الرد على ادعاء خطا القران في ذكر هامان في قصة موسى عليه الصلاة و السلام مع فرعون

[محمد سني 1989]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

مصدر الرد :
https://academia.edu/resource/work/30959178

ظن الكثيرون أن اسم هامان هو خلط من القران بين قصة استير في سفر استير في العهد القديم و قصة فرعون و ذلك لان سفر استير يعرض هامان الاجاجي كوزير لاحشويرش الملك الفارسي بينما لم يرد و لا مرة واحدة في العهد القديم كوزير لفرعون لا في اسفار التوراة الخمسة و لا في بقية اسفار العهد القديم

و لكن عرفنا الان ان للقصة اصل حيث نجد في قصة احيقار الآشورية ان هامان هو ابن اخي احيقار الحكيم و انه تلقى تحديا من فرعون مصر ان يصنع صرحا بين السماء و الارض !! و لهذه القصة اشارة في سفر طوبيا (قرن ثاني قبل الميلاد) الاصحاح 14

نقرا من HAMAN'S TRANSITION FROM JAHILIYYA TO ISLAM* Adam Silverstein وهو ينقل اعتراضات المنصرين كلامانس و الراهب او الاب ماراسيو الصفحة 286- 287
((The first scholar to draw attention to the issue was Father Marraccio, confessor to Pope Inno-cent XI, who published his annotated translation of the Qur'ān (into
Latin) in the late 17th century.l0 In commenting on the Qur'anic Haman, Marraccio states:
Mahumet has mixed up Sacred Stories. He took Haman as an adviser of Pharaoh whereas in reality he was adviser of Ahasuerus, King of Persia. He also thought that the
Pharaoh ordered construction for him of a lofty tower from the top of which he could see the God of Moses which if true would be inferior to him. There is no doubt that he borrowed the story of this tower from the story of the
Tower of Babel. It is certain that in the Sacred Scriptures there is no such story of the Pharaoh. Be that as it may, Mahumet] has related a most incredible story.
On the same issue, Henri Lammens (a Christian clergyman him-self), calls the Pharaonic context in which Haman appears in the Qur'an "the most glaring anachronism", and Eisenberg, in the first edition of the El, states: "That Muhammad placed Haman in this period betrays his confused knowledge of history"))

ثم نقرا رد ادم سلفيرستين على هذا الادعاء فيما قاله في الصفحات 301-302
(( The answer to this question comes from the story of Ahigar the Assyrian sage, a tale that was extremely influential and widespread in the Near East, from the Achaemenid period until the Middle-Ages, having left its mark on Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scriptures and cultures along the way. 73 The episode of this tale that is pivotal for our purposes concerns a challenge that the Egyptian Pharaoh presented to the Assyrian ruler. Having received a misleading letter from Ahigar's treacherous nephew Nadan that the famous sage had died, Pharaoh challenged the Assyrians to send him a man who could build for him a tower between the heavens and the earth, confident that they would no longer be able to find a suitable person. As even the Assyrian ruler believed Ahigar to be dead, he nominated Nadan to undertake the challenge. Eventually, it emerged that Ahigar actually was alive; he was sent to Egypt, where he successfully built the tower, and his villainous nephew was rebuked.
The story of Ahigar is alluded to in the Book of Tobit (2nd century
BCE), where Tobit tells his son: "Remember my son how |HjAman treated Achiacharus who exalted him - how out of light he brought him into darkness, and how he rewarded him again; yet Achiacharus was saved but the other had his reward, for he went down into dark-ness" (the Book of Tobit 14:10).76 That Ahigar 'exalted' his nephew recalls the language of the Book of Esther where Ahasuerus 'exalted' Haman (Book of Esther 3: 1), and the fact that a few verses later Ahasuerus himself is mentioned (the Book of Tobit 14:15), suggests that the Book of Tobit's author has the Book of Esther's Haman in mind.?? The problem is that in most versions of the Ahiqar story, his nephew is called 'Nadan' (or 'Nadab'), not 'Haman'. This 'mistake' on the part of the Book of Tobit's author is an understandable one; the C1aC2aC3 pattern of 'Nadan' easily lends itself to a corruption in the form of 'Haman' and the other similarities between Ahigar's nephew and Ahasuerus's vizier, as discussed above, explain the confusion.
Thus, in the post-Biblical (yet pre-Qur'anic) Near East, certain ver sions of the Ahigar story substituted Haman for Nadan. As Ahigar's nephew is the one who was initially summoned by Pharaoh to build a tower between the heavens and the earth, we can begin to understand why in the Qur'ān Haman is ordered to build Pharaoh's sarh. 78 Presumably, the version of the Ahigar story that was familiar in 7th century Arabia is the version known to the Book of Tobit's author.
The fact that in (some versions of] the Book of Tobit 'Haman' is mentioned without reference to Mordecai and Esther suggests that already in the pre-Islamic Near East, Haman could be separated from his original Esther context. ))

و يختم كلامه في الصفحة 304 ان هامان في القران ليس نتاج خلط مع هامان الاجاجي في سفر استير و ان شخصية هامان في القران لم تنبني على سفر استير انما على قصة شفهية يهودية متعلقة بهامان و فرعون قبل الاسلام لها جذور متعلقة بقصة احيقار
((The argument that Haman existed not as an historical figure but as a topos in Near Eastern literatures can be taken a step further: it could be argued that even the Book of Esther's Haman was an ahistorical character, adapted to the story by its author from an ancient Near Eastern source. Until now, in asking whether or not the Qur'anic Haman is based on Esther's Haman, scholars have been implying that the Biblical story is the 'original' one with all subsequent references to Hamān being merely derivative. This sort of methodology was justifiable until the first half of the 19th century. Until that point, we knew about the ancient Near East only what the Bible told us about it. The discovery and decipherment of cuneiform tablets caused a paradigm shift in Near Eastern studies: hereafter, the Bible no longer elucidated the ancient Near East; rather the Near Eastern tablets elucidated the Bible. Hence, for example, the story of Noah's Flood went from being the yardstick against which other flood-stories were judged, to being but one stage in the development of ancient flood-stories in the Near East. The Haman case is no different: over a century of scholarship on the Book of Esther has established that the text is heavily indebted to Babylonian antecedents and the Esther story has been widely regarded through the ages as being an historical novella rather than a record of actual events that took place in Achaemenid Persia.86 Thus, rather than seeing the Book of Esther as the original, 'authentic' Hamān-context, it is necessary to consider the pre-Biblical Hamān, as a villain who challenged Marduk (Mordecai's own forerunner) 87 and who attained his different characteristics when 'released' into subsequent
Biblical and Qur'anic contexts. In a Jewish, post-exilic framework, the Haman character is garbed in Persian clothes;88 in an Arabian, early-Muslim context, he is garbed in Egyptian ones. In this way, both (or neither) of the two Hamans can be seen as 'derivative'))

و الاعجب من هذا اننا نجد نفس الناقد في الصفحة 294 يصرح ان هناك عمل سرياني من القرن الخامس يذكر تسخير فرعون بني إسرائيل بالعمل في البناء باستخدام الآجر ( الطين المطبوخ )
(( In both the Greek and Slavonic versions of 3 Baruch, for instance, Baruch is taken on a tour of heaven, where he is introduced to
... the ones who plotted to build the Tower lof Babel...
Among them one [pregnant woman was making bricks at the time of her delivery; they did not permit her to be released, but while making bricks she gave birth and carried her child in her cloak and continued making bricks 32
This source dates from late 1st /early 2nd century Syria, and has a striking parallel in a 5th century Syriac text, according to which the reason God slew the first-born in Egypt is as follows: an Israelite fell ill while baking bricks for Pharaoh, so the latter told his men to get the Israelite's pregnant wife to replace him. They refused to let her rest even when she implored them, and she gave birth there and then to two infants, apparently still-born. Her fellow workers implored the lord of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob for help and were promised revenge: just as Pharaoh slew her first-borns, so God would slay the firstborns of the Egyptians.33 ))

اما بالنسبة إلى الوجود التاريخي لشخصية هامان عند القدماء المصريين فقد ذكر ان هامان اصله لقب للكاهن الأعلى لأمون
نقرا من المصدر السابق الهامش 15 الصفحة 288
15E.g. Syed, "Historicity of Haman", esp. 53-4; and A. Badawi, "Le problème de Haman" in R. Traini, Studi in onore di Francesco Gabrieli (Rome, 1984), pp.
29-33, where 'Hamãn' is identified with 'Amon'; and see Johns, EQ, vol. 2, p. 399 for the theory that 'Haman' is "an Arabized echo of the Egyptian Hã-Amen, the title of a high priest second in rank only to Pharaoh".

ملاحظة : درايتي بالمصريات ليست قوية فهذا الاقتباس الأخير العهدة فيه على المصدر نفسه

وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد و على اله وصحبه وسلم