Was The Quranic Story Of Haman Taken From Biblical Sources?The Atheists And Orientalists Objections On Quran And Our Response

Was The Quranic Story Of Haman Taken From Biblical Sources?The Atheists And Orientalists Objections On Quran And Our Response
Compiled with further additions by Dr Ahead Hassan Alias Salman Fareed
»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»
Western scholars have concluded that Haman is unknown to ancient Egyptian history. They say that the name Haman is first mentioned in the biblical Book of Esther, around 1,000 years after Pharaoh. The name is said to be Babylonian, not Egyptian
According to the Book of Esther, Haman (also known as Haman the Agagite המן האגגי, or Haman the evil המן הרשע) was a counsellor or vizir of Ahasuerus of Persia (the biblical name of Xerxes) who was an enemy of the Jews and was amalekite or Persian. It has been suggested by western scholars that Prophet Muhammad mixed biblical stories, namely the Jewish myths of the Tower of Babel and the story of Esther and Moses into a single confused account when composing the Qur’an and the world came to Arabic from Jewish sources. For Arthur Jeffrey, the mere fact that Haman was mentioned alongside Korah in rabbinic legends was reason enough for one to believe the Qur’anic Haman was derived from biblical Haman.Silverstein is suggesting as previous scholars before him have, that Qur’an understood Korah and Haman to be contemporaries.Though Haman is mentioned alongside Korah,But the Quran never said that these two characters were contemporaries in Egypt.
Regarding the identity of Haman mentioned in Quran,We will raise a question here.Do two people having the same name in different historical periods necessitate a relationship?Can you say that one was taken from other.To further elaborate this,nowhere in the Qur’an is the ethnicity of Haman or Pharaoh given, let alone they were Amalekites or Persians. The argument here simply does not follow. In many cases where critics believe the Qur’an has copied ‘earlier’ Jewish sources, especially rabbinic texts, it may very well be the other way around,means Jewish texts may have copied Quran.
The Christians think that the Biblical book of Esther is reliable,Haman is not the vizir of pharaoh but of Ahasareus of Persia.They think that Quran took excerpts from Book of Esther and now contradicts it.
But the historical inaccuracy of The Book Of Esther is well documented.
Professor Jon Levenson, Albert A. List Professor of Jewish Studies at the Harvard Divinity School, says:
"Even if we make this questionable adjustment, the historical problems with Esther are so massive as to persuade anyone who is not already obligated by religious dogma to believe in the historicity of the biblical narrative to doubt the veracity of the narrative."
Michael Fox, Professor of Hebrew at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who also specialises in Egyptian literature and its relationship with biblical literature, has detailed the arguments for and against the book’s historicity. Fox concludes with the following negative assessment:
"Various legendary qualities as well as several inaccuracies and implausibilities immediately throw doubt on the book's historicity and give the impression of a writer recalling vaguely remembered past"
Adele Berlin, one of the editors of the Jewish Study Bible, said,
Very few twentieth-century Bible scholars believed in the historicity of the book of Esther, but they certainly expended a lot of effort justifying their position. Lewis Bayles Paton, in 1908, wrote fourteen pages outlining the arguments for and against historicity and concluded that the book is not historical. In 1971 Carey A. Moore devoted eleven pages to the issue and arrived at the same conclusion. In more recent commentaries, those of Michael V. Fox in 1991 and Jon D. Levenson in 1997, we find nine and five pages respectively, with both authors agreeing that the book is fictional.
So now it is proved that the Book of Esther whose story of Haman is considered reliable by Christians is not a historical book but a pure fiction.Now how Christians can believe in the historical accuracy of Haman mentioned in it and how can they reject the Haman of pharaohs mentioned in Quran.
Believed to have been composed around the 4th century to 3rd century BCE (i.e., late Persian to early Hellenistic period), there are three distinct textual versions of Esther extant today, the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT), the Greek LXX (known as B-text) and a second Greek text (known as A-text).
The earliest extant manuscript attesting to any of the versions of Esther is a Greek papyrus fragment generally agreeing with the B-text, datable to the late first or early second century CE.
Since the Book of Esther is not historical, the characters mentioned in the book can in no way be connected with actual Persian history. Therefore, the name “Haman” mentioned in the book is clearly fictitious. Given such problems, the placing of the name “Haman” by the Qur’an in ancient Egypt can’t be considered unhistorical on the basis of a person named Haman in the Book of Esther - for it can suggest that a person with a similar name can also exist in another part of the world and in a different time period - a possibility which many critics refuse to even consider.
Given such problems, the placing of the name “Haman” by the Qur’an in ancient Egypt can’t be considered unhistorical on the basis of a person named Haman in the Book of Esther - for it can suggest that a person with a similar name can also exist in another part of the world and in a different time period - a possibility which many critics refuse to even consider. In any case it seems clear the Book of Esther cannot be used as evidence against the Qur’an.
Nowhere does the Qur’an give any concrete information as to Pharaoh’s or Haman ethnic origin, let alone that he was Amalekite or Persian.So When Quran does not mention the ethnicity of pharaohs or Haman and different persons of the same name can occur at different time periods in different countries,then how can one say that the description of one was borrowed from the description of the other.Keeping this in mind,all of the atheists and orientalists objections on Quran can not be considered correct.
The two Hamans appear in completely different historical contexts: Achaemenid Persia is more than a thousand miles and years away from Pharaonic Egypt. The Biblical Haman is integral to the story of Mordecai and Esther at Ahasuerus's court, the Qur’anic Haman is completely divorced from the Book of Esther context and no other figures from the Book of Esther appear in the Qur’ān.
The biblical Pharaoh is supported by counsellors as a cursory reading of the book of Exodus would confirm. Furthermore, it should also be noted that none of the named helpers of Biblical Pharaoh given by Kugel as cited by Silverstein are called Haman or derived from Haman.
There cannot really be much doubt that a literary relationship exists between the Book of Esther and biblical descriptions of Pharaoh’s court, and that such a relationship was held by Jews from the time the author of Esther penned his work, until the eve of Islam and after Islam. The real question is whether the Qur’an has appropriated this context for its own narrative design. The Pharaonic episode believed to have influenced the Esther narrative is that of Joseph’s career. Significantly, the Qur’an does not assume this context or any of its details, but rather places Haman in the Pharaonic court that existed during the time of Moses.
Along with the Babylonian Talmud, the first Targum to the Book of Esther is mentioned as constituting the pre-Islamic evidence. Modern scholarship dates the Targums of Esther to the 7th – 8th century at the earliest so this document cannot be conclusively dated to pre-Islamic times and is very likely post-Islamic.
Esther", The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1905, Volume V, Funk & Wagnalls Company, p. 234; "Targum Sheni", Encyclopaedia Judaica (CD-ROM Edition), 1997, Judaica Multimedia (Israel) Limited.
In terms of documentary sources, one of the earliest if not the earliest extant manuscript for any Targum of Esther was found in the Cambridge Genizah collection (from Cairo Genizah) and is dated to the 10-11th century CE.
We are not seeking to deny the Book of Esther’s Haman existed as a topos in early Jewish literature pre-dating Islam, which may or may not be the case. The problem arises as this whole line of thought is predicated on and consequently developed based on the assumption that Qur’anic Haman is derived from biblical Haman which, on the basis of the evidence presented, we have shown not to be the case. Methodologically speaking, it is thus not a truly independent way of interpreting the evidence.
Concerning the character Haman, the Encyclopaedia Judaica states:
"The names of both Haman and his father have been associated with haoma, a sacred drink used in Mithraic worship, and with the Elamite god Humman. The name Haman has also been related to the Persian hamayun, 'illustrious', and to the Persian name Owanes."
Mithra (Avestan: 𐬀𐬭𐬚𐬌𐬨 Miθra, Old Persian: 𐎷𐎰𐎼 Miça) is the Zoroastrian angelic Divinity (yazata) of Covenant and Oath. With possible roots dating back to the second millennium BCE, Zoroastrianism enters recorded history in the 5th-century BCE.Mithraism, also known as the Mithraic mysteries, was a mystery religion centred around the god Mithras that was practised in the Roman Empire from about the 1st to the 4th century CE.
So homa drink associated with worship of mithra was not the name of a person but the name of a drink.Even if we think that this was the name of a person,this name does not has any recorded use before mithraism(1at to 4th century C.E) and Zoroastrianism(5 th century B.C),although their is no record of usage of this name.So while this name has no record before 1st century C.E in mithraism,but the Quranic Haman was a man belonging to Ramses ii,the Pharaohs of Egypt at the time of Moses A.S almost 1279-1213 B.C.And there is no proof that this worship was known in Arabia at the time of Prophet Muhammad s.a.w nor the story of Haman is attributed to it.
There is no proof of the existence of a deity called humman among Elamites but there is a deity called humban and Hutron different from Haman of Quran and neither of the Quranic story of Haman is associated with humban or Hutron.So these are not the sources of Quranic Haman.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/elam-vi
Humban, Human, or Umman (Assyrian), "the god of gods," "the king," was possibly regarded as the Babylonian Merodach.
Based on biblical information, many Qur’anic exegetes believed the ‘lofty tower’ (Arabic, sarḥ) ordered to be constructed by Pharaoh was the Tower of Babel. Silverstein and Other orientalists asserts the story of Ahiqar is ultimately responsible for the Qur’anic Pharaoh passing his orders on to Haman. A piece of ancient near eastern wisdom literature, Ahiqar is a work of two parts; the first part contains the narrative, the second part contains the wisdom of Ahiqar and gives a list of over a hundred of his sayings, many of which are difficult to understand.
Regarding the story of construction of the lofty towers bulid by Haman on the order of pharaoh,Aramaic version of the story existed in documents from Elephantine dated to the 5th century BCE.The Aramaic story of Ahiqar does not contain the Egyptian narrative section of the text, from where the passage of the construction of the lofty tower is located. The final narrative event extant in the Aramaic text is when Ahiqar is hidden and the king is deceived.
Chronologically, it is the next source to mention Ahiqar. Regarding the construction of the lofty tower,this statement comes from much later and more elaborate versions existing in a variety of languages, the most important translations being Syriac, Arabic and Armenian. These versions exist in manuscripts none of which can be dated before the 12th – 13th century CE. So this story is not found in Ahiqar story of Aramic texts and found only in later Syriac,Armenian and Arabic texts dared to 12th and 13th century C.E while Quran has already been revealed.Then how can copy this text which was not present in Aramic texts of the story and found in the texts written after 500 years of revelation of Quran.
The Greek Life of Aesop version G (chapters 101-123) is the earliest source in which we find a retelling of part of the Ahiqar story modelled on the Egyptian narrative section that includes the king’s challenge to build a tower between heaven and earth. The text was composed or rewritten around the second century CE and, therefore, pre-dates the rise of Islam. Though the narrative outline is more or less derived from the story of Ahiqar, the entire narrative is transposed into a Greek context with different names, places and kings. So it is clear the Qur’an cannot be taking its information from here. The Qur’anic Haman is not linguistically equivalent to Ahiqar or Nādin which leads us to the issue of textual emendation.And the wish of construction of lofty tower between heavens and earth was a common thought in all of the times and it is still today.So if thought is common among many cultures but the name is different,then how can one say that one was derived from the other.So the allegation is throughly wrong.
The spelling of the Tobit character Nadin is attested in a variety of different ways according to the extant manuscript evidence for Tobit 14:10. Dead Sea Scroll 4QTobd has ndn, Göttingen critical edition GII (including codex Sinaiticus) has nadab, Old Latin manuscripts have nabad/t/th/l, Göttingen critical edition GI has aman, codex Vaticanus and Armenian manuscripts have adam.Though spelt “[H]aman” in some ancient and modern translations of Tobit 14:10, some Christians like Silverstein argue for an alleged Quranic corruption on the basis of their own historical reconstruction by reading the personage of Esther’s Haman into Tobit’s Aman (NB. Spelt this way in some versions and found in a single verse only). Silverstein says his reconstruction becomes all the more likely when one looks five verses ahead where one finds mention of (Esther’s) Ahasuerus (majority of manuscripts). Should it not suffice one to look only two words ahead in the immediate context in the same verse where one finds mention of Ahiqar, to realise that it is Nadin the Book of Tobit’s author has in mind and not Esther’s Haman? Brockington argued Aman was probably a deliberate corruption of Adam which occurs in codex Vaticanus. He said the corruption to Aman “was probably made to associate him with the villain of the Book of Esther.” Following Brockington’s reasoning, one could just as easily argue Aman and Adam are scribal errors with no theological significance. Even more recently an analysis of Tobit 14:10 and its intertextual parallels, noting the variety of ways the name was spelt, makes no mention the author of this verse had the Book of Esther’s Haman and/or its story in mind. Out of numerous ways Nādin has been corrupted in the later versions of Tobit in all the verses that it is found, Silverstein picked the most similar sounding name to Haman he could find in the versions, i.e., Aman, occurring twice in one verse. He then read into Aman the name and personage of Haman, violating the immediate context of the verse, and subsequently postulated this was only version circulating in Arabia on the eve of Islam. This strikes one as a conclusion in search of evidence.
Silverstein’s chain of events is following:
The alleged author of the Qur’an was familiar with the story of Ahiqar in so far as Pharaoh’s challenge to the Assyrians to build him a tower between heaven and earth.
Knowing Ahiqar eventually built this tower, the author of the Qur’an instead preferred the character Nādin to build the tower for its version, because he was asked first.
The author was also familiar with the story of Ahiqar narrated in certain versions of Tobit. This version did not contain Pharaoh’s challenge to build the tower or indeed the entire section from where it is taken.
Based on a version of Tobit in common circulation in Arabia on the eve of Qur’an, the author chose the character Haman – spelt many different ways in different versions – and discarded the rest of the Ahiqar story found in Tobit.
Finally, he joined the name Haman back into the incident in the Ahiqar narrative previously modified and then inserted it into the master Moses/Pharaoh Qur’anic narrative.
If the book of Tobit does not contain the challenge of the Pharaoh / King to build a tower between heaven and earth why even bother mentioning it? Picking out one verse from certain versions, it was the only way Silverstein could explain the change of name from Nādin / Nādān to Haman, whilst maintaining a connection to the story of Ahiqar. The fact that no other part of narrative in the Aramaic Ahiqar, Life of Aesop’s Ahiqar, Book of Tobit’s Ahiqar or later versions’ Ahiqar find their way into the Moses/Pharaoh narrative in the Qur’an suggests they were never a basis for the story in the first place.
The detailed study that respects the context is the criterion as opposed to the juxtaposition of mere excerpts, the detailed outlined given above becomes a crucial piece of evidence providing a basis for the comparison of the entire literary outline of this narrative sub-section. One will immediately note this outline is not applicable to the Qur’anic narrative of Moses and Pharaoh, and therefore, is certainly not applicable to the narrative sub-section dealing with the construction of the edifice between heaven and earth. Even though it can be readily shown in its present state the application of orientalist-folklorist criticism to the Qur’an has not provided any meaningful results, and, that such tale types lack universality, one can usefully proceed on the basis of the structural elements of the story of Ahiqar and the arrangement of its motifs. After giving a detailed outline of tale type 922, Niditch and Doran proceed to explain how the core narrative of the story of Ahiqar neatly fits this typology.
We have already shown that the name Aman is spelt this way only in certain versions of Tobit, and in just one verse 14:10, which some scholars have read into the personage of Haman. It could just as easily be a scribal error with no theological overtones, as the large number of other ‘corrupted’ spellings recorded in the manuscripts suggests. Silverstein seeks to develop his idea – Haman existing as a topos in near eastern literatures – by looking at the post-Islamic usage of Haman. This, of course, could not have served as the basis for the Qur’anic depiction of Haman and so we move on to the alleged pre-Islamic evidence. Along with the Babylonian Talmud, the first Targum to the Book of Esther is mentioned as constituting the pre-Islamic evidence. Modern scholarship dates the Targums of Esther to the 7th – 8th century at the earliest so this document cannot be conclusively dated to pre-Islamic times and is very likely post-Islamic. In terms of documentary sources, one of the earliest if not the earliest extant manuscript for any Targum of Esther was found in the Cambridge Genizah collection (from Cairo Genizah) and is dated to the 10-11th century CE.
Moving away from the typological studies employed by folklorists, for example, the invocation-worship-petition sequence of the sūrah al-Fātiḥah and its thematic progression can be paralleled with the ‘Lord’s prayer’, and going even further back into ancient near eastern times, the Babylon Prayer to the God Sin. One cannot, of course, then presume the sūrah al-Fātiḥah is based, derived, copied or has picked out certain elements, written or oral, from a prayer circulating more than a millennia earlier in Mesopotamia. The context ought to be respected.And the context of Quranic Surah Fatiha and story of Haman is very different from others and can not be said to have been copied from other sources.
The explanation given behind the construction of each tower, their purpose and their placement in their respective narratives, shows they cannot be connected to each other in a literary sense.
Armed with a summary of the narrative, what themes are discernible? What social and religious message, if any, does the story of Ahiqar impart? Lindenberger and others consider Ahiqar to be a non-Jewish text, a folktale of a wise counsellor, with the narrative section showing the presence of some basic themes, such as the downfall and restoration of a just vizier, and the betrayal of a powerful person by an ungrateful relative – well documented and widely known folk-motifs. Theologically speaking, the narrative says nothing directly about God, a topic widely encountered in the proverbs section – though it is the Gods of Aram, Canaan and Mesopotamia which are encountered and not the God of Israel.
No literal parallels exist, which makes the claimed correspondence between both texts all the more interesting. Silverstein’s argument can be summarised as follows:
The story of Ahiqar is alluded to by the book of Tobit.
Certain versions of the book of Tobit substituted Haman for Nādān.
These versions of Tobit circulated in 7th century Arabia.
The Qur’an has retained the corrupted form of Nādān (i.e., Haman) from versions of Tobit and connected it with the original story of Ahiqar, remembering Nādān had initially been asked to construct the lofty tower whilst deliberately setting aside Ahiqar – the one who actually built the lofty tower.
The fact that biblical Pharaoh acquired certain named helpers in later biblical traditions does not explain why Haman and Korah were the named helpers of Pharaoh in the Qur’an account. Reynolds gets around this major difficulty by saying the naming of certain helpers became a traditional motif or theme centuries before the Qur’an. Though convenient, one cannot use this literary convention, i.e., topos, to explain why the Qur’an allegedly started using the names Haman and Korah in its account of Moses and Pharaoh. One must envisage how this actually occurred. Did the author of the Qur’an, being familiar with the Tower of Babel and its numerous related traditions, see that a topos was emerging in that Pharaoh had received named helpers and decided to follow this topos but instead use different names? This complexity unwittingly envisages the author of the Qur’an as an expert in source criticism, able to recognise a topos had emerged from a mass of traditions he was able to carefully examine and understand, before deciding himself to continue this topos. This observation is too general and non-specific as to have any real function. By the same token the Qur’an’s insistence of the belief in one God, a final Prophet, the Day of Judgement and virtually every other major tenet of belief and history could be attributed to a topos. But labelling something with a term does not excuse one from having to justify and evidence such a conviction. In fact, it would be far easier to explain how none of this happened.
Believing the Qur’anic narrative of Haman to have a history, Silverstein does not seem to think it worthwhile to inform the reader the sources he utilises also have a history. Surely, this is a matter of importance given the nature of his enquiry? For example, the excerpt “linking” Korah and Haman is firmly dated to the 4th century CE. There is no mention at all that the source it is taken from (i.e., Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer) received its last redaction well into the Islamic period, exists in numerous manuscripts that differ from each other none of which pre-date the 11th century, and is not quoted but any other Jewish writer before the 9th century This problem occurs elsewhere with other texts also.So how How Quran can copy it while it has been revealed already in 7th century A.D.
Moving on, we are introduced to the poet Shāhīn of Shīrāz. The conclusion drawn from this text suggests that Korah had a place in the Esther story “at least to the Jews of medieval Persia”.Though it may help identifying later medieval views of Korah and the Esther story, what relevance the text of a 14th century Judaeo-Persian poet has for one attempting to establish the derivation of Qur’anic Haman from biblical Haman is anybody’s guess.
None of the epithets of Nimrod, e.g., might man, mighty hunter, so prominent in the tradition, is applied to Pharaoh in the Qur’anic account.
Moses does not work through the administration but against it,
The goal of the Exodus narrative is to escape oppressive rule and control; no such desire to escape Susa is found in Esther,
In Esther, Jews save the life of the King whereas in Exodus the Jews are involved in the death of Pharaoh’s son.
But if the story of Esther is told nowhere in the Qur’an as admitted by Reynolds then how can a connection be so ‘evident’? So obvious is this connection apparently that Reynolds provides no evidence for his statement other than giving a ten line point by point outline of Esther he thinks can be most closely paralleled in the Qur’anic account of Moses and Pharaoh.
Even those points mentioned are hardly convincing. Are we to believe the book of Esther is unique in history describing a person who planned to kill a large group of people who instead is himself killed by those he planned to oppress? Other than providing a useful summary of some relevant parts of Esther, it has no value in establishing the alleged links between Esther and the Moses/Pharaoh narrative related in the Qur’an. None of the specific details mentioned there has any parallel in the Qur’an.
According to orientalists Silverstein, a Persian popular romance named Samak-e ʿAyyār took part in the evolution of Haman from the Bible to the Qur’an.There are some major, one might say insurmountable difficulties with this assessment. Based on internal evidence scholars suggest the text was written down in the 12th century CE. Now how can Quran copy a text when it was written more than five hundred years after revelation of Quran.Gaillard thinks the origin of the story may go back to a period earlier than when it was written down but does not commit herself. There is a solitary manuscript attesting the text which is dated to the 14th century CE and is kept in the Bodleian Library. To claim a Persian romance believed to have been written down in the 12th century, whose origins might be based on earlier oral sources, and preserved in a single manuscript from the 14th century, took part in the evolution of Haman from the Bible (Esther c. 4th cent BCE – 3rd cent BCE) to the Qur’an (c. 610-632 CE), simply for mentioning a villain named Haman, seems to exceed chronological acceptability.
Which parts of this text date at or around the time of the composition of the Qur’an? What evidence is there to suggest so? What evidence is there to suggest this story circulated in north west Arabia around the time of Muhammad? How was this text acquired, in what form, from whom and from where? Unfortunately these questions are never posed, so one can only speculate as to the answers. In any case, should one maintain this text, or part of this text, was one of the sources of the Qur’an, further more detailed examples need to be submitted for proper evaluation.
Silverstein’s defence of the isrā’īliyyāt stories regarding Pharaoh and Haman transmitted by some medieval commentaries is puzzling; he seems to be suggesting only those Islamic accounts based on biblical material are convincing. Indeed, instead of focussing on Haman and Pharaoh as found in the Qur’an and the Qur’an alone, Silverstein uses these obviously derivative accounts to prove the Qur’an is derivative, and it is the backbone of his methodology. Utilising the commentaries of al-Ṭabarī, al-Maqdisī and al-Qurṭubī whom themselves, are, in places, strongly indebted to their biblical forerunners, to then claim this is what the Qur’an itself promotes is a mischaracterisation of the evidence at the least, or a misrepresentation of the evidence at the worst.
Which parts of this text date at or around the time of the composition of the Qur’an? What evidence is there to suggest so? What evidence is there to suggest this story circulated in north west Arabia around the time of Muhammad? How was this text acquired, in what form, from whom and from where? These questions are not answered and the allegations against Quran are wrong,so the authenticity of Quran remains.
It may legitimately be asked if there exist even older sources which may also provide parallels to the Qur’anic account. Should it not strike one as anomalous, that at no time are any sources from ancient Egypt discussed, when this is the setting the Qur’an places the character Haman in? This boils down to a question of presuppositions and biases which are not beliefs that we need to hide from view.
Silverstein and other orientalists habe already decided the Qur’an cannot be describing a real event and deems it unworthy to look back in time any further than the sources he requires to establish his version of events require. Of course, we all have pre-suppositions from where we formulate our arguments but this should not necessarily prevent us from dealing with other evidence. For instance, are the stories of Ahiqar and the Tower of Babel the only two parallel explanations open to us in interpreting the Qur’anic account where the Egyptian Pharaoh asks Haman to build a lofty tower between heaven and earth? These parallels can be found in ancient Egypt and other ancient cultures and is not something unique to those sources.
There cannot really be much doubt that a literary relationship exists between the Book of Esther and biblical descriptions of Pharaoh’s court, and that such a relationship was held by Jews from the time the author of Esther penned his work, until the eve of Islam and after Islam. The real question is whether the Qur’an has appropriated this context for its own narrative design. The Pharaonic episode believed to have influenced the Esther narrative is that of Joseph’s career. Significantly, the Qur’an does not assume this context or any of its details, but rather places Haman in the Pharaonic court that existed during the time of Moses.
Sandmel says,
"The issue for the student is not the abstraction but the specific. Detailed study is the criterion, and the detailed study ought to respect the context and not be limited to juxtaposing mere excerpts. Two passages may sound the same in splendid isolation from their context, but when seen in context reflect difference rather than similarity. The neophytes and the unwary often rush in,..."
For instance, are the stories of Ahiqar and the Tower of Babel the only two parallel explanations open to us in interpreting the Qur’anic account where the Egyptian Pharaoh asks Haman to build a lofty tower between heaven and earth? These parallels can be found in ancient Egypt and other ancient cultures and is not something unique to those sources.
Focussing on the similarities and forgetting about the differences, it is rarely mentioned when there are instances where parallels don’t exist, or where there are direct contradictions. The vaguest of parallels are clung too, whist obvious inconsistencies are ignored by atheists and orientalists.. More problematic than this are instances when parallels are read back into the Qur’an from later literature when the Qur’an gives no basis for such a claim. An obvious example is Qur’anic Pharaoh being Persian or Amalekie.
All of this discussion shows that Quranic story of Haman is pure in its sense and is not taken from other sources and investigations reveal all of allegations on Quran thoroughly wrong.

Reference:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/…/Cont…/External/haman.html