Scolars are divided into two groups on the Issue of Ha:ma:n.

1)Those who think that Ha:ma:n actually belonged to the period of er!es
and is incorrectly ascribed to the "eriod
of "haroah.
#)Those who think that there was a "erson of a $oun which is %rabiti&ed as
Ha:ma:n long before the period of er!es
in the time of 'reat "rophet (oses )"eace of 'od be upon Him).
A critique of the arguments of those who believe that there was
only one Ha:ma:n who
belonged to the period of
Xerxes.
Those who do hold this claim do fail to prove the following two links in the
in the chain of argumentations or arguments in their attempted proof.
*irst:+ They fail to prove that Ha:m:an ,f "haroah mustbe e-ual to the
Ha:ma:n ,f er!es.The do have assume the connection only on the basis
of sameness of %rabati&ed word ..Ha:ma:n////.
Second:+They do fail to prove that sameness of $oun implieth sameness
of "erson.
If it is supposed that sameness of person is implied then it might be the case
that
the 0ni-ue Ha:ma:n is the Ha:ma:n of "haroah rather than Ha:ma:n of
er!es.
However he is incorrectly ascribed to the period of time of er!es.
Thus either Ha:ma:n did e!ist before er!es and incorrectly ascribed to
er!es or there were two Ha:ma:ns1 one in the time of (oses )"eace be 0pon
Him)
and other in the time of er!es.
The 2rst argument may be reconsidered once again that there is a lack of
proof
for associating Ha:ma:n of "haroah with the Ha:ma:n of er!es.
$o proof 1no evdence1 no argument for e-uating the Ha:ma:n of "haroah with
the Ha:ma:n of er!es.
If some one claimeth so then there is an e-ual possibility for associating
Ha:ma:n of er!es with Ha:ma:n of "haroah.So there is no evidence
solely on the basis of sameness of $ouns.