Talk:Haman (Islam)

[Untitled]

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.

Major Update

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)

• Removed AEgyptian-L mailing list links because they're all dead
• Changed Fir`awn everwhere to Firon because both are used among Muslims and Firon is easier for non-Arab speakers. Used Firon for Pharoah in the Qur'an except from quotes.
• I'm sorry if the historicity stuff isn't NPOV but I did try. Please help if able!

--JBJ830726 00:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Major misc revision

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" ” 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 [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

Major edits II

• Removed "(e.g. see Moses in the history)". How is this an example of the Qur'an's Haman narrative conflicting with Egyptian history?

Hello. First of all, I am not a native speaker and actually my English is not good. I have been in U.S. for only one and a half years. I am sorry about my spelling and grammar. Because I as I understand, the section is saying that "Haman is not historical since Moses was not after all". The sentence reads: "The narrative does have several portions that are similar in the Bible and is inconsistent with official Egyptian history." I just wanted to provid a link to the historicity of Moses. --Aminz 08:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong. "every" instead of "many" is an oversimplification.

• Removed "It also should be pointed that Khufu (whose name is often associated with Great pyramid of Giza, . . .. . " It's not relevant to the historicity of Haman, unless you're implying that Hemon could be Haman, which needs to be stated, not implied. Even so, details like whether Khufu retrofitted the pyramid doesn't make any difference to the historicity of Haman.

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.

You are right. How is this: "It also should be pointed that Khufu (whose name is often associated with Great pyramid of Giza, though some believes that he only merely retrofited The Great Pyramid instead of building it) had Hemon (another name that is also often associated with The Great Pyramid) as his vizier and royal seal bearer. IF one assumes that Haman is Hemon, 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.)." --Aminz 08:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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.

Yup. Please have a look at [2]. Search for "dutability" in the article and you'll be able to find the link. --Aminz 08:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

". 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.

I see your point and I think we should write it in a better way. This passage is supposed to show that it is more likely that a Pharaoh claims being the only god for his people rather than a Christian, Jew or Muslim leader says so. As you pointed out, in Akhenaten article we read "A religious revolutionary, Amenhotep IV introduced Atenism in the first year of his reign, raising the previously obscure god Aten (sometimes spelt Aton) to the position of supreme deity." But I think we should re-write this sentence to make it more relevant.--Aminz 08:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, goodnight.--JBJ 06:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Now my question to you:

• "However, critics argue that biblical narratives contain many elements absent in the Qur'anic." I can not get exactly what it means. Can you please clarify it. thx --Aminz 08:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Moses

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)

Well, if you read one of the previous versions of the introduction, you'll see for example that

"The question of Haman's historicity depends first of all on the question of Moses' own; see Moses#Moses in history, Exodus#Historical studies. If this is accepted, then it may still be noted that the Torah, the earliest surviving source to describe Moses and the Exodus, does not mention any attempt by Pharaoh to build a tower, nor does it mention any of his advisors. However, neither does it say anything specifically contradicting such a claim."

This was later summerized by later editors to what we can see today. You can see this more clearly if you see the history of the introduction part. The criticisms started from the fact that Moses is not historical by many scholars after all. I think this is what the editors were meaning. --Aminz 22:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. Great work finding that! To be more correct, Haman's historicity is closer linked to Musa (ie, the Qur'anic Musa) than Moses (ie, the biblical Moses). Even if the biblical Moses was not historical, Haman could still be historical because the Qur'an describes itself as divine revelation; it doesn't need the Bible. Haman's historicity depends mostly on Egyptology, heiroglyphics and the purpose and method of pyramid building. Where the Bible comes in raising the question, did Muhammad use the biblical stories as sources for the Qur'anic story? If he did, then he did not have divine revelation and therefore had no source for Haman except maybe from the biblical book of Esther. It doesn't matter if those biblical sources are true or not. Therefore, it doesn't matter if Moses (or the Bible) is historical. It's an issue of logic. Basically, the Bible could be historical or not, either way Haman could be historical. Or, the Bible could be historical or not, either way Haman could be unhistorical.

Perhaps some of that should be explained in the article?

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)

Hemon

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)

I can see from [3] that :

"It is also interesting to note that there also existed a similar sounding name called Hemon[71] (or Hemiunu / Hemionu[72] as he is also known as), a vizier to King Khnum-Khufu who is widely considered to be the architect of Khnum-Khufu's the Great Pyramid at Giza. He lived in the 4th Dynasty of the Old Kingdom Period (c. 2700 - 2190 BCE). He is said to have been buried in a large and splendid tomb at Saqqara in the royal necropolis. There is an extant statue of Hemiunu / Hemon, which resides in the Hildesheim Museum [Fig. 6(a)]. Although the name Hemiunu / Hemon is quite similar to Haman, they are written differently [compare the hieroglyphs in Fig. 6(b) with Fig. (4)] and perhaps also pronounced differently. The writing of Hemiunu employs Gardiner signs U36 O28. This is different from what we have seen for hmn which employs V28 Y5 N35."

So okay, we can remove this. It seems irrelavant. --Aminz 22:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Durable

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)

Yes, I agree with your suggested change. --Aminz 22:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Monotheism

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)

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)

I agree. --Aminz 22:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Great, I've made the page Firaun.--JBJ 02:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Absent elements

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)

How is this, "However, some critics explain that since Muhammad was illiterate, his knowledge of the Bible was based on hearsays rather than the original biblical texts. He may have heard the distorted versions of the three biblical narratives and has confused them together, forgotten some elements and merged them into one narrative in the Qur'an."

I think this is what really critics say. --Aminz 22:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

blah

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)

Thanks for the advice. --Aminz 22:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Too many unsourced claims, violation of NPOV, and other problems

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.

Did you read the whole article? See the entire historicity section (tho not really "His name". Note that "inconsistent" is slightly different from "contradictary." --Ephilei 02:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

First, I want to remind you that POV is not the opposite of NPOV. Second, it is neither POV nor biased because it is a statement about what people believe, namely critics of Islam. If you read textual criticism of the Qur'an, you will see this claim in every book. Here's an example online[4]

although many such works, including the one by tisdall, have been denounced as polemic and generally unreliable by academics.[5] ITAQALLAH 03:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

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♥ŤįɱéØ 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♥ŤįɱéØ 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)

Mudbricks were burnt, actually - the "inconsistency" mentioned in the Article doesn't make sense

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)

POV vandalism

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)

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)

- "Shown to be false", not "disputed":

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)

Incorrect reference as evidence

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 redirect suggestion

Haman (Islam)

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

Proof Reading

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)

Haman

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

Haman

Human was not the name of Ramses II, it was Sethi 65.130.17.173 (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Whoops! HAMAN not human. Stupid spell check! 65.130.17.173 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)