marshall McLuhan who makes the point about the phonetic alphabet and civilisation.

If this idea stems from McLuhan that doesn not make it any truer. You yourself often warn against putting too much faith in gurus!

It is a false claim and I decided to take the time to explain why in case anybody else reading this is interested in the matter. False facts should not be left uncontradicted because otherwise they burn themselves into the subconscious of readers and can become dangerous certainties.

The phonetic alphabet gave us civilisation.

Stop right there! There is no common definition of civilization that includes a "phonetic alphabet". Some definitions include a writing system however, and there are many of those around. Some of the greatest civilizations of human history had writing systems other than alphabets. And some, like the Inca empire, used yet completely different systems of communication like Quipus. You are making quite a sweaping statement here with nothing at all to back it up. The definition of Civilization is worthey of a thread of its own. You are welcome to expolain hy you think a "phonetic alphabet" is a precondition since that is an unusual claim.

And it was only the West who created the phonetic alphabet.

Not true. The first known alphabets originated in the Middle East. There were other writing systems (and civilizations) like Mesopotamian cuneiforms and Egyptian hyrogliphs before the introduction of the first alphabets in the region.

Now, if you decide to define a "true alphabet" or as you call it "phonetic alphabet" as one that assigns letters not just to consonants but also to vowels.... you can do that, but it is a somewhat arbitrary definition (only introduced recently by a few authors) that does not say anything about the functionality of the writing system or the "superiority" of the civilization that uses it. It sounds like tweaking the definition just to be able to say that the Greek alphabet as the first "true" alphabet.

All your further claims are based on this questionable definition of a "true alphabet" (all alphabets are phonetic, so speaking of "phonetic alphabets" makes no sense). But they also contain further factual errors, so I'll continue to go through them one by one.

The Chinese did not have an phonetic alphabet, they had and have ideograms.

Not true. It's a common misconception that Chinese writing consists of ideograms. In fact only very few Chinese signs are ideograms or pictograms, there are 6 different categories of signs and about 90% of them are phonograms (phono-semantic compounds).

Islam does not have a phenotic alphabet.

Islam is not a language. The language of Islam however is classic Arabic and that is a language with an alphabet. As with other Semitic languages, it once used to be an abjad alphabet (i.e. consonants only) but now uses additional signs for vowel sounds.

Even Israel does not have a phonetic alphabet.

Israel has two official languages and a lot more are spoken on its streets but I assume you are talking of Ivrit aka Modern Hebrew. Ivrit also uses an abjad alphabet plus diacritic signs for vowels when necessary. Both Arabic and Hebrew are "impure" abjad alphabets in that they in fact do occasionally use signs for vowels.

And the Hindus do not have a phonetic alphabet.

Hinduism is a religion practiced by native speakers of many languages. I'll take a guess and assume you are thinking of Devanagari, the riting system used for Sanskrit (the language most intimately connected to Hinduism) and Hindi. Devanagari script has forty-seven primary characters, of which fourteen are vowels and thirty-three are consonants. So your claim is simply false.

Aborigines do not have a phonetic alphabet.

Australasian aborigines spoke (and speak) several different languages, the vast majority of them have died out by now. They were purely spoken languages, that is true. The problem when it comes to studying their culture then - aside from the fact the culture was mostly done away with in a manner not to be proud of - is that they had no writing system at all, not that they didn't have a "phonetic alphabet". That statement doesn't make much sense in this context.

In fact no one has a phonetic alphabet except us.

Alphabets, including "phonetic alphabets" as you call them, are used by many different languages and cultures. So who is "us"? Why do you repeatedly connect religions or countries ith writing systems rather than languages? It looks like you are trying to prove the superiority of a culture through its writing system and that is a ridiculous endeavor that smacks of 19th century reasoning, just a step away from phrenology.




It's normal to think your particular cultural group is wonderful but it's unwise to claim its superiority to others and downright foolish to then try to prove that superiority with false claims that reveal a lack of understanding of fundamental facts that can be looked up in any encyclopedia.

 

[Metis]

Stop right there! There is no common definition of civilization that includes a "phonetic alphabet". Some definitions include a writing system however, and there are many of those around. Some of the greatest civilizations of human history had writing systems other than alphabets. And some, like the Inca empire, used yet completely different systems of communication like Quipus. You are making quite a sweaping statement here with nothing at all to back it up. The definition of Civilization is worthey of a thread of its own. You are welcome to expolain hy you think a "phonetic alphabet" is a precondition since that is an unusual claim.




Not true. The first known alphabets originated in the Middle East. There were other writing systems (and civilizations) like Mesopotamian cuneiforms and Egyptian hyrogliphs before the introduction of the first alphabets in the region.

Now, if you decide to define a "true alphabet" or as you call it "phonetic alphabet" as one that assigns letters not just to consonants but also to vowels.... you can do that, but it is a somewhat arbitrary definition (only introduced recently by a few authors) that does not say anything about the functionality of the writing system or the "superiority" of the civilization that uses it. It sounds like tweaking the definition just to be able to say that the Greek alphabet as the first "true" alphabet.

All your further claims are based on this questionable definition of a "true alphabet" (all alphabets are phonetic, so speaking of "phonetic alphabets" makes no sense). But they also contain further factual errors, so I'll continue to go through them one by one.



Not true. It's a common misconception that Chinese writing consists of ideograms. In fact only very few Chinese signs are ideograms or pictograms, there are 6 different categories of signs and about 90% of them are phonograms (phono-semantic compounds).



Islam is not a language. The language of Islam however is classic Arabic and that is a language with an alphabet. As with other Semitic languages, it once used to be an abjad alphabet (i.e. consonants only) but now uses additional signs for vowel sounds.



Israel has two official languages and a lot more are spoken on its streets but I assume you are talking of Ivrit aka Modern Hebrew. Ivrit also uses an abjad alphabet plus diacritic signs for vowels when necessary. Both Arabic and Hebrew are "impure" abjad alphabets in that they in fact do occasionally use signs for vowels.



Hinduism is a religion practiced by native speakers of many languages. I'll take a guess and assume you are thinking of Devanagari, the riting system used for Sanskrit (the language most intimately connected to Hinduism) and Hindi. Devanagari script has forty-seven primary characters, of which fourteen are vowels and thirty-three are consonants. So your claim is simply false.



Australasian aborigines spoke (and speak) several different languages, the vast majority of them have died out by now. They were purely spoken languages, that is true. The problem when it comes to studying their culture then - aside from the fact the culture was mostly done away with in a manner not to be proud of - is that they had no writing system at all, not that they didn't have a "phonetic alphabet". That statement doesn't make much sense in this context.



Alphabets, including "phonetic alphabets" as you call them, are used by many different languages and cultures. So who is "us"? Why do you repeatedly connect religions or countries ith writing systems rather than languages? It looks like you are trying to prove the superiority of a culture through its writing system and that is a ridiculous endeavor that smacks of 19th century reasoning, just a step away from phrenology.




It's normal to think your particular cultural group is wonderful but it's unwise to claim its superiority to others and downright foolish to then try to prove that superiority with false claims that reveal a lack of understanding of fundamental facts that can be looked up in any encyclopedia.

Wow. I'm impressed with all this language knowledge. Sign me up to take your class. umpyouup:

 

[Mole]

I said your statement was bigoted, prejudiced and false. I did not say anything about you as a person. There is no reason to take disagreement with your posts or your opinions so personally.



What bullies? Who here opposes human rights? Disagreeing with you and calling out a factually false claim is neither bullying nor against human rights.



This is baseless nonsense.



This is not just nonsense but a personal insult against me as a person.



If this idea stems from McLuhan that doesn not make it any truer. You yourself often warn against putting too much faith in gurus!

It is a false claim and I decided to take the time to explain why in case anybody else reading this is interested in the matter. False facts should not be left uncontradicted because otherwise they burn themselves into the subconscious of readers and can become dangerous certainties.




Stop right there! There is no common definition of civilization that includes a "phonetic alphabet". Some definitions include a writing system however, and there are many of those around. Some of the greatest civilizations of human history had writing systems other than alphabets. And some, like the Inca empire, used yet completely different systems of communication like Quipus. You are making quite a sweaping statement here with nothing at all to back it up. The definition of Civilization is worthey of a thread of its own. You are welcome to expolain hy you think a "phonetic alphabet" is a precondition since that is an unusual claim.




Not true. The first known alphabets originated in the Middle East. There were other writing systems (and civilizations) like Mesopotamian cuneiforms and Egyptian hyrogliphs before the introduction of the first alphabets in the region.

Now, if you decide to define a "true alphabet" or as you call it "phonetic alphabet" as one that assigns letters not just to consonants but also to vowels.... you can do that, but it is a somewhat arbitrary definition (only introduced recently by a few authors) that does not say anything about the functionality of the writing system or the "superiority" of the civilization that uses it. It sounds like tweaking the definition just to be able to say that the Greek alphabet as the first "true" alphabet.

All your further claims are based on this questionable definition of a "true alphabet" (all alphabets are phonetic, so speaking of "phonetic alphabets" makes no sense). But they also contain further factual errors, so I'll continue to go through them one by one.



Not true. It's a common misconception that Chinese writing consists of ideograms. In fact only very few Chinese signs are ideograms or pictograms, there are 6 different categories of signs and about 90% of them are phonograms (phono-semantic compounds).



Islam is not a language. The language of Islam however is classic Arabic and that is a language with an alphabet. As with other Semitic languages, it once used to be an abjad alphabet (i.e. consonants only) but now uses additional signs for vowel sounds.



Israel has two official languages and a lot more are spoken on its streets but I assume you are talking of Ivrit aka Modern Hebrew. Ivrit also uses an abjad alphabet plus diacritic signs for vowels when necessary. Both Arabic and Hebrew are "impure" abjad alphabets in that they in fact do occasionally use signs for vowels.



Hinduism is a religion practiced by native speakers of many languages. I'll take a guess and assume you are thinking of Devanagari, the riting system used for Sanskrit (the language most intimately connected to Hinduism) and Hindi. Devanagari script has forty-seven primary characters, of which fourteen are vowels and thirty-three are consonants. So your claim is simply false.



Australasian aborigines spoke (and speak) several different languages, the vast majority of them have died out by now. They were purely spoken languages, that is true. The problem when it comes to studying their culture then - aside from the fact the culture was mostly done away with in a manner not to be proud of - is that they had no writing system at all, not that they didn't have a "phonetic alphabet". That statement doesn't make much sense in this context.



Alphabets, including "phonetic alphabets" as you call them, are used by many different languages and cultures. So who is "us"? Why do you repeatedly connect religions or countries ith writing systems rather than languages? It looks like you are trying to prove the superiority of a culture through its writing system and that is a ridiculous endeavor that smacks of 19th century reasoning, just a step away from phrenology.




It's normal to think your particular cultural group is wonderful but it's unwise to claim its superiority to others and downright foolish to then try to prove that superiority with false claims that reveal a lack of understanding of fundamental facts that can be looked up in any encyclopedia.

It's good to see you expressing yourself. And it took my assertion of a million word English and the phonetic alphabet to see your head above the parapet. I am sure you have a lot to say, and we look forward to hearing you say it.

We might say, what is the key to unlocking [MENTION=10251]Red Herring[/MENTION]? Is it her family relations? Or perhaps it is her professional expertise in languages. Or perhaps her political views. We don't know, and so listen for the click in the lock.