This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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:
|
|
|
- Mustafaa 22:43, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Looking at the Egyptological references, I am slightly worried that they are largely to old texts. It is scarcely credible that Maspero can be cited as an authority on Egyptian architectural methods. Likewise, Ranke's dictionary is rather old (it is now superceded) and any information it might present on phonology is of dubious veracity (might as well quote Budge!) given that our knowledge in this area has moved on a little since then.
Egyptology has moved on a long way since the 1930s, and so the whole discussion of historicity needs either to be based on modern, recognised, authoritative Egyptological texts (so David Rohl doesn't count) or to acknowledge that the argument is tendentious and poorly founded in sound scholarship.
I find it worrying that the sole authority claimed is Maurice Bucaille, whom a quick Google search reveals to be a not entirely credible source, in that he clearly has an agenda as a proponent of the Islamic equivalent of sola scriptura (see for example this piece which states that he argued for the accuracy of the Quran as a scientific text).
In view of all this I wonder if this piece requires a POV tag, as it is far from clear to me that it is in fact neutral.
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)
-- JBJ830726 00:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I made some changes and thought I should note why I made them:
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 [1] 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)
References
I was wrong. "every" instead of "many" is an oversimplification.
By the way, it might be good to know that biblical scholars don't give Ussher much credit. He's important because he was the first to do all that dating, but he's no longer the best.
Aminz, remember to check your spelling and grammar.
As for "but used only when its durability would give particular advantage over the mud brick." .... Thus the use of burnt bricks was possible but unusual unless durability consideration was taken into account." Do you know this? because I do not.
". 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. 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." This is certainly true, (see Akhenaten) but not relevant to the article unless there was a pharaoh who proclaimed himself the one and only god.
Okay, goodnight.-- JBJ 06:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Now my question to you:
here i found an interesting link
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/haman.html
i found it shocking that some people remove what they consider to be POV
because thay claim it's irrelevant yet still back Marraccio's claims witch is also a POV
so this article is not balanced and absolutely not neutral. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
41.99.77.208 (
talk)
20:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding "The narrative does have several portions that are similar in the Bible and is inconsistent with official Egyptian history." I think you're mistakenly thinking this sentence says "the Bible is inconsistent with..." but it means "The Qur'anic narrative is similar to the Bible and the Qur'anic narrative is inconsistent with..." To look at it grammatically, "The narrative" is the subject which applies to both parts of the predicate of the sentence. Does this clear it up?-- JBJ 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
If the Quranic version is inconsistent with the Biblical version,that doesn't necessarily mean the Quranic version is wrong. On the contrary, usually the newer edition of books have more updated and correct information.
More importantly we don't know who the author of the Bible's are and there are too many variations. Also there too many inconsistencies within the Bible's, unlike the Quran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:F657:6200:6004:7567:7CB5:E879 ( talk) 23:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding Hemon: Again, there are still irrelevant details. Something like this: "Alternately, the Qur'anic Haman could be Hemon, the constructor of the Great pyramid of Giza. " Then include some linguist who attests they could be the same person. These names sounds similar, but not knowing anything about heiroglypics, I can't say they are actually related. -- JBJ 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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!
I'm wondering if the whole monotheism section should move to a page on Firaun, since it really doesn't pertain directly to Haman. We could link it from here.-- JBJ 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Follow the logic: Qur'an scholars counter that the story shows no similarity in other details - notably the absence of any mention of languages. Muslim scholars say that if the Qur'an was copying the Bible, it would copy everything, eg, the languages thing in the Bible. However, critics argue that biblical narratives contain many elements absent in the Qur'anic. Non-Muslims counter saying, "so what, just because they don't follow exactly, doesn't mean one didn't influence the other."
Is this more clear: "However, critics argue that if the three biblical narratives were merged into one narrative in the Qur'an, many elements would be left out."-- JBJ 21:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
1. It states The narrative does have several portions that are similar in the Bible and is inconsistent with official Egyptian history.
What part is inconsistent? It doesn't elaborate on this in the rest of the article, nor does it give any source.
2. It states Some critics explain that Muhammad's knowledge of the Bible was based on hearsay by the Arabian Jews. He may have heard the versions of the several different biblical narratives, combining them and leaving some parts out by mistake.
That's entirely POV and unsourced. Plus, there is no mention of why the different biblical narratives should even be used as a standard for comparing.
3. It states Several Orientalists, again including Arthur Jeffery, suggest that the motif used here of a tower being built as a challenge to God comes from the story of the Tower of Babel, noting that it was similarly claimed in the Torah to be built of baked bricks. Qur'an scholars counter that the story shows no similarity in other details - notably the absence of any mention of languages. However, critics argue that biblical narratives contain many elements absent in the Qur'anic.
Well no duh they are absent, because they are two different stories involving different people at different times. Again, this part is highly POV because it assumes that the Bible's story should be the standard that these passages from the Noble Qur'an should be judged upon.
Also, the Bible is not being used as a standard, as if assumed to be true, only a compliment the same way any document of antiquity would be. The article never claims the Bible is right, only that the Qur'an is using the Bible as a source. Compare the article, Alexander in the Qur'an where the Qur'an is compared to another docuement, the Alexander Romance. The Alexander Romance is definitely fictitious, but used for comparison because it is older than the Qur'an, as is the Bible. -- Ephilei 02:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Please don't remove the accuracy tag until these three objections of mine are resolved. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 07:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Aminz (a Muslim) and I spent a long time hammering this article out and (at last time we talked) he has no problem with bias here. I understand this article may be troubling to you as a Muslim, but scholarship is scholarship. -- Ephilei 02:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not troubling to me as a Muslim, it is troubling to me as a Wikipedian. Criticism of Islam, for better or worse, should always be presented accurately. While certainly a critical examination of narratives involving Haman in the Noble Qur'an would be allowed on this article, unsourced, POV, or OR should not be admitted. As long as the criticisms have a source, and Muslim responses are printed as well, I see nothing wrong with the current existence of the article. Perhaps I came off as a strong blitz on this article, but that was certainly not my intention. As we continue this collaboration, I hope that we can reach agreement. -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥ Ťįɱé Ø 00:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
So . . . do you have responses for my other responses? Did you see them? I look forward to dialoging with you and reaching a consensus. -- Ephilei 02:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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:
-- Ephilei 20:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That paragraph is riddled with weasel words, and does not qualify as either POV nor good information for wikipedia unless the relevant references are provided. That is why it must be removed for the time being. When its sourcing and NPOV issues are solved, then you can add it again, but not in its current poor state: "Some say..., many... accept, rejected by some..." - this isn't NPOV. Giorgioz 21:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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., [
[6]]."
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)
Haman (Islam)
Suggestion: Haman Islam Haman (Quran) Haman Quran Haman Vizier Haman High Priest Doremon764 ( talk) 05:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
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)
He was hanged according to the book of Ester 2601:800:C480:54E0:F515:1A04:9959:10EA ( talk) 22:24, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Human was not the name of Ramses II, it was Sethi 65.130.17.173 ( talk) 03:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)