Showing posts with label evidence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evidence. Show all posts

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Haman the Minister of the Tower



Esther 3 :1-2 New International Version (NIV)

1- After these events, King Xerxes honored Haman son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, elevating him and giving him a seat of honor higher than that of all the other nobles.
2- All the royal officials at the king’s gate knelt down and paid honor to Haman, for the king had commanded this concerning him. But Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor.

Esther 5:12-14
12-Haman also said, "Even Esther the queen let no one but me come with the king to the banquet which she had prepared; and tomorrow also I am invited by her with the king
13-"Yet all of this does not satisfy me every time I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king's gate.
14-Then Zeresh his wife and all his friends said to him, "Have a gallows fifty cubits high made and in the morning ask the king to have Mordecai hanged on it; then go joyfully with the king to the banquet." And the advice pleased Haman, so he had the gallows made.

“Hang Haman from his own tower!” the king commanded. - Esther 7:9 CEV


Note: Haman in the bible was the minister for King Xerxes but Haman in the Quran is the minister for Pharaoh.





Pharaoh said: "O Haman! Build me a lofty palace, that I may attain the ways and means- The ways and means of (reaching) the heavens, and that I may mount up to the god of Moses: But as far as I am concerned, I think (Moses) is a liar!" [Qur'an 40:36-37]




Haman As A Name Of A Person In Ancient Egypt:, Western scholarship writing on Haman in the Qur’an has understood Haman as a personal name from their understanding of the alleged connection between the Qur’anic and biblical Hamans, which as our enquiry has shown lacks evidence. Furthermore, we have demonstrated that Haman, in the ancient Egyptian context, makes sense when various elements of the Qur’anic story are examined from a historical point of view. This presents us with our second line of enquiry considering Haman as a name of a person, whether Arabized or not, in ancient Egypt during the time of Ramesses II. A search in Ranke’s well-known book Die Ägyptischen Personennamen under ḤMN, unsurprisingly, reveals theophoric names associated with the ancient Egyptian deity ḤMN, out of which only one name ‘ḥmn-ḥ’ comes from the New Kingdom Period.[236] Originally housed in the K. K. Hof Museum, Vienna, the first person to publish the door jamb containing the ‘ḥmn-ḥ’ inscription was Reinisch in the year 1865.[237] It was again published by Walter Wreszinski.[238] This door jamb, now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, is in fragmented condition [Figure 9]. The translation of the hieroglyphs is provided in this web :http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/haman.html

Figure 9: The door jamb of "ḥmn-ḥ" in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, Austria. (a) the original door jamb [the left fragment goes on top of the right] and (b) its transcription. © Kunsthistorisches Museum (c) Hieroglyph entry for "ḥmn-ḥ" and his profession "Vorsteher der Steinbrucharbeiter" meaning "chief / overseer of the stone-quarry workers" and dates from the New Kingdom Period.[239] (d) Notice that the "ḥmn-ḥ" mentioned by Wreszinski is masculine.[240]

The information of Inv. No. 5821/5822 at the Kunsthistorisches Museum was provided to us by Professor Helmut Satzinger who prepared it along with Monika Randl for the CD-ROM Egyptian Treasures in Europe Volume 5: Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien / Vienna.[241] Although Satzinger and Randl have dated it to the time of Ramesses II, there is uncertainty as there is no mention of any king’s name on it, and the tomb from which it originates. The object belongs to the lot which the Egyptian Vice-King Saʿīd gave to the Austrian archduke Ferdinand Max as a diplomatic gift at the latter’s official visit to Egypt in 1855.

Date: 19th Dynasty, probably from the reign of Ramesses II, 13th century BCE
Provenance: Unknown
Current location: Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna
Material: Limestone
Heightc. 117 cm; Breadth: 27 cm
Inventory number: 5821+ 5822
Collection: From the Miramar collection (1855–1882)
Inscription in two vertical lines (the left fragment goes on top of the right):
Left: "The offering which the King has given to Osiris, the Formost of the Westerners, the Lord of Eternity, the Ruler of eternal Duration, so may he give anything that has come forth from his table, and (also) the pleasant north-wind, and a good burial after old age, to the ka of the overseer of the stone-masons of Amûn, Hamen-ha, justified."
Right: "The offering which the King has given to the Western Desert and to Amauni, the Lady of the Sky, so may they give food and nourishment, all kinds of offerings, all kinds of good and pure things, to the ka of the overseer of the stone-masons of Amûn, Hamen-ha, justified."
Below: Relief depicting a seated couple (i.e., Hamen-ha and his wife) who are being attended by a man. Above them, the name of the lady: "His wife, the lady of the house Nefer-nûb, justified," and the name of the attendant: "Ka-pu-hótep."
Dr. Maurice Bucaille, perhaps the earliest scholar to deal with ‘Haman’ in the Qur’an as a name from the point of view of Egyptology, made an interesting suggestion. He surmised that since ‘Haman’ was mentioned in the Qur’an during the time of Moses in Egypt, the best course of action was to ask an expert in the old Egyptian language, i.e., hieroglyphs, regarding the name.[242] The expert in hieroglyphs suggested to Dr. Bucaille to consult Ranke’s well-known book Die Ägyptischen Personennamen.The latter stated he had found the name ‘Haman’ in it, i.e., the door jamb containing ‘ḥmn-ḥ’ as mentioned in Figure 9.
Although Dr. Bucaille’s suggestion sounds seductive, there are difficulties. At the request of an alliance of European evangelical Christian missionary organisations, Emeritus Professor Dr. Jürgen Osing of the Ägyptologisches Seminar, Freie Universität Berlin, a respected scholar of Egyptology, was solicited for his comments regarding Haman as depicted in the Qur’an and the identification of an ancient Egyptian inscription allegedly bearing his name. Subsequently in July 2009 Osing read an earlier version of our article (Titled: ‘Historical Errors Of The Qur'an: Pharaoh & Haman’, Last Updated: 4th June 2006) and made a number of observations, specifically focusing on our analysis of an inscription which is found on said door jamb kept in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna. Regarding this inscription which contained the name ‘ḥmn-ḥ’, we suggested the final ‘’ was not actually part of the name, stating the remaining letters could possibly be rendered as ‘Haman’. This is incorrect. The interpretation of the final ‘’ is questionable, but not its existence as part of the name. The final ‘’ is most probably an abbreviation forming a theophoric name. We would like to thank Osing for this correction. Additionally he pointed out that it seemed doubtful that this particular person being an overseer of the quarry workers, usually only of local importance, would have been entrusted with the building of such a mighty edifice, let alone be a close confidant of the Pharaoh – a consideration we had overlooked. For clarification we would like to emphasise that at no point had we ever stated the ‘Haman’ we thought was mentioned in this inscription was the Haman of the Qur’an. What we had said was that it was a possibility, however, this is no longer the case. For the sake of completeness and to dispel any doubts regarding the inscription, full details have been provided above.

Know more: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/haman.html









Monday, June 19, 2017

Quran Got it Right About Semen Production!

Some Christians claim that the Quran has a scientific error in it regarding sperm production
 This is incorrect again. The critic focuses on the verses 86:6-7, especially verse 7 as this is where their contention is directed. The critic claims the Quran (86:7) is telling us that semen is produced between the backbone (sulb) and the ribs (tara’ib). The Arabic words mentioned by the Quran are sulb and tara’ib. Tara’ib is thought to mean ribs, though there is some dispute. However, the chief point of interest is the word sulb. Sulb  can be translated as ‘loins’ or ‘backbone’ or ‘lower back’. The critic favours the translations which use the word ‘backbone’ as they use it to attack the Quran by claiming the Quran teaches that semen is produced between the backbone (sulb) and the ribs (tara’ib).
However, the critic is very selective in deciding which translation to use as he/she avoids the numerous translations which translate ‘sulb’ as ‘loins’. They avoid these translations as they scupper their critical claims straight away as loins. Here, the word loins refers to:
a. The region of the hips, groin, and lower abdomen.
b. The reproductive organs. (1)
 So the critic refrains from using this translation for the word sulb as it is clearly scientifically accurate, ie the semen is produced in the are between the loins and ribs. So, if we translate the Quran (86:7) this way there is no contention. The misleading methodology of the critic is to avoid mention of the numerous translations which translate the word sulb as loins. Not only do they avoid mentioning the numerous translations using the word ‘loins’ they highlight translations which use the word ‘backbone’. This is rather deceptive, especially considering a number of non-Muslim translators, including a Christian translator, translates it as ‘loins’ ( A.J Arberry, George Sale, J.M Rodwell and Henry E Palmer) as well as a number of Muslim translators who also use the word loins (Hamid S Aziz, Muhammad M Ghali, Muhammad M Pickthall and Mohammad Asad) (4). It is unscholarly as well as misleading on the part of the critic not to mention this important fact.
 However, the critic does use Abdullah Yusuf Ali’s translation which translates it as ‘backbone’, therefore rendering a meaning of between the backbone and ribs. So the critic understands the Quran as teaching us that semen is produced between the backbone and ribs. In the way of intellectual honesty I do not want the reader to believe that only Abdullah Yusuf Ali translates this verse by using the word ‘backbone’, Shakir and Khan/Hilali also do this. The question still remains; which word should be used in the translation?
 Well, the critic does not tell you that Dr Edward William Lane’s Lexicon indicates the word sulb’ to mean ‘loins’ and even refers to the verse in question (86:7) as referring to the ‘loins’. So it does seem that the more accurate translation of this would be “between the loins and the ribs” as opposed to “between the backbone and the ribs” (4). Hence the critic uses the weaker translation.
However, even if we assume the critic to be correct and take the translation; “between the backbone and the ribs” we still see no scientific error. The critic assumes that the ejaculate (semen) emanates from the testes, this is incorrect.  Sperm is produced in the testes and is then transfered to the seminal vesicles awaiting ejaculation, the=is accounts for 5 % of the ejaculate, the rest of the ejaculate comes from the seminal vesicles (46-80%),with the prostate gland and the bulbourethral and urethral glands producing the rest of the ejaculate (2). At the time of ejaculation, all this (semen, which contains the sperm) is released 
From the seminal vesicles which are in fact between the backbone (coccyx, lower back) and the ribs! So if we run with the translation of the critics we see something that people would describe as a scientific miracle and not a scientific error.
Osama Abdallah says the same thing but goes into a little more detail (bracketing is mine):
 “If one was to insist upon the literal meaning (the translation favoured by the critics), one would still find that the Quran is 100% correct literally, too.  The seminal vesicles are anterior to the sacrum and coccyx (lower back, loin) and the ribs are anterior to the seminal vesicles.
If one was to draw a line from the tip of the coccyx, to the upper portion of the seminal vesicle _ either one of the two_ and extend the line forward it will catch the ribcage.The seminal vesicles from which the semen spurts out during coitus, lies between the ribs and the coccyx (backbone)!” (3)
  The irony is that the critics accuse the Quran of making a scientific error yet the error is on their part as they only believe it to be an error as they wrongly believe semen emanates from the testes, while in fact in emanates from the seminal vesicles which are in between the backbone and the ribs! So now we all know the critics are being unfair, unscholarly and misleading when they claim the Quran (86:6-7) tells us that semen is produced in the kidneys etc.
May Allah guide us all to further Truth. Ameen.
All non-Muslims will become Muslims after watching


 Further reading:
This short article lent very heavily on Fotfoundation’s video presentation on this subject. This two part video presentation (in my view) is the best explanation of this subject and most in depth (all praise is due to Allah) so if the reader wishes to study further then please view:
Part 1 by Fotfoundation

Part 2 by Fotfoundation

Other further readings:


 References
  4. Part 1 by Fotfoundation:
          Part 2 by Fotfoundation