http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Chapters/4007H-0.

pdf
themuslimissue.wordpress.com/.../when-imam-ayatollah-khomeini-raped...
http://islamic-forum.net/index.phpshowtopic!"##4$
A LETTER IS FOUND ASCRIBED TO EGYPTOLOGIST OSING. THIS
LETTER/EPISTLE IS
AN ATTEPT TO REFUTE HARUN YAHYA AND OTHER SUCH PEOPLE
WHO THINK THAT
HAMAN IS FOUND IN ANCIENT EGYPTOLOGICAL INSCRIPTIONS.
WE HAVE SOME COMMENT AND REMARKS ON THIS
LETTER/EPISTLE.
WE DO THINK THAT ONE SHOULD THINK AGAIN .
%age "
' $00( www.islaminstitut.de %age " )s the *uran scienti+cally and
historically proven a marvel
,or over thirty years- is the claim that the *ur.an text scienti+cally proven a
/arvel is an important /uslim
argument for the truth claims of )slam. 0ith this assertion is advertised
intensively for )slam. )n /uslim
pu1lications now at least $00 di2erent supposedly scienti+cally veri+a1le
evidence the miraculous nature
of the *ur.an listed. )t has 1een researched to the following: 3he mention of a
person named Haman in the
story of /oses and %haraoh in the *uran 4Cf. $5.#6 5.756 $(.7(6 40.$4 87#9
and the alleged discovery of an ancient
:gyptian inscription with his- nem name long 1efore the advent of )slam 1y
many /uslims as the most important
historical evidence for the truth of the ;oran and )slam considered.
OUR STAND POINT IS THAT IF SUCH A PERSON IS NOT FOUND BY
THE SCIENCE OF EGYPTOLOGY
IT DOES NOT MAKE A PROBLEM. QURANIC TRUTH CANNOT BE
DENIED IF EGYPTOLOGY
FAILETH TO VERIFY QUR'ANIC REPORT. IF BIOLOGY CANNOT
CONFIRM BIRTH OF ADAM <<
MAY PEACE OF GOD BE UPON HIM>> DOES IT MEAN BOTH
GENESIS AND QURAN ARE FALSIFIED?
0e pu1lish to a press release with the most
important facts a1out this su1<ect with opinions three :gyptologists as well as
a letter from %rof. =r. >?rgen osing of
the ,ree @niversity Aerlin- who responds in detail to Buestions a1out this
inscription. Co evidence of divine
revelation of the *ur.an in :gyptian inscriptions )nvalidated wonder assertion
of :gyptologists Dienna-
" Covem1er $00(. %ast "E years- is an ancient :gyptian doorpost in Dienna
;unsthistorisches /useum su1<ect of
a controversial religious-dogmatic de1ate. Fome /uslim apologists 1elieve- a
clear in this post %roof of the divine
origin of their holy 1ook- the ;oran exist to have.
OUR STAND POINT IS SOME WHAT DIFFERENT. SUCH A
VERICATION FROM SCIENCE OF EGYPTOLOGY
MAY REGECT AN OBJECTION. AL QURAN DOES NOT REQUIRE
EVEDENCES FROM EGYPTOLOGY.
DO GENISIS AND QURAN BOTH REQUIRE SUPPORT OF
BIOLOGY WHICH SUPPORTETH
EVOLUTION?? BUT IF SOME ANTI EVOLUTION BIOLOGICAL
THEORIES ARE PROPOSED WE
WELCOME THEM.
Hieroglyphics specialists have now examined the inscription on
the post. 3he Gesult is so1ering:
NOT SO SOBERING. AS WE SHALL SEE.
3he relic revealed no metaphysical truths. Haman - this mysterious name will
1e "00
percent proof that the origin the ;oran is not a human. 3he holy 1ook of
)slam descri1es the person 1ehind the Came
of Haman as a close con+dant or advisor to the pharaoh at time of %rophet
/oses.
ONE MUST DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN CONFIRMATION AND
VERIFICATION. IT APPEARETH TO BE A CASE OF VARIFICATION
RAITHER THEN
)n addition- the :gyptian ruler
Haman ordered it from a 1urnt 1ricks 3o 1uild 1uildings- pro<ecting up to Hod
in heaven.
Is the ,rench scientist =r. /aurice Aucaille in "((4 in his 1ook J/oses and
the %haraoh: 3he He1rews in :gypt
Jclaimed that he had the personJ Haman Jin hieroglyphs can 1ack up on a
door post- 1roke with /uslim apologists a
verita1le 0onder enthusiasm for these names- which continues today.
3he professional designation of %erson from the inscription- Jhead of the
Buarry workersJ-
a perfect match to the description of the ;oran- so Aucaille. )n addition- from
the hieroglyphs could the close
relationship 1etween %haraoh and Haman are derived. Aucaille concludes:
3he fact that such a person did- mainly existed- in proof of the historically
correct details of the ;oran-
in contrast to the Ai1le. )n the following years- numerous /uslim preachers
have Aucailles analysis aufgegrif- fen.
,or example- writes of the controversial 3urkish writer Harun Kahya in his
Aook J3he %rophet /oses 4as9J: J3he existence
of the name Haman in ancient :gyptian Fcrolls reinforces the fact that the
;oran is the infalli1le word of Hod.
3he *uran gives us here a wonderful way a piece of historical information-
which one of the at times %rophet /uhammad never would +nd- or can tap
into. J
%age $
' $00( www.islaminstitut.de %age $ Aut it is o1vious that this is a divine
miracle
ONE MAY ASK HARUN YAH!YA FOR HIS COMMENTS ON OSIN'S
LATTER AS WELL.
3o answer this Buestion- have
now examined the inscription on the door <am1 experts. J:gyptian
hieroglyphs consist of consonant sounds.
3he vocaliLation is unclear- J explained the Aerlin :gyptologist %rofessor =r.
>?rgen osing. 3hus could even
in theory the name JHamanJ are not saved in this form- 1ut at most a JHmnJ.
JAut on the post is not even the
nameM Hmn- 1ut MHmn-h isJ so Nsing. Hieroglyphics expert %rofessor =r.
:rhart Hraefe- director of the prestigious )nstitute for :gyptology and Coptic
Ftudies at the 0estfOlische 0ilhelms-@niversitOt in /?nster explained 1y
Diew the inscription: J3he ending is undou1tedly an a11reviation- it goes from
a similar Came out. J =r. ;atharina Aauer from the we1 :gyptological
)nstitute of the @niversity of PeipLig agrees: J3he complete name for the
sym1ol is Hemen-hetep. 3his translates as- Hemen is satis+ed .or. gracious.-
where Hemen is an :gyptian deity. :gyptians often have their Came
composed so that it is a Hod is linked with an attri1ute. JAut Aridge 1uilder
goes even further: JNn closer inspection corresponds to the .H. of the name
Haman . from the ;oran- not the .H. in hieroglyphs. )t.s a di2erent sound.
Pater- these H-lute indeed merged in Coptic- 1ut the phonology is today
largely known. J Nsing- the JCominal formation of the :gyptianJ in his work
the di2erence 1etween these Pute has examined- explains: JIt the time- the
door of the post is dated- was one such ,usion is very rare. ) am only one
case from this period is known. J 3he Buestion of whether the <o1 title Jhead
of the Buarry workersJ a close relationship suggests to %haraoh denies 1ridge
1uilder. 3he professional title J)t is indeed on the post- head of the
stonemasons of Imun .. %ro1a1ly Hemen-hetep was in a 3emple 1usy. ,rom
his relationship to %haraoh can not 1e inferred. JHraefe.s true Aridge 1uilders
to: J3he rest of the text consists of the usual dead wishes. )t is found nothing
special- which suggests a close relationship to %haraoh. J ,or the professional
title of Haman added osing: J)t is dou1tful that an :gyptian king not a1out
his- head of all works of the king .with the erection of such a huge Fhould
have commissioned the 1uilding- 1ut a non-indicated for 1rick and little Buali-
+ed- head of the Buarry workers and stonemasons.. )n addition- the *ur.an
expressly Pich of heated or 1urnt 1ricks of the Buestion. =ocuments for
1uildings of 1urnt 1rick It this time- however- occupy only a very small
proportion- in particular at /onumental. J %rof. Hraefe.s so1ering conclusion
is: J)n all these o1<ections is an eBuation with the *ur.anic Haman little more
than noisy nonsense. J )n the ;unsthistorisches /useum in Dienna was not
known what signi+cance the artifact in the was last "E years. /ichaela
Huettner- curator of the :gyptian and Cear :astern Collection of the
;unsthistorisches /useum in Dienna- responds to the Buestion of whether
Aucaille the doorposts ever close has 1een a1le to investigate: J3o my
knowledge were the two ,ragments of the doorpost in decades not pu1licly
availa1le- 1ut were only in our depot. )n our records- there is neither a
correspondence with a /r. Aucaille still a statement that he or another visitor
this artifact in the period wanted to see from "(7E to "((E. 0e have in recent
years a1out the unusual wondered international interest in this doorpost- 1ut
the +rst reBuest came a1out until the year $00E. J
%age 7
' $00( www.islaminstitut.de %age 7 Fource: /useum of ,ine Irts with /D;
and Q3/- Dienna. @sed 1y permission.
IT IS A VERY INCORRECT ARGUMENT. AS WE HAVE STATED
EARLIER <<IN AN OTHER ARTICLE>>
DR PROFESSOR JURGEN MAY BE AN E"PERT OR EVEN AN
AUTHORITY IN THE
SCIENCE OF EGYPTOLOGY BUT WHEN HE COMES OUT FROM THE
DOMAIN OF EGYPTOLOGY
HE IS NEITHER SO AUTHORATIVE NOR SO E"PERT.
NO ONE DOES CLAIM THAT THE E"ACT WORD IS FOUND IN
QUR'A!N. AT BEST AN ARABITI#ED
FORM.
EVIDENCE FROM NEW TESTAMENT. THE PROPER NOUN YASHUA'
IS NOT FOUND IN NEW TESTAMENT
/COVANENT IN ORIGINAL GREEK BUT IESOUS. NTG HAS
GREEKITI#ED THE HEBRAIC NOUN
OF YASHUA'.
WHAT SO EVER BE THE EGYPTIAN/EGYPTIC NOUN OF A PERSON
IT CAN ALWAYS BE
'ARABITI#ED.
I divine miracle 3hese two fragments of a door <am1 in the Dienna
;unsthistorisches /useum are many
/uslim apologists as proof of the scienti+c prova1le Iccuracy of their religion.
:xperts disagree. Gaoul
1asement " " :-mail address: raoul-kellerRwe1.de.
ONE SHOULD SEE THE ARGUMENTS OF THESE E"PERTS NOT
JUST A BLIND FAITH
IN THEIR DISAGGREMENT. A PROPER ANALYSIS OF THEIR
ATTEMTED ARGUMENT
IS THE DEMAND OF LOGIC SCIENCE OF LAW OF
ARGUMENTATION RATIONALITY
AND RESONABLITY. IS THAT NOT SO????
%age 4
' $00( www.islaminstitut.de %age 4 Aelow is a letter to the two fragments of
%rof. =r. >. osing 4retired9 is
reproduced:
%rof. =r. >?rgen osing 4retired9 :gyptology ,ree @niversity of Aerlin Aerlin-
Iugust $00(
=ear Firs-
the names on the two :gyptian doorposts are clear enough to read. 3hey
appear specify H mn-H as of 0resLinski
and tendril at the end of the two columns of text. 0hether for this name yet
there is a long form- in my opinion plays
in the comparison with the *ur.anic Haman a su1ordinate role. Ftands on the
door<am1 of the name H mn-H - and
these sounds are considered. 3his H mn-H is formed from the names of Hod H
mn and a non-secure certain Aaren
element with the two consonants H0- which in the Cew ;ingdom- in
con<unction with the sign of the papyrus as
a very freBuent Jgroup caseJ for the consonants h is needed.
$>>ONE MAY ACCEPT THE STATEMENT THAT THIS NOUN IS H! MN
% H! . IT MAY BE TRUE THAT
THE LAST PART OF THE NOUN H! IS QUESTIONABLE BUT NOT
DENIABLE.
BUT IN ARABITI#ATION THE COMPOSITE EGYPTIAN NOUN IS
CONSIDERED AS A SINGLE NOUN
DISREGARD OF ITS COMPOSITE NATURE. IN THIS CASE THE
FINAL CONSONENT MAY BE DROPPED
. THIS IS NOT UNIQUE WITH ARABIC.
SEE THE LATANI#ES FORM OF IBN SINA AND IBNURRUSH/ IBN
ARRUSHD BOTH
COMPOSITE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
THE FINAL H! MAY BE DROPPED SINCE IT WOULD HAVE BECOME
TOO UNARABIC
AND A PROPER ARABITI#ATION REQUIRETH ITS DROPPING.
&>
)f Ganke descri1es the name as H mn-H- it is the ar1itrariness
*uestion mark to explain as it does- for example- the we1site islamic-
awareness.org 4>uly $00(9:
JIs if Fuggesting- H .what not Ictually part of the nameJ- and thus all
eliminate. 3he interpretation of +nal h
is Buestiona1le- 1ut not its existence as %art of the name- the then still the
epithet
Jwith true voice- <usti+edJ for the 1lessed dead follows. Compared with the
name of Ira1 Haman two
discrepancies arise: Nn the Ira1 side of the missing H at the end of the
name.
IT HATH BEEN STATED ABOVE THAT THE COMPOSITE NATURE OF
NOUN IS NEGLECTED
ITS THE POSSIBILITY CANNOT BE DENIED EVEN IF IT APPEARETH
TO BE IMPROBABLE.
THERE IS NO HARD AND FAST <<STRICT >> RULES FAR
ARBITI#ATION OF A NOUN.
IF SOME ONE CLAIMETH SO HE MUST STATE THESE RULES AND
LAWS << RULES AND LAWS
OF ARBITI#ATION FROM AUTHENTIC AND THRUSTWORTHY
BOOKS.>> SO OF THE
FINAL H! IS DROPPED IN THE ARABIC FORM IT IS NOT
IMMPOSSIBLE.
" 3he Buality of the +rst h-Poud is di2erent.
)t is true that for the :gyptian $ - )n the neigh1orhood of m - a sound
transition hS h occasionally already
for the "(th-$"st =ynasty has 1een demonstrated. 4Fee my Jnominal form of
the :gyptianJ- /ainL "(7# %p. 7#7 f.9
Currently- the new empire- however- on the door post is dated- were such
mergers rarely expressed.
/ir is <ust one example from the Buestion ;nown period of time. )t is a
secondary articulation. ) think it
is Buestiona1le- such a secondary articulation <ust assign a source from
which =ivine authority is assumed.
However- ) think the variety of h-lute for su1ordinate- as a num1er of other
evidence against eBuating speaks.
Iccording to the *ur.an Haman is asked 1y the %haraoh to a high of 1urnt
1rick 3o 1uild 1uildings. )t is noteworthy
that an :gyptian king is not a1out his Jhead have entrusted all the work of
the ;ing Jwith the erection of such a
massive 1uilding should- 1ut a minor Jhead of the Buarry workers or masons.J
3he latter usually had only local
signi+cance and for a 4pro1a1ly huge9 Arick no Buali+cations.
NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A PROBLEM OF EGYPTOLOGY. WHAT DID
THE EGYPTIAN PHAROAH
DID IN THE PAST CANNOT BE KNOWN . IT MAY BE THE CASE THAT
IN HIS DESPIRATE ATTEMPT
HE MIGHT HAVE TALKED TO THE EGYPTOLOGICAL H!MN %H!.
BUT THERE IS NO RECORD OF EACH AND EVERY ACT OF THE
PHAROAH.
%age E
' $00( www.islaminstitut.de %age E 3o 1urn AauLiegeln should 1e noted that
in :gypt from %haraonic times an
almost in+nite num1er of 1uildings- monumental and smaller- o1tained from
air-dried 1ricks is. )n addition- take
the onset of the "(th dynasty at a site in the eastern Cile =elta- in the late
period then increasing evidence of
1urned AauLiegel only a vanishingly small tion part- especially in
monumental 1uildings 4see I> Fpencer- Arick
Irchitecture in Incient :gypt. 0arminster "(7(- passim9. ,or Pinguistic ) want
to reiterate that the name Haman
1oth in Ira1ic as in He1rew is etymologically isolated and this also in any
other Femitic language would 1e- as there is
no root word T hmn still is such a word formation types here.
HERE RESPECTABLE OSING HAS SHIFTED THE DOMAIN FROM
EGYPTOLOGY TO
ARABITI#ATION. THIS NEEDETH A SPECIAL DISCUSSION. AS AN
E"PERT OF EGYPTOLOGIST
ALL HIS STATEMENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED WITH IN THE LIMITS
OF EGYPTOLOGY.
BUT AS AN E"PERT ON ARABIC LANGUAGE HIS WORDS ARE NOT
AUTHORATIVE.
Is :gyptian name was Haman at least very unusual
and hitherto completely unknown.
OFCOURSE THIS IS CORRECT. SINCE HA!MA!N IS NOT AN
EGYPTIAN WORD AND
THE PERSON MUST NOT HAVE EVEN THOUGHT THAT HIS NAME
WOULD BE ARABITI#ED AS
HA!MA!N.
CONSIDER THE E"AMPLE OF GREAT PROPHET MOSHE <<MAY
PEACE OF GOD BE
UPON HIM>>.
DID THE GREAT PROPHET MOSHE << PEACE BE UPON HIM >>
EVER THOUGHT
THAT THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE SHALL CHANGE HIS NOUN FROM
MOSHE TO MOSES.??
DID LORD YAHSUA' EVER THOUTH THAT THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
WILL CHANGE HIS ORIGINAL
PROPER NOUN FROM YASHUA' TO JESUS. WHERE Y SOUND OF
THE FIRST LETTER YOD
IS CHANGED TO CONSONENTAL DEPHTHONG ''J'' THE UNVOICED
''SH'' SOUND IS CHANGED TO
VOICED ''#'' SOUND. LORD YASHUA' MUST NOT HAVE EVER
THOUGHT '' THE WORD
JESHUA SINCE THE ''J'' SOUND IS NOT PRESENT IN HEBREW AND
YOD IS NOT THIS
CONSONENTAL DEPHTHONG.
CAN WE SAY THE SAME WORDS TO GREAT GERMAN SCHOLAR
OSING THAT SIMILARTO
HIS OUN WORDS
(( AS HEBRAIC NOUN JESUS IS NOT FOUND SINSE THE
CONSOENTAL DEPHTHONG
IS NOT FOUND IN HEBREW AND HEBRAIC HEBRAIC YOD IS NOT
''J''.
RESPECTABLE OSING MAY SEE THAT ARABITIS#ATION OF HIS
NOUN WOULD BE
JARJIN 'USINJ <J AS CONSONENTAL DEPHTHONG>. PERHAPS
THE FINAL J MAY ALS
3he name has another origin towards 4eg Nld %ersian Humayun Jthe HreatJ-
see ;Uhler-Aaumgartner9. Cot only 1ecause ) was the Ira1ic Haman initially
to the %ersian Haman erin- nert- in the
1ook of :sther as Gegent and Feal carrier of Verxes and as an enemy of the
>ews is mentioned and is said to have 1een
found due to its intrigue to an inglorious end. 3his Came in the He1rew text
has exactly the same articulation on
how the Ira1ic form - at the Dowels not less than the consonants 4see ;Uhler-
Aaumgartner9. 3he mention of such
a +gure is limited to the scriptures of >udaism 4and Christianity9 and )slam.
NOW OUR LEARNED EGYPTOLOGIST S TRYING TO BE AN E"PERT
UPON PERSIAN AND ARABIC
AND ABRITI#ATION OF PERSIAN WORDS. THIS DOES REQUIRE A
SEPERATE DISCUSSION BUT
MAY ONE ASK THAT '' IS AN EGYPTOLOGIST IS ALSO AN E"PERT
UPON PERSIANHEBREW ARAMAIC ANF ARABIC.
ONCE AGAIN WE CONCLUDE THAT PERSIANI#ATION AND
ARABITI#ATION OF NON PERSIAN
AND NON ARABIC NOUNS IS A VERY DIFFERENT SUBJECT AND
REQUIRETH A SEPERATE
DISCUSSION. OUR BELOVED EGYPTIOLOGIST IS ONCE AGAIN IS
TRANSPORTING FROM
FROM THE SCIENCE OF EGYPTOLOGY TO THE SUBJECTS OF
ARABITI#ATION AND
PERSIANI#ATION OF NOUNS RESPECTIVELY.
SO IT IS SUFFICIENT TO POINT OUT THAT TRANSPORTING
HIMSELF SCILENTLY
FROM ONE SUBJECT TO AN OTHER . THIS IS A FALLACY AND
SHIFT OF SUBJECTS.
ANY HOW ONE MAY THANK OSING FOR NOT DISCUSSING THE
INDIAN KING
'' HUMAYUN'' SON OF KING BA!BAR THE FOUNDER OF MUGHAL
DYNASTY IN INDIAN SUB
%CONTINENT .
TO DISCUSS THE BOOK OF ESTHER OF BIBLE IS ONCE AGAIN TO
MI" EGYPTOLOGY
WITH BOOK OF ESTHER. THE LEARNED EGYPTOLOIST SHOULD
NOT HAVE DONE THAT.
DID HE FIND ESTHER IN THE PERIOD OF PHAROAHS OF $)TH AND
$*TH DYNASTIES.
????? AS THE ARGUMENT IS NOT EGYPTOLOGICAL A PROPER
DISCUSSION
ON THE TOPIC IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PRESENT
COMMENS AND REMARKS.
3he extent of matching for the two persons named Haman sets m. :. a
conclusion as to direct dependence close.
3he motif of a rising skywards 1uilding and hu1ris- here1y the Hod of the
)sraelites counter- could 1e modeled on the
3ower of Aa1el.
THIS IS A MISSIONARY ARGUMENT AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH EGYPTOLOGY.
ONE AGAIN THE GREAT EGYPTOLOGIST IS DRITING FROM
EGYPTOLOGY TO POLEMICS.
IS THAT A RESEARCH???? WHAT THE PHAROAHIC EGYPTOLOGY
HAS TO DO WITH
BABEL. SUCH A SHIFT IS JUST ANOTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF
THAT THE EGYPTOLOGIST HAS
BECOME BABELIS AND A POLIMIST . A PROPER REFUTATION OF
THIS NON EGYPTOLOGIC
ARGUMENT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE BUT IT MAY BE DISCUSSED
SEPERATELY IF THE GOD
OF MOSES WILLETH.
)n /esopotamia were such WiegelLikkurat common. Iccording to Henesis
"".7- the tower of Aa1el
was 1roken- enes and 1urnt 1rick 1uilt. 0ith 1est regards >?rgen osing.
IT APPEARS THAT JURGEN OSING IS NOT SO EGYPTOLOGIC IN HIS RESPONCE.
ANY HOW ONE MUST THANK OSING FOR CHAIRING HIS COMPOUND VIEWS,
A QUESTION TO THOSE WHO DENEY HAMAN!
IF THE SCIENCE OF EGYTOLOGY FAILETH TO PROVE HA!MA!N IT
ALSO FAILETH
TO PROVE THE MIGHTY PROPHET OF GOD MOSES << MAY THE
PEACE OF GOD BE UPON HIM.
>>. CAN MOSES BE DENIED ONLY BECAUSE HIS E"ISTENCE IS
NOT FOUND
EGYPTOLOGICALLY IN THE PERIOD OF ANY ONE OF THE
PHAROAHS ??.
IF NOT THEN THIS MEANS THIS SUBJECT HAS ITS LIMITS.