PDA

View Full Version : DNA result Quraish tribe " Makkah" Saud Arabia



Quraish tribe
11-15-2017, 11:08 AM
Hello Dear,

I would like to declaration my DNA result

My haplogroup is A-PH856 ====> A-V3663

I'm from Saudi Arabia , Al-Maddinah city

We came from Mecca city 1200-1400 yers ago

Prophet of Islam Muhammad is my paternal ancestry

yfull id is :YF07912

yfull.com/share/yreport/606ebd9eb38407acba1cf411f5a91c9f/

Aizkora
11-15-2017, 12:22 PM
Grandfather? You must be veryyyyyyyy old.

Quraish tribe
11-15-2017, 12:33 PM
I meen paternal ancestry

Afshar
11-15-2017, 12:48 PM
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Qurayishj1c3d/default.aspx?section=yresults
https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-L859/

Quraish tribe
11-15-2017, 01:41 PM
Quraish tribe, like any tribe, has a genetic diversity

You can not rule before examining the graves of the dead

A true honest researcher must read all the genetic lines without any exception

Anyway this is my genetic result for real researchers in genealogy study

Missouri1455
11-15-2017, 01:58 PM
Hello Dear,

I would like to declaration my DNA result

My haplogroup is A-PH856 ====> A-V3663

I'm from Saudi Arabia , Al-Maddinah city

We came from Mecca city 1200-1400 yers ago

Prophet of Islam Muhammad is my paternal ancestry

yfull id is :YF07912

yfull.com/share/yreport/606ebd9eb38407acba1cf411f5a91c9f/

You either belong to the arabs qwho preceded qahtan and adnan; or belong to the migrants who came to mecca overtime; quraish gene line always falls under the j tree

Quraish tribe
11-15-2017, 02:22 PM
You either belong to the arabs qwho preceded qahtan and adnan; or belong to the migrants who came to mecca overtime; quraish gene line always falls under the j tree

As we know from books. some of The Jews of Yemen and The Jews of Tabaristan " IRAN " 1300 yers ago they lied and said they are from Quraish tribe

as we see their genetic findings close to the Ashkenazim Jews

This is a natural explanation for their genetic outcome under J tree


I repeat what I wrote in advance

A true honest researcher must read all the genetic lines without any exception

Anyway this is my genetic result for real researchers in genealogy study

murtazasayeed
11-15-2017, 02:33 PM
I’m waiting for my y haplogroup results, but from what Morley tool tells from my ancestry raw dna, I’m most likely E1B ancient isrealite lol. I had this convo with my dad yesterday about j tree and quraish and how our sayyid shajarah can be innacurate. In 1400 years your telling me every woman was faithful or every infertile man never adopted a child on the low? Hahaa in any case we will see in 6 weeks if I’m a sayyid, I believe a descendant might have been a Yemeni Jew and said he was a sayyid as the poster above states. That would explain my E1b, if that’s what I am.

murtazasayeed
11-15-2017, 02:34 PM
Descendant of Ali that is... not Muhammad pbuh.

drobbah
11-15-2017, 03:21 PM
Untill Muhammad,Ali and his son's are dug up and tested we will not know what haplogroup Qureishis belonged too...but if I were to guess it would either be J1,J2 or E-M34 (also other E-M78 branches)

vintage_sky
11-15-2017, 05:18 PM
I’m waiting for my y haplogroup results, but from what Morley tool tells from my ancestry raw dna, I’m most likely E1B ancient isrealite lol. I had this convo with my dad yesterday about j tree and quraish and how our sayyid shajarah can be innacurate. In 1400 years your telling me every woman was faithful or every infertile man never adopted a child on the low? Hahaa in any case we will see in 6 weeks if I’m a sayyid, I believe a descendant might have been a Yemeni Jew and said he was a sayyid as the poster above states. That would explain my E1b, if that’s what I am.

I'm more eager than you now to see what your haplogroup is lol after reading this

vintage_sky
11-15-2017, 05:19 PM
Hello Dear,

I would like to declaration my DNA result

My haplogroup is A-PH856 ====> A-V3663

I'm from Saudi Arabia , Al-Maddinah city

We came from Mecca city 1200-1400 yers ago

Prophet of Islam Muhammad is my paternal ancestry

yfull id is :YF07912

yfull.com/share/yreport/606ebd9eb38407acba1cf411f5a91c9f/

I don't think anyone can say for sure if theyre direct descendents of the Prophet pbuh with 100% certainty. Many claims have been made and many haplogroups have popped up.

Angoliga
11-15-2017, 05:37 PM
Moreover, A-M13 in the Arabian Peninsula is quite rare, at least from the papers I've come across, it ranges from 0 to well under a <1% detection in Saudi Arabia.
If Mohammed's lineage actually came from this line, by now someone would've picked up on an oddly higher uptick or particularly higher concentration among the Quraish but their project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Qurayishj1c3d/default.aspx?section=yresults) shows they're overwhelmingly J. So, it's very unlikely there's any connection to Mohammed/Ali's line.


@Quraish tribe...on a separate tangent, welcome to the forum! I've been waiting for the day I wouldn't be the only A-M13 on here

I'm id:YF09620 (A-Y25085 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/A-M13/)). According to YFull's calculation our TMRCA is 10300ybp; probably a relic from small OoA migrations during the lower neolithic sub pluvial (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic_Subpluvial). There's quite a few of us scarcely scattered (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10115-A-M13-%96-GD-Comparison-using-the-Y-DNA-Comparison-Utility-(*53-kits-20-Countries)&p=222676&viewfull=1#post222676)around the Arabian peninsula/Persian Gulf.

Out of curiosity, did you happen to read this (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?12665-Why-are-there-so-many-Arabians-on-yfull-com&p=310788&viewfull=1#post310788) post I made yesterday? I found it all too ironic you'd pop up now

Dibran
11-15-2017, 05:44 PM
I don't think anyone can say for sure if theyre direct descendents of the Prophet pbuh with 100% certainty. Many claims have been made and many haplogroups have popped up.

As far as the Quran is concerned, the only son mentioned is his adopted son. Also, it is irrelevant even if a direct male descendant did exist. After all, his biggest enemies were his family. Sharing the haplogroup made no difference in their opposition, just as it would make no difference if there was a living descendant with the line. As someone mentioned also, outside of digging up the bodies(which are even questionable based on multiple "burial" locations), there would be no way to know.

Gnid
11-15-2017, 06:14 PM
As we know from books. some of The Jews of Yemen and The Jews of Tabaristan " IRAN " 1300 yers ago they lied and said they are from Quraish tribe

as we see their genetic findings close to the Ashkenazim Jews

This is a natural explanation for their genetic outcome under J tree


I repeat what I wrote in advance

A true honest researcher must read all the genetic lines without any exception

Anyway this is my genetic result for real researchers in genealogy study
You mix some oral myths (some Quraishi being actually from Iran (?)) with the origin of the haplogroup J1 to make you look like a "real Quraishi". Besides this Ashkenazi Jews and Yemenite Jews are nothing alike from a genetical point of view.

I don't know much about haplogroup A, however it is well known that African slaves lived in Arabia since pre-islamic times and that they were integrated into the tribes after time.

Angoliga
11-15-2017, 07:35 PM
I don't know much about haplogroup A, however it is well known that African slaves lived in Arabia since pre-islamic times and that they were integrated into the tribes after time.

...true, Bilal is the first to come to my mind.

However, this particular lineage (id:YF06642) has a TMRCA (https://www.yfull.com/tree/A-M13/) of over 10kya with the SSAs under A-Y25085. The dates overlap East-African pops expanding across the Green Sahara and Arabian Peninsula during the beginning of the Holocene Wet Phase.

drobbah
11-15-2017, 07:48 PM
...true, Bilal is the first to come to my mind.

However, this particular lineage (id:YF06642) has a TMRCA (https://www.yfull.com/tree/A-M13/) of over 10kya with the SSAs under A-Y25085. The dates overlap East-African pops expanding across the Green Sahara and Arabian Peninsula during the beginning of the Holocene Wet Phase.

Bilal was half Habesha/Half Arab with his paternal side being Arab of the Banu Jumah clan

Angoliga
11-15-2017, 07:56 PM
Bilal was half Habesha/Half Arab with his paternal side being Arab of the Banu Jumah clan

Wow! This is news to me

I always thought he was fully African and moreover a non-horner

Interesting that the Banu Jumah are a clan of the Quraish tribe, just did a quick search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Jumah).

khanabadoshi
11-15-2017, 08:09 PM
I don't think anyone can say for sure if theyre direct descendents of the Prophet pbuh with 100% certainty. Many claims have been made and many haplogroups have popped up.

I mean no one can be a direct paternal descendant; there are no sons. So all lineage is mediated via Fatima + Ali. It just so happens Ali has the same grandfather, so in that sense you can find a common paternal ancestor. The best genetics can ever really hope prove is a y-DNA terminal SNP associated with Abdul-Muttalib OR an mtDNA line associated with Khadijah and Fatima. So even if one can prove they have the same HG as Abdul-Muttalib, how do you do you know you aren't the descendant of Abu-Lahab, as opposed to Ali? You don't. Even if you are sure you are a descendant of Ali, how do you know you are descended via Hassan or Hussain and not his other children from other wives? You don't.

You can probably prove you are Banu Hashim, maybe even Qur'aysh, but it'll be very difficult to prove anyone is the direct descendant of Ali + Fatima, unless one establishes Abdul-Mutallib's y-HG as well as Khadija's mtDNA-HG, and a person has both.

That being said, some sub-clades of J1 are clearly showing up with more frequency over any others. So I think it's reasonable to assume that if you aren't J1, you probably can't be Banu Hashim. Or perhaps, all those J1s are false leads? Who knows. I think most of the world agrees that the King of Jordan is a direct descendant, and he is the only person upon which so many people have agreement. So whatever his y-HG, is likely the standard.

The most direct connection to Muhammad would be via Fatima + Ali, but barring that, the next best thing is any of his other daughter's descendants -- meaning the mtDNA line, not the yDNA line.

Angoliga
11-15-2017, 08:25 PM
...speaking of genetic claims to religious figures, I wonder if any of Selassie's descendants ever tried to claim their lineage to King David through paternal tests.

Dibran
11-15-2017, 08:30 PM
I mean no one can be a direct paternal descendant; there are no sons. So all lineage is mediated via Fatima + Ali. It just so happens Ali has the same grandfather, so in that sense you can find a common paternal ancestor. The best genetics can ever really hope prove is a y-DNA terminal SNP associated with Abdul-Muttalib OR an mtDNA line associated with Khadijah and Fatima. So even if one can prove they have the same HG as Abdul-Muttalib, how do you do you know you aren't the descendant of Abu-Lahab, as opposed to Ali? You don't. Even if you are sure you are a descendant of Ali, how do you know you are descended via Hassan or Hussain and not his other children from other wives? You don't.

You can probably prove you are Banu Hashim, maybe even Qur'aysh, but it'll be very difficult to prove anyone is the direct descendant of Ali + Fatima, unless one establishes Abdul-Mutallib's y-HG as well as Khadija's mtDNA-HG, and a person has both.

That being said, some sub-clades of J1 are clearly showing up with more frequency over any others. So I think it's reasonable to assume that if you aren't J1, you probably can't be Banu Hashim. Or perhaps, all those J1s are false leads? Who knows. I think most of the world agrees that the King of Jordan is a direct descendant, and he is the only person upon which so many people have agreement. So whatever his y-HG, is likely the standard.

I think he was J1 if I am not mistaken. Much of this information is also relying on Hadiths, which(despite being used as a source of religion and history) wasn't being compiled until 200 years after the prophet died. Even with "science of Hadith" the whole historical accuracy is extremely questionable. For example, sayings attributed to some characters, including Fatima and Ali, are not all too different from similar attributed to the pagan pantheon of Gods much earlier. I don't even think there is a historical consensus on whether half these people existed. Considering the detail of the Quran, and the lack of mention with some of these characters, we could be looking at similar types of syncretism that occurred with the other Abrahamic faiths.

vintage_sky
11-15-2017, 08:32 PM
I mean no one can be a direct paternal descendant; there are no sons. So all lineage is mediated via Fatima + Ali. It just so happens Ali has the same grandfather, so in that sense you can find a common paternal ancestor. The best genetics can ever really hope prove is a y-DNA terminal SNP associated with Abdul-Muttalib OR an mtDNA line associated with Khadijah and Fatima. So even if one can prove they have the same HG as Abdul-Muttalib, how do you do you know you aren't the descendant of Abu-Lahab, as opposed to Ali? You don't. Even if you are sure you are a descendant of Ali, how do you know you are descended via Hassan or Hussain and not his other children from other wives? You don't.

You can probably prove you are Banu Hashim, maybe even Qur'aysh, but it'll be very difficult to prove anyone is the direct descendant of Ali + Fatima, unless one establishes Abdul-Mutallib's y-HG as well as Khadija's mtDNA-HG, and a person has both.

That being said, some sub-clades of J1 are clearly showing up with more frequency over any others. So I think it's reasonable to assume that if you aren't J1, you probably can't be Banu Hashim. Or perhaps, all those J1s are false leads? Who knows. I think most of the world agrees that the King of Jordan is a direct descendant, and he is the only person upon which so many people have agreement. So whatever his y-HG, is likely the standard.

Aye I agree. I think my point was that no one can definitively confirm that they are a descendent of his family, even through Ali. Although I do give some strength to the King of Jordan's claim of being from the clan. They have a sound tree. But to assume one is Hashemite or Qureshi means youre a descendant of the Prophet's family isnt really a sound claim tbf. As genetics has proven.

Quraish tribe
11-15-2017, 08:36 PM
You mix some oral myths (some Quraishi being actually from Iran (?)) with the origin of the haplogroup J1 to make you look like a "real Quraishi". Besides this Ashkenazi Jews and Yemenite Jews are nothing alike from a genetical point of view.

I don't know much about haplogroup A, however it is well known that African slaves lived in Arabia since pre-islamic times and that they were integrated into the tribes after time.

Slavery not have a genetic haplogroup
Slavery is found in all genetic haplogroup

If you talk about Africans
The highest mutation in the haplogroup j1c is found in Ethiopia, where there is abundant slave trade!

Does this necessarily mean that everyone falls under this line are slaves? This is not logical

Your problem is that you do not know as you said about haplogroup A


80% of the genetic results under the A-YP4735 TMRCA 45200 ybp mutation are Arabs from The Arabian Peninsula


But on the other hand we found haplogroup J TMRCA is 18500 ybp

Especially in Africa and Asia

Gnid
11-15-2017, 08:39 PM
Slavery not have a genetic strain
Slavery is found in all genetic strains

If you talk about Africans
The highest mutation in the haplogroup j1c is found in Ethiopia, where there is abundant slave trade!

Does this necessarily mean that everyone falls under this line are slaves? This is not logical

Your problem is that you do not know as you said about haplogroup A


[SIZE=5][B]80% of the genetic results under the A-YP4735 mutation are Arabs TMRCA 45200 ybp

No, don´t get me wrong. I do not say that you are descendant from an African slave, read what NiloSaharan wrote about your specific clade of haplogroup A. My point was that not all J1 Quraishi Arabs are from Iran (or "Tabaristan" (North Iran)).

murtazasayeed
11-15-2017, 08:48 PM
Aye I agree. I think my point was that no one can definitively confirm that they are a descendent of his family, even through Ali. Although I do give some strength to the King of Jordan's claim of being from the clan. They have a sound tree. But to assume one is Hashemite or Qureshi means youre a descendant of the Prophet's family isnt really a sound claim tbf. As genetics has proven.

I agree with what your saying too! My point would be (from my viewpoint anyway) that me being from the same haplogroup J as Quraish can confirm to me the fact my Shajarah might be true, compared to being impossible and throwing into doubt my whole family history I was told, no pressure hahaa. Growing up in the states we didnt care much about it anyway, but it's a big deal back home.

I would like to use this as an opportunity whenever my cousins and fam member egos are gassed in the head, I can be like whoa hold up, we aint even Quraish homey... and delve into truth hitting facts lol.

vintage_sky
11-15-2017, 08:48 PM
For example, sayings attributed to some characters, including Fatima and Ali, are not all too different from similar attributed to the pagan pantheon of Gods much earlier.

I think that is all down to belief to be fair rather than striking everything off in one line. There are plenty of family trees which are sound and go back to the Hashemites. Even DNA can make this suggestion. Just as much as there are those who have family history which prove otherwise. We can look at the South Asian Qureshis and Sayyids and see this as a classic example.

I mean I follow a more orthodox type of Islam and we do not attribute such figures with God-like reverence since it goes against our understanding of Islam. We even believe the Prophet was a man, the best of men, but nontheless human. All using the Quran and hadith.

vintage_sky
11-15-2017, 08:50 PM
I agree with what your saying too! My point would be (from my viewpoint anyway) that me being from the same haplogroup J as Quraish can confirm to me the fact my Shajarah might be true, compared to being impossible and throwing into doubt my whole family history I was told, no pressure hahaa. Growing up in the states we didnt care much about it anyway, but it's a big deal back home.

I would like to use this as an opportunity whenever my cousins and fam member egos are gassed in the head, I can be like whoa hold up, we aint even Quraish homey... and delve into truth hitting facts lol.

LOL you rebel you! Hahaha

Did you take my wegene suggestion? I cant wait for your results LOOOOOOL

Angoliga
11-15-2017, 08:56 PM
80% of the genetic results under the A-YP4735 mutation are Arabs TMRCA 45200 ybp


A-M13 has an African origin most likely in South-Sudan or adjacent regions.

Those tested on Yfull aren't in anyway reflective of the actual proportion of carriers in this haplogroup. To put it bluntly, most SSAs don't have the economic means nor the interest to pursue commercial genetic testing.

Yes, most of the A-M13 (A-YP4735) samples submitted to Yfull are Arab but they only account for <1% of the entire haplogroup; look at the Arabian Peninsula on the distribution map:

http://i.imgur.com/YJoQg5x.png

This is an older version courtesy of passa, the updated (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7881-Distribution-map-of-Y-DNA-A&p=267376&viewfull=1#post267376)map is more or less the same and contains the entire A-Hg including our more distant A-Hg South-African Hunter-Gatherers ([A-L602, A-51] San people, Nama etc.). A-M13s would be in the northerneast quadrant of Africa; the dots only represent submitted Y-DNA STR (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10115-A-M13-%96-GD-Comparison-using-the-Y-DNA-Comparison-Utility-(*53-kits-20-Countries)&p=222676&viewfull=1#post222676)samples. This distribution in red is more reflective of actual research and sampling "infield" for these regional populations.



Edit: the proportion of Ytree sample's country of origins should be taken with a grain of salt before concluding geographic distributions, more particularly vis a vis hgs detected in developing/war-torn nations -- S.Sudan case in point

Dibran
11-15-2017, 09:02 PM
I think that is all down to belief to be fair rather than striking everything off in one line. There are plenty of family trees which are sound and go back to the Hashemites. Even DNA can make this suggestion. Just as much as there are those who have family history which prove otherwise. We can look at the South Asian Qureshis and Sayyids and see this as a classic example.

I mean I follow a more orthodox type of Islam and we do not attribute such figures with God-like reverence since it goes against our understanding of Islam. We even believe the Prophet was a man, the best of men, but nontheless human. All using the Quran and hadith.

I am not questioning the validity of scientific endeavor in making these connections. I am merely stating the obvious, basing this information on Hadith which is wrought with inconsistencies, outright insult, and falsehoods, is bound to paint a very disjointed concept of real accounts. These works were compiled 200 plus years after the prophets death, all around the time the Muslim Caliphate was at war with Persia. Whats more, not a single writer is attested during Muhammads life, by an actual Arab. All the compilation of attributed sayings are by Persian writers, all of whom "compiled" far more "authentic" saying in their lives than is mathematically even possible in the amount of years they lived. Coupled with the fact it was "compiled" 200 YEARS after his death, leaves all the room for corruption and loss in translation that is not only possible in our technical age with the average individual, but, was surely prevalent back then, in a time where the average individual received as much info in their life that we do in a day.

Using hadith as an accurate stand in for the events of the prophets life and his descendants(or lack thereof) is very flimsy. Majority of these sayings contradict the very message in the Quran to begin with. So, if one is to formulate a hypothesis on what the paternal line of the prophets line, should not use very suspect information on non-verifiable "histories" within the hadith.

vintage_sky
11-15-2017, 09:02 PM
Those tested on Yfull aren't in anyway reflective of the actual proportion of carriers in any haplogroup.

Yes, most of the A-M13 (A-YP4735) samples submitted to Yfull are Arab but they only account for <1% of the entire haplogroup; look at the Arabian Peninsula on the distribution map:

http://i.imgur.com/YJoQg5x.png

This is an older version courtesy of passa, the updated (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7881-Distribution-map-of-Y-DNA-A&p=267376&viewfull=1#post267376)map is more or less the same and contains the entire A-Hg. A-M13s would be in the northerneast quadrant of Africa. The dots only represent submitted Y-DNA STR samples.

A-M13 has an African origin most likely in South-Sudan or adjacent regions.

the issue i see here is that actual homeland african Ystr and SNP testing is underrepresented and haplo A therefore would seem higher in Arabia since the level of testing there compared to africa is higher. I would assume that if one tested atleast 1% of each country in Africa the whole dynamic of wanton theorists would change.

I think I make sense...

khanabadoshi
11-15-2017, 09:04 PM
Let's put it this way:

We can never prove that one is a Syed.
However, we can definitely prove that one's paternal ancestor wasn't an Arab a few 1000 years ago and thus, not of Banu Hashim, Qur'aysh, or Syed.

If you don't have a y-HG associated with Arabs or Middle East in general -- excluded. If you have an Indo-European y-HG -- excluded. If you're J2 -- excluded. Etc, etc.

It's my personal belief that there are way more Gulf Arabs who are of Iranian or South Asian paternal descent than vice versa; just in general, forget even talking about specific tribes. R1a1a-L657+ dude chillin in Makkah got on a boat from the other side of the sea 500-4500 years ago and assimilated.

Except.... there is a caveat.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Banu_Adnan.png/2560px-Banu_Adnan.png

The Qur'aysh are Adnani (ie. Arabized Arabs; vs. Qahtani: "Pure" Arab) and Muhammad is 21 generations removed from this progenitor. So whose to say the Adnani-descendant tribes are supposed to have J-anything? Maybe Adnan got on a boat from the other side of the sea? Maybe the R1a1a-L657 dude in Makkah is really a Quraysh?


Maybe....


Maybe, it's not my problem -- I have no Syed claim LOL.

However, if someone I know ever claims to be the Mahdi.... I have a spare DNA kit just for them. :D

vintage_sky
11-15-2017, 09:08 PM
I am not questioning the validity of scientific endeavor in making these connections. I am merely stating the obvious, basing this information on Hadith which is wrought with inconsistencies, outright insult, and falsehoods, is bound to paint a very disjointed concept of real accounts. These works were compiled 200 plus years after the prophets death, all around the time the Muslim Caliphate was at war with Persia. Whats more, not a single writer is attested during Muhammads life, by an actual Arab. All the compilation of attributed sayings are by Persian writers, all of whom "compiled" far more "authentic" saying in their lives than is mathematically even possible in the amount of years they lived.

Using hadith as an accurate stand in for the events of the prophets life and his descendants(or lack thereof) is very flimsy. Majority of these sayings contradict the very message in the Quran to begin with. So, if one is to formulate a hypothesis on what the paternal line of the prophets line, should not use very suspect information on non-verifiable "histories" within the hadith.

I think for the sake of this thread, I'm going to wind this portion of it in. I have a lot to say but I won't for the sake of other members contributing to this thread. I would urge some respect for others beliefs and try and come across as a rational debater rather than "shoving down your throat-ish" and return to the subject of genetics.

vintage_sky
11-15-2017, 09:10 PM
Let's put it this way:

We can never prove that one is a Syed.
However, we can definitely prove that one's paternal ancestor wasn't an Arab a few 1000 years ago and thus, not of Banu Hashim, Qur'aysh, or Syed.

If you don't have a y-HG associated with Arabs or Middle East in general -- excluded. If you have an Indo-European y-HG -- excluded. If you're J2 -- excluded. Etc, etc.

It's my personal belief that there are way more Gulf Arabs who are of Iranian or South Asian paternal descent than vice versa; just in general, forget even talking about specific tribes. R1a1a-L657+ dude chillin in Makkah got on a boat from the other side of the sea 500-4500 years ago and assimilated.

Except.... there is a caveat.

The Qur'aysh are Adnani (ie. Arabized Arabs; vs. Qahtani: "Pure" Arab) and Muhammad is 21 generations removed from this progenitor. So whose to say the Adnani-descendant tribes are supposed to have J-anything? Maybe Adnan got on a boat from the other side of the sea? Maybe the R1a1a-L657 dude in Makkah is really a Quraysh?


Maybe....


Maybe, it's not my problem -- I have no Syed claim LOL.

However, if someone I know ever claims to be the Mahdi.... I have a spare DNA kit just for them. :D

LOOOOL word... summed up nicely

But... Adnan being the descedent of Abraham one can assume his ancestor was left there, in the way of Ishmael!

Gnid
11-15-2017, 09:19 PM
Let's put it this way:

We can never prove that one is a Syed.
However, we can definitely prove that one's paternal ancestor wasn't an Arab a few 1000 years ago and thus, not of Banu Hashim, Qur'aysh, or Syed.

If you don't have a y-HG associated with Arabs or Middle East in general -- excluded. If you have an Indo-European y-HG -- excluded. If you're J2 -- excluded. Etc, etc.

It's my personal belief that there are way more Gulf Arabs who are of Iranian or South Asian paternal descent than vice versa; just in general, forget even talking about specific tribes. R1a1a-L657+ dude chillin in Makkah got on a boat from the other side of the sea 500-4500 years ago and assimilated.

Except.... there is a caveat.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Banu_Adnan.png/2560px-Banu_Adnan.png

The Qur'aysh are Adnani (ie. Arabized Arabs; vs. Qahtani: "Pure" Arab) and Muhammad is 21 generations removed from this progenitor. So whose to say the Adnani-descendant tribes are supposed to have J-anything? Maybe Adnan got on a boat from the other side of the sea? Maybe the R1a1a-L657 dude in Makkah is really a Quraysh?


Maybe....


Maybe, it's not my problem -- I have no Syed claim LOL.

However, if someone I know ever claims to be the Mahdi.... I have a spare DNA kit just for them. :D
That "R1a1a-L657 guy" is a traced Qurayshi, he belongs to the Shaybah keyholder family of the Kaabah. So no need to say "maybe". On a genetical level there is no proof or evidence for Qahtani and Adnani ("arabized") Arabs. Some say that these are distinctions stemming from the political shism of the Ummayad period which is also very likely. In matters of Arab tribes I am sure that these tribes were mostly not found on a [true/real] common ancestor (in some "smaller" sub-tribes maybe), but such big tribes like Rabiah were likely just confederations of people stemming from different men.

Angoliga
11-15-2017, 09:20 PM
the issue i see here is that actual homeland african Ystr and SNP testing is underrepresented and haplo A therefore would seem higher in Arabia since the level of testing there compared to africa is higher. I would assume that if one tested atleast 1% of each country in Africa the whole dynamic of wanton theorists would change.

I think I make sense...

Yep, you got it.

I edited the post for a little more clarity.

This caveat holds especially true for developing countries.

vintage_sky
11-15-2017, 09:26 PM
That "R1a1a-L657 guy" is a traced Qurayshi, he belongs to the Shaybah keyholder family of the Kaabah. So no need to say "maybe". On a genetical level there is no proof or evidence for Qahtani and Adnani ("arabized") Arabs. Some say that these are distinctions stemming from the political shism of the Ummayad period which is also very likely. In matters of Arab tribes I am sure that these tribes were mostly not found on a common ancestor (in some "smaller" sub-tribes maybe), but such big tribes like Rabiah were likely just confederations of people stemming from different men.

Sorry this is news to me. He is related to the Shaybah keyholders? Now that has thrown me into the deep end. Is he a direct paternal descendent of the Shaybah?

I get your point about Arabs. Specifically to do with the Prophet's family are the adnanites actually Arabs native to Arabia. It all depends on Ismail and Ibrahim and the story of him being left in Mecca. Its not until now Im endeavouring to find out where Abraham actually came from.

Aizkora
11-15-2017, 09:34 PM
There are also E-M81 Moroccans who claim to be seyyeds, pure madness:D

Gnid
11-15-2017, 09:40 PM
Sorry this is news to me. He is related to the Shaybah keyholders? Now that has thrown me into the deep end. Is he a direct paternal descendent of the Shaybah?

I get your point about Arabs. Specifically to do with the Prophet's family are the adnanites actually Arabs native to Arabia. It all depends on Ismail and Ibrahim and the story of him being left in Mecca. Its not until now Im endeavouring to find out where Abraham actually came from.
Yes, he is.

https://youtu.be/KjhoeydsCJo

There are also E-M81 Moroccans who claim to be seyyeds, pure madness
In such cases it is very unlikely. The haplogroup is much more common in the place of origin than in the assumed paternal land of origin (or not present there at all).

drobbah
11-15-2017, 10:02 PM
Wow! This is news to me

I always thought he was fully African and moreover a non-horner

Interesting that the Banu Jumah are a clan of the Quraish tribe, just did a quick search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Jumah).

It's a common misconception lol.His father was an Arab slave (which was common back then) which is why he was born into slavery.

murtazasayeed
11-15-2017, 10:17 PM
LOL you rebel you! Hahaha

Did you take my wegene suggestion? I cant wait for your results LOOOOOOL

Yes hahaaa! Indeed! I hope I’m J tho, growing up with cousins I always joked with them. I’d say stuff like whoa don’t make fun of me, the prophets fam is held in high regard by the angels lol or when duaa would be recited after jamaat prayers and the fam of the prophet invoked, id joke with friends and fam and be like “thanks for praying for me” lol. This would be a huge “told you Your a fake ahss sayyid!” To my face lol.

vintage_sky
11-15-2017, 10:19 PM
Yes hahaaa! Indeed! I hope I’m J tho, growing up with cousins I always joked with them. I’d say stuff like whoa don’t make fun of me, the prophets fam is held in high regard by the angels lol or when duaa would be recited after jamaat prayers and the fam of the prophet invoked, id joke with friends and fam and be like “thanks for praying for me” lol. This would be a huge “told you Your a fake ahss sayyid!” To my face lol.

Did wegene say youre J?

LOL proper milking it werent you hahaha. I hope for your sake now you are a J HAHAHAHAH

Angoliga
11-15-2017, 10:32 PM
It's a common misconception lol.His father was an Arab slave (which was common back then) which is why he was born into slavery.

... boy do I feel extremely foolish, all this time I've been misinforming people on the topic. Thanks for the correction

I guess it serves me right for taking any Hollywood adaptations as scripture or 100% historically accurate:


https://i.imgur.com/OjbuFbu.jpg

I remember watching this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(1976_film))movie in my teens; Bilal is played here by a Senegalese actor (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0782885/).

vintage_sky
11-15-2017, 10:35 PM
... boy do I feel extremely foolish, all this time I've been misinforming people on the topic. Thanks for the correction

I guess it serves me right for taking any Hollywood adaptations as scripture or 100% historically accurate:


https://i.imgur.com/OjbuFbu.jpg

I remember watching this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(1976_film))movie in my teens; Bilal is played here by a Senegalese actor (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0782885/).

apparently, but dont hold me on this, his mother was an ethipian princess who was caught in a battle and enslaved.

drobbah
11-15-2017, 11:12 PM
... boy do I feel extremely foolish, all this time I've been misinforming people on the topic. Thanks for the correction

I guess it serves me right for taking any Hollywood adaptations as scripture or 100% historically accurate:


https://i.imgur.com/OjbuFbu.jpg

I remember watching this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Message_(1976_film))movie in my teens; Bilal is played here by a Senegalese actor (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0782885/).

A description of Bilal from a Sunni source

"He is generally known as “Bilal Habashi” (raa), and it is believed that he was not a pure Abyssinian as his features were not identical with those of the Habashi or Zangi. His complexion was not black but dark brown. His hair was not curly, it was thick and he had a sparse beard. His body was tall and slender with a prominent chest. His cheeks were thin and his nose was not snub"



"His father Rabah, was an Arab and his mother Hamama, was an Abyssinian slave girl believed to be from Mecca but the majority opinion is that she was from a town between Yemen and Abyssinia called Sarat where a mixed race was known to be. Sarat is believed to be the birth place of Bilal (raa) although some historians claim that he was born in Mecca."

drobbah
11-15-2017, 11:14 PM
apparently, but dont hold me on this, his mother was an ethipian princess who was caught in a battle and enslaved.

Some say it was when the Aksumite governer of Yemen decided to invade Makka and destroy the Ka3ba

Angoliga
11-15-2017, 11:19 PM
apparently, but dont hold me on this, his mother was an ethipian princess who was caught in a battle and enslaved.

lol well, we're way off topic here but..

... all I'm sayin is, if modern Ethiopians (Tygray, Afrar, Amhara) are reflective of Abyssinian populations in Quranic times, they'd be ~50% Eurasian. So assuming his father was your average Quraysh, Bilal would've been ~25-35% SSA more or less. The casting of the actor from a movie production perspective might've been done more so to exoticize the character -- the Senegalese actor doesn't strike me as someone of ~65%-75% Eurasian ancestry.

That's not to say his African ancestry wasn't apparent, Quranic scripture clearly distinguishes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_ibn_Rabah#Bilal.27s_appearance)him from other Quaraish tribesmen

Awale
11-15-2017, 11:24 PM
The Qur'aysh are Adnani (ie. Arabized Arabs; vs. Qahtani: "Pure" Arab)

The funny thing is, Arab mythology kinda has this backwards, I would say. The true Arabs are more likely 3adnani Arabs as Qahtani Arabs are supposed to be ones from Yemen, the Arabia-Felix of Roman times. Basically peoples who were often not even Arabic speakers in the pre-Islamic era but Old-South-Arabian speakers, Himyaritic speakers and probably people speaking whatever was ancestral to the "Modern South Arabian" languages of today (they are not descendants of OSA). Linguistic study and evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Arabic#Writing_systems) also points to Arabic having come from around the Levant-Mesopotamia area and gradually made its path southward until it spread to so many more directions thanks to the Arab conquests.

Most Arabs I know of still hold to this old dynamic, though and think of Yemen as some sort of important Arab/Arabic nucleus when it's honestly not.

drobbah
11-15-2017, 11:27 PM
lol well, we're way off topic here but..

... all I'm sayin is, if modern Ethiopians (Tygray, Afrar, Amhara) are reflective of Abyssinian populations in Quranic times, they'd be ~50% Eurasian. So assuming his father was your average Quraysh, Bilal would've been ~25-35% SSA more or less. The casting of the actor from a movie production perspective might've been done more so to exoticize the character -- the Senegalese actor doesn't strike me as someone of ~65%-75% Eurasian ancestry.

That's not to say his African ancestry wasn't apparent, Quranic scripture clearly distinguishes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_ibn_Rabah#Bilal.27s_appearance)him from other Quaraish tribesmen
Arabians also have some E.African (SSA) in them aswell so that would probably drop his Eurasian a bit.

As for OP...every Muslim nation has millions of people claiming to be of Hashemite or Qureishi origins.Heck my clan claimed to have descended from Hussein bin Ali but as my y-dna shows I'm a pure NE African indigenous Cushite!

Many families start these traditions for political power and prestige.Some use it to serve as a sort of way to legitimize their rule a good example are the monarchies of Morocco and Jordan.

Awale
11-15-2017, 11:32 PM
Some say it was when the Aksumite governer of Yemen decided to invade Makka and destroy the Ka3ba

Yes, Abraha (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraha). I haven't read of him in ages but I recall the story as:

* Sent to South-Arabia because the Jewish Himyarite ruler of the time was harassing and killing Christians and Aksumites in Himyar
* Went over as a general & invader and succeeded in defeating the Himyarite ruler
* Eventually declared himself an independent ruler of Himyar and stopped paying tribute to the Aksumite King
* Built a monumental church in the region

Islamic tradition adds:

* Makkans were annoyed that he was pulling pilgrims away toward his church and desecrated it in some way I don't recall
* Abraha got majorly ticked and decided to invade Makkah with war elephants in tow


Some use it to serve as a sort of way to legitimize their rule a good example are the monarchies of Morocco and Jordan.

Isn't the Jordanian royal family legit, though? Like, they're descended from a Sharif of Makkah:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_bin_Ali,_Sharif_of_Mecca

I remember Agamemnon telling me they belong to some clade of J1 but I can't remember the exact lineage...


"He is generally known as “Bilal Habashi” (raa), and it is believed that he was not a pure Abyssinian as his features were not identical with those of the Habashi or Zangi. His complexion was not black but dark brown. His hair was not curly, it was thick and he had a sparse beard. His body was tall and slender with a prominent chest. His cheeks were thin and his nose was not snub"

Kinda goofy that Abyssinians could easily fit this description.


...speaking of genetic claims to religious figures, I wonder if any of Selassie's descendants ever tried to claim their lineage to King David through paternal tests.

Their claim is nonsensical, to be honest. It's just something straight out of the Kebre Negast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebra_Nagast) which is, as far as I recall, a fanciful text that re-imagines the Aksumite rulers as Jewish instead of pagan (what they actually were) and tries, with little evidence, to assert that the Solomonid line is descended from those same Aksumite rulers who were not even Jewish or descended from David but who literally used to style themselves as the sons of a pagan God until Christianity set in:

"The pre-Christian kings whose inscriptions have come down to us called themselves `son of the invincible god Mahrem', the royal tutelary deity, and thus asserted their own claim to divine honours; they may also have been high-priests of the state cult." - Aksum - An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity by Stuart Munro-Hay (An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity)

Angoliga
11-16-2017, 12:03 AM
Arabians also have some E.African (SSA) in them aswell so that would probably drop his Eurasian a bit.


;) Yes, I included the inherent EA in Arabians by stretching the hypothetical confidence interval by 10% (~35%), I figured that would be a conservative range assuming all else

:lol: *I'm lol'n in my head right now* I can't believe I'm having this conversation - I love this forum, where else would I have such esoteric discussions lol

Angoliga
11-16-2017, 12:23 AM
Their claim is nonsensical, to be honest. It's just something straight out of the Kebre Negast (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kebra_Nagast) which is, as far as I recall, a fanciful text that re-imagines the Aksumite rulers as Jewish instead of pagan (what they actually were) and tries, with little evidence, to assert that the Solomonid line is descended from those same Aksumite rulers who were not even Jewish or descended from David but who literally used to style themselves as the sons of a pagan God until Christianity set in:

"The pre-Christian kings whose inscriptions have come down to us called themselves `son of the invincible god Mahrem', the royal tutelary deity, and thus asserted their own claim to divine honours; they may also have been high-priests of the state cult." - Aksum - An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity by Stuart Munro-Hay (An African Civilisation of Late Antiquity)


Indeed.

Just to be clear, I'm not doubting it's falsehood but would be interested to know if there's a comparable infatuation with genetic religious claims among certain Tigre (comparable to some Quraysh).

Awale
11-16-2017, 12:55 AM
Indeed.

Just to be clear, I'm not doubting it's falsehood but would be interested to know if there's a comparable infatuation with genetic religious claims among certain Tigre (comparable to some Quraysh).

I haven't really encountered an Amhara or Tigrinya who appeared obsessed with proving descent from David via Y-DNA, if it's any consolation. Haven't heard murmurs from the royal family either. But there is that not too unheard of Off-Arab-dilemma amok.

TuaMan
11-16-2017, 01:05 AM
I wonder how much of the A-M13 (and even a solid chunk of the E1b1b and some J1) in the Arabian peninsula might be owed to different periods of Axumite or Abyssinian rule in the past 2,000-3,000 years.

Agamemnon
11-16-2017, 01:07 AM
The funny thing is, Arab mythology kinda has this backwards, I would say. The true Arabs are more likely 3adnani Arabs as Qahtani Arabs are supposed to be ones from Yemen, the Arabia-Felix of Roman times. Basically peoples who were often not even Arabic speakers in the pre-Islamic era but Old-South-Arabian speakers, Himyaritic speakers and probably people speaking whatever was ancestral to the "Modern South Arabian" languages of today (they are not descendants of OSA). Linguistic study and evidence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Arabic#Writing_systems) also points to Arabic having come from around the Levant-Mesopotamia area and gradually made its path southward until it spread to so many more directions thanks to the Arab conquests.

Most Arabs I know of still hold to this old dynamic, though and think of Yemen as some sort of important Arab/Arabic nucleus when it's honestly not.

This really needs to be stressed IMO. Traditional Arab historiography has turned Yemen into the cradle of the Arabs while in fact, the Arabs originally came from the northern parts of the peninsula, especially the Hawran and Jordanian steppe (roughly encompassing present-day southern Syria, central-southern Jordan, southern Israel and NW Saudi Arabia) . Yemen became the main focus of Arab historians in their quest for origins because most of the traditions they recorded pointed towards Yemen, admittedly this is probably due to the immeasurable cultural impact South Arabian civilisation had on the nomadic Arabs when they finally interacted, this is so true that most of the Ancient North Arabian scripts in which the oldest genuinely Arabic inscriptions were written are basically adapted forms of the South Arabian musnad. Like you pointed out, the Ancient South Arabians were not Arab in the ethnic sense of the word, Epigraphic South Arabian is derived from an early Central Semitic dialect that spread out throughout the peninsula long before Proto-Arabic came into existence.

The Qahtanite-Adnanite divide therefore seems to be largely uninformative, and rather irrelevant to the actual peopling of Arabia by the Arabs, despite the fact that this divide has been enshrined in Islamic genealogies for example. If anything, it has been thoroughly debunked by the genetic data so far. The narratives surrounding "Qawm ʿAd", "Ubar" and "Iram dhat al ʿImad" (Iram of the Pillars) seem to be based on distant recollections of what South Arabian civilisation looked through the eyes of the early Arab nomads who roamed about on the outskirts of this civilisation and were sometimes dominated politically by the kingdoms that emerged in Yemen. Ironically however, the narratives surrounding Thamud are somewhat more worthy of attention, even though this tribe's origin is typically ascribed to a migration from Yemen, its actual location in Mada'in Saleh in NW Arabia is congruent with the expansion of the Arabs from that very area (the main caveat being that "Thamudic" seems to encompass different languages or dialects, which do not seem to be closely related to Old Arabic).


Isn't the Jordanian royal family legit, though? Like, they're descended from a Sharif of Makkah:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein_bin_Ali,_Sharif_of_Mecca

I remember Agamemnon telling me they belong to some clade of J1 but I can't remember the exact lineage...

They're J1-L859, the most prominent Hashemite branch of FGC1723, which ties in rather well with their pedigree going all the way back to Mecca.

khanabadoshi
11-16-2017, 01:10 AM
That "R1a1a-L657 guy" is a traced Qurayshi, he belongs to the Shaybah keyholder family of the Kaabah

I wasn't specifically referring to him. There are a Saudi or 2 and an Iraqi under L-657 that I glanced over recently. They are whom I was thinking of: https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L657/

However, now that you mentioned it, I do remember talk of the Shaybah keyholder before on AG. Maybe one of those Saudi samples on yFull is him?

Even for him, I still stand by the "maybe" (Don't fight me LOL). Perhaps their ancestor was incorporated into the tribe? Much of Kuwait is of Iranian-descent, and there is no magical barrier between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It's certainly not impossible nor improbable, given the distribution of L-657 and later maritime trade.
Everyone with a Syed claim is "traced"; they all have a book with their family tree. However, not everyone has the same y-HG. J1e, R1a1a-L657, E1b, or A can't all be Qur'aysh or Banu Hashim. Some are more likely over others, and only 1 is possible.

I don't think R1a-anything is likely, but I figured I'd indulge in a thought experiment based on accepting that the Shaybah are Qur'aysh and the Qur'aysh are R1a-L657+:

How does one know that the Shaybah keyholder is more likely Qura'ysh than the King of Jordan? You don't. They both have strong claims. Though, the keyholder certainly seems way more likely than your average Joe, or the posters here: Murtaza, Quraish Tribe. They also have the credibility of being local (which puts them over the King), having a known status, and are well-documented. A second point to consider is that we are currently considering Sunni claims. The Shi'a have their own claims which they likely consider more authentic than the claims we are looking at. Just as one cannot truly know which version of the final Khutbah is more authentic, one cannot definitively know which version of a tree is more accurate. All that being said... our premise is that the the Shaybah are Qur'aysh -- not a maybe -- and thus, the Qur'aysh are R1a-L657...

The implications of R1a-L-657 being the Syed marker are substantial. L-657 formed 4500 ybp and the vast majority of people under it are South Asian. It's downstream of Z93 and I don't think anyone posits that Z93 split from Z283 in the vicinity of the Arabian peninsula or anywhere close. To be frank, if L-657 is a Syed marker, it means either: No more than 4500 years ago, a man went to Arabia and his descendants are now called Shaybah; or a man left Arabia, and his descendants are all now Indo-European, (while those who stayed are now Qur'aysh). If that man left, and his ancestors were native to the region, it changes the entire ethnogenesis of so many modern groups as well as the current understanding of y-HG R1a1a, it's branches, and Steppe population movements.

If Shaybah is a true Arab Qur'ayshi lineage and they are not Arabized, then many Jatts, Sri Lankan Tamils, and Telugus share a common paternal ancestor with the Qur'aysh
or their progenitor less than 4500 years ago. If L657 formed on the peninsula, then, the ancestors of these South Asians moved to the subcontinent and Iran from the Arabian peninsula well before the spread of Islam. From there, their descendants are the cause of its frequency in Europe.


Alternatively, all South Asians, Eastern Europeans, and Iranians downstream of L657 are the descendants of the Banu Hashim/Qur'ayshi Arabs who invaded South Asia, Persia, and Europe post-600AD.

Or, the Qur'aysh/Banu Hashim/progenitor-tribe aren't native to the Arabian peninsula. Rather, they are Indo-European or proto-Indo-European, paternally. They moved to the Arabian peninsula sometime between 4500-1500 years ago from the Eurasian Steppe.

There is really no other way to resolve this.

The simplest scenario is that the Shaybah keyholder's ancestor moved to the Arabian peninsula from some Indo-European populace, sometime after 4500 kya. And that is why they share the same y-HG as so many Indo-Europeans. It's easy to explain this as an incorporation of a Persian person, f. ex., into the Qur'aysh tribe early on. A pre-Salman-al-Farsi, if you will.

If the Shaybah keyholder's ancestor must be Qur'aysh, no matter. It's still all quite possible: The tribe that is the genesis of Banu Hashim and Qur'aysh is not of the peninsula 4500 years ago but rather the Eurasian Steppe or descended group. This is well before even the lifetime of a so-called "Adnan" progenitor. Thus, the notion of an "Arabized" Arab could be based on some truth. The descendant of such a people would today be autosomally indistinguishable for other Gulf Arabs, but of a y-HG not native to the region before 4.5kya. However, this scenario messes up the entire "cousins of the Jews" and "descendant of Ibrahim" narrative for Banu Hashim.


Given the nature of R1a1a and it's subsequent branches, I'm inclined to believe that: the Shaybah keyholder's ancestors were incorporated into the Qur'aysh tribe at some point in the last 4000 years or Banu Hashim's ancestor was somewhere on the Eurasian Steppe or among groups descendant from it and moved to the Arabian peninsula later. It is extremely improbable that the Shaybah were always Qur'aysh and their ancestor was living in or around the Arabian peninsula before 4.5kya.

If the Shaybah are Qur'aysh, then the progenitor of the Qur'aysh (and all Arab tribes which share a common paternal ancestor with them in the 3000 years before the advent of Islam) is from the Eurasian Steppe or near it. If one also claims that the ancestor must be from the peninsula, then one is saying that all these Indo-European groups are descended from a man of the Arabian peninsula.

If: 4500kya L-657 Progenitor = Old Arabized Tribe = Banu Hashim = Qur'aysh = Shaybah.


Then: 4500kya L-657 Progenitor = proto-IE or IE = Old Arabized Tribe = Banu Hashim = Qur'aysh = Shaybah.


Or: 4500kya L-657 Progenitor = Old Peninsular Tribe = Old Arab Tribe and Old Indo-European = Banu Hashim and Indo-Aryan = Qur'aysh and Indo-Iranian = Shaybah and Chaudhary.






Whatever the case, a tribe has a common paternal ancestor, and only one y-HG. If the Shaybah keyholder is not a "maybe", then everyone else who is not-R1a-L657+ is a "definitely not". I think the opposite assertion is more probable, just given the nature of R1a1a strong association with Steppe groups coupled with the proposition of all these tribes having a PIE origin.



Blah, I'm tired. That was too much thought LOL.





These are just random thoughts. Take it as you will. The Haplogroup nerds will intervene and correct all my mistakes I'm sure :D

drobbah
11-16-2017, 01:22 AM
I wonder how much of the A-M13 (and even a solid chunk of the E1b1b and some J1) in the Arabian peninsula might be owed to different periods of Axumite or Abyssinian rule in the past 2,000-3,000 years.

I don't think Horners had much impact on the Arabian Peninsula considering places right next door like Yemen are overwhelmingly J1....

And the V32 which I once thought was proof of Horner males having an impact on the Arabian Peninsula turned out to be a specific "Eurasian" subclade of V32 (Y17750) which isn't found in the Horn (or Cushite populations)

Angoliga
11-16-2017, 01:55 AM
I wonder how much of the A-M13 (and even a solid chunk of the E1b1b and some J1) in the Arabian peninsula might be owed to different periods of Axumite or Abyssinian rule in the past 2,000-3,000 years.

There's two A-M13 Ethiopians with 37 STR data (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10115-A-M13-%96-GD-Comparison-using-the-Y-DNA-Comparison-Utility-(*53-kits-20-Countries)&p=227780&viewfull=1#post227780) that suggests their GD might be within this time-frame. The preliminary estimates seem to show this when compared to a Qatari (12 GD, TMRCA 1770ybp) and Saudi (11 GD, TMRCA 1620ybp). It's also hard to know which side of pond either kits came from, with the lack of samples in Africa, whose to say these Ethiopians A-M13s aren't back-to-Africa migrations. Hopefully they'll get SNP tested soon for confirmation.



I haven't really encountered an Amhara or Tigrinya who appeared obsessed with proving descent from David via Y-DNA, if it's any consolation. Haven't heard murmurs from the royal family either. But there is that not too unheard of Off-Arab-dilemma amok.

I'm somewhat relieved. There's an A-M13 Ethiopian on 23andMe, I forget his ethnicity, he claims his father is of "blue-blood" -- I assume he was referring to the Selassie Royal-line? Maybe you've come across him. I tried finding the thread for reference but gave up, I can't stand the new 23andMe interface, I find it extremely aggravating.

Lol, it's probably been a year but I still recall the havoc that ensued on your YouTube clip about Eurasian ancestry in Horners. It's sad but, I think the public at large either isn't ready or doesn't want to take genetics into serious depth. There was a huge disconnect between the facts and the totally incorrect assumptions many ppl had.

Awale
11-16-2017, 02:15 PM
I'm somewhat relieved. There's an A-M13 Ethiopian on 23andMe, I forget his ethnicity, he claims his father is of "blue-blood" -- I assume he was referring to the Selassie Royal-line? Maybe you've come across him. I tried finding the thread for reference but gave up, I can't stand the new 23andMe interface, I find it extremely aggravating.

I see. As far as I know, Habeshas aren't really tribal and their identities seem to have more to do with places and/or languages so they're probably not as inclined to be as obsessed with Y-DNA and paternal descent as Somalis or Arabians as a result. But "blue blood"... He actually said that? What a prick. :lol: Eh, it's not shocking. A-M13 is a normal lineage in the Horn, some elites are bound to have carried it from any of the ethnic groups. But he might've not been of the royal/imperial line. There were historically plenty of small feudal lords and lesser "Kings" in the Highlands, many that weren't, to my knowledge, related to the Solomonic Dynasty. He could just be the descendant of some dude whose family dominated a small farmer village for all we know.


Lol, it's probably been a year but I still recall the havoc that ensued on your YouTube clip about Eurasian ancestry in Horners. It's sad but, I think the public at large either isn't ready or doesn't want to take genetics into serious depth. There was a huge disconnect between the facts and the totally incorrect assumptions many ppl had.

Rofl, yes, that video (2 years old now) was terribly misunderstood by some folks but I managed to weather it out and debunked most of the loony tunes who were worth debunking in the comments and blocked the more crazy ones. Alotta these loons were posting drivel that just screamed "I only read the title, my amygdala took over and I commented some asinine shit without thinking." :lol:. Anyway, it got some decent traction and plenty of positive feedback so I'm overall happy with it. But I'll admit that having to deal with all the questions (many good ones) and fallout from it in the comments section (while still running the blog) really derailed me from making more videos which is unfortunate.

murtazasayeed
11-16-2017, 04:01 PM
;) Yes, I included the inherent EA in Arabians by stretching the hypothetical confidence interval by 10% (~35%), I figured that would be a conservative range assuming all else

:lol: *I'm lol'n in my head right now* I can't believe I'm having this conversation - I love this forum, where else would I have such esoteric discussions lol


Did wegene say youre J?

LOL proper milking it werent you hahaha. I hope for your sake now you are a J HAHAHAHAH

It was all in humor man! Lol and btw I don’t think wegene gave me my Y haplogroup.

vintage_sky
11-17-2017, 11:03 AM
It was all in humor man! Lol and btw I don’t think wegene gave me my Y haplogroup.

Lol I know. Try re uploading. Wegene using new beta version and provide haplogroups on ancestry raw data. Did you test with ancestry?

Angoliga
11-18-2017, 11:57 PM
... Anyway, it got some decent traction and plenty of positive feedback so I'm overall happy with it. But I'll admit that having to deal with all the questions (many good ones) and fallout from it in the comments section (while still running the blog) really derailed me from making more videos which is unfortunate.

I'm glad to hear that -- it was very well put together video. I'm sure you've attracted several to your blog and opened up the world of genetics to Horners and non-Horners alike!
It's good not to focus on the negative, would you consider maybe posting another video but without comments?
..on the topic of Youtubers, I briefly watched a clip the other day about how to generate revenue from YouTube channels -- the details escape me atm but it sounded lucrative. With the kinda traffic you're getting, I could see you blowing up as a famous genetics Youtuber and seriously profiting from it.

On a separate tangent, I hope we haven't "chased away" the initial poster. I think he was my one and only A-M13 ever sighted on the forum

Reza
11-19-2017, 12:56 AM
I wasn't specifically referring to him. There are a Saudi or 2 and an Iraqi under L-657 that I glanced over recently. They are whom I was thinking of: https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L657/

However, now that you mentioned it, I do remember talk of the Shaybah keyholder before on AG. Maybe one of those Saudi samples on yFull is him?

Even for him, I still stand by the "maybe" (Don't fight me LOL). Perhaps their ancestor was incorporated into the tribe? Much of Kuwait is of Iranian-descent, and there is no magical barrier between Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. It's certainly not impossible nor improbable, given the distribution of L-657 and later maritime trade.
Everyone with a Syed claim is "traced"; they all have a book with their family tree. However, not everyone has the same y-HG. J1e, R1a1a-L657, E1b, or A can't all be Qur'aysh or Banu Hashim. Some are more likely over others, and only 1 is possible.

I don't think R1a-anything is likely, but I figured I'd indulge in a thought experiment based on accepting that the Shaybah are Qur'aysh and the Qur'aysh are R1a-L657+:

How does one know that the Shaybah keyholder is more likely Qura'ysh than the King of Jordan? You don't. They both have strong claims. Though, the keyholder certainly seems way more likely than your average Joe, or the posters here: Murtaza, Quraish Tribe. They also have the credibility of being local (which puts them over the King), having a known status, and are well-documented. A second point to consider is that we are currently considering Sunni claims. The Shi'a have their own claims which they likely consider more authentic than the claims we are looking at. Just as one cannot truly know which version of the final Khutbah is more authentic, one cannot definitively know which version of a tree is more accurate. All that being said... our premise is that the the Shaybah are Qur'aysh -- not a maybe -- and thus, the Qur'aysh are R1a-L657...

The implications of R1a-L-657 being the Syed marker are substantial. L-657 formed 4500 ybp and the vast majority of people under it are South Asian. It's downstream of Z93 and I don't think anyone posits that Z93 split from Z283 in the vicinity of the Arabian peninsula or anywhere close. To be frank, if L-657 is a Syed marker, it means either: No more than 4500 years ago, a man went to Arabia and his descendants are now called Shaybah; or a man left Arabia, and his descendants are all now Indo-European, (while those who stayed are now Qur'aysh). If that man left, and his ancestors were native to the region, it changes the entire ethnogenesis of so many modern groups as well as the current understanding of y-HG R1a1a, it's branches, and Steppe population movements.

If Shaybah is a true Arab Qur'ayshi lineage and they are not Arabized, then many Jatts, Sri Lankan Tamils, and Telugus share a common paternal ancestor with the Qur'aysh
or their progenitor less than 4500 years ago. If L657 formed on the peninsula, then, the ancestors of these South Asians moved to the subcontinent and Iran from the Arabian peninsula well before the spread of Islam. From there, their descendants are the cause of its frequency in Europe.


Alternatively, all South Asians, Eastern Europeans, and Iranians downstream of L657 are the descendants of the Banu Hashim/Qur'ayshi Arabs who invaded South Asia, Persia, and Europe post-600AD.

Or, the Qur'aysh/Banu Hashim/progenitor-tribe aren't native to the Arabian peninsula. Rather, they are Indo-European or proto-Indo-European, paternally. They moved to the Arabian peninsula sometime between 4500-1500 years ago from the Eurasian Steppe.

There is really no other way to resolve this.

The simplest scenario is that the Shaybah keyholder's ancestor moved to the Arabian peninsula from some Indo-European populace, sometime after 4500 kya. And that is why they share the same y-HG as so many Indo-Europeans. It's easy to explain this as an incorporation of a Persian person, f. ex., into the Qur'aysh tribe early on. A pre-Salman-al-Farsi, if you will.

If the Shaybah keyholder's ancestor must be Qur'aysh, no matter. It's still all quite possible: The tribe that is the genesis of Banu Hashim and Qur'aysh is not of the peninsula 4500 years ago but rather the Eurasian Steppe or descended group. This is well before even the lifetime of a so-called "Adnan" progenitor. Thus, the notion of an "Arabized" Arab could be based on some truth. The descendant of such a people would today be autosomally indistinguishable for other Gulf Arabs, but of a y-HG not native to the region before 4.5kya. However, this scenario messes up the entire "cousins of the Jews" and "descendant of Ibrahim" narrative for Banu Hashim.


Given the nature of R1a1a and it's subsequent branches, I'm inclined to believe that: the Shaybah keyholder's ancestors were incorporated into the Qur'aysh tribe at some point in the last 4000 years or Banu Hashim's ancestor was somewhere on the Eurasian Steppe or among groups descendant from it and moved to the Arabian peninsula later. It is extremely improbable that the Shaybah were always Qur'aysh and their ancestor was living in or around the Arabian peninsula before 4.5kya.

If the Shaybah are Qur'aysh, then the progenitor of the Qur'aysh (and all Arab tribes which share a common paternal ancestor with them in the 3000 years before the advent of Islam) is from the Eurasian Steppe or near it. If one also claims that the ancestor must be from the peninsula, then one is saying that all these Indo-European groups are descended from a man of the Arabian peninsula.

If: 4500kya L-657 Progenitor = Old Arabized Tribe = Banu Hashim = Qur'aysh = Shaybah.


Then: 4500kya L-657 Progenitor = proto-IE or IE = Old Arabized Tribe = Banu Hashim = Qur'aysh = Shaybah.


Or: 4500kya L-657 Progenitor = Old Peninsular Tribe = Old Arab Tribe and Old Indo-European = Banu Hashim and Indo-Aryan = Qur'aysh and Indo-Iranian = Shaybah and Chaudhary.






Whatever the case, a tribe has a common paternal ancestor, and only one y-HG. If the Shaybah keyholder is not a "maybe", then everyone else who is not-R1a-L657+ is a "definitely not". I think the opposite assertion is more probable, just given the nature of R1a1a strong association with Steppe groups coupled with the proposition of all these tribes having a PIE origin.



Blah, I'm tired. That was too much thought LOL.





These are just random thoughts. Take it as you will. The Haplogroup nerds will intervene and correct all my mistakes I'm sure :D

My Arabic is pretty ropey but I take it this is the chap from Bani Shaibah who tested positive for R1a-L657?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h1fMfrWF30

My rambling thoughts:

Even with the assumption that their family lineage does trace back to the Bani Shaibah of the Prophet's time, with no non-paternity events (which statistically must be rare given we are dealing with almost 1500 years), they were a sub tribe of Quraish and essentially cousins at most of Bani Hashim, much like the Umayyads.

Given that Arab tribes of the time often adopted people into the tribal identity, and that the genealogy from Abdul Muttalib upwards likely folkloric or at least full of gaps, they're probably a worse fit for sayyid lineage than those actually claiming descendance from Ali. Ibn Ishaq who was probably one of the earliest most comprehensive seerah recorders would have narrated his work almost 100 years after hijri. I personally don't put much trust in those literal genealogies for Quraish as by the same argument, it goes straight back to Ibrahim.

Even the link of sayyids through to Ali (and by default the Prophet) has weak points - Hussain's only surviving son was allegedly the child Ali Zain Al Abidin who survived Karbala and the massacre to go into captivity. Given their persecution by Umayyads and various Abbasids, did the paternal line truly survive ...?

Certainly, by some point, the concept of sayyid lineage must have formalised - but was it early enough to be authentic? And whoever that common ancestor was for most of today's sayyids .. there just can be no evidence to link to Ali until someone commits the sacrilegious and tests the untested.

Anyone fancy testing the Aga Khan?

parasar
11-21-2017, 05:27 PM
My Arabic is pretty ropey but I take it this is the chap from Bani Shaibah who tested positive for R1a-L657?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h1fMfrWF30

My rambling thoughts:

Even with the assumption that their family lineage does trace back to the Bani Shaibah of the Prophet's time, with no non-paternity events (which statistically must be rare given we are dealing with almost 1500 years), they were a sub tribe of Quraish and essentially cousins at most of Bani Hashim, much like the Umayyads.

...


From what I have read, their lineage claim is pretty solid (or at least solid without going into NPE). A part of the family may not have initially adopted Islam as there was a dispute on the possession on the Kaaba key. But the Prophet sided with the family, and they maintained possession.

"Since Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) handed over the key to the Kaaba to Othman bin Talha, the prophet’s companion’s lineage sons have been inheriting it and the title Sadin of the Kaaba until today."
http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/sadin-kaaba-key-keeper-keeping-tradition-alive

The initial dispute seems to have arisen from the infidel status of the mother of Othman: “Othman, a new convert, had to get it from his mother, an infidel, who had charge of it and who refused to give it up."

They (M6740) have other male line related family in Mecca as well as Medina that have also tested L657+.
Closest to them outside Arabia are M6736 (Iran) and N2358 (India).
M6736 calls himself - Al-Hosaini Al-Qurashi. N2358 is a Syrian Christian from Ayroor Kerala who has the name Philip Padinjaremannil (Padinyarammannil).

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R-Arabia?iframe=yresults
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?7192-Can-Indians-and-Pakistanis-be-Syed&p=158190&viewfull=1#post158190

Squad
01-26-2018, 01:29 PM
Traditional history of ''Islam'' is almost entirely made up of a bunch of lies. For example, it is very intriguing that NO mention of a city going by the name of ''Mecca'' has ever been identified outside of traditional sources, so much for a city which is said to have been a major trading point !

parasar
01-26-2018, 02:07 PM
What about Ptolemy's Makoraba?

Squad
01-26-2018, 02:25 PM
What would make you think that, other than both names start with the same letter ? Only traditional sources talk about this Mecca, you can look for it everywhere and you'll never find any evidence of it. Traditional hearsay dating from more than 200 years after Muhammad made those stories up to force a wrong interpretation of the Quran in order to create a common religion suiting the elite's interests. As far as Ptolemy's Macoraba is concerned, I assure you that it has nothing to do with Mecca or whatsoever, only deluded ''muslims'' claim so because obviously Mecca occupies an important place in their religious lifestyle so that they cannot allow the very base of their beliefs to be shaken.

drobbah
01-26-2018, 02:42 PM
Traditional history of ''Islam'' is almost entirely made up of a bunch of lies. For example, it is very intriguing that NO mention of a city going by the name of ''Mecca'' has ever been identified outside of traditional sources, so much for a city which is said to have been a major trading point !

Are you arguing that Makkah never existed prior to Islam or that it wasn't an important commercial center?

Squad
01-26-2018, 03:21 PM
Actually, I'm claiming both in a sense, but putting emphasis on the second claim ; that whether or not it existed prior to the Abbasid Caliphate, and it most likely didn't, it in any case was no commercial center.

drobbah
01-26-2018, 04:02 PM
Well you are definently entitled to your opinion.Athough I disagree with your claim that city never existed prior to Islam I do agree that it wasn't a "major" trading hub.Islamic sources from the Seera and ahaadith probably exaggerated Makkah's importance

Squad
01-26-2018, 04:28 PM
No indication of Mecca outside of traditional islamic sources can be found nowhere at all, the town, now scratch that : the insignificant unnamed settlement, never existed prior to the 5th century AD this is a well established fact. No map prior to the 10th century mentions Mecca. Certainly, the ''mother of towns'' mentioned in the Quran has nothing to do with Mecca. The oldest known mosques were never facing Mecca and Muhammad never set foot in Mecca. The islamic religions are based on deceitful lies fabricated by the Abbasid mainly. Science has no consideration for traditional stories, especially when they can't hold their own against concrete evidence.

parasar
01-26-2018, 05:49 PM
No indication of Mecca outside of traditional islamic sources can be found nowhere at all, the town, now scratch that : the insignificant unnamed settlement, never existed prior to the 5th century AD this is a well established fact. No map prior to the 10th century mentions Mecca. Certainly, the ''mother of towns'' mentioned in the Quran has nothing to do with Mecca. The oldest known mosques were never facing Mecca and Muhammad never set foot in Mecca. The islamic religions are based on deceitful lies fabricated by the Abbasid mainly. Science has no consideration for traditional stories, especially when they can't hold their own against concrete evidence.

So are you now saying that Mecca did exist in the 5th century AD? What is that based on? It seems to be at odds with your earlier assertion.

Squad
01-26-2018, 06:11 PM
As a small settlement located in the vicinity of current Mecca, not as a location named as such. This is based on archaeological findings, it is no wonder that Saudi Arabia will not allow excavations over there because it would provoke a major crisis within the ''muslim'' world. You see, traditional islamic sources put a huge emphasis on this Mecca as some kind of holy city dating from the time of Abraham, which of course has no basis or whatsoever.

Dibran
01-26-2018, 08:05 PM
I think for the sake of this thread, I'm going to wind this portion of it in. I have a lot to say but I won't for the sake of other members contributing to this thread. I would urge some respect for others beliefs and try and come across as a rational debater rather than "shoving down your throat-ish" and return to the subject of genetics.

The truth hurts. Just because it bothers you doesnt make it "insult". Please stop using words loosely like so many. An insult is a disrespectful or scornfully abusive remark or action. Telling you the simple truth that you shouldnt rely on these texts that were written long after his death by people who didnt know him, is rational. Thats why they came up with the whole concept of "science of hadith" because theres no denying its full of contradictions. Using books that were written 200 years after the prophet by Persians during the war with the Islamic Caliphate(go figure) is absolutely counter to evidence.

You don't even need to be a Zoroastrian to realize a good amount of Hadith and Sunnah are derived from their religion. It is called Syncretism. Much like Abrahamic faith in europe was blended with Mithraism to develop Christianity. If you can't have a critical mind and get emotionally defensive absent reason, then its your problem, not mine.

Moderator
01-27-2018, 09:29 PM
This thread is being monitored and posts above are in violation of the forum rule:

3.20 Political and religious discussion is only permitted in The Atrium, a forum section voluntarily selected for by subscription class members with at least 500 posts. Such discussions are strictly prohibited everywhere else in Anthrogenica.

Squad
04-28-2018, 08:20 AM
This really needs to be stressed IMO. Traditional Arab historiography has turned Yemen into the cradle of the Arabs while in fact, the Arabs originally came from the northern parts of the peninsula, especially the Hawran and Jordanian steppe (roughly encompassing present-day southern Syria, central-southern Jordan, southern Israel and NW Saudi Arabia) . Yemen became the main focus of Arab historians in their quest for origins because most of the traditions they recorded pointed towards Yemen, admittedly this is probably due to the immeasurable cultural impact South Arabian civilisation had on the nomadic Arabs when they finally interacted, this is so true that most of the Ancient North Arabian scripts in which the oldest genuinely Arabic inscriptions were written are basically adapted forms of the South Arabian musnad. Like you pointed out, the Ancient South Arabians were not Arab in the ethnic sense of the word, Epigraphic South Arabian is derived from an early Central Semitic dialect that spread out throughout the peninsula long before Proto-Arabic came into existence.

The Qahtanite-Adnanite divide therefore seems to be largely uninformative, and rather irrelevant to the actual peopling of Arabia by the Arabs, despite the fact that this divide has been enshrined in Islamic genealogies for example. If anything, it has been thoroughly debunked by the genetic data so far. The narratives surrounding "Qawm ʿAd", "Ubar" and "Iram dhat al ʿImad" (Iram of the Pillars) seem to be based on distant recollections of what South Arabian civilisation looked through the eyes of the early Arab nomads who roamed about on the outskirts of this civilisation and were sometimes dominated politically by the kingdoms that emerged in Yemen. Ironically however, the narratives surrounding Thamud are somewhat more worthy of attention, even though this tribe's origin is typically ascribed to a migration from Yemen, its actual location in Mada'in Saleh in NW Arabia is congruent with the expansion of the Arabs from that very area (the main caveat being that "Thamudic" seems to encompass different languages or dialects, which do not seem to be closely related to Old Arabic).



They're J1-L859, the most prominent Hashemite branch of FGC1723, which ties in rather well with their pedigree going all the way back to Mecca.

The problem however is that not much is known about pre-islamic Arabia especially outside of Yemen. Regions like Asir might be hiding a lot of interesting stuff. FGC11's expansion looks to have happened from South Arabia because it was very rare in the Levant and Mesopotamia prior to the medieval arabic expansions and its phylogeny is highly suggestive of this as well, with most ''basal'' sub-clades in Yemen and very recent ones in Saudi Arabia and the rest.

Carl45
05-09-2018, 11:08 AM
Gentlemen, it seems the world may never know the answer to this curious question. Even if you check burial sites, you have no way to really know who was buried there. If you are a fake Syed, blame your lying forefather for wasting your thoughts and energy on this subject. No one can say for sure what the prophet’s paternal family’s haplogroup was. I would not give weight to a King’s claim, a Sunni’s claim, or anyone from the subcontinent. The latter placing so much false data out there that if you want to base it on highest numbers, they would win. As well as all these L859s. It’s not a numbers game. Go flush your fake and forged family trees down the drain. If you come from notable people, respect those individuals. But, if your great grandfather is only a name on a family tree, an unknown, then who cares if your forefather 1400 years ago was someone important.

asm
05-25-2018, 03:54 AM
................

Squad
06-16-2018, 08:28 AM
Gentlemen, it seems the world may never know the answer to this curious question. Even if you check burial sites, you have no way to really know who was buried there. If you are a fake Syed, blame your lying forefather for wasting your thoughts and energy on this subject. No one can say for sure what the prophet’s paternal family’s haplogroup was. I would not give weight to a King’s claim, a Sunni’s claim, or anyone from the subcontinent. The latter placing so much false data out there that if you want to base it on highest numbers, they would win. As well as all these L859s. It’s not a numbers game. Go flush your fake and forged family trees down the drain. If you come from notable people, respect those individuals. But, if your great grandfather is only a name on a family tree, an unknown, then who cares if your forefather 1400 years ago was someone important.

L859 is undoubtedly the haplogroup of Mohammed

Lupriac
09-21-2018, 04:39 PM
Your haplogroup most probably is a result of the trade of Ethiopians captives after the war between Arabs and Abyssinia.
I think haplogroup of Quraysh is a mix of J1-L859, J2a4 and some E1b due to mixing with others.

Lupriac
09-21-2018, 04:39 PM
[Deleted]

Saad2016
09-21-2018, 09:15 PM
Are you arguing that Makkah never existed prior to Islam or that it wasn't an important commercial center?

Makkah was a local city and a seaport. Religious hate driven denial is not good.

Lupriac
09-23-2018, 05:25 PM
Makkah was a local city and a seaport. Religious hate driven denial is not good.

Not only it was a seaport and a city, all traders from from Yemen or going to Yemen would pass by Mecca to do pilgrimage to the Kaaba. If I recall correctly Ptolemy described the place there with a temple called "Macorabah", or similar God's house.

Saad2016
09-23-2018, 09:57 PM
Not only it was a seaport and a city, all traders from from Yemen or going to Yemen would pass by Mecca to do pilgrimage to the Kaaba. If I recall correctly Ptolemy described the place there with a temple called "Macorabah", or similar God's house.

agreed. just because it wasn't Venice , Rome etc . does not mean that u can deny it.

saltranger
10-02-2018, 09:25 AM
Old Crusaders hate myopia.

Arshad
07-15-2019, 04:18 AM
Assalamu Alaikum,

I like to know
which DNA test you did?
I saw many kind of tests :P so i am confused.
What does this mean A-PH856 >>>>A-V3663
And what does this mean : YF07912

Thanks for your time

Angoliga
07-15-2019, 11:24 PM
Assalamu Alaikum,

I like to know
which DNA test you did?
I saw many kind of tests :P so i am confused.
What does this mean A-PH856 >>>>A-V3663
And what does this mean : YF07912

Thanks for your time

These are paternal results from a "Next-Generation-Sequencing" Y-DNA test (NGS (https://isogg.org/wiki/Y-DNA_next_generation_sequencing))

This particular user used an NGS service offered by FTDNA ("Big-Y (https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/y-dna-testing/big-y/big-y/)"). FGC (https://www.fullgenomes.com/) is another well reputed company offering NGS Y-DNA testing.

After receiving your NGS results in a BAM file, you could then have the data sent to Yfull (https://www.yfull.com/) for interpretation analysis. You'd then received their interpretation results; be given your own Yfull ID; and get plotted on the Y-tree within a sub-clade of your Y-DNA haplogroup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroup)

YF07912 is the Yfull ID of the initial poster "Quraish tribe"

A-PH856 is a SNP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-SNP) associated with subclade A-V3663 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/A-V3663/)

WSO
07-20-2019, 09:09 PM
These are paternal results from a "Next-Generation-Sequencing" Y-DNA test (NGS (https://isogg.org/wiki/Y-DNA_next_generation_sequencing))

This particular user used an NGS service offered by FTDNA ("Big-Y (https://www.familytreedna.com/learn/y-dna-testing/big-y/big-y/)"). FGC (https://www.fullgenomes.com/) is another well reputed company offering NGS Y-DNA testing.

After receiving your NGS results in a BAM file, you could then have the data sent to Yfull (https://www.yfull.com/) for interpretation analysis. You'd then received their interpretation results; be given your own Yfull ID; and get plotted on the Y-tree within a sub-clade of your Y-DNA haplogroup (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroup)

YF07912 is the Yfull ID of the initial poster "Quraish tribe"

A-PH856 is a SNP (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-SNP) associated with subclade A-V3663 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/A-V3663/)

Hi nilosaharan i want to ask you please in south sudan there is A-M13 is they all in Snp Y26839?

Angoliga
07-25-2019, 04:06 AM
Hi nilosaharan i want to ask you please in south sudan there is A-M13 is they all in Snp Y26839?

Hi WSO, yes that seems to be the case based on the limited samples.

Y26839 in South-Sudanese nilotes would reflect V4735 from this paper "The peopling of the last Green Sahara revealed by high-coverage resequencing of trans-Saharan patrilineages", (D’Atanasio, 2018 (https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-018-1393-5#Sec8)):

https://i.imgur.com/QXWAOwK.png

"The Sahelian belt spans from the Atlantic Ocean to the Red Sea, immediately south of the Sahara. Its climate and ecology are intermediate between desert (typical of the Sahara to the north) and the tropical savannah (typical of the regions to the south).... A3-M13/V4735 probably originated somewhere in the central Sahel between 10.24 and 6.02 kya and possibly arrived in eastern Africa after 6.02 kya.

...This clade is significantly related to the Nilo-Saharan speaking groups (Mann–Whitney test, p = 2.82 Ă— 10−4), refining previous hypotheses about the association between A3-M13 and the Nilo-Saharan spread from central Sahel to eastern Africa [14, 18]. "

Angoliga
07-25-2019, 04:52 AM
Your haplogroup most probably is a result of the trade of Ethiopians captives after the war between Arabs and Abyssinia.


At the moment, none of the dating seems to reflect this between Horners and SW-Asian A-M13 carriers. This lineage in SW-Asia is mostly just a relic of minor ancient trans-saharan gene-flow from our most recent Green Sahara period during the Holocene (12-5kya).

One could even argue A-M13 in the horn is significantly vastly SW-Asian >> Horner rather than the other way around.

TMRCAs (https://www.yfull.com/tree/A-M13/) for subclades A-Y161004, A-Y92096, A-Y156117 date from 2,400 kya - 4,600kya... so, it's far beyond the Islamic period.



"In this context, rare Y lineages with a relic geographic distribution can be highly informative regarding human migrations across the Sahara. Thus, considering their frequency distribution, the four trans-Saharan lineages A3-M13, E-M2, E-M78 and R-V88 could represent the remains of the Saharan MSY genetic landscape before the desertification, contrary to the usual interpretation involving recent gene flow events such as the trans-Saharan Arab slave trade [42, 43, 44].", (D’Atanasio, 2018 (https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-018-1393-5#Sec8)).

WSO
07-27-2019, 01:09 AM
At the moment, none of the dating seems to reflect this between Horners and SW-Asian A-M13 carriers. This lineage in SW-Asia is mostly just a relic of minor ancient trans-saharan gene-flow from our most recent Green Sahara period during the Holocene (12-5kya).

One could even argue A-M13 in the horn is significantly vastly SW-Asian >> Horner rather than the other way around.

TMRCAs (https://www.yfull.com/tree/A-M13/) for subclades A-Y161004, A-Y92096, A-Y156117 date from 2,400 kya - 4,600kya... so, it's far beyond the Islamic period.



"In this context, rare Y lineages with a relic geographic distribution can be highly informative regarding human migrations across the Sahara. Thus, considering their frequency distribution, the four trans-Saharan lineages A3-M13, E-M2, E-M78 and R-V88 could represent the remains of the Saharan MSY genetic landscape before the desertification, contrary to the usual interpretation involving recent gene flow events such as the trans-Saharan Arab slave trade [42, 43, 44].", (D’Atanasio, 2018 (https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-018-1393-5#Sec8)).

Yes, even the snp Y30506 not related to horn aftica its age is 9500 year