Talk:Haman (Islam)

message: The bottom is a repeat but it is still important to research the books listed to look for evidence.  They are:
Walter Wreszinski, Ägyptische Inschriften aus dem K.K. Hof Museum in Wien, 1906, J. C. Hinrichs' sche Buchhandlung)
and 
Hermanne Ranke, Die Ägyptischen Personennamen, Verzeichnis der Namen, Verlag Von J J  Augustin in Glückstadt, Band I, 1935. Band II, 1952
Tim
The Speculation About the Name "Haman"
Those who keep themselves occupied by looking for inconsistencies in the Qur'an refer to a man named "Haman" who is mentioned in the Qur'anic verses as one of Pharaoh's men.
In the Torah, the name Haman is not used when the life of the Prophet Moses is quoted. On the other hand, it is mentioned in the Gospel to refer to a helper of the Babylonian king who lived 1,100 years after the Prophet Moses and persecuted the Jews.
Those who claim that the Prophet Muhammad wrote the Qur'an in the light of the Torah and the Gospel also put forth the sophistry that he copied some of the subjects in the Qur'an wrongly.
The ridiculousness of this claim became obvious 200 years ago when the Egyptian hieroglyphs were deciphered and the name "Haman" was discovered.
Until then it had not been possible to read any of the writings or tablets written in ancient Egyptian. The ancient Egyptian language and hieroglyphs had been present for many thousands of years. However, with the spread of Christianity and its cultural influences during the second and third centuries AD the ancient Egyptians forgot their religion as well as the language, and the use of hieroglyphs came to a gradual stop. The year 394 AD is the last known time when a hieroglyph was used. Afterwards this language was forgotten, leaving nobody who could read and understand it. Until some 200 years ago.
The ancient Egyptian language was deciphered in 1799 with the discovery of a tablet dated to 196 BC called the "Rosetta Stone". The unique nature of this tablet came from the fact that it was written in three different forms of writing; hieroglyphics, demotic (a simplified form of ancient Egyptian hieratic writing) and Greek. The ancient Egyptian dialect was decoded with the help of the Greek version. A Frenchman named Jean-Françoise Champollion completed the deciphering of the whole tablet. In this way, a forgotten language and the history that it contained came back to life. This discovery made it possible to research ancient Egyptian civilization, their beliefs and social life.
It also made it possible to acquire the vital piece of information we are now discussing. The name "Haman" was in fact mentioned in old Egyptian tablets. It was mentioned on a monument which now stands in the Hof Museum in Vienna, and in which the closeness of Haman to the Pharaoh was emphasized. (Walter Wreszinski, Ägyptische Inschriften aus dem K.K. Hof Museum in Wien, 1906, J. C. Hinrichs' sche Buchhandlung)
The dictionary "The People in the New Kingdom" refers to Haman as "the head of the quarry workers". (Hermanne Ranke, Die Ägyptischen Personennamen, Verzeichnis der Namen, Verlag Von J J  Augustin in Glückstadt, Band I, 1935. Band II, 1952)
This discovery brought to light a truly astonishing fact. Haman was, contrary to what those who opposed the Qur'an claimed, really a man who had lived in Egypt during the Prophet Moses' time and furthermore, just as stated in the Qur'an, he was close to the Pharaoh and dealt with construction of sorts.
As a matter of fact, the Qur'anic verse that conveys how the Pharaoh requested Haman to build a tower is in perfect unison with this archaeological finding:
Pharaoh said, 'Council, I do not know of any other god for you apart from me. Haman, kindle a fire for me over the clay and build me a lofty tower so that perhaps I may be able to climb up to Moses' god! I consider him a blatant liar.' (Surat al-Qasas: 38)
In conclusion, the discovery of the name Haman on ancient Egyptian tablets discredited another claim made by those who strive to find inconsistencies in the Qur'anic verses. Furthermore, the undeniable truth that the Qur'an is revealed by God is once again proven without any doubt as the Qur'an miraculously conveyed historical information that could not have been found and deciphered in the Prophet's time.
-Amr Atef 
Note: WikiHiero transcription can be seen below, though it needs verification:
:F20-i-k-D40-n-i-mn:n-H-mn:n-F18:Y1!
:F20-i-k:D40!
:m:r-A21
- Mustafaa 22:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Comments on changes I've made:
There is no known egyptiologist btw. expert in this topic supporting Dr. Bucailles claim.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.78.99 (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Update 

message: I made some changes and thought I should note why I made them:
*Removed “(it should be noted ancient Egyptology is filled with many speculations, a science consist the mix of art and facts)” because it degrades Egyptology using ambiguous wording.  Certainly all history is not an exact science, therefore Egyptology should not be insulted for being like all others.  This should be referenced to be reinserted. Such a statement could be inserted anywhere the author wishes to cast doubt on any unliked historical statement. It has no bearing upon the fact that the Haman narrative is in fact inconsistent with Egyptology. For the same reason I removed the quotes around “official.”
* Removed “The ancient Egyptian inscriptions however show that  the name "Haman" is attested in ancient Egypt; it is a masculine name and dates to the New Kingdom period, the period of history in which Moses is principally associated.” This belongs under the “Name” subheading anyway where Wikipedia has agreed that his is not definite.
*Replaced “Israelites” with “Jews.” This is the historically correct term for this period of Jewish history.
*Removed “one of” from “The Bible, one of the oldest reference to the Moses and Pharaoh narrative” because it’s not true!
* Removed “Pharaoh and Haman from Answering Christianity“ because it is copy of another referenced page.  Further, the entire site generally lacks scholarship.  
* Removed “However, there are records in ancient Egyptian history where some of the leaders in ancient Egypt defies the previous religion, up to the point that it causes many discontent to many ancient Egyptians.”  So what?   Removed “For example Herodotus based on the claim by Egyptians stated that during Khufu administration, the Egyptians are severly restricted in doing their religion, this might or might not be true.” Being grammatically horrible, I don’t even know what this is trying to say.
*Removed “but used only when its durability would give particular advantage over the mud brick” because that is not in the cited  source and adds nothing to the article.
*Altered “The idea of the Pharaoh climbing a tower or staircase in order to climb and converse with the gods is in consonance with the mythology of ancient Egypt.” Because the quoted source says nothing about a tower or conversing with the gods once he ascends.  
*Removed “:When the Pharaoh completes his climb, magic at his feet "The sky trembles", he asserts, "the earth shivers before me, for I am a magician, I possess magic". It is also he who installs the gods on their thrones, thus proving that the cosmos recognises his omnipotence"  Christian Jacq (Trans. Janet M. Davis), Egyptian Magic, 1985, Aris & Phillips Ltd. & Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers: Chicago, p. 11. ” because this book doesn’t exist as cited.  It’s probably this one but this has a different publisher. Please confirm.
* Removed “It also should be pointed that Khufu (whose name is often associated with The Great pyramid, thoguh some believes that he only merely retrofited The Great Pyramid instead of building it) had Hemiunu (another name that is also often associated with The Great Pyramid) as his vizier and royal seal bearer. If Khufu was Firaun, then it would mean that Moses and the descendants of Israel exodus would have took place somewhere during ancient Egypt's Old Kingdom era (somewhere in the middle of the third millenium B.C. / 25XX~ B.C.), around one and a half thousand years earlier than the current Ussher-ian dating.” If someone wants to suggest that Hemiunu is Haman, let it come from an authority of heiryglyphics.  Also note that Hemiunu is 1000 years younger than Haman!
*Removed “(though The Great Pyramid's status as a tomb is questionable)” because it rhetorically undermines the topic sentence while not objectively providing evidence for anything.  Second, it’s false.
New theories concerning the origin and purpose of the Pyramids of Giza have been proposed... Astronomic observatories... Places of cult worship... Geometric structures constructed by a long-gone civilization... Even extraterrestrial-related theories have been proposed with little evidence in support... The overwhelming scientific and historic evidence still supports the conclusion that, like many smaller pyramids in the region, the Great Pyramids were built by the great Ancient Egyptian civilization off the West bank of the Nile as tombs for their magnificent Kings  cf Great Pyramid of Giza  
Wow, that’s a lot!  Please let me know if anyone disagrees!  Unfortunately much of the pro-Islamic literature out there is misleading (though not necessarily false), as these changes show. Be careful!
--JBJ830726 07:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major misc revision 

message: Regarding "particular advantage over the mud brick..." oops, I didn't notice it was part of the quote. Good. Can we change it to "but used only when its durability would give particular advantage over the mud brick." .... Thus the use of burnt bricks was possible but unusual." Since the pyrmaids were made from stone and the pyramids are the most durable buildings in the world, it's not as if burnt bricks would be more durable than anything else - only more durable than the mud brick as Spencer says. Including "unless durability was taken into account" implies that if pharaoh was building something durable, he would use burnt brick which he did not. What do you think?--JBJ 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with your suggested change. --Aminz 22:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Durable

message: Regarding Aten, I still think the whole thing is irrelevant unless we can find a pharaoh who claimed to be the only god, as Firawn does. A pharaoh is more likely than a Jew or Christian, but it doesn't mean he did it. If we find a pharaoh like that, then good! 
: Not yet agreed. Let me re-write this passage and then we can discuss it. --Aminz 22:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. --Aminz 22:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great, I've made the page Firaun.--JBJ 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Monotheism

message: As general advice, IslamicAwareness.org is a pretty good site. Especially compared to a lot Muslim debate sites out there.
--JBJ 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice. --Aminz 22:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: blah

message: There seems to be a lot of confusion here. The text of the Qur'an says simply that the bricks were made with burnt mud. And that is exactly one of the main methods by which Egyptians prepared mudbricks: burning mud taken from the Nile in a firewood kiln. Judging from articles on Wikipedia mentioning large constructions commissioned by Pharaohs, it seems that bricks made of burnt mud were fairly common. And there is no actual distinction between "burnt bricks" on one hand and "mudbricks" on the other. Mudbricks WERE burnt, sometimes in the sun, and, when durability was an issue, in firewood kilns. It makes no sense to differentiate between the two, as the current text of the article does. There may be other problems with the historicity of the verses on many aspects, but this is certainly not one of them. Giorgioz 02:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mudbricks were burnt, actually - the "inconsistency" mentioned in the Article doesn't make sense 

message: It's too bad I need to check this article every few months to make sure good information hasn't been deleted for no reason, I suppose, other than they don't want people to know. I don't have a solution. It's just disappointing. Here's an example that was deleted without explanation:
:While many Muslims accept Haman's historicity, it is under criticism by others. The narrative does have several portions that are similar in the Bible and is inconsistent with official Egyptian history. Some Orientalists argue that Muhammad has mixed different elements from different stories and has made up Haman's story. But this is rejected by some Muslim scholars pointing out the many differences between the stories. Some ancient Egyptian inscriptions are also used to support Haman's historicity. Firaun's historicity is also questioned.
--Ephilei 20:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV vandalism 

message: f off 
Comments on changes I've made:
Changed "disputed" into "shown to be false". Reason: Dr. Maurice Bucaille is a medical doctor - he is not egyptiologist. No known egyptiologist has ever claimed this person on the door-post refers to the quranic "Haman". Quite the opposite: Prof. Erhard Graefe , head of the egyptiological institute of the university Münster (Germany) called this claim "noisy crap". Egyptiologist Prof. Jürgen Osing(formerly Freie-Universität Berlin, Germany) wrote a letter disproving Bucailles claim. Dr. Katharina Stegbauer, egyptiologist University Leipzig, agrees with Graefe and Osing. (http://www.islaminstitut.de/Artikelanzeige.41+M5fff2d8c174.0.html) The global egyptian museum calls the person on the door-post "Hemen-hetep" and the Kunsthistorische Museum in Vienna calls him "Hemen-hetep (?)". (http://bilddatenbank.khm.at/viewArtefact?id=321318) (http://www.globalegyptianmuseum.org/record.aspx?id=5136) 
Therefore, Bucailles claim cannot be taken seriously as long there is no known egyptiologist supporting it with a reasonable theory or hypothesis.
There is no known egyptiologist btw. expert in this topic supporting Dr. Bucailles claim.  —Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 85.181.224.232 (talk) 06:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''- "Shown to be false", not "disputed":'''  

message: I have removed following : 
"Controversy
The story of Haman in the Qu'ran is seen as a controversy by some Islamic scholars, because it is proposed as evidence that Mohammad, when composing the Qu'ran, mistakenly confused the Haman of the Bible.  There are many Islamic websites devoted to promoting the idea that the Qu'ran does not contain this historical inaccuracy.  See, e.g., []."
Reason:
I have removed this section because it tries to say that it is a "historical inaccuracy" because of what is written in bible, Please do not quote bible as an authentic book of history, please use archeological findings to prove such things not what is written in bible
Also i do not understand why bible is being mentioned in this article .. its neither a book of history not some archeological findings, this article should mention what is written in quran about haman or hadith of prophet muhammad, why even compare it with haman of bible a book which is full of contradictions and not a correct historical source by any standards.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.165.250.197 (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect reference as evidence 

message: Haman (Islam)
Suggestion:
Haman Islam
Haman (Quran)
Haman Quran
Haman Vizier
Haman High Priest Doremon764 (talk) 05:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haman redirect suggestion 

message: I thought Wikipedia was a reliable source of information?
Do they let any Tom, Dick and Harry publish content without scrutiny? 2A02:C7F:F657:6200:6004:7567:7CB5:E879 (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof Reading 

message: He was hanged according to the book of Ester 2601:800:C480:54E0:F515:1A04:9959:10EA (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haman 

message: Human was not the name of Ramses II, it was Sethi 65.130.17.173 (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops!  HAMAN not human. Stupid spell check! 65.130.17.173 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haman