PDA

View Full Version : The y DNA haplogroup of the Prophet



Piquerobi
09-22-2015, 01:25 AM
Does anyone have more information on this?

Mohammed, Hashemites, probably related Y-DNA


Arab DNA forums and DNA Project admins reported that two test results of members of the Jordanian royal family (private kits) are positive for L859. The possible Y-DNA ancestor is Abdul Muttalib (497-578), the grandfather of Islamic prophet Muhammad (570-632). The haplogroup J1-P58-L147.1-L858-L859 can be observed in other members of Hashemites clan, founded by the great-grandfather of Muhammad and also within the larger paternal Quraish tribe. No descendant by classical genealogy (Hashemite, Sharif, Abbasid) of Abdul Muttalib has published positive testing for L859.
http://www.isogg.org/wiki/Y-DNA_famous_people#Mohammed.2C_Prophet.2C_Hashemite s.2C_probably_related_Y-DNA

DNA could illuminate Islam's lineage
Rasha Elass
June 19, 2009


For almost 1,600 years, the title Sharif, Sayyed, or Habib has been bestowed on Muslims who have been able to trace their roots back to the Prophet Mohammed through intricate family trees, oral histories and genealogical records. But now an American DNA lab says it may have identified the DNA signature of descendants of the Prophet Mohammed, and perhaps the prospect of a direct, more accurate means of confirming or identifying such a connection.

Family Tree DNA, a genealogy and genetics-testing company in Houston, Texas, says it made the discovery after several clients, reputed by oral family histories and some supporting documentation to be descended from the Prophet Mohammed, asked to have their paternal DNA sequences mapped. "With these various samples, we were able to identify an overlapping signature in their DNA, a common thread for all of them, which is their genetic lineage from the Prophet, if their oral tradition is accurate," said Bennett Greenspan, chief executive of Family Tree DNA, which is said to have amassed one of the largest DNA databases in the world.

The company declined to identify any of the men on the grounds of client privacy, but Mr Greenspan said "several samples came from men in different parts of the Arab world". Genetic testing can trace the maternal or paternal line by mapping the DNA in the sex chromosome passed on by parents. The father passes on the Y chromosome to his son and the mother her X chromosome, so only male descendants can trace both their patriarchal and matriarchal lineage. Female descendants, possessing two X chromosomes, can test only their matriarchal lineage, also known as mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA.

In recent years there have been many projects attempting to identify the DNA signatures of famous people, tribes and populations that inhabit specific regions - sometimes with surprising results. In 2003 a group of international geneticists found that eight per cent of men in what used to be the Mongolian Empire were descended from Genghis Khan. According to a ground-breaking paper in The American Journal of Human Genetics in 2003, this meant there were no fewer than 16 million descendants of the 12th-century ruler living today.

The DNA signature of Marie Antoinette is also said to have been determined, meaning anyone suspecting a genetic link to the former queen of France can confirm their royal roots by testing their mtDNA. Such analysis can create controversy. When the DNA signature of Thomas Jefferson, the third president of the United States, was isolated, it appeared to give credence to the theory that Jefferson, revered as one of the America's founding fathers, had fathered a child with his slave, Sally Hemmings.

But it could not be confirmed beyond a doubt because although Eston Hemmings, the child of the slave, shared the same Y chromosomal DNA as Jefferson, he could have been the offspring of any of Jefferson's male relatives living in Virginia at the time. The Prophet Mohammed had no surviving sons but his daughter Fatima married her paternal second cousin, Ali, producing two grandsons: Hassan and Hussein. Both have a traceable line of male descendants.

Because Ali and the Prophet Mohammed share the same grandfather, their paternal DNA is identical. Descendants can confirm their lineage when they reflect similar patterns. Most Islamic scholars agree there is nothing objectionable about testing individual DNA - and countries such as the UAE encourage DNA use in criminal forensics - but there are complex rulings when it comes to using DNA in court for establishing lineage.

According to the Kuwait-based Islamic Organisation for Medical Sciences, a forum where scholars meet regularly to discuss scientific and medical ethics in Islam, the use of DNA is permissible in certain cases. "A mechanism called qiyafah, similar to an expert witness, existed at the time of the Prophet," said Sheikh Musa Furber, a scholar in Islamic law at the Abu Dhabi-based Tabah Foundation. "The Prophet would send the people to an expert who can look at overall physical resemblance to deduce who might be the father. Today, instead of qiyafah, we should consider DNA testing."

But Islamic courts do not accept DNA evidence in establishing the paternity of a child born in wedlock, as the law typically considers the mother's husband to be the father, assuming she was not pregnant when married. There is another issue that arises in the Islamic tradition when using DNA to establish lineage: "Lineage, or nasab, in Islamic law assumes lawful intercourse," Sheikh Musa said. "But since a DNA test cannot prove lawful intercourse, it cannot stand as proof of lineage from a legal perspective."

There are a few privately funded lineage projects in the region, such as the Arab DNA Project and the Arab J1e Y-DNA Project. The former is an online public forum with chat rooms and shared information for Arab men and women interested in their genetic lineage. The J1e project, accessible through the website of Family Tree DNA (at www.familytreedna.com) is more specialised. It is a forum for men whose Y chromosome belongs to the J1e haplogroup, a genetic grouping of Semitic tribes.

J1e is the genetic signature of the Hashemites, a clan to which the Prophet Mohammed belonged. The current King of Jordan, Abdullah II, is a Hashemite descendant, and one of the better-known living descendants of the Prophet Mohammed. Just how many will test their own DNA to find a link remains to be seen, officials say. "When it comes to the Prophet, I'd rather live in doubt than receive certainty that I'm not related to him," said Sheikh Furber.
http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/dna-could-illuminate-islams-lineage#page1

King
09-22-2015, 03:10 AM
There is a huge chance that the Prophet Muhammad was J1. However, Arab tribes usually include other Arab families during it's formation, so they are not 100% homogeneous. The TMRCA for L859 reinforces the subclade's Arabian origins, and it fits right around the time Islam began. So I think it is the best candidate of his family's descendants (the Prophet himself never had a son that survived past infancy).

While we may never know for sure (unless we dig up the graves of the prophet and his family, which is never happening), the odds still favor J1.

Edit: I believe he is 100% J1. L859 is exclusive to the Hashemites, which shows that this lineage for its entirety was always too pristine and prestigious to be found elsewhere. Just like how the Kohanim J1 sub-clade is exclusive to the Jews. Every other J1 sub-clade that claims to be Hashemite is found elsewhere in Arabian tribes, and its always too young to be associated with the Prophet. To be 100% sure I'd have to look into other subclades of haplogroups that claim to be from the Prophet, but since none is ever brought up by Arab DNA project admins, I don't think such a candidate exists yet.

J Man
09-22-2015, 03:22 AM
It would not be much of a surprise if he was J1.

RCO
09-22-2015, 12:12 PM
Arab Tribes
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Arab%20Tribes?iframe=yresults

Qurayshi
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/qurayishj1c3d/default.aspx

Piquerobi
09-22-2015, 01:21 PM
^ Very interesting!

The Quraysh & Bani-Hashem (FGC8712+, L859+, FGC10500+, DYS485=14) project:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/qurayishj1c3d/default.aspx


This project intends to track down individuals, and their Y-DNA kits, who tested positive for FGC8712, L859, FGC8703, FGC10500, CTS8308, FGC8702, FGC9581, and/or L615 markers.

It is believed that:
* L859+ individuals are descendants of Quraysh
* FGC8703+ individuals are descendants of Hashem
* FGC10500+ individuals are descendants of Imam Ali (AS)

Below is the most updated phylogenetic tree of the Quraysh (& FGC8712) Project:
http://www.qur.co/vb/filedata/fetch?id=1398

Hashem tribe emerged in west Arabia (Hijaz) and migrated to the south (Yemen) or to the north east (Levant and Mesopotamia). Sayeds & Sahrifs with well known lines of succession tested positive for L859 and FGC10500 markers. Here is the historical and geographical distribution of current FGC8712+, Quarshi, Hashemi, and Alawite kits:
http://www.qur.co/vb/filedata/fetch?id=1252

A Y-STR model of Imam Ali bin abi-Taleb (AS) was generated based on the 54 available Alawite kits:
http://www.qur.co/vb/filedata/fetch?id=851

FGC8712 and its downstream SNPs are defined as a branch of the greater J1 phylogenetic tree (characterized by the M267 SNP-marker):
http://genogenea.com/J-M267/tree

Prophets Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismael (Ishmael), Isacc, and Haroon (Aaron) are considered major forefathers in the J1 phylogenetic tree.

The age of FGC8712 subclade is believed to be ~3300-3800 yBP (years before present). Individuals who tested positive for this marker (FGC8712) are welcome to join the Quraysh project.

To browse SNPs and their positions on the Y DNA, please use the ISOGG YBrowse Tool:
http://ybrowse.org/gb2/gbrowse/chrY/?

Caspian
09-22-2015, 02:26 PM
A Y-STR model of Imam Ali bin abi-Taleb (AS) was generated based on the 54 available Alawite kits:
http://www.qur.co/vb/filedata/fetch?id=851


Then this haplotype could also be the model haplotype for Prophet Muhammad, because Prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali were cousin. Am I right?

Piquerobi
09-22-2015, 02:31 PM
Then this haplotype could also be the model haplotype for Prophet Muhammad, because Prophet Muhammad and Imam Ali were cousin. Am I right?

Yes. That's it, I guess.

Agamemnon
09-22-2015, 06:36 PM
The "FGC8712, L859-" samples from Eastern Europe mentioned here (http://www.qur.co/vb/filedata/fetch?id=1252) are all Jewish and have their own subclade, J1-ZS2102 (TMRCA ~1000 yBP)... As to how this typically Arabian branch of J1-L858 managed to make it into the Jewish gene pool, your guess is as good as mine (remnants of Arabia's Jewish tribes blending with Ashkenazi Jews? Idumean converts to Judaism? Himyarite converts?).

King
09-22-2015, 11:50 PM
While I don't believe the Alawites descend from Ali, if they do descend from Quraysh, it'd be a huge shock to me since their sect is not compatible with Islam. But then again it shouldnt, because the Prophet did confront his tribe and threatened them all with slaughter, since they were pagans and did not care for monotheism and wanted him killed.

If the Alawites are true remnants of the Quraish, then they probably are the remnants of the stubborn pagan qurayshi tribesmen (the majority of quraysh were unbelievers when Islam came).

King
09-23-2015, 12:22 AM
Question: The term Alawite used here, is it used for those who claim lineage from Ali, or is it used for those from the Alawite sect? Cause I'm slightly confused what Alawite is referring to here (I'm thinking of the Alawite sect but I don't think that's right).

Caspian
09-23-2015, 09:09 AM
There is a large and famous sayyid family which belongs to Shia Al-Musawi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Musawi) branch of Hashemites in our village. People are praying constantly for this family. I wonder that are male members of the family really J1-FGC10500. Or are they hypothetical/traditional sayyids according to oral stories. But I believe that there are also non-Arab descendants of Muhammad. Such as Turk, Persian, Kurd, Pashtun and Indian.

Piquerobi
09-24-2015, 01:27 AM
The most common CMH (Cohen Modal Haplotype) is also J1-P58+. I wonder how one lineage is related to the other.


"Based on the DNA of today’s Kohanim, the geneticists have dated their “Most Common Recent Ancestor” to 106 generations ago, approximately 3,300 years before the present. This is in agreement with the Torah’s written and oral tradition of the lifetime of Aaron, the original High Priest and founder of the Kohen lineage. Further genetic studies have found that the CMH-the Cohen Modal Haplotype is not exclusive to Kohanim, and not unique to Jews. It is also found in significant percentages among other Middle Eastern populations, and to a lesser extent, among southern Mediterranean groups. A haplotype is a group of distinct DNA markers——neutral nucleotide mutations, which when found together indicate a lineage. These particular markers were discovered on the Y-Chromosome, which is passed from father to son, without change, thus establishing a paternal lineage pattern. All of the above is scientific fact, which has only become known in recent years. Using these findings as a basis, perhaps we can speculate and consider some implications of the findings. If the CMH is the genetic signature of Aaron, the father of the Kohanim, it must also have been the genetic signature of Aaron’s father, Amram, and that of his father, Kehat, and of his father, Levi. Levi’s father was Jacob who also must have had the CMH as his Y-Chromosome genetic signature, as did his father, Isaac. Thus we arrive at Abraham. Abraham was only seven generations removed from Aaron, a matter of a few hundred years. Genetic signatures change slightly only over many generations. Thus, it is very reasonable to assume that the CMH, the most common haplotype among Jewish males, is therefore also the genetic signature of the Patriarch Abraham. This would explain why we also find the CMH in high numbers among Arabs and other Middle Easterners today. These peoples traditionally claim to be the progeny of Abraham through his son Ishmael, who would also have to be carrying Abraham’’s male genetic signature. The Jewish Kohanim have maintained the Abrahamic lineage to the highest degree among the Jewish People
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/abraham-lineage/

King
09-24-2015, 02:18 AM
http://genogenea.com/J-M267/tree

Both lineages come from YSC234 (TMCRA 5900-5700 yrs ago).

wmehar
11-02-2015, 11:12 PM
There is a large and famous sayyid family which belongs to Shia Al-Musawi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Musawi) branch of Hashemites in our village. People are praying constantly for this family. I wonder that are male members of the family really J1-FGC10500. Or are they hypothetical/traditional sayyids according to oral stories. But I believe that there are also non-Arab descendants of Muhammad. Such as Turk, Persian, Kurd, Pashtun and Indian.

I would venture to agree, since most if not all J1-L859 happen to also claim Hashemite descent. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that is indeed the signature of the Prophet peace be upon him.

*takes off Muslim cap*

There is always the off chance that there could have been some kind of paternal/maternal foul up between the lines unbeknownst to Ali's descendants past Hussain/Hassan. I am doubtful, but I err on the side of caution. Considering that tragic events at Karbala, and the suffering of the Prophet's family I wouldn't entirely eliminate the notion that the true Y-DNA signature was lost for 'Ali (RAW).

Traditionally Quraysh/Adnan Arabs are descendant of Ismail who learned Arabic from Arabs who weren't of his kin. If Ibrahim/Ismail weren't Arab, then its entirely plausible their signature isn't J1-L859. Of course I'm lacking serious substance to say any of this as Biblical Ibrahim and Historic Ibrahim could be two very different things.

I'm not well learned but through some psuedo-research I read that the J1 Signature is most likely to have originated from north Mesopotamia near the Zagros Mountains (scholars correct me please), which builds a case that Ibrahim could indeed have been J1. However, Anecdotally the Prophet has attributed Adnan ancestry to other "Adnan" tribes (of whom also attribute themselves Adnan as their forefather). I've looked into the Arab Tribes project and others and have seen there are a huge variety of SNP's between "Adnan" tribes.. But I have not done due diligence to see if the differences in SNP's were just them being downstream J1-L858/L859.

Further, it was quite common in the Middle East (not sure specifically where but I'm thinking Near Middle East to Yemen) to divinate using Arrows. Especially during the pagan times; they actually used this method to divinate ancestry/geneology/adoption and other quirky situations. I believe it is even in a Hadith (someone please find the authenticity strength) that the Prophet's father, Abdullah ibn Abdul Mutallib had his fate divinated in this fashion (as you may already know).

It is also possible that someone is a descendant or distant relative of the Prophet without harboring the genetic signature Y-DNA J1-L859 (or the true Signature for that matter) in the event Y/MtDNA pervades the pool. Of course no one would have anyway of knowing.

I'm inclined to think it was the Prophets actions/deeds that made him Noble and great and not his blood... We all were made from dust, and back to it we'll go.

I1-Z63
11-02-2015, 11:16 PM
What about Jesus Christ?

V-X
11-02-2015, 11:21 PM
What about Jesus Christ?

Probably R1b as his father was God, and God is English.

I1-Z63
11-02-2015, 11:25 PM
Probably I1 as his father was God, and God is Anglo-Saxon.

fixed lol

V-X
11-02-2015, 11:28 PM
fixed lol

No he's English because in the King James Bible he speaks in early modern English rather than Old English.

I1-Z63
11-02-2015, 11:30 PM
No he's English because in the King James Bible he speaks in early modern English rather than Old English.

You win. R1b's are more peaceful anyway.

wmehar
11-02-2015, 11:33 PM
On a serious note, if Jesus did have kids, whatever Y-DNA signature they have (assuming he had a boy or two), is probably the fewest in frequency on the planet, if not non-extant.

Wasn't the bible transcribed from Koine Greek or something (correct me if I'm wrong)? I think he's Greek.. ;p

I1-Z63
11-02-2015, 11:35 PM
I think he's Greek.. ;p

Isus(Zeus?) Hristos... yeah sounds Greek to me ;p

wmehar
11-03-2015, 12:08 AM
God having kids and stuff with humans? Definitely Greek XD

Speaking of which, they have a J1/J2 population. When it happened? Historians have suggestions?

It isn't large but it's still there.

paulgill
11-03-2015, 12:12 AM
What about Jesus Christ?

Most likely a J1 but nothing can be said with surety without dna evidence. I personally am J1-Z1853* and my people still use Khabra as their surname and sometimes they will also name their town Khabra. Origin of this surname appears to be Eber[Heber], Hebrew or Khabur Rivers.

I1-Z63
11-03-2015, 12:20 AM
God having kids and stuff with humans? Definitely Greek XD



Everyone east of Greece is Greek somewhat. Aramic, Hebrew and arabic is ancient creole Greek :P

Ali16
05-17-2016, 05:47 PM
Interesting. Did you know that females can have offspring without men, but the offspring will never be a male. On the other hand, the Prophet Adam (AS) had no father, and neither did the Prophet Jesus (AS). الحَمْد لله

With descendants of the twelfth Shi'ite Imam running around in India and Africa, I would not be surprised to see anything. أستغفر اللّٰه

There is no true genetic forefather of the Quraish. The Quraish are what they were at the time of the Prophet (AS), with all the various haplogroups, plus all the imposters claiming lineage today.

As far as the study is concerned, are there any scientists here to confirm that it is highly unscientific?

wandering_amorite
05-17-2016, 07:30 PM
Obsessing over historical-era figures who likely existed, like Muhammad and Jesus, is one thing. But anyone who talks about Adam, Abraham, Noah, Shem, or Ham // is also interested in population genetics is living in dual consciousness. "The Y-haplogroup of Prophet Adam" is an incoherent idea, and not because "Adam had no father".

wmehar
05-17-2016, 07:37 PM
Obsessing over historical-era figures who likely existed, like Muhammad and Jesus, is one thing. But anyone who talks about Adam, Abraham, Noah, Shem, or Ham // is also interested in population genetics is living in dual consciousness. "The Y-haplogroup of Prophet Adam" is an incoherent idea, and not because "Adam had no father".

Reconciling religious with the historical figures are never a simple task. We all desperately cling to this genetic stuff in a hope that it could illuminate perspective into our faiths. If we're to accomplish anything scientifically, we're better off maintaining an objective perspective. The furthest person in history that we may discuss with a reference of historic record with regards to the Quraysh's ancestor, would be Adnan. It would behoove us to supplement genetic findings with historical contexts /traditions of the people we wish to know more about (Jesus pbuh, Muhammad pbuh, etc.)

Apparently, it was a huge thing in ancient Arabian times to have members of tribes expelled and adopted by other tribes from feuds. So many variables can throw this whole thing thing off.

Pegasusphm1
07-03-2016, 03:10 AM
Its Desposyni (family of the Lord), a few had been bishops in Asia Minor and Judea up until Christian Rome period then Greek Bishops had been appointed.
Early church writings have accounts of them. Looking at Davidic lineage. Many of the other competing Jewish sects (Pharisee, Essene, Sadducee) had those who claimed David. Then you had the Essene and Sadduce who claimed Zaddokite ancestry.

Babylon_74
07-05-2016, 06:26 AM
The "FGC8712, L859-" samples from Eastern Europe mentioned here (http://www.qur.co/vb/filedata/fetch?id=1252) are all Jewish and have their own subclade, J1-ZS2102 (TMRCA ~1000 yBP)... As to how this typically Arabian branch of J1-L858 managed to make it into the Jewish gene pool, your guess is as good as mine (remnants of Arabia's Jewish tribes blending with Ashkenazi Jews? Idumean converts to Judaism? Himyarite converts?).

Qureish main Tribe descend traditionally from (Kinanah Tribe).According to Arab historians/genealogists some of (Kinanah) tribal lines were "Judaized" in some part of their "Yemeni" tribal history.

10169

Babylon_74
07-05-2016, 06:31 AM
What about Jesus Christ?

Frankly speaking I wouldn't be surprised if he was from a J2a Galilean genetic line.

Babylon_74
07-05-2016, 06:41 AM
Frankly speaking I wouldn't be surprised if he was from a J2a Galilean genetic line.


I would base my probable hypothesis on this source

*source:Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus-Jonathan Reed

10170

Babylon_74
07-05-2016, 01:20 PM
I would base my probable hypothesis on this source

*source:Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus-Jonathan Reed

10170

I assume Jewish J1-P58 lines were emptied from northern Galilee region and were exiled later to Northern Mesopotamia

10174

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglath-Pileser_III

The genetic composition of the Neo-Galilean that is the people of Jesus the (Galilean) probably belong to different genetic line

10173

My Hypothesis assume a probable old J2a Galilean genetic line

Babylon_74
07-06-2016, 10:35 AM
I assume Jewish J1-P58 lines were emptied from northern Galilee region and were exiled later to Northern Mesopotamia

10174

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglath-Pileser_III

The genetic composition of the Neo-Galilean that is the people of Jesus the (Galilean) probably belong to different genetic line

10173

My Hypothesis assume a probable old J2a Galilean genetic line

J1 Vs J2

10213

jatt2016
07-06-2016, 11:29 AM
Interestingly enough, J1 is found in the highest frequency in Sudanese ( 74.3% ) , Bedouin Negev and also in caucasus populations and yet they are not descendants of the prophet . It will be unscientific to claim that all J1s are from the family of the Prophet of Islam or Ali. Please note that all male descendants of Ali ( RA) were assassinated in the battle of Karbala as per the Shia historians and hence non of his Y DNA passed to the future generations and the Prophet himself never had any male child.

Source of percentage : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267

Babylon_74
07-06-2016, 11:38 AM
. It will be unscientific to claim that all J1s are from the family of the Prophet of Islam or Ali. Please note that all male descendants of Ali ( RA) were assassinated in the battle of Karbala as per the Shia historians and hence non of his Y DNA passed to the future generations and the Prophet himself never had any male child.

Source of percentage : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267

Actually this pretty inaccurate historically speaking.The (Husseini) Lineage continued through the only child survivor in Kerbala(Ali Zein Al-Abideen),and all his lineage tested +L859 such as Al-A'arajis and Al-Mousawis and Al-Zaidis needless to say that all the (Hassani) Lineage tested +L859 such as Al-Rassi,Banu Nemi and others.

Babylon_74
07-06-2016, 11:44 AM
Actually this pretty inaccurate historically speaking.The (Husseini) Lineage continued through the only child survivor in Kerbala(Ali Zein Al-Abideen),and all his lineage tested +L859 such as Al-A'arajis and Al-Mousawis and Al-Zaidis needless to say that all the (Hassani) Lineage tested +L859 such as Al-Rassi,Banu Nemi and others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_ibn_Husayn_Zayn_al-Abidin

jatt2016
07-06-2016, 11:46 AM
Actually this pretty inaccurate historically speaking.The (Husseini) Lineage continued through the only child survivor in Kerbala(Ali Zein Al-Abideen),and all his lineage tested +L859 such as Al-A'arajis and Al-Mousawis and Al-Zaidis needless to say that all the (Hassani) Lineage tested +L859 such as Al-Rassi,Banu Nemi and others.

I am sorry to say but religion and science do not go hand in hand. As per the beliefs /religious doctrines, an Imaam is not human but a mixture of light ( noor) and some human elements and not to mention some super human attributes ( that the fire cannot harm him, has no reflection, can fly and wrestle imaginary creatures ) . So if you attribute a Y-DNA to him, it means that it would be against the believes of million of muslims. But again as I said the two do not go hand in hand.

Personally, I think it is unscientific and lacks proper evidence.

Babylon_74
07-06-2016, 11:57 AM
I am sorry to say but religion and science do not go hand in hand.



I was very clear in what I said and I chose my words very wisely.Your previous Statement were ((Historically)) inaccurate,and I gave you the proof.Other than the rest of what you said is an off-topic agenda.

thank youm and have a good day Sir.

jatt2016
07-06-2016, 12:27 PM
I was very clear in what I said and I chose my words very wisely.Your previous Statement were ((Historically)) inaccurate,and I gave you the proof.Other than the rest of what you said is an off-topic agenda.

thank youm and have a good day Sir.

Ok Sir, lets agree to disagree here. The disagreement is between :

1. Historical Perceptions
2. Religious Perceptions/beliefs and
3. Scientific knowledge.

Each one us free to believe and trust on any of three or a combination of all. Have a great day too !:)

Agamemnon
07-06-2016, 04:07 PM
I assume Jewish J1-P58 lines were emptied from northern Galilee region and were exiled later to Northern Mesopotamia

10174

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiglath-Pileser_III

The genetic composition of the Neo-Galilean that is the people of Jesus the (Galilean) probably belong to different genetic line

10173

My Hypothesis assume a probable old J2a Galilean genetic line

I'd be astounded if J1 was weeded out of northern Galilee by the Assyrians, unless they came in with DNA kits and specifically targeted J1 folks I just don't see how such a scenario could unfold. Moreover, the kingdom of Israel was never emptied, at best something like 1/3rd of the population (the elite) was subjected to deportation.
The fact that the Samaritan Marhiv family is J1-Z642 does a big disfavour to this scenario... On the other hand, J2a being the most common Samaritan lineage does seem to indicate that J2a's frequency would've increased as one went northwards towards Lebanon, so J2a might well have been more common than J1 in the Galilee.

Babylon_74
07-06-2016, 04:49 PM
I'd be astounded if J1 was weeded out of northern Galilee by the Assyrians
.

It's a genetic hypothesis based on archaeological findings (The absence of Galilean human settlements for over a century after the conquest of Tiglath-Pileser III) and the obvious J1-P58 Jewish cluster from (Zakho) cluster in Northern Mesopotamia.

10216



Moreover, the kingdom of Israel was never emptied
.

My assumption was based on Pre-Hasmonean Galilean gene pool not on the southern Kingdom.


The fact that the Samaritan Marhiv family is J1-Z642 does a big disfavour to this scenario
.

This particular sample may fall in the category of Azd tribal lineage if I'm not mistaken.In fact all J1-Z642 and J1-Z644 samples do.Unless the Azdi samples are Arabaized Samaritans samples from South-Western Arabia?

Babylon_74
07-06-2016, 05:13 PM
10217


....((Much of the Galilee region was annexed by Aristobulus, however, there was some resistance from the Arab Ituraean tribes from the northern parts of the region. The terrain made campaigning difficult against the Galilee inhabitants. In the end, Aristobulus would eventually conquer much of the territory from them.[8] The Golan region was also taken during the campaign and Mount Hermon as well.The conquered inhabitants were forced to accept the Jewish faith, primarily, circumcision was forcibly performed as the main step to conversion)).....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristobulus_I

vettor
07-06-2016, 06:14 PM
Assyrian genetics via

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399854/

has these as its top 5 markers

R1b-L23 23.15%

J1- M429 17.9%

R1a -M198 10.3%

J2a - Pages55 10.3%

T - M70 10.3%


clearly the bulk are markers coming from the north side of the Zargos mountains

vettor
07-06-2016, 06:17 PM
Assyrian genetics via

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399854/

has these as its top 5 markers

R1b-L23 23.15%

J1- M429 17.9%

R1a -M198 10.3%

J2a - Pages55 10.3%

T - M70 10.3%


clearly the bulk are markers coming from the north side of the Zargos mountains

DNA analysis conducted by Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza, "shows that Assyrians have a distinct genetic profile that distinguishes their population from any other population."[138] Genetic analysis of the Assyrians of Persia demonstrated that they were "closed" with little "intermixture" with the Muslim Persian population and that an individual Assyrian's genetic makeup is relatively close to that of the Assyrian population as a whole.[139][140] "The genetic data are compatible with historical data that religion played a major role in maintaining the Assyrian population's separate identity during the Christian era".[138]


BTW....since yesterday..............I cannot edit my own posts...................must be the upgrade [email protected]!

Agamemnon
07-06-2016, 08:04 PM
It's a genetic hypothesis based on archaeological findings (The absence of Galilean human settlements for over a century after the conquest of Tiglath-Pileser III) and the obvious J1-P58 Jewish cluster from (Zakho) cluster in Northern Mesopotamia.

10216

You might as well add ZS227 to the list of uprooted lineages, since we have two ZS227 Mizrahi samples from Al 'Anah (Mohafazat el Anbar) so far. Anyhow, I don't think that means J1 vanished or disappeared after the Assyrian conquest.



My assumption was based on Pre-Hasmonean Galilean gene pool not on the southern Kingdom.

We're talking about the same thing here, the kingdom of Israel (AKA Samaria) was not emptied of its inhabitants.


This particular sample may fall in the category of Azd tribal lineage if I'm not mistaken.In fact all J1-Z642 and J1-Z644 samples do.Unless the Azdi samples are Arabaized Samaritans samples from South-Western Arabia?

The Azdi cluster belongs to another branch of Z640 altogether (BY74), their common ancestor probably lived some 4,000 to 4,500 years ago at the very least.


10217


....((Much of the Galilee region was annexed by Aristobulus, however, there was some resistance from the Arab Ituraean tribes from the northern parts of the region. The terrain made campaigning difficult against the Galilee inhabitants. In the end, Aristobulus would eventually conquer much of the territory from them.[8] The Golan region was also taken during the campaign and Mount Hermon as well.The conquered inhabitants were forced to accept the Jewish faith, primarily, circumcision was forcibly performed as the main step to conversion)).....


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristobulus_I

Yes, the Hashmona'im forcibly converted the neighbouring populations (Idumeans, Itureans, Nabateans, etc), this policy of Judaisation was largely ripped off from the Seleucids' Hellenisation policy, the Jews emulated this after breaking free from the Seleucid empire. In fact I think there would be no Jews around nowadays if the Hasmoneans hadn't aggressively pursued this policy as it enabled the Jews to become a majority and outnumber their main rivals (the Samaritans), in turn this is bound to explain the presence of many lineages which look Levantine and non-Judean in origin. On the other hand, there was no large scale settlement of Judeans in Galilee, the locals (mostly Samaritans and Itureans) were forcibly converted, circumcised when needed, and that was it, the Samaritan temple on Har Gerizim was destroyed and the Samaritans found themselves surrounded by Jews (which was a constant source of conflict, not unlike the Shi'i-Sunni dichotomy you see today in the region).

Humanist
07-06-2016, 10:18 PM
Assyrian genetics via

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399854/

I am not really sure why you are posting the above study in this thread. The genetics of ancient and modern Assyrians has no relevance in this thread. Even if it did, why do you insist on posting links to the above study, as though they are representative of the modern Assyrian genetic pool? Certainly, that R1a percentage is not! Anyway, if you would like to continue discussing modern Assyrian genetic data, take it to relevant thread. Thank you.

Babylon_74
07-07-2016, 01:43 AM
You might as well add ZS227 to the list of uprooted lineages, since we have two ZS227 Mizrahi samples from Al 'Anah (Mohafazat el Anbar) so far.

As far as I am tracking there's one Jewish ZS227 sample from (A'nah),But I am not sure about the second one.In fact The Jews of ِAnbar Province (A'nah) and (Hīt) are different from the Jews of Northern Kurdistan historically speaking.


We're talking about the same thing here, the kingdom of Israel (AKA Samaria) was not emptied of its inhabitants

I am afraid there's some difference. Again ,I was taking about the ethnicity of ((Galileans)) in Upper Galilee.Galileans and Samaritans are 2 separate ethnic and geographic entities Pre and Post Aristobulus annexation as far as I know.


the kingdom of Israel (AKA Samaria) was not emptied of its inhabitants


But the ((Galilee))- the region Jesus the Nazareth belongs- was emptied. I have to quote (Jonathan Reed) again :

((.... The absence of Galilean human settlements for over a century after the conquest of Tiglath-Pileser III) rules out the hypothesis of an Israelite village culture spanning from the Iron age to the Roman Period....))

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10173&d=1467724011



in turn this is bound to explain the presence of many lineages which look Levantine and non-Judean in origin.

Thank you.I think I made my point.Now you can understand my genetic hypothesis of Jesus 's Aramaic people was based on the ethnicity of Post-Hasmonean Galilee.

In fact anyone can understand Matthew 26:69 reference now in a total different historical perspective:

((...“You too were with Jesus the Galilean.” )).....((“Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away.”))

Babylon_74
07-07-2016, 01:55 AM
A probable J2a Galilean genetic scenario very similar to the probable Idumean YSC0000076 scenerio documented historically by Josephus Flavius:

“Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country; if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the land of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time this therefore befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.” (Jewish antiquities, Book 13, 9:1)

Babylon_74
07-07-2016, 09:41 AM
the ((Galilee))- the region Jesus the Nazareth belongs- was emptied. I have to quote (Jonathan Reed) again :

((.... The absence of Galilean human settlements for over a century after the conquest of Tiglath-Pileser III) rules out the hypothesis of an Israelite village culture spanning from the Iron age to the Roman Period....))

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10173&d=1467724011




This is the Biblical reference((2 Kings 15:29)) for the same historical event :

((... In the time of Pekah king of Israel, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria came and took Ijon, Abel Beth Maakah, Janoah, Kedesh and Hazor. He took Gilead and Galilee, including all the land of Naphtali, and deported the people to Assyria))

Agamemnon
07-07-2016, 11:21 AM
As far as I am tracking there's one Jewish ZS227 sample from (A'nah),But I am not sure about the second one.In fact The Jews of ِAnbar Province (A'nah) and (Hīt) are different from the Jews of Northern Kurdistan historically speaking.

My bad, yes the other sample probably isn't Jewish... In fact that just highlights my point quite frankly. And yes, the Jews of Anbar were not Assyrian (aka Kurdish) Jews.




I am afraid there's some difference. Again ,I was taking about the ethnicity of ((Galileans)) in Upper Galilee.Galileans and Samaritans are 2 separate ethnic and geographic entities Pre and Post Aristobulus annexation as far as I know.



But the ((Galilee))- the region Jesus the Nazareth belongs- was emptied. I have to quote (Jonathan Reed) again :

((.... The absence of Galilean human settlements for over a century after the conquest of Tiglath-Pileser III) rules out the hypothesis of an Israelite village culture spanning from the Iron age to the Roman Period....))

http://www.anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=10173&d=1467724011

The Galileans and the Samaritans were both descended from the inhabitants of the northern kingdom, Samaritanism ultimately stems from Iron Age II Israelite religion while the Galileans are Israelites who were forcibly converted to Judaism (which stemmed from Iron Age II Judahite religion).

About a fifth (a third at best) of the northern kingdom's population was displaced by the Assyrians, despite what Jonathan Reed claims the Galilee was never emptied of its inhabitants (he argues that the 1st century Galileans were descended from Judean settlers, possible but unlikely).


Thank you.I think I made my point.Now you can understand my genetic hypothesis of Jesus 's Aramaic people was based on the ethnicity of Post-Hasmonean Galilee.

In fact anyone can understand Matthew 26:69 reference now in a total different historical perspective:

((...“You too were with Jesus the Galilean.” )).....((“Surely you too are one of them; for even the way you talk gives you away.”))

The Galileans were not Aramean, they were Jewish. As for the reference to his speech ("the way you talk"), the Galilean dialects of Hebrew and Aramaic during the first centuries CE were easily noticeable since the laryngeals had been lost (vowel-coloured or, more commonly, glottalised)... Exactly like Samaritan Hebrew (and other Jewish pronounciation systems of Hebrew for that matter, Ashkenazi Hebrew for instance), which is what you'd expect for a population which initially spoke the northern Israelite dialect of Hebrew.



A probable J2a Galilean genetic scenario very similar to the probable Idumean YSC0000076 scenerio documented historically by Josephus Flavius:

“Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country; if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the land of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time this therefore befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.” (Jewish antiquities, Book 13, 9:1)

The problem here is that you're making it sound as if the Galileans constituted a different ethnicity in the same way the Idumeans did. Clearly that wasn't the case, the Idumeans' Jewish status was constantly questioned, denied and derided, no Idumean was spared this treatment (not even Herod), on the other hand the Galileans were mostly of Israelite descent, therefore they were regarded as full-fledged Jews despite having been forcibly converted.
This is so obvious and uncontroversial that Jonathan Reed also acknowledges this:

"More generally, Josephus' ambiguous use of Galileans constrasts with his unequivocal description of Idumeans, Itureans and Samaritans as non- or half-Jews. He and the Jerusalem Council assume that a priest from the Temple would have status among the Galileans, and he writes that the Galileans regularly visited the Temple ("as was their custom," War 2.237 and Ant.20.123). Of course, Josephus' writings tell us more about Jerusalemite expectations than Galilean loyalty, but the important point is that Galileans had an acceptable pedigree in Josephus' opinion, unlike Judea's neighbors. In the rabbinic texts, although there were Galilean variations in a few details such as the calendar or measurements, their basic halakhic principles did not differ substantially from the Judeans. In light of the archeological evidence, one would suspect that the acrimonious rhetoric against the 'Amei Ha-aretz by the rabbis was not directed at Galileans in general nor a distinct Galilean religious character, but rather suggests differences due to social status. For these reasons the term Jews is thoroughly appropriate for the inhabitants of Galilee in the first century, as is the characterization of the Galilee as Jewish. In fact, the term's geographical root (Ἰουδαῖοι) accurately grasps the Galileans' religious roots in Judea. In terms of ethnicity, they shared the same socialized patterns of behaviour, and they were conscious of a mutual descent in Judea, dating back to the Maccabean revolt, the occupation of the Diadochoi, the rebuilding of the Temple, Babylonian exile, and beyond. To speak of Galilean Judaism or Galilean Jews is to add an important qualifier, a point Meyers's important work on Galilean regionalism stressed, but to juxtapose Galileans with Judeans as different, and to stress their geographical differences at the expense of their common ethnicity, skews their common heritage and obscures their historical connections. Galilean Jews had a different social, economic, and political matrix than Jews living in Judea or the Diaspora, and even among themselves held diverse attitudes, practices, and goals - among them those preserved in the Jesus tradition - but they all were Jewish."

Babylon_74
07-07-2016, 02:30 PM
yes the other sample probably isn't Jewish... In fact that just highlights my point quite frankly.

How ?


The Galileans and the Samaritans were both descended from the inhabitants of the northern kingdom, Samaritanism ultimately stems from Iron Age II Israelite religion while the Galileans are Israelites who were forcibly converted to Judaism (which stemmed from Iron Age II Judahite religion)

Yes ,this was a valid argument until the Assyrian exile.


despite what Jonathan Reed claims the Galilee was never emptied of its inhabitants

As you like.I understand your claims ,But unfortunately I don't share your personal thoughts.


The Galileans were not Aramean, they were Jewish

No body is questioning their "Jewish" faith 2000 years ago.The argument is about their true ethnic race at that specific time


As for the reference to his speech ("the way you talk"), the Galilean dialects of Hebrew and Aramaic during the first centuries CE were easily noticeable since the laryngeals had been lost

that Matthew 26:69 reference was of an Ethnic and Geographic resemblance before being a Philological remark.I already know that Jesus language was closer to his Iturean Aramaic neighbors.


on the other hand the Galileans were mostly of Israelite descent

All the way to Jesus time???. Umm I don't think so.


((...More generally, Josephus' ambiguous use of Galileans constrasts with his unequivocal description of Idumeans, Itureans and Samaritans as non- or half-Jews. He and the Jerusalem Council assume that a priest from the Temple would have status among the Galileans, and he writes that the Galileans regularly visited the Temple ("as was their custom," War 2.237 and Ant.20.123).

Religious status of Jerusalem High priests in the eyes of Post-Hasmonean Galileans and regular visit/Pilgrimage to Jerusalem temple doesn't strengthen or weaken one's ethnic origins.It's an emotional faith motivated/driven actions in my humble opinion.


((...but to juxtapose Galileans with Judeans as different, and to stress their geographical differences at the expense of their common ethnicity, skews their common heritage and obscures their historical connections. Galilean Jews had a different social, economic, and political matrix than Jews living in Judea or the Diaspora


Kindly,Enlighten me more about their common ethnicity.

I believe that religious heritage is one thing.Nobody is questioning here the first century Galilean religious pious/disciplined behavior,But ((Ethnic))heritage is a total different thing.

Babylon_74
07-07-2016, 03:27 PM
Kindly,Enlighten me more about their common ethnicity.



102311023210233

Agamemnon
07-07-2016, 05:05 PM
How ?

They do not fit in the same cluster, that's how.



Yes ,this was a valid argument until the Assyrian exile.


Not really, this observation relates to the emergence of Samaritanism and Galilean Jewry.


As you like.I understand your claims ,But unfortunately I don't share your personal thoughts.


These aren't just personal thoughts, none of the sources Jonathan Reed mentions sustain his claim. I wouldn't be saying this if it weren't the case.


No body is questioning their "Jewish" faith 2000 years ago.The argument is about their true ethnic race at that specific time

The problem here is that you assume that Judaism merely was a faith or a religion, like I pointed out earlier the only comparison to be made is with Hellenism, not Christianity or Islam. Judaism has always been about ethnicity, and this is still very much the case today. Moreover, you seem to be implying that the Galileans and the Judeans were separate ethnicities or, even, seperate "races". Clearly, neither is true.


that Matthew 26:69 reference was of an Ethnic and Geographic resemblance before being a Philological remark.I already know that Jesus language was closer to his Iturean Aramaic neighbors.


The only distinctive trait mentioned in this passage is the Galilean accent, there are no references to ethnicity or race:

μετὰ μικρὸν δὲ προσελθόντες οἱ ἑστῶτες εἶπον τῷ Πέτρῳ, Ἀληθῶς καὶ σὺ ἐξ αὐτῶν εἶ, καὶ γὰρ ἡ λαλιά σου δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ.

After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them; your accent gives you away.”

Also, we don't really know which language the Itureans spoke, it could've been Aramaic, it could've been Old Arabic, we really don't know at this point.



All the way to Jesus time???. Umm I don't think so.


All the way to the first centuries CE, yes. Like I said, the northern kingdom was not emptied of its inhabitants and, assuming that Jonathan Reed's assertions are correct (which isn't the case), the Galilee could only have been repopulated by the neighbouring Israelites who were not subjected to deportation (that's the most parsimonious explanation).



Religious status of Jerusalem High priests in the eyes of Post-Hasmonean Galileans and regular visit/Pilgrimage to Jerusalem temple doesn't strengthen or weaken one's ethnic origins.It's an emotional faith motivated/driven actions in my humble opinion.

Not quite, like I said Herod himself was despised because of his Idumean origins. Had the Galileans been a separate ethnicity like the Idumeans, I can assure you the Pharisees and generations of rabbis after them would've seized this opportunity to question Jesus' lineage and lob accusations of charlatanry at him. Heck, several Jewish sources depict him as the bastard son of a non-Jew (usually a legionary named "Panthera") so here you have it. There's no way they could've missed this, especially considering the fact that he claimed descent from king David.


Kindly,Enlighten me more about their common ethnicity.

I believe that religious heritage is one thing.Nobody is questioning here the first century Galilean religious pious/disciplined behavior,But ((Ethnic))heritage is a total different thing.

Did you not read the passage I quoted? Again, Judaism never was a mere faith, it always was a matter of ethnicity and, more to the point, of pedigree. The entry in Judaism was biological, this is why the Idumeans were not regarded as Jewish by a vast majority of Jews, the only thing which allowed them to blend in and pass unnoticed was the diaspora coupled with the destruction of the temple.
There's a reason why the Romans hanged a sign reading "King of the Jews" on Jesus' cross, had the Galileans been a different ethnic group they simply would've hung a sign reading "King of the Galileans". So it's quite clear that Galilean Jews were of Israelite descent, much like their Samaritan neighbours.

wmehar
07-11-2016, 01:57 PM
I am sorry to say but religion and science do not go hand in hand. As per the beliefs /religious doctrines, an Imaam is not human but a mixture of light ( noor) and some human elements and not to mention some super human attributes ( that the fire cannot harm him, has no reflection, can fly and wrestle imaginary creatures ) . So if you attribute a Y-DNA to him, it means that it would be against the believes of million of muslims. But again as I said the two do not go hand in hand.

Personally, I think it is unscientific and lacks proper evidence.

Just a few questions about this statement, with all due respect, then whose Y-DNA do current direct male Syed's today have? The Hasani and Husseini descendants that are direct, are human and in fact have Y-DNA. I hope you realize the irony of your references to "proper evidence" and "scientific" findings.

I think perhaps I may be misunderstanding your statement, please correct me if I have.

Let's implement some fundamental logic here, the ancestors of the Prophet SAW and 'Ali ibn Talib RA/AS were pagans and kafirs (to a certain degree, few being monotheistic with very small if any evidence). Did their line suddenly stop using Y-Dna? What makes an Imam better than a prophet, if a prophet had Y-DNA to pass to their family? Y-DNA is what makes a human, a human man.

I'm just trying to help grease the gears and cogs so you can implement a thought process that's more consistent bro. These 12 imams had kids, and their kids had kids beyond the 12... Attributing Y-DNA to any of these imam's does not go against the beliefs of millions of Muslims, in the least.

If you think about it, 'Ali ibn Talib RA/AS had forefathers who had other children, whose descendants exist today, and therefore possess the same Y-DNA Signature. Alas, you mention that an Imam is a mixture of light and super human attributes, have you not read on the history of them? They were poisoned, and oppressed... If they had some super human powers, surely they would have used them to survive and spread the truth and good word? I beseech you brother, to rethink your positions. The other sons of 'Ali ibn Talib survived, along with their cousins of the Abbasids. Plenty of their Y-DNA Genes to go around in the world to test.

Also, logic should follow that if Adam was the first human born without a mother, or a father, and that we are all descended from him, then all of us have his Y-DNA signature (that has mutated a crap ton over the years).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

Now the above isn't proving a being as Adam existed, but it proves we've all descended from one male 200,000 to 300,000 years ago (all current male humans) .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_BT

I don't know what you know, but last I knew, those millions of people don't all believe these Imams had super powers. That would just be ignorant.

wmehar
07-11-2016, 07:01 PM
Interestingly enough, J1 is found in the highest frequency in Sudanese ( 74.3% ) , Bedouin Negev and also in caucasus populations and yet they are not descendants of the prophet . It will be unscientific to claim that all J1s are from the family of the Prophet of Islam or Ali. Please note that all male descendants of Ali ( RA) were assassinated in the battle of Karbala as per the Shia historians and hence non of his Y DNA passed to the future generations and the Prophet himself never had any male child.

Source of percentage : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267

I think you need to consider how SNP's work, it's not that one is saying all J1 folk are descendants of the Prophet SAW or whatever. There's a subclade of J1 (J-L859) that's been consistently positive for those with Husseini/Hasani lineages. I've mentioned it before but there have been quite a few of Hasani descendants/children (as Hussein had 16 sons, not to mention how many 'Ali ibn Talib had for sons, not excluding other paternal relatives of the prophet.. that survived).

L859 isn't just the signature of the Prophet (allegedly), but the signature for Quraysh, and "Adnan" tribes theoretically. You're right in that it would be unscientific to claim J1's are all from the family of the Prophet, but no one here is saying this.

Hanna
07-11-2016, 08:49 PM
I am sorry to say but religion and science do not go hand in hand. As per the beliefs /religious doctrines, an Imaam is not human but a mixture of light ( noor) and some human elements and not to mention some super human attributes ( that the fire cannot harm him, has no reflection, can fly and wrestle imaginary creatures ) . So if you attribute a Y-DNA to him, it means that it would be against the believes of million of muslims. But again as I said the two do not go hand in hand.

Personally, I think it is unscientific and lacks proper evidence.
I don't agree with you science and religion do get a long, as God is the creator of science.

Claims of imams being mixture of light, super human beings, etc... is not what the majority of Muslims believe in. It seems this belief belongs to the shia sect. We believe the prophet and his family were normal human beings, nothing supernatural about them.

Emir
07-12-2016, 02:41 PM
There is no way to resolve this issue at this time. If you are a purported descendant of an individual, check your DNA. You cannot prove anything. You can only disprove whether two purported descendants are related within a relevant time period. As for the others who have no skin in the game, why do you waste your energy talking about something you know nothing about?

Pegasusphm1
07-17-2016, 07:39 PM
They do not fit in the same cluster, that's how.




Not really, this observation relates to the emergence of Samaritanism and Galilean Jewry.



These aren't just personal thoughts, none of the sources Jonathan Reed mentions sustain his claim. I wouldn't be saying this if it weren't the case.



The problem here is that you assume that Judaism merely was a faith or a religion, like I pointed out earlier the only comparison to be made is with Hellenism, not Christianity or Islam. Judaism has always been about ethnicity, and this is still very much the case today. Moreover, you seem to be implying that the Galileans and the Judeans were separate ethnicities or, even, seperate "races". Clearly, neither is true.



The only distinctive trait mentioned in this passage is the Galilean accent, there are no references to ethnicity or race:

μετὰ μικρὸν δὲ προσελθόντες οἱ ἑστῶτες εἶπον τῷ Πέτρῳ, Ἀληθῶς καὶ σὺ ἐξ αὐτῶν εἶ, καὶ γὰρ ἡ λαλιά σου δῆλόν σε ποιεῖ.

After a little while, those standing there went up to Peter and said, “Surely you are one of them; your accent gives you away.”

Also, we don't really know which language the Itureans spoke, it could've been Aramaic, it could've been Old Arabic, we really don't know at this point.




All the way to the first centuries CE, yes. Like I said, the northern kingdom was not emptied of its inhabitants and, assuming that Jonathan Reed's assertions are correct (which isn't the case), the Galilee could only have been repopulated by the neighbouring Israelites who were not subjected to deportation (that's the most parsimonious explanation).




Not quite, like I said Herod himself was despised because of his Idumean origins. Had the Galileans been a separate ethnicity like the Idumeans, I can assure you the Pharisees and generations of rabbis after them would've seized this opportunity to question Jesus' lineage and lob accusations of charlatanry at him. Heck, several Jewish sources depict him as the bastard son of a non-Jew (usually a legionary named "Panthera") so here you have it. There's no way they could've missed this, especially considering the fact that he claimed descent from king David.



Did you not read the passage I quoted? Again, Judaism never was a mere faith, it always was a matter of ethnicity and, more to the point, of pedigree. The entry in Judaism was biological, this is why the Idumeans were not regarded as Jewish by a vast majority of Jews, the only thing which allowed them to blend in and pass unnoticed was the diaspora coupled with the destruction of the temple.
There's a reason why the Romans hanged a sign reading "King of the Jews" on Jesus' cross, had the Galileans been a different ethnic group they simply would've hung a sign reading "King of the Galileans". So it's quite clear that Galilean Jews were of Israelite descent, much like their Samaritan neighbours.

Have to remember these later Talmudic works describing "Yeshu", Mary had been written in the pejorative. I don't put that much stock into panther and hairdresser. The the Birkhat HaMINIM, in 95 AD cursing the Nazarenes and Jesus, the discovery in 1925, Cairo Genizah codex. You can glean information from these works, such as James healing the sick. On the other side you have documents such as the DIDACHE which instructs gentile followers to avoid the Pharisees. Following the first revolt only two sects remained Nazarene (Pella) and Pharisee (Jamnia).

I would point out in comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls codexs, with the New Testament you have over 176 shared passages found with the liturgy codexs, 19 shared passages are recorded within Josephus writings, and only 18 among all Talmudic works. The New Testament canon is 70% more closely aligned to the Dead Sea Scrolls than the later Masoretic. When Matthew discusses the Messiah shall be Nazarene was he alluding to 1QSAM a/b with the fragment N-Z-R?
You also have a similar messianic meal blessing within the DSS with the passion account of the last supper. Benedict as well has other scholars from Hebrew University has suggested the calendar portion of Passion account in John was based on Qumran Enochen calendar? John's account was written in 90AD as a rebuke to early heretical sects. The DIDACHE, Gospel of John, and Dead Sea Scrolls also share the "Two-Ways" (Its thought John the Baptist was associated with the Qumran community as some point, and St. John was also his student disciple before he followed Jesus).

Going back to Josephus histories, you had three major sects at the time with neither having a majority. There was no such thing as a normative Judaism of the day. Sadducee, Pharisee and Essene. The REAL division within Judaism happened far earlier, and not during the Roman era. Calendars are the key to all of this, liturgy of these sects are based on different calendars rituals and times. Separating themselves from the other sects. The book of Jubilees was written based on Enochen calendar, and believed to be a very very Pharisee work. You later see the Essene using this work and Enoch(1) in great number at Qumran. At some earlier point you have a major division. I suspect Maccabees revolt, when they appointed their own Priest-King. The Zadokites split, with some forming what later would be associated with Essene, and other Sadducee. You have the "teacher of Righteousness" in the Dead Sea Scrolls pointing to this division. For the Pharisees, the Essenes coined the insult "Seekers of Smooth Things". You have many families claims of Davidic lineage in this later second temple period, unfortunately they didn't have DNA testing. Romans did persecute these families following the first revolt.

We know more of ancient Jewish writings from the early church fathers writings, than from the Pharisees and later Rabbinical teachers who merely ignored or burned these documents.

For Saul / Paul I'm one who holds he is a Herodian by blood or marriage based on textual references within the NT. Not trusted by these Galilean apostles. Of all his letters Galatians is the most important, since it deals with "Justification" which pulls from the Genesis, the only, only other Jewish work that deals with this subject in all these ancient writings is Dead Sea Scrolls 4QMMT and its unknown author pulls the Davidic Psalms.

Given the textual histories, and roles of other figures such as John the Baptist and especially James the Just in other early writings I don't question the Jewishness of Jesus. But the late second temple period is not the late Bronze age. Given that Israel will not allow testing old bones, researchers are left with current populations from areas with known Jewish communities recorded from ancient sources along the old trade routes.

We are still left with gaps. Just like those missing spaces within ancient codex's. We can ponder, theorize, and so one but we just don't know. When one reads works by Robert Eisenman, Botech, Gordon, James Tabor, one must remember they have their own theories and mix them as factual, unfortunately. Needed a more even handed scientific approach in comparing these various competing Jews sects and their works.

Babylon_74
07-17-2016, 08:33 PM
For Saul / Paul I'm one who holds he is a Herodian by blood or marriage based on textual references within the NT.

!!? have you checked -Galatians 1?

((.... For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.....))




Not trusted by these Galilean apostles

Well this was for a different reason...

((..... Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.......))

((.....Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles......))

((....When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.....))

((.....When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew.....))

Pegasusphm1
07-24-2016, 04:21 AM
!!? have you checked -Galatians 1?

((.... For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers.....))




Well this was for a different reason...

((..... Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.......))

((.....Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles......))

((....When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.....))

((.....When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew.....))

You familiar with Robert Eisenman? I don't agree with most of his conclusions related to Qumran and NT works, however he has made some very intriguing observations related to Paul and Herodians.

Babylon_74
07-25-2016, 12:12 AM
You familiar with Robert Eisenman? I don't agree with most of his conclusions related to Qumran and NT works, however he has made some very intriguing observations related to Paul and Herodians.

I'm acquainted with some of his and Géza Vermes works and I'm also acquainted with John Dominic Crossan and E. P. Sanders works.
Actually I'm interested to know your thoughts concerning the converted Galileans hypothesis.

David Mc
07-25-2016, 01:14 AM
You familiar with Robert Eisenman? I don't agree with most of his conclusions related to Qumran and NT works, however he has made some very intriguing observations related to Paul and Herodians.

For those who are interested in early Christianity, particularly in the context of "Second Temple Judaism," I would recommend N. T. Wright's work, specifically his "Christian Origins and the Question of God" series. It isn't written for laymen, but anyone who is reading Sanders et al. will be comfortable enough with Wright. The only thing I would say is, start with the first book (The New Testament and the People of God). He lays down his epistemological foundations there, and You will save yourself a lot of time if you let him describe his approach before you jump in elsewhere. I, alas, began with his second volume...

For all that Eisenman provides an interesting read, he's also a bit of an eccentric.

David Mc
07-25-2016, 01:24 AM
With regard to the Galileans, I agree that a significant part of the population would have descended from converts, but it seems as though there was also significant movement of people to Galilee from Judea to the Galilee about a century before Christ's birth. While the Galileans were considered less cultured than the Judaeans, and largely unsympathetic to the beliefs and the political aims of the Sadducees, they were never seen as a people apart (as was the case with the Samaritans).

Babylon_74
07-25-2016, 08:53 AM
With regard to the Galileans, I agree that a significant part of the population would have descended from converts, but it seems as though there was also significant movement of people to Galilee from Judea to the Galilee about a century before Christ's birth.

Absolutely,But even those Post-Hasmonean demographic "movement" to Galilee from Judea had very minute effect on the true ethnic identity of the Galileans .Well that was clearly shown in John 1:46 and John 1:47 respectively

(( “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked.)).....(( When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit))


While the Galileans were considered less cultured than the Judaeans, and largely unsympathetic to the beliefs and the political aims of the Sadducees, they were never seen as a people apart (as was the case with the Samaritans).

That differentiation between ((Samaritans)) and ((Galileans))can be explained to time factor. Aristobulus I annexation of Galilee wasn't an old event at the time of Jesus historically speaking,While the Samaritans case was an old "Departure" from the main stream "Judaic Identity" so to speak in my humble opinion.

David Mc
07-25-2016, 08:22 PM
Absolutely,But even those Post-Hasmonean demographic "movement" to Galilee from Judea had very minute effect on the true ethnic identity of the Galileans .Well that was clearly shown in John 1:46 and John 1:47 respectively

(( “Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?” Nathanael asked.)).....(( When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, he said of him, “Here truly is an Israelite in whom there is no deceit))

You have to know that drawing a direct correlation between these verses and the ethnic origins of Galileans is speculative to the extreme. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but it is a novel interpretation. Nazareth was a backwater, and from a Judaean point of view, Galilee was a seething mass of sedition. The Sadducees, and to a lesser extent (Wright would argue to a much lesser extent) the Pharisees had found a balance of sorts in the context of Roman occupation. The former saw the Pax Romana as a golden age of peace an stability. The latter were (mostly) willing to wait for God to deliver his people. A third group, the zealots, believed God wouldn't act to deliver his people until they took the first step of raising a banner against the Romans. Galileans were uneducated, prone to favor the zealots, and profoundly unhappy with the status quo-- one need only look at the number of revolts staged by Galileans to see that this is true.

As to Nathaniel being a "true Israelite," that has nothing to do with ethnicity. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures a distinction is made between what we might call ethnic Israel, which included everyone who was part of the covenant community, and "true Israel," which was made up of those in Israel who remained faithful to God's covenants, even when the majority abandoned God.

You may be right or wrong about ethnic origins (I personally think you're over-reaching a bit), but these verses are irrelevant to the discussion, I think.

Babylon_74
07-25-2016, 10:15 PM
You have to know that drawing a direct correlation between these verses and the ethnic origins of Galileans is speculative to the extreme. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but it is a novel interpretation. Nazareth was a backwater, and from a Judaean point of view, Galilee was a seething mass of sedition.

It's a hypothesis. it's supposed by to be speculative and controversial,But not to the point of extreme as you have describe it.Actually the NT is not a history book.We have to maneuver through its writer(s) agenda(s) and its varied twists and turns to decode all those nuggets of information and understand it in a new novel perspective based on latest Archaeological,Historical and human genetics discoveries .After that you have only to connect the bits and pieces between Matthew 26:69 reference and John 1:46 and 1:47 add to that the direct narrative of Paul in his letter to Galatians and so on .

It's either we accept what Galilean archaeology had yield ((.... The absence of Galilean human settlements for over a century after the conquest of Tiglath-Pileser III) rules out the hypothesis of an Israelite village culture spanning from the Iron age to the Roman Period....)) or we believe in a mythical homogeneous ethnical continuity.

It's either we believe that the Galilee region was annexed by Aristobulus I,and there was some resistance from the Arab Ituraean tribes from the northern parts of the region. And the conquered inhabitants were forced to accept the Jewish faith and Identity or we have to believe there was no annexation and no converted Gentiles?

It's either we firmly believe in the Galilean evidence of the Northward expansion of Hasmoneans and the southward movement of the Ituraeans or we oversimplify it to minor linguistic and dialects differences.

The ِAramaic interactive relationship with Galilee overpass all those previous evidences.It had also huge economical and cultural impact on Galilean daily life.I can name-as an example- the extensive use of Tyrian shekel in Galilean trade I will quote Josephus ,Because The Tyrian coins is referred by name as a common currency in agricultural trade in Galilee:

"He then bought up all the oil, paying Tyrian coin of the value of four Athenian drachmas for four amphoras and proceeded to sell half an amphora at the same price." (War 2.21.2 592)

And I can also use an NT reference from Acts 12:20

((....they depended on the king's country for their food supply.....)) needless to say the extensive use of Phoenician semi fine ware in Galilee.

David Mc
07-25-2016, 11:12 PM
It's a hypothesis. it's supposed by to be speculative and controversial,But not to the point of extreme as you have describe it.Actually the NT is not a history book.

The New Testament is a collection of writings from a number of different genres. To say it/they are not history books is to obfuscate how history was recorded prior to the modern period. The Gospels, for example, would claim to be (and were accepted by Christians to be) true accounts of words and deeds of Christ, particularly during his ministry years. The Book of Acts would claim to be (and was accepted by Christians to be) a true account of the Church's beginnings. While debates may rage about how the Old Testament reflects archaeological records, there is little in the New Testament that raises flags archaeologically, so I'm not sure I understand your point. If your primary objection is the New Testament's portrayal of Galilean Jewry as Jewish, then you'll also have trouble with Josephus... but you've already appealed to him as an authority.

For what it's worth, I have no problem with the idea that many in the Galilee region were descended from converts. I've said as much in an earlier post. I would have a problem with an argument that Galileans as a whole were not Jewish or that they were all converts. At that point we are abandoning the only historical documents we have (apart from whatever nuggets we think might be useful to our hypotheses) and jumping into a very subjective (and usually politically-charged) sea.

Pegasusphm1
07-28-2016, 12:57 AM
I'm acquainted with some of his and Géza Vermes works and I'm also acquainted with John Dominic Crossan and E. P. Sanders works.
Actually I'm interested to know your thoughts concerning the converted Galileans hypothesis.

Three positions (a) Old Israelites, (b) Converted Iturians (c) Jewish colonialists during the Hasmonean period (Aristobulus). While the archeological findings tend to point to (c), all three have merit given the wars, economic trade routes, etc of the regional area. While populations increased during the Hasmonian, you had some peoples already there. Hasmonian period was a quasi-independence and nations borders shifted during this period.

Culturally, you could call it "Bible Belt" of Judea, given so many religious figures emerged from the area during the 2nd temple period. In addition to Jesus and his followers you had individuals like Honi ha-M'agel, and others etc. I wish they would allow more testing on ancient remains.

Pegasusphm1
07-28-2016, 01:08 AM
For those who are interested in early Christianity, particularly in the context of "Second Temple Judaism," I would recommend N. T. Wright's work, specifically his "Christian Origins and the Question of God" series. It isn't written for laymen, but anyone who is reading Sanders et al. will be comfortable enough with Wright. The only thing I would say is, start with the first book (The New Testament and the People of God). He lays down his epistemological foundations there, and You will save yourself a lot of time if you let him describe his approach before you jump in elsewhere. I, alas, began with his second volume...

For all that Eisenman provides an interesting read, he's also a bit of an eccentric.

When reading Eisenman is like reading Pravada. You can glean some interesting observations between the lines. Eccentric, yah that's a fitting description .

Thank you for your suggestion.

One work I really enjoyed on the DSS was by Michael Wise. Dead Sea Scrolls - A New Translation
https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Sea-Scrolls-New-Translation/dp/006076662X

Found his sections on calendars very useful, and with the liturgy codexs he leaves areas open and doesn't fill in his own theories with the presenting the material.
Does list other ancient texts which also share the theme of the codex before presenting for review. Bit refreshing.

Pegasusphm1
07-28-2016, 01:23 AM
You have to know that drawing a direct correlation between these verses and the ethnic origins of Galileans is speculative to the extreme. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but it is a novel interpretation. Nazareth was a backwater, and from a Judaean point of view, Galilee was a seething mass of sedition. The Sadducees, and to a lesser extent (Wright would argue to a much lesser extent) the Pharisees had found a balance of sorts in the context of Roman occupation. The former saw the Pax Romana as a golden age of peace an stability. The latter were (mostly) willing to wait for God to deliver his people. A third group, the zealots, believed God wouldn't act to deliver his people until they took the first step of raising a banner against the Romans. Galileans were uneducated, prone to favor the zealots, and profoundly unhappy with the status quo-- one need only look at the number of revolts staged by Galileans to see that this is true.

As to Nathaniel being a "true Israelite," that has nothing to do with ethnicity. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures a distinction is made between what we might call ethnic Israel, which included everyone who was part of the covenant community, and "true Israel," which was made up of those in Israel who remained faithful to God's covenants, even when the majority abandoned God.

You may be right or wrong about ethnic origins (I personally think you're over-reaching a bit), but these verses are irrelevant to the discussion, I think.

Yes, what you call balance the the Essenes labeled the Pharisees "Seekers of Smooth Things".

David Mc
07-28-2016, 01:51 AM
One work I really enjoyed on the DSS was by Michael Wise. Dead Sea Scrolls - A New Translation
https://www.amazon.com/Dead-Sea-Scro.../dp/006076662X

Found his sections on calendars very useful, and with the liturgy codexs he leaves areas open and doesn't fill in his own theories with the presenting the material.
Does list other ancient texts which also share the theme of the codex before presenting for review. Bit refreshing.

Nice! I have the pleasure of knowing Doctors Peter Flint and Martin Abegg, who co-led the Dead Sea Scrolls Institute together. Marty is the person who actually reconstructed the Scrolls using the Dead Sea Scrolls Concordance. Until then access to the Scrolls was and publication of data taken from the Scrolls was very tightly regulated. Now it is available to all.

Babylon_74
07-28-2016, 01:47 PM
Three positions (a) Old Israelites, (b) Converted Iturians (c) Jewish colonialists during the Hasmonean period (Aristobulus). While the archeological findings tend to point to (c),

In fact those were the only 3 demographic possibilities at that time,With slight difference about the possible ethnic identity of the converted Gentiles (Option B ) .Actually they could have been an Aramaic mixture of (Itureans and upper Galilee Phoenicians).

But the big question is about the archaeological findings during the time of Jesus the Galilean.Personally I couldn't find any strong cultural indications of Jewish colonialists influence (Option C).On the contrary I can see clearly the use of Tyrian courtyard house in Capernaum architecture.

10682

This type of Tyrian Architecture(also mentioned in Talmud) with its distinctive open courtyard spatial configuration was totally different from the typical Israelite Four room house.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_room_house

Needless to say about the use of Phoenician semi fine pottery in Galilee

10683

10684



Culturally, you could call it "Bible Belt" of Judea, given so many religious figures emerged from the area during the 2nd temple period. In addition to Jesus and his followers you had individuals like Honi ha-M'agel, and others etc. I wish they would allow more testing on ancient remains.

Indeed,I can also mention Judas the Galilean from Acts 5:37.He appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.

Testing the remains of first century Galilean cemeteries would definitely solve the mystery of Galileans true ethnic origins.

David Mc
07-29-2016, 09:18 PM
So I've been looking at the Galilean archaeological record from ca. the time of Christ... and now I really don't understand the basis of your argument. Your premise has been that archaeology tells a different story than the documents we have for (and from) the period, yes? So why is it that everywhere I look I see that the vast majority of Galilean finds show a culture that is extremely similar to that of Judea. Most of the homes are, in fact, built along the same lines as those in Judea. Domestic wear is essentially the same as that in Judea. The prevalence of mikvot, and their form, reflects the presence and form in Judea. Have I misunderstood you somehow?

Babylon_74
07-29-2016, 09:58 PM
Most of the homes are, in fact, built along the same lines as those in Judea.

I'm affraid that this is pure generalization Archaeologically speaking .Kindly can you prove that Galilean Architecture was the same as those in Judea in a documented scientific way?



Domestic wear is essentially the same as that in Judea

Can you prove that Phoenician semi fine pottery were extensively used in Judea during the same period?


The prevalence of mikvot, and their form, reflects the presence and form in Judea

were the mikvot part of the Jewish Ethnic and Architectural identity prior to Hasmonean Annexation of Galilee Archaeologically speaking?

David Mc
07-29-2016, 10:49 PM
I'm affraid that this is pure generalization Archaeologically speaking .Kindly can you prove that Galilean Architecture was the same as those in Judea in a documented scientific way?

It is “pure generalization” because it is generally true.

I’m not going to spend hours doing a copy and paste job—I’m afraid the burden of doubt rests firmly on your shoulders. All I can say is that if anyone doubts the veracity of what I’ve written, just look at the data. There’s plenty out there. For example, in Jonathan Reed’s Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence, Reed notes that, architecture aside, the religious indicators “consistently mirror those of Judea” and are “remarkably homogenous” (Reed, 49) Add to this mikvaoth, burial practices (the use of Kokhim), the absence of pork remains, and the absence of pagan cultic sites. In Sepphoris alone archaeologists discovered hundreds of stone vessel fragments and twenty mikvaot—these are all from the “earliest recoverable stratum in the domestic quarters from about 100 B.C.E to 70 C.E.” (ibid).

Archaeologically speaking, everything suggests that the Galileans were largely descended from Judean settlers who re-settled the land ca. 100 BC.




Can you prove that Phoenician semi fine pottery were extensively used in Judea during the same period?

Of course not, because you're starting from a false premise. Phoenician semi fine pottery wasn't extensively used in either Judea or Galilee. In most Galilean sites (excepting those on the coast) there is very little evidence of any imported pottery. Most pottery in Galilee looks like pottery from Judea.


were the mikvot part of the Jewish Ethnic and Architectural identity prior to Hasmonean Annexation of Galilee Archaeologically speaking?

Given that my point is that archaeology suggests that most Galileans descend from Judeans who moved north at this time, taking their material culture with them, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Babylon_74
07-30-2016, 12:42 AM
It is “pure generalization” because it is generally true.

I’m not going to spend hours doing a copy and paste job—I’m afraid the burden of doubt rests firmly on your shoulders.

?????


Add to this mikvaoth, burial practices (the use of Kokhim)

Obviously you're acquainted with Aramaic Rock-cut tombs archaeologically speaking.


Of course not, because you're starting from a false premise. Phoenician semi fine pottery wasn't extensively used in either Judea or Galilee. In most Galilean sites (excepting those on the coast)

10699 10700



Given that my point is that archaeology suggests that most Galileans descend from Judeans who moved north at this time, taking their material culture with them

I'm afraid again that you're not getting the idea that (Mikveh) is not part of an Israelite village culture spanning from the Iron age to the Roman Period.It was part of the Annexation cultural updating process.

David Mc
07-30-2016, 04:45 AM
?????

Obviously you're acquainted with Aramaic Rock-cut tombs archaeologically speaking.

I'm afraid again that you're not getting the idea that (Mikveh) is not part of an Israelite village culture spanning from the Iron age to the Roman Period.It was part of the Annexation cultural updating process.

I wrote: "Given that my point is that archaeology suggests that most Galileans descend from Judeans who moved north at this time, taking their material culture with them, I'm not sure what you're getting at."

Could you please respond to that, because I actually don't know what you're arguing anymore. My premise is that most Galileans were descended from Judean settlers who moved north about a century before Christ. Sometimes it looks like you're agreeing with me, but then you make points that don't seem to bear any relevance to that argument.


Obviously you're acquainted with Aramaic Rock-cut tombs archaeologically speaking.

Many cultures had rock-cut tombs. The ones I'm interested in are the ones that are most alike. The Galilean and Judean burial traditions belong to the same tradition which includes the placing of ossuaries within said tomb. This wasn't a broadly Aramaic practice; it was distinctly Jewish.


I'm afraid again that you're not getting the idea that (Mikveh) is not part of an Israelite village culture spanning from the Iron age to the Roman Period.It was part of the Annexation cultural updating process.

How am I not getting that, and how is that significant? Mikvot our not found anywhere in the archaeological record prior to the 1st century BC. When they appear, they appear in both Judea and the Galilee.

David Mc
07-30-2016, 04:53 AM
Oh, and with regard to the pottery, I'm still not getting your point. Given that most of the images you're posting predate the annexation period, what are they supposed to signify.

The last one you attached is from the early Bronze Age, for goodness sake! When I see things like that I wonder if I am actually being trolled.

Agamemnon
07-31-2016, 03:56 PM
MOD: This debate is devolving into a sterile and counterintuitive discussion, not only are the sources cited here being used to advocate views contrary to those of the authors, this isn't even the appropriate place to discuss whether the Galileans were a separate ethnic group (which they weren't but that's above the point). I'm going to apply a no-nonsense policy from now on, either the OT stuff stops or I'll close this thread and split the OT discussion into a separate thread which will also be closed. Your call.

wmehar
03-10-2017, 02:47 PM
So, gravitating back towards the topic -- Anecdotally, Iran/Shia populations are reputed to be nearly all Sayyids/direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad's family.

Is there a strong Persian/Iranian or even Iraqi database of Y-DNA, open to the public?

jesus
03-10-2017, 03:47 PM
So, gravitating back towards the topic -- Anecdotally, Iran/Shia populations are reputed to be nearly all Sayyids/direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad's family.


That's not true at all(for Shias and Iranians).

wmehar
03-15-2017, 05:18 PM
That's not true at all(for Shias and Iranians).

Now I do agree with you, which is why I say "anecdotally", as I've been told by Shias and certain Iranians this tidbit of information.

Maybe I'll limit my usage of the word "Iranian" and just say Shia populations. I think it'd be very interesting to know if there is a statistical difference between one Sect's capacity of being directly descended from the Prophet's family, over the other.

Which is what the sect uses as a crutch to say "We are the key holders of the TRUE knowledge of Islam" blah blah blah, because they seem to be under the impression that their perspective/narratives and information supersedes mainstream Sunni narratives based on leading scholars/Shia personalities purported familial relation to the Prophet's family.

I think it'd be an experiment worth investigating, and gauging reactions.

Consider the results if both populations possess the same proportion of individuals claiming lineage, or if one was higher than the other. I think one can derive meaningful insights from this, even with regard to population migrations and historic events.

Piquerobi
03-17-2017, 07:05 PM
Any updates?

murtazasayeed
11-08-2017, 02:10 PM
I'm allegedly a sayyid (I truly don't care) with a shajarah over 1,000 years old. I was always curious if its true, if the deer skin scroll it's written on is accurate. I did ancestry but it does not show my paternal y haplogroup. I used an outdated and questionably accurate tool that is supposed to extract this info from ancestry autosymal and it shows me as E1B as most likely. I mean out of all those names on my family tree, not one guy was sterile or unable to have kids? Adopted secret child or something? hahaa. And we will never know the prophets haplogroup no matter what the Jordanian royal family claims. None of this matters I know, bnut do you guys have any suggestion as to what other tool may be available to find my paternal y haplogroup?

P.S. I just sent out my 23andme sample but don't wanna wait 8 weeks to find out.

murtazasayeed
11-24-2017, 04:44 PM
I just got my y haplo, not J at all. I’m either ancient isrealite or Bosnian branch lol.

drobbah
11-24-2017, 06:17 PM
I just got my y haplo, not J at all. I’m either ancient isrealite or Bosnian branch lol.
Isn't E1b1b1a1b V13? You have a better chance of being a descendant of Alexander's army than being from the Prophet or an ancient Israelite.Since V13 is practically non-existent in Afro-Asiatic speaking areas let alone the Arabian Peninsula

Piquerobi
06-05-2018, 04:06 PM
The Hashemites:


The Hashemites claim to trace their ancestry from Hashim ibn 'Abd Manaf (died c. 497 AD), the great-grandfather of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, although the definition today mainly refers to the descendants of Muhammad's daughter Fatimah. The early history of the Hashemites saw them in a continuous struggle against the Umayyads for control over who would be the caliph or successor to Muhammad. The Umayyads were of the same tribe as the Hashemites, but a different clan. After the overthrow of the Umayyads, the Abbasids would present themselves as representatives of the Hashemites, as they claimed descent from Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, an uncle of Muhammad. Muhammad's father had died before he was born, and his mother died while he was a child, so Muhammad was raised by his uncle Abu Talib ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib, chief of the Hashemites.

From the 10th century onwards, the sharif (religious leader) of Mecca and its Emir was, by traditional agreement, a Hashemite. Before World War I, Hussein bin Ali of the Hashemite Dhawu-'Awn clan ruled the Hejaz on behalf of the Ottoman sultan. For some time it had been the practice of the Sublime Porte to appoint the Emir of Mecca from among a select group of candidates. In 1908, Hussein bin Ali was appointed to the Emirate of Mecca. He found himself increasingly at odds with the Young Turks in control at Istanbul, while he strove to secure his family's position as hereditary Emirs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemites

Lupriac
08-18-2018, 02:43 PM
What is the explanation of a notable minority of J2 found among some Hashemites (Alids mostly)?

Achmadzaky
04-29-2020, 09:54 PM
What is the explanation of a notable minority of J2 found among some Hashemites (Alids mostly)?

and don't forget

most of baalawy saada (descendant of sayyidina husain) belongs to haplogroup G-M406 branch

Lupriac
05-13-2020, 05:30 PM
and don't forget

most of baalawy saada (descendant of sayyidina husain) belongs to haplogroup G-M406 branch

The descendants of al-Husayn, on whom be peace, are mostly under L859. Which is the most likely lineage.

Achmadzaky
06-03-2020, 04:06 PM
The descendants of al-Husayn, on whom be peace, are mostly under L859. Which is the most likely lineage.

most of them are in G-Y32612, here is sample from yfull (https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-Y32612/)

and also on ftdna project called baalawy dna project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/baalawi?)

I don't want to offensive but baalawy saadah have family pedigree and have an institution to verified a family pedigree

indorabian
06-26-2020, 11:18 PM
most of them are in G-Y32612, here is sample from yfull (https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-Y32612/)

and also on ftdna project called baalawy dna project (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/baalawi?)

I don't want to offensive but baalawy saadah have family pedigree and have an institution to verified a family pedigree

are you baalwi? I see you are an Indonesian-Yemeni (jamaah) too.

subzero85
10-20-2020, 01:01 PM
The general consensus in the genetic genealogy community is that this is the Hashemite Y-DNA: https://yfull.com/tree/J-Y12361/

I'm willing to go with the consensus. I think people with credible claims but not matching this clade likely have it passed through a maternal line at some point.

Ibne Sharif
02-11-2021, 01:03 PM
The genetic testing has been done so far on the Royal Family of Morocco, Royal Family of Brunei, Royal family of Maldives, Royal Family of Jordon, and the “Baa Alawi Sadaat of Arabia” (all acclaimed decedents of Ali Ibne Abi Talib) are in Haplogroup G. All other claims so far are dubious and fake, they are being funded with agendas of their own.

Squad
02-16-2021, 01:30 AM
The genetic testing has been done so far on the Royal Family of Morocco, Royal Family of Brunei, Royal family of Maldives, Royal Family of Jordon, and the “Baa Alawi Sadaat of Arabia” (all acclaimed decedents of Ali Ibne Abi Talib) are in Haplogroup G. All other claims so far are dubious and fake, they are being funded with agendas of their own.

Nonsense

The claims are false and used to gain a societal prestige. Only the royal family of Jordan are probably true Hashemites, they belong to L859

G-Y33612 is a known litte cluster originating from Hadramaut in Yemen. It has nothing to do with Muhammad or whatsoever.

How do you think these indonesian families managed to become royal lol? Of course part of their ascension to power has to do with claims of being sharif, same thing in Morocco

Plus get your facts straight, that the royal family in Morocco and Indonesia both belong to haplogroup G doesn't mean anything at all. Haplogroup G is 26,000 years old. You have to look at the subclades obviously. And it just so happens that the TMRCA between the alawi individuals in Morocco under G-L91 and the hadrami line from which indonesian descend is G-L1259, estimated at 16,700 years. Both of these lines have obviously nothing to do with Muhammad, unless Muhammad lived 17kilo years ago, then perhaps we could argue hahaha

See how it's important to be well versed in population genetics before trying to justify one's personal convictions??

drobbah
02-16-2021, 01:39 AM
The Ba'alawi have a long recorded history of being considered Hashemites but they just can't compete in terms of legitimacy with the Hijazi ashraaf like the Jordanian royal family and others in modern Saudi Arabia

Squad
02-16-2021, 02:21 AM
The Ba'alawi have a long recorded history of being considered Hashemites but they just can't compete in terms of legitimacy with the Hijazi ashraaf like the Jordanian royal family and others in modern Saudi Arabia

Exactly, they belong to an exclusive and young hadrami cluster with a TMRCA of 900 years. Claiming hashemite descent doesn't mean anything, many different lines claim to descend from Quraish, from A3b2 to E-M81 to G-L91 to J-P56.

Only J-L859 can be demonstrated to be the real hashmite line, there are ways to verify that, one of them being that almost all members of this clade(more than 95%), from Egypt to Yemen to Pakistan, claim to be of hashemite descent. This is what we can expect if the line is legit. Add this to the fact that the TMRCA of the star-like expansion is a perfect fit. No time to forge a false pedigree like for example the hadrami G2 line that is like 600-700 years younger than what we would expect

Squad
02-16-2021, 06:28 AM
Btw the moroccan "Alawis" are under the same L91 sub-clade as Otzi, L166, which has a TMRCA of about 5,000 years. Muhammad's line my...

ShpataEMadhe
02-16-2021, 04:27 PM
The "FGC8712, L859-" samples from Eastern Europe mentioned here (http://www.qur.co/vb/filedata/fetch?id=1252) are all Jewish and have their own subclade, J1-ZS2102 (TMRCA ~1000 yBP)... As to how this typically Arabian branch of J1-L858 managed to make it into the Jewish gene pool, your guess is as good as mine (remnants of Arabia's Jewish tribes blending with Ashkenazi Jews? Idumean converts to Judaism? Himyarite converts?).

We are all adults here (I hope) so you can say it.

As for the samples are you able to export them here as I cant seem to access

subzero85
02-16-2021, 05:03 PM
Btw the moroccan "Alawis" are under the same L91 sub-clade as Otzi, L166, which has a TMRCA of about 5,000 years. Muhammad's line my...

Is there a source for the Moroccans?

pakistani
02-16-2021, 05:27 PM
The Ba'alawi have a long recorded history of being considered Hashemites but they just can't compete in terms of legitimacy with the Hijazi ashraaf like the Jordanian royal family and others in modern Saudi Arabia

I wonder where the “gap” in lineage for the Ba’Alawi is. The accepted lineage is Imam Jafar Sadiq -> Ali al-Uraidhi -> Muhammad An-Naqib -> Isa Ar-Rumi -> Ahmad Al-Muhajir (who migrated to Hadhramaut). I’ve seen some speculation that Isa Ar-Rumi could’ve been a maternal descendant of the prophet and the son of a Roman/Anatolian considering his nickname and haplogroup.

Ahmed Ali
02-16-2021, 06:25 PM
Interesting discussion. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a close family friend a while back. He belongs to a prominent clerical family of South Asia who are Shi'i Sayeds (Rizvi) by background. Two of his cousins tested on his paternal side and, interestingly, one is positive is positive for G, the other for J1. They hail from near Lucknow originally. He said the reports of G+ in Idrisi and Ba'alawi Saadat as well as some Saudi families tracing their descent from Jafar ibn Abi Talib (AS) has prompted some members of his community (Pakistani Ithna Asharis in UK/Canada mostly) to revisit their Shajarahs and lines of migration. He said that G is gaining some serious attention, even though the consensus lies with J1-L159, and they may even get their leading Allameh to test. I'll keep you posted if I hear anything further on that front.

Ahmed Ali
02-16-2021, 06:26 PM
Btw, do we have any Yemeni Zaidi Sadat results?

subzero85
02-16-2021, 07:08 PM
Interesting discussion. It reminds me of a conversation I had with a close family friend a while back. He belongs to a prominent clerical family of South Asia who are Shi'i Sayeds (Rizvi) by background. Two of his cousins tested on his paternal side and, interestingly, one is positive is positive for G, the other for J1. They hail from near Lucknow originally. He said the reports of G+ in Idrisi and Ba'alawi Saadat as well as some Saudi families tracing their descent from Jafar ibn Abi Talib (AS) has prompted some members of his community (Pakistani Ithna Asharis in UK/Canada mostly) to revisit their Shajarahs and lines of migration. He said that G is gaining some serious attention, even though the consensus lies with J1-L159, and they may even get their leading Allameh to test. I'll keep you posted if I hear anything further on that front.

Would it be OK if you could PM me your friends Y-DNA, mtDNA info?

I would like to add to my table of Shia Syed Y-DNAs. I honestly don't have a G result yet.

subzero85
02-16-2021, 07:12 PM
Btw, do we have any Yemeni Zaidi Sadat results?

Per this project: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Qurayishj1c3d?iframe=yresults

I'm seeing clusters of Yemenis here:

1.) L859+, FGC8703+, FGC10500+, CTS8308+, Z28962+, FGC10502+, FGC28327+, DYS447=22,24 / Hassani-TabaTabai-Rassi-Hadawi-Yahyawi
2.) L859+, FGC8703+, FGC10500+, CTS8308+, Z28962+, FGC10502+, HU616+, DYS447=24) / Hassani-TabaTabai-Rassi-Hadawi-Mansouri
3.) L859+, FGC8703+, FGC10500+, CTS8308+, Z28962+, FGC10502+, ZS2082+, DYS447=21,22) / Hassani-TabaTabai-Rassi-Hadawi-Motahari
4.) L859+, FGC8703+, FGC10500+, CTS8308+, Z28962+, FGC10502+, ZS5825+, DYS447=22,23) / Hassani-TabaTabai-Rassi-Hadawi
5.) L859+, FGC8703+, FGC10500+, CTS8308+, Z28962+, FGC10502+, TBD) / Hassani-TabaTabai-Rassi-Hadawi

Ahmed Ali
02-16-2021, 07:30 PM
Would it be OK if you could PM me your friends Y-DNA, mtDNA info?

I would like to add to my table of Shia Syed Y-DNAs. I honestly don't have a G result yet.

Sure, no problem at all. I'll text him and ask for the confirmation of his data, subclades etc., as its been a while since we caught up. I'll PM when I get the deets from him.

Thanks for sharing the Yemeni results btw. The same friend said that his Allameh suggested that Yemeni Zaydi results might help them resolve the G/J1 issue they are facing in their community.

royaljoker
02-16-2021, 11:19 PM
I wonder where the “gap” in lineage for the Ba’Alawi is. The accepted lineage is Imam Jafar Sadiq -> Ali al-Uraidhi -> Muhammad An-Naqib -> Isa Ar-Rumi -> Ahmad Al-Muhajir (who migrated to Hadhramaut). I’ve seen some speculation that Isa Ar-Rumi could’ve been a maternal descendant of the prophet and the son of a Roman/Anatolian considering his nickname and haplogroup.

Could you cite a source. Because at least the early Ba-alawi lineage is very solid. For Muhammad an Naqib, the Naqib means that he was the head genealogist for Hashemites (in Basrah) and hence had the job of sifting through and verifying the claim of any would be claimant of the Hashemite lineage. The early Ba-alawi family gave many naqibs , in what I've read in genealogy books their lineage has never raised questions.

royaljoker
02-16-2021, 11:29 PM
Per this project: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Qurayishj1c3d?iframe=yresults

I'm seeing clusters of Yemenis here:

1.) L859+, FGC8703+, FGC10500+, CTS8308+, Z28962+, FGC10502+, FGC28327+, DYS447=22,24 / Hassani-TabaTabai-Rassi-Hadawi-Yahyawi
2.) L859+, FGC8703+, FGC10500+, CTS8308+, Z28962+, FGC10502+, HU616+, DYS447=24) / Hassani-TabaTabai-Rassi-Hadawi-Mansouri
3.) L859+, FGC8703+, FGC10500+, CTS8308+, Z28962+, FGC10502+, ZS2082+, DYS447=21,22) / Hassani-TabaTabai-Rassi-Hadawi-Motahari
4.) L859+, FGC8703+, FGC10500+, CTS8308+, Z28962+, FGC10502+, ZS5825+, DYS447=22,23) / Hassani-TabaTabai-Rassi-Hadawi
5.) L859+, FGC8703+, FGC10500+, CTS8308+, Z28962+, FGC10502+, TBD) / Hassani-TabaTabai-Rassi-Hadawi


Just to be clear for other readers. This family is not Zaidi by lineage but rather Zaidi by religious creed. If they are indeed Rassi of yemen (Imams of Yemen), then their descent would be Al Qassim al Rassi bin Ibrahim al Tabataba bin Ismail bin Ibrahim bin Hassan al Muthana bin Imam Hassan al Sibt.

There is one Zaidi family on that project whose actual line of descent from the Imams is unknown but who have settled on descent from Imam Zayd bin Imam Ali (Zain al abidin) bin Imam Hussain as Sibt, but they have a disputed lineage . And so to my knowledge there is no Zaidi on that FTDNA project with a solid pedigree.

Kanpes
02-16-2021, 11:29 PM
Exactly, they belong to an exclusive and young hadrami cluster with a TMRCA of 900 years. Claiming hashemite descent doesn't mean anything, many different lines claim to descend from Quraish, from A3b2 to E-M81 to G-L91 to J-P56.

Only J-L859 can be demonstrated to be the real hashmite line, there are ways to verify that, one of them being that almost all members of this clade(more than 95%), from Egypt to Yemen to Pakistan, claim to be of hashemite descent. This is what we can expect if the line is legit. Add this to the fact that the TMRCA of the star-like expansion is a perfect fit. No time to forge a false pedigree like for example the hadrami G2 line that is like 600-700 years younger than what we would expect

I would say TMRCA on J-L859 was 1298 ybp, it means all of quraysh clan (based on their claim on ftdna group) were born in 722 CE, who's that quraysh ? I Thought Fihr ibn Malik (founder of quraysh tribe) was born 210 AD

https://i.ibb.co/2vPkytn/Screenshot-20210217-060714-Chrome.jpg

but the thing is, when you look into that Baalawi dna project (I have a friend who join on this project), they all claimed that TMRCA belong to person called Muhammad Shahib Mirbath, not Prophet Muhammad and the Ahl Al Bait cz we don't know exactly were they all belong to, don't you dare to dig in that holy graves ? I'm sure not

the consesus from my point is we don't know about the real haplogroup of Prophet Muhammad and his holy family, even all Prophets before Muhammad, we just assumed

royaljoker
02-16-2021, 11:31 PM
I would say TMRCA on J-L859 was 1298 ybp, it means all of quraysh clan (based on their claim on ftdna group) were born in 722 CE, who's that quraysh ? I Thought Fihr ibn Malik (founder of quraysh tribe) was born 210 AD

https://i.ibb.co/2vPkytn/Screenshot-20210217-060714-Chrome.jpg

but the thing is, when you look into that Baalawi dna project, they all claimed that TMRCA belong to person called Muhammad Shahib Mirbath, not Prophet Muhammad and the Ahl Al Bait cz we don't know exactly were they all belong to, don't you dare to dig in that holy graves ? I'm sure not

the consesus from my point is we don't know about the real haplogroup of Prophet Muhammad and his holy family, even all Prophets before Muhammad, we just assumed

Exactly !!

subzero85
02-17-2021, 12:09 AM
I would say TMRCA on J-L859 was 1298 ybp, it means all of quraysh clan (based on their claim on ftdna group) were born in 722 CE, who's that quraysh ? I Thought Fihr ibn Malik (founder of quraysh tribe) was born 210 AD

https://i.ibb.co/2vPkytn/Screenshot-20210217-060714-Chrome.jpg

but the thing is, when you look into that Baalawi dna project (I have a friend who join on this project), they all claimed that TMRCA belong to person called Muhammad Shahib Mirbath, not Prophet Muhammad and the Ahl Al Bait cz we don't know exactly were they all belong to, don't you dare to dig in that holy graves ? I'm sure not

the consesus from my point is we don't know about the real haplogroup of Prophet Muhammad and his holy family, even all Prophets before Muhammad, we just assumed

What does it give for the ages of J-FGC10500 and J-FGC30416?

Kanpes
02-17-2021, 12:33 AM
What does it give for the ages of J-FGC10500 and J-FGC30416?

J-FGC30416 was 1406 ybp, it mean 617 AD, who's that person ? Imam Hussein ?

https://i.ibb.co/1QJdTby/20210217-071841.jpg

J-FGC10500 was 1368 ybp, it mean 652 AD, who's that person ? Imam Ali ?

https://i.ibb.co/5j14MWV/20210217-071903.jpg

all of that are nonsense since L859 was the "father" of FGC10500 and FGC30416, yet the results are all in mousavi/ridhai/tabatabaei/rashi only, where is hassanid ? where is the ismaili ?

subzero85
02-17-2021, 01:36 AM
This just seems like YFull's age formula is flawed.

ss3Goku
02-17-2021, 01:51 AM
J1 (L859) is the only presumed accepted result in the Scientific Genealogy Community as the marker for the Hashemites.

FamilyTree DNA has accepted J1 as being the haplogroup of the Prophet. When you click on L859 under SNP markers it will give you this.
“This lineage is found at substantial frequencies within Jewish populations. The Cohen modal haplotype lineage, as well as the presumed lineage of the Prophet Mohammed, are found in Haplogroup J-M267. J1 is also one of the main Haplogroups found among Arab populations.”

IGenea the other heavyweight counterpart has accepted L859 as the acceptable haplogroup of the Prophet as shown on their company website.
https://www.igenea.com/en/muhammad

Dr. Spencer Wells one of the leading genealogists in the world and also the head of National Geographic - Genographic Project (Geno 2.0) talks about J1 being the Prophet’s Haplogroup here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxpbPAXy95w&ab_channel=BesmAllah

A consensus among FTDNA, IGenea, Geno 2.0. Obviously no agendas here by these companies, just accepted results based on evidence and research.

Kanpes
02-17-2021, 01:52 AM
This just seems like YFull's age formula is flawed.

oh yeah ? so what is the correct answer for each L859, FGC10500, FGC8703, FGC30416 ages ? explain to us

as we know yfull age estimation methodolgy (https://www.yfull.com/faq/what-yfulls-age-estimation-methodology/) based on BAM files for each sample, therefore the quallity of the BAM files are the key to calculate the age of SNP

Squad
02-17-2021, 03:28 AM
I don't have to give further explanation as to why J-L859 is clearly the haplogroup signature of the Quraysh tribe. Lol at anyone thinking that a small G2 cluster restricted to Hadramaut and populations that have been influenced by Hadrami merchants is the qurayshi haplogroup. It is plain ridiculous. Go analysis meticulously J-L859 and see how it is a perfect fit.

ss3Goku
02-17-2021, 03:51 AM
I don't have to give further explanation as to why J-L859 is clearly the haplogroup signature of the Quraysh tribe. Lol at anyone thinking that a small G2 cluster restricted to Hadramaut and populations that have been influenced by Hadrami merchants is the qurayshi haplogroup. It is plain ridiculous. Go analysis meticulously J-L859 and see how it is a perfect fit.

Agreed, it really is baffling. You have to explicitly be trying to not accept the results lol. I think the only people that disagree on this thread are the Indonesian Ba 'Alawi Community. G2 is found at about ~2.5% in Saudi Arabia, I think the conversation should end there lol.

Squad
02-17-2021, 04:26 AM
People have been told since they're young that they belong to some kind of holy lineage. So now they can't accept the reality when confronted by the actual data that people couldn't have known centuries ago. Science exposes all falsehood.

It doesn't matter which genealogy you claim to have or whatever. DNA does not lie and here in this community we shall only be concerned about the facts not the legends and the myths

Kanpes
02-17-2021, 04:51 AM
People have been told since they're young that they belong to some kind of holy lineage. So now they can't accept the reality when confronted by the actual data that people couldn't have known centuries ago. Science exposes all falsehood.

It doesn't matter which genealogy you claim to have or whatever. DNA does not lie and here in this community we shall only be concerned about the facts not the legends and the myths

I'm sorry, who were you think about ? they all had a complete shajarah of their family and almost no one genealogist denied it

go figure itself bro, unless you are expert on them

talk about L859, have you find aDNA prior to L859 ?


Agreed, it really is baffling. You have to explicitly be trying to not accept the results lol. I think the only people that disagree on this thread are the Indonesian Ba 'Alawi Community. G2 is found at about ~2.5% in Saudi Arabia, I think the conversation should end there lol.

ba'alawi community are not in Indonesia only, they could be in Malaysia, Singapore, in Mecca and Medina, and also in Hadramaut

why so serious about L859, I'm also J1 and I came from Seiyun, and I never thought that we're from north, G2a population in Yemen were extremely restrict to Baalawi and some of Yemeni Levites, they're different clade btw

drobbah
02-17-2021, 05:36 AM
This just seems like YFull's age formula is flawed.
Yfull can only give a rough estimate but the average tmrca shouldn't be taken at face value but I think the range they give is quite useful and should be taken together with historical genealogy whether written or oral. For example me and another one of my clansmen (Habar Awal Somali clan) share a subclade that according to yfull at this moment gives us an average tmrca of 900 years despite us having clear tribal common ancestor 15 generations ago according to our orally memorized lineages which puts the tmrca according to genealogy back to 500-600 years approximately. Yfull's range gives an estimate between 1550 ybp & 500 ybp which still fits within the range of our oral abtirsi (arabic shajarah).

Right now J-L859 has a tmrca range of 1700 ybp to 1150 ybp, the 1700 number still fits within the time of Fihr ibn Malik the progenitor of the Quraish clan.Even so I think the tmrca range will increase and will align more with genealogy once more Quraishi descended males that are not Hashemites or descendants of Abd Manaf take the test.

pakistani
02-17-2021, 04:55 PM
Could you cite a source. Because at least the early Ba-alawi lineage is very solid. For Muhammad an Naqib, the Naqib means that he was the head genealogist for Hashemites (in Basrah) and hence had the job of sifting through and verifying the claim of any would be claimant of the Hashemite lineage. The early Ba-alawi family gave many naqibs , in what I've read in genealogy books their lineage has never raised questions.

Tbh it was a throwaway comment on some random blog I found while digging awhile back, can't seem to find it now. The blog theorized that Ahmad al-Muhajir could've been a maternal descendant as the prophet's family was going through a period of persecution under the Abbasid Caliphs in Iraq. Per the poster Squad, the Ba'Alawi "belong to an exclusive and young hadrami cluster with a TMRCA of 900 years" which lines up around the time period Al-Muhajir's migration to Hadhramaut which, assuming J-L859 is the actual Hashemite haplogroup and considering the lineage after him is well documented, would suggest there are gaps in the known lineage before him.

I don't want to get into a debate over the "real" Hashemite haplogroup but this case of the Ba'Alawi is interesting to think about. My greatx3 grandfather had a genealogy tree constructed during his trip to Hajj in Medina which had the same known lineage that I listed above, so whatever the truth is it seems like it's been lost to time.

royaljoker
02-17-2021, 08:48 PM
Tbh it was a throwaway comment on some random blog I found while digging awhile back, can't seem to find it now. The blog theorized that Ahmad al-Muhajir could've been a maternal descendant as the prophet's family was going through a period of persecution under the Abbasid Caliphs in Iraq. Per the poster Squad, the Ba'Alawi "belong to an exclusive and young hadrami cluster with a TMRCA of 900 years" which lines up around the time period Al-Muhajir's migration to Hadhramaut which, assuming J-L859 is the actual Hashemite haplogroup and considering the lineage after him is well documented, would suggest there are gaps in the known lineage before him.

I don't want to get into a debate over the "real" Hashemite haplogroup but this case of the Ba'Alawi is interesting to think about. My greatx3 grandfather had a genealogy tree constructed during his trip to Hajj in Medina which had the same known lineage that I listed above, so whatever the truth is it seems like it's been lost to time.

I personally find the Ba'alawi case intriguing. They've been in Hadhramaut for longer than the Sharifs have been in Makkah. And they're well documented historically. Many of the South East Asian muslim dynasties like Jamal al Layl descend from them and Ahmad al Muhajir. And many of the greatest scholars of the Shafi school have come from Hadhramaut.

I also think that perhaps some modern day sayyids descend from freed slaves of Banu Hashim. Because I think there used to be this idea that "the freed slave is of the family".

Or perhaps there were non-paternity events. At least in the Sunni schools of jurisprudence. Lineage is passed through the "bed". So if a person did not disclaim his child's lineage and his wife had not been loyal. Then that child may not be genetically a sayyid but still legally a sayyid. But I think someone will have to get an Islamic scholar to discuss these points.

I don't think any of this happened with at least the early Ba-alawi. And in my eyes things are still unsettled about the prophet's (saw) haplogroup to be calling certain lineages out.

subzero85
02-18-2021, 03:54 PM
Could you cite a source. Because at least the early Ba-alawi lineage is very solid. For Muhammad an Naqib, the Naqib means that he was the head genealogist for Hashemites (in Basrah) and hence had the job of sifting through and verifying the claim of any would be claimant of the Hashemite lineage. The early Ba-alawi family gave many naqibs , in what I've read in genealogy books their lineage has never raised questions.


Tbh it was a throwaway comment on some random blog I found while digging awhile back, can't seem to find it now. The blog theorized that Ahmad al-Muhajir could've been a maternal descendant as the prophet's family was going through a period of persecution under the Abbasid Caliphs in Iraq. Per the poster Squad, the Ba'Alawi "belong to an exclusive and young hadrami cluster with a TMRCA of 900 years" which lines up around the time period Al-Muhajir's migration to Hadhramaut which, assuming J-L859 is the actual Hashemite haplogroup and considering the lineage after him is well documented, would suggest there are gaps in the known lineage before him.

I don't want to get into a debate over the "real" Hashemite haplogroup but this case of the Ba'Alawi is interesting to think about. My greatx3 grandfather had a genealogy tree constructed during his trip to Hajj in Medina which had the same known lineage that I listed above, so whatever the truth is it seems like it's been lost to time.

Maybe there is something to that. Jumping up a few clades to: https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-PF3316/

I'm indeed seeing some results in parallel clades from Italy, Lebanon, Portugal, Armenia, Greece. But also some results from Arab countries.

We just need some clarity in-between the two circled clades:

43392

Ibne Sharif
02-22-2021, 11:35 AM
Nonsense

The claims are false and used to gain a societal prestige. Only the royal family of Jordan are probably true Hashemites, they belong to L859

G-Y33612 is a known litte cluster originating from Hadramaut in Yemen. It has nothing to do with Muhammad or whatsoever.

How do you think these indonesian families managed to become royal lol? Of course part of their ascension to power has to do with claims of being sharif, same thing in Morocco

Plus get your facts straight, that the royal family in Morocco and Indonesia both belong to haplogroup G doesn't mean anything at all. Haplogroup G is 26,000 years old. You have to look at the subclades obviously. And it just so happens that the TMRCA between the alawi individuals in Morocco under G-L91 and the hadrami line from which indonesian descend is G-L1259, estimated at 16,700 years. Both of these lines have obviously nothing to do with Muhammad, unless Muhammad lived 17kilo years ago, then perhaps we could argue hahaha

See how it's important to be well versed in population genetics before trying to justify one's personal convictions??


Where is the sense in your reply by claiming that the Royal family of Jordan belongs to J1-L859?? Don't give us the reference of a DNA group, please. Such Groups can be hosted by anyone on FDNA, it's free too. Give us a single DNA test result of the aforementioned to consider your answer is free from "Self Imposed Convictions".

Shamash
02-22-2021, 04:20 PM
Where is the sense in your reply by claiming that the Royal family of Jordan belongs to J1-L859?? Don't give us the reference of a DNA group, please. Such Groups can be hosted by anyone on FDNA, it's free too. Give us a single DNA test result of the aforementioned to consider your answer is free from "Self Imposed Convictions".

One must be blind to deny that the most probable haplogroup is indeed J-L859:

Perfect genealogies, a perfectly matching TMRCA. And yes it is the haplogroup of the Hashemite dynasty of Jordan.

Hard to bear the fact that some other sort than your own haplogroup might be THE one...

Ibne Sharif
02-23-2021, 12:34 PM
One must be blind to deny that the most probable haplogroup is indeed J-L859:

Perfect genealogies, a perfectly matching TMRCA. And yes it is the haplogroup of the Hashemite dynasty of Jordan.

Hard to bear the fact that some other sort than your own haplogroup might be THE one...

Not surprised to see another empty claim without any proof!!

KLMDG
02-23-2021, 02:25 PM
Where is the sense in your reply by claiming that the Royal family of Jordan belongs to J1-L859?? Don't give us the reference of a DNA group, please. Such Groups can be hosted by anyone on FDNA, it's free too. Give us a single DNA test result of the aforementioned to consider your answer is free from "Self Imposed Convictions".

there is a sample tested by hand by Shiekh Abd-ALaziz Al-Khalifah (royal family of Bahrain) tested the descendant of Nassir bin Ali (brother of Hussain bin Ali - Sherif of Makkah) and he's J1-L859
https://twitter.com/jassasty8849/status/1159345583544573952
this isn't a solo test .. Dhawi 'Awn (the house which Hussain bin Ali is from) of Bani Qatadah have been tested many many times .. 10's of times all L859
you can see the results of Bani Hashem in Hijaz (Banu Qatadah) + Yemen (Al-Rassi) in their project in the link below
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Qurayishj1c3d?iframe=yresults

i think that J1-FGC10500 = descendants of Ali bin Abi-Talib is clear as the sun in a bright day ... and they have common ancestor with the rest of Adnani tribes under FGC1723 .. while those who claim ancestry under G haplogroup are alone for 7200 years .. no other Arabian tribe with them .. and no samples from Saudi Arabia

Shamash
02-23-2021, 04:11 PM
Not surprised to see another empty claim without any proof!!

Then read KLMDG's post and take a look at the FTDNA J-L859 Project Page! I am aware of three kits, all members of the royal Jordanian family, that are L859.

Just because it's not your lineage doesn't make your lineage likelier to be of Ali's descent especially when the TMRCAs are not matching...

Shamash
02-23-2021, 04:22 PM
Here's the Yfull Link with the aforementioned perfect TMRCA of 1400ybP:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Y12361/

43473

Not to mention the fact that J1-FGC11 is THE dominant and paradigmatic y-DNA marker of Arabian people both of Qahtani and Adnani heritage.

So why - if all these origin legends of Jews and Arabs are true - should any other haplogroup than J1-FGC11 be Ali's lineage?

Kanpes
02-23-2021, 04:34 PM
there is a sample tested by hand by Shiekh Abd-ALaziz Al-Khalifah (royal family of Bahrain) tested the descendant of Nassir bin Ali (brother of Hussain bin Ali - Sherif of Makkah) and he's J1-L859
https://twitter.com/jassasty8849/status/1159345583544573952
this isn't a solo test .. Dhawi 'Awn (the house which Hussain bin Ali is from) of Bani Qatadah have been tested many many times .. 10's of times all L859
you can see the results of Bani Hashem in Hijaz (Banu Qatadah) + Yemen (Al-Rassi) in their project in the link below
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Qurayishj1c3d?iframe=yresults

i think that J1-FGC10500 = descendants of Ali bin Abi-Talib is clear as the sun in a bright day ... and they have common ancestor with the rest of Adnani tribes under FGC1723 .. while those who claim ancestry under G haplogroup are alone for 7200 years .. no other Arabian tribe with them .. and no samples from Saudi Arabia

no one ? how about druze (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Druze?iframe=yresults) ? they've tested for G also
Druze has a strict rule about marriage also, very strict than Islam, especially the sharefs and sayyeds

no one ? alaouite dynasty were G
how about many G strain from arab ? (https://www.familytreedna.com/public/garabia/default.aspx?section=yresults)

again this completely "cherry picking" because they're famous people and I think they are represent all of descendant of Ahl Bait and voila, Ali ibn Abi Thalib was under L859

if you consider to be more scientific, then you guest, cherry picking ? nope, dig in into holy grave ? yes, because we have J and G claims, I'm not sure with the other like E or H or R or T, and don't forget to narrate "false history" when you finish dig into it, funny thing is this is what I want to my jewish friend when he want to proof a real kohanim, I said "just dig in aaron's tomb and see what haplogroup he has", he replied, "are you crazy ? that's blashpemy" :D

every sharef and sayyed has history of their family tree based on strong historical record and they cannot be easily judge them because they don't have the same haplogroup like ftdna group, so many things to do like find aDNA, find the "false historical record" and so on

Kanpes
02-23-2021, 04:50 PM
Not to mention the fact that J1-FGC11 is THE dominant and paradigmatic y-DNA marker of Arabian people both of Qahtani and Adnani heritage.

So why - if all these origin legends of Jews and Arabs are true - should any other haplogroup than J1-FGC11 be Ali's lineage?

you should know that G and E and T came before J, and when you have G and E and T and you are an arab person doesn't mean you are not trully semitic, right ?

qahtani and adnani were different lineage, qahtanid were the southern people and adnanid were nothern people, qahtanid (according to some historian, although this is not confirm, and I don't see any "qahtanid" people trully knew about their family tree) were descendant from joktan to noah and adnanid were descendant from adnan to ishmael

Shamash
02-24-2021, 07:57 AM
you should know that G and E and T came before J, and when you have G and E and T and you are an arab person doesn't mean you are not trully semitic, right ?

Nobody ever claimed that: as far as E is concerned it is likely the haplogroup that is most closely associated with the origin of Afroasiatic languages, J1-P58 on the other hand is the y-DNA marker associated with the spread of Semitic languages. If I take a look into the Arab FTDNA projects and scientific studies the two other y-DNA markers are simply minoritarian: G on average makes up only ca. 2% on average, T ca. 6%.

See also Abu Amero (2009):

https://bmcgenomdata.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-10-59

https://bmcgenomdata.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-10-59/tables/1

And this more recent PHD by Yahya Khubrani (2019) on p. 72:

https://leicester.figshare.com/articles/thesis/Genetic_Diversity_and_Population_Structure_of_Saud i_Arabia/11799858


qahtani and adnani were different lineage, qahtanid were the southern people and adnanid were nothern people, qahtanid (according to some historian, although this is not confirm, and I don't see any "qahtanid" people trully knew about their family tree) were descendant from joktan to noah and adnanid were descendant from adnan to ishmael

They might be two different lineages in the contructed traditional genealogies of Arabs. But the genetic evidence is that most Northern and Southern Arabs are descending from a common FGC11 ancestor that lived in the Bronze Age (3900ybP).

Ses also in this case the Yfull tree:

https://yfull.com/tree/J-FGC11/

And I repeat myself: if the common Abrahmic origin legends of Arabs were true (Arabs descending from Ishmael, Jews from Isaac) no other haplogroup would reflect that common origin better than y-DNA haplogroup J1.

Bytheway I am highly sceptical and am inclined to consider these myths as the memories of a common (genetic) origin of the two peoples and a evidence to that.

Kanpes
02-24-2021, 08:58 AM
Nobody ever claimed that: as far as E is concerned it is likely the haplogroup that is most closely associated with the origin of afroasiatic languages, J1-P58 on the other hand is the y-DNA marker associated with the spread of Semitic languages.


nobody ever claimed that ?

haplogroup G was come in some area in near east too
https://i.ibb.co/pJJmGJX/b34.jpg

source (https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201286)

just like J-P58
https://i.ibb.co/z54Pm3B/b33.jpg

and T way before J-P58 reach near east
https://i.ibb.co/SKjsJw0/b35.jpg

so I don't know, just because their aDNA haplogroup (G, T) still missing in somewhere some place in near east, or their samples were extremely low, they don't belong to time of spreading semitic language, even that haplogroups were originate in near east ?


They might be two different lineages in the contructed traditional genealogies of Arabs. But the genetic evidence is that most Northern and Southern Arabs are descending from a common FGC11 ancestor that lived in the Bronze Age (3900ybP).

Ses also in this case the Yfull tree:

https://yfull.com/tree/J-FGC11/

yep I know FGC11, but first of all, all of FGC11 samples were not exclusively to arab, some of them were jewish and even turkish,
and 2nd, noah was born in 2445 BC, then the "qahtanite narrative" completely false, however there is another qahtan tribe who claimed from son of prophet hud, and they migrated to some place especially in kuwait were the most of them live in (Bani Hajer), so who is the righterous one to proclaim qahtanite :D


And I repeat myself: if the common Abrahmic origin legends of Arabs were true (Arabs descending from Ishmael, Jews from Isaac) no other haplogroup would reflect that common origin better than y-DNA haplogroup J1

even Adam was probably J1 :D
biblical time and jewish calendar were tell you that Adam was born in 5th or 4th Centuries BC

Ibne Sharif
02-24-2021, 11:10 AM
Nobody ever claimed that: as far as E is concerned it is likely the haplogroup that is most closely associated with the origin of Afroasiatic languages, J1-P58 on the other hand is the y-DNA marker associated with the spread of Semitic languages. If I take a look into the Arab FTDNA projects and scientific studies the two other y-DNA markers are simply minoritarian: G on average makes up only ca. 2% on average, T ca. 6%.

See also Abu Amero (2009):

https://bmcgenomdata.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-10-59

https://bmcgenomdata.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-10-59/tables/1

And this more recent PHD by Yahya Khubrani (2019) on p. 72:

file:///C:/Users/mkuts/AppData/Local/Temp/2019KhubraniYMYPHD.pdf



They might be two different lineages in the contructed traditional genealogies of Arabs. But the genetic evidence is that most Northern and Southern Arabs are descending from a common FGC11 ancestor that lived in the Bronze Age (3900ybP).

Ses also in this case the Yfull tree:

https://yfull.com/tree/J-FGC11/

And I repeat myself: if the common Abrahmic origin legends of Arabs were true (Arabs descending from Ishmael, Jews from Isaac) no other haplogroup would reflect that common origin better than y-DNA haplogroup J1.

Bytheway I am highly sceptical and am inclined to consider these myths as the memories of a common (genetic) origin of the two peoples and a evidence to that.

The origin of G in the Caucasus based on old studies that did not do adequate SNP testing, as well as the lack of detailed testing of G in other parts of the world. In addition to all this, this new study of the ancient DNA of the two G Caucasus of the people found there, one G2b of some kind of Kura-Araxes culture of about 4000 BC, another G2a2a-PF3147 of the Maykop culture of the Northwest Caucasus of about 2500 BCE. The culture of Kura-Araxes spread throughout the northern Fertile Crescent. While Maykop culture was unique in the North Caucasus. This type of G2a2a-PF3147 was found everywhere, from the Neolithic period in Anatolia and Europe to the Bronze Age in Uzbekistan and Iron Age Swat Valley in Pakistan. Obviously this is a farmer descendant moving north.

Many of the older individuals of the Caucasus are J2a1, J1, and L1a, but not G. As we have seen in other studies, J1 and J2a1 are aboriginal people of the Caucasus, so this makes sense.
Yotaphone @AbdullAlrhamah ما نراه في "علم الأنساب الجيني" العربي هو مجرد ترشيح للدعاية من FTDNA. يدعي FTDNA حتى الآن أنه يمكنهم اختبار النسب من الأنبياء ، ولكن ليس لديهم أي دليل على الإطلاق لدعم هذه المطالبة ، باستثناء دراسة استخدمت 6 STRS من عام 1997. (BTW ، لم تكن جميع J1. لم يكن اختبار SNP دحض بعض المؤلفين أنفسهم ، المرتبطين بـ FTDNA ، استنتاجات دراسة 1997 هذه في دراسة أخرى من عام 2009 ، لكن لم يتم الإعلان عنها من قبل FTDNA. راجع للشغل ، FTDNA نفسها لم تدع ابدا ان سلالة G كانت من القوقاز (وكذلك لم National Geographic) ولكن أولئك الذين يكررون ما يقول FTDNA كما لو كان الكتاب المقدس لا يقتبس هذا عن سلالة G أما.

أيضا ، لا تقليد العشائر العربية يقول أن العديد من العرب ينحدرون من قبيلة إملاق ، الذي جاء من بلاد الشام. وهذا يتفق مباشرة مع تاريخ الأموريين ، وأصول J1-P58 في بلاد الشام بين الأموريين. هذا مدعوم الآن من قبل العلوم والحمض النووي القديم. أترك الأمر لعبد الله البدران لشرح نسب إملق. لماذا العديد من القبائل العربية اليوم تدعي أنها من عدنان وقحطان بدلاً من إملق هي مسألة أخرى ، هذه مسألة مع دقة الأنساب القبلية. هناك شيء واحد مؤكد: إن "إملق" لم "تختفي" في الجزيرة العربية ، وكانوا يشكلون في وقت من الأوقات غالبية سكان الجزيرة العربية.

What we see in Arab "Genetic Genealogy" is just a parroting of the propaganda from FTDNA. FTDNA even now claims that they can test for descent from Prophets, but they have no evidence at all to back up this claim, except a study that used 6 STRs from 1997. (BTW, these were not even all J1. SNP testing did not exist at the time.) Some of the very same authors, who are associated with FTDNA, refuted the conclusions of this 1997 study in another study from 2009, but this was not publicized by FTDNA. BTW, FTDNA itself never claimed that dynasty G was from the Caucasus (and neither did National Geographic) but those who repeat what FTDNA says as if it were scripture never quote this about dynasty G either.


Also, doesn't Arab tribal tradition say that many Arabians descend from the tribe of Imlaq , who came from the Levant. This is directly in accord with the history of the Amorites, and the origins of J1-P58 in the Levant among the Amorites. This is backed up now by science and ancient DNA. I leave it to Abdullah Albadran to explain the genealogy of 'Imlaq. Why many Arab tribes today claim to be from Adnan and Qahtan instead of Imlaq is another matter, that's an issue with the accuracy of tribal genealogies. One thing is certain: Imlaq didn't "vanish" in Arabia, and they did at one time make up the majority of the inhabitants of Arabia.

CREDIT TO MR. BANI HASHEM ON FTDNA G FORUM.

Ibne Sharif
02-24-2021, 11:32 AM
The Quraysh's progenitor was Fihr ibn Malik, whose full genealogy, according to traditional Arab sources, was the following: Fihr ibn Mālik ibn al-Naḍr ibn Kināna ibn Khuzayma ibn Mudrika ibn Ilyās ibn Muḍar ibn Nizār ibn Maʿadd ibn ʿAdnān. Thus, Fihr belonged to the Kinana tribe and his descent is traced to Adnan, the semi-legendary father of the "northern Arabs". According to the traditional sources, Fihr led the warriors of Kinana and Khuzayma in defense of the Ka'aba, at the time a major pagan sanctuary in Mecca, against tribes from Yemen; however, the sanctuary and the privileges associated with it continued to be in the hands of the Yemeni Khuza'a tribe. The Quraysh gained their name when Qusayy ibn Kilab, a sixth-generation descendant of Fihr ibn Malik, gathered together his kinsmen and took control of the Ka'aba. Prior to this, Fihr's offspring lived in scattered, nomadic groups among their Kinana relatives. (Credit of text goes to Wikipedia.)

Now think on the word "Northern Arabs" VS the "Southern Arabs" and correlate the present with G VS J1. :) B)
43505

Ibne Sharif
02-24-2021, 11:49 AM
Well said, People who are buying the J1 on face value shall also consider how much of the Cohanim Rabbanical linages falls in J1 and how much falls in G. obviously it shall open their eyes. Also, don't forget that G is more prevalent in jews by Blood and not conversion. when I say there is agenda of this disinformation campaign, it's the J1 Cohanim fueling against the blood Jews of G Haplogroups.

Shamash
02-24-2021, 01:21 PM
I haven't read so much nonsense for a very long time and will leave it up to you two to continue this pointless and lost discussion. As far as Jewish Cohanim are concerned more than 50% are J1 and not G bytheway. Have a nice day!

Lupriac
02-24-2021, 06:39 PM
you should know that G and E and T came before J, and when you have G and E and T and you are an arab person doesn't mean you are not trully semitic, right ?

That's one very weird claim. Semitic speakers aren't genetically uniform, there's Semitic-speakers as far as Ethiopia. Proto-Semitic-speakers belonged to an amalgam of different haplogroups, and all the other haplogroups you mentioned were probably there as well, though we don't have any proto-Semitic-speaking individuals. Besides, one can be descended from proto-Semitic-speakers autosomally, your paternal haplogroup only comprises a small amount of your genome (~2%), and the rest of your genome from others.

Agamemnon
02-24-2021, 06:39 PM
Well said, People who are buying the J1 on face value shall also consider how much of the Cohanim Rabbanical linages falls in J1 and how much falls in G. obviously it shall open their eyes. Also, don't forget that G is more prevalent in jews by Blood and not conversion. when I say there is agenda of this disinformation campaign, it's the J1 Cohanim fueling against the blood Jews of G Haplogroups.

Remind me, what's the actual percentage of G Kohanim already? And what branch are we dealing with exactly? I keep forgetting for some reason.

Ibne Sharif
02-24-2021, 07:16 PM
The detailed breakdown by 6-marker haplotype (the paper's Table B, available only online) suggests that at least some of these groups (e.g. E3b, R1b) contain more than one distinct Kohen lineage. It is possible that other lineages may also exist, but were not captured in the sample.

Hammer et al. (2009) identified Cohanim from diverse backgrounds, having in all 21 differing Y-chromosome haplogroups: E-M78, E-M123, G-M285, G-P15, G-M377, H-M69, I-M253, J-P58, J-M172*, J-M410*, J-M67, J-M68, J-M318, J-M12, L-M20, Q-M378, R-M17, R-P25*, R-M269, R-M124 AND T-M70.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron#Kohanim_in_other_haplogroups

Below is a quote from a Jewish DNA study. (Jeffery Mark Paul ?)

There are, of course, other explanations for the ethnic origin of the Jewish G2a1a cluster. Bennett Greenspan stated that about 10% of Ashkenazi Jews are in haplogroup G and that the percentage for Sephardic Jews and Arabs is about the same; in contrast, only about 3% of Ukrainians are in haplogroup G.74F75 This would appear to support a Middle Eastern ethnic origin for the Jewish G2a1a cluster.
Greenspan also pointed out that conquering groups (e.g., Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Mongols, Romans, Cossacks), would rape the women and slaves that they conquered and that Jewish women raised their offspring as Jews, so that the introgression of foreign genes into the Jewish gene pool provides another possible explanation.

The same situation has happened with the Sadaat linages where a Child born on the bed has been legitimized as a family name carrier or The Wives/Cocubines previously bored Kids passed on the claim to the linage. This is one quite logical explanation to the many diverse Haplo Group claiming the Hashemite descent.

Agamemnon
02-24-2021, 07:32 PM
Here's Fig. 2 from Hammer et al. (2009):


https://i.imgur.com/Z2HTk2t.jpg

royaljoker
02-25-2021, 06:33 PM
Disclaimer: I'm not a geneticist. But I'm a neurologist by profession and have read and taken part in a fair amount of Medical Research.

I previously haven't seen the J-L859 claim as being Alid very strong. But with the evidence on this thread of the awn branch of the Sharifs of Makkah being largely L859 . I think it's a very strong contender if not the strongest.

I wouldn't go so far as to say its a perfect match or say that its a definitive Alid Haplogroup. I read on another blog that was actually pro J-L859 (though not the best source I do commend the author for being non-Biased) that the J-L859 branch of Hashemites seems to have developed outside of Hejaz and seems to have come from an Israelite source rather than Ishmaelite (that the ancestor of the Prophet (Saw) was a descendant of Isaac who seems to have integrated himself into Meccan society). Then of course there are other issues like no clear definition of Arabs as Adnan and Qahtan. In and of itself I would say thats not a big issue. But when we do thing in the medical world, and if we're assessing a certain time range for a disease. We have to take everything thats written about it into account -whether or not we accept it is another thing. ESPECIALLY if its from the same source. Which in the Prophet's (saw) case would be hadith. So to me the whole Adnanite-Qahtanite thing as well as the prophet (saw) being a descendant of Abraham are pretty much the same weight as historical information. And to pick and choose what fits your hypothesis is really just confirmation bias. Either you take them both or reject them both. If the whole andante thing doesnt exist then prehaps the prophet (saw) isn't related to the Cohenim (I'm not saying that but I'm just trying to explain a point)

So I find it strange that while people feel that the cohenim haplgroup being the same supports the contention of the J-L859 being Hashemite they ignore the other factors which generally weigh the same. In the end L859 might just be the Hashemite haplogroup but if we're looking at the Prophet's (saw) dna we should really only look at his and not make other assumptions and if we do make those assumptions i dont think there should be picking and choosing.

I also have deep reservations about how the whole research is being conducted. Because FTDNA has essentially taken the Jordanian Y-DNA. Tested it and said that since it aligns with the Cohanim it must be the Alid one. Which seems to me as being chalk full of assumptions and logical fallacies. If they want to discover the Prophet's (saw) Dna they should really sample the population of sayyids with verified genealogies. So far even a certain branch of the Sharifs of Makkah have come out as R1a R-Y6 (Al Hawashim) -you'll have to take my word for it. Which in the very least proves that the Sharifs of Makkah are not immune to non-paternity events and hence the assumptions that Awn represent the Alid line are even more fragile. Then if we really look at the results that have been made public so far. Of the really big Hashemite Political families from Idrisi to Ukhaidarites (the latter test the same as the Al Hawashim). Only Awn comes as L859 and the Rassi (but mind you these Rassi are Levantine and so much more distantly related to the head of that cadet branch). Indeed of the Quraysh families that are the most important Shaibites have come as R1a R-Y7.

Whenever a topic of the Prophet's (saw) haplogroup comes up, invariably so does the FTDNA project with J-L859. But that project has some problems in my view. They accept anyone who claims a sayyid lineage and is J-L859. In some cases people with fairly shoddy lineages too. Sometimes even people who doubt that they are sayyids get a sense of "confirmation of their sayyidness" by testing positive for J-L859 which to me is circular reasoning especially when J-L859 is still out for debate. And when theres no verification process, well that screams to me of confirmation bias. Theres quite a few Sub-par families there, that perhaps would not be accepted by islamic genealogist as being sayyid but are admitted anyway. There are Jacobites in that project which at least suggests that L859 might not be exclusive to Alids. When it comes to Alids, several families have equal footing with the Awn branch in terms of lineage, and that includes the Ba'alawi. I don't think anyone can take the legitimacy of the Ba'alawi away from them based on lineage. They're older than the Sharifs of Makkah. Are very well documented and have had a huge political footprint if not a religious one.

This is just my two cents on the whole thing. I wish people were more sanguine about it. Things get Ad hominem very quickly on this topic. And I feel people both for and against J-L859 get really heated about their Hypothesis. If the Ba'alawi (or which ever Hashemite clan whether they are E or R or whatever) fit the TMRCA. Seem to be exclusively Hashemite. Then I think they should be given a chance and due consideration, until by way of elimination they are removed. Even if G might be a minority among Arabs. Adnanites should be a minority anyway.

In the end it might just be that J-L859 is the winner. But at the moment I feel like there are still a lot of fallacies, assumptions and dodgy scientific processes. People have already come to a conclusion that J-L859 is Alid. And I think that hinders progress. Because other haplogroup Hashemites submit themselves to FTDNA projects far less than those from J1 or J2. And no one is going around sampling verified genealogies and go with a process of elimination (rather they're jumping to the Awn Branch) -as was done with cohenim but seems to have been ignored for Quraysh.

Edit: (saw) = Abrehviation of Peace be upon him in arabic.

royaljoker
02-25-2021, 06:43 PM
Also I dont wanna get drawn into some long argument of the Prophet's(saw) Y-DNA. This is just my view of things.

hartaisarlag
02-25-2021, 08:46 PM
its a perfect match or say that its a definitive Alid Haplogroup. I read on another blog that was actually pro J-L859 (though not the best source I do commend the author for being non-Biased) that the J-L859 branch of Hashemites seems to have developed outside of Hejaz and seems to have come from an Israelite source rather than Ishmaelite (that the ancestor of the Prophet (Saw) was a descendant of Isaac who seems to have integrated himself into Meccan society). Then of course there are other issues like no clear definition of Arabs as Adnan and Qahtan. In and of itself I would say thats not a big issue. But when we do thing in the medical world, and if we're assessing a certain time range for a disease. We have to take everything thats written about it into account -whether or not we accept it is another thing. ESPECIALLY if its from the same source. Which in the Prophet's (saw) case would be hadith. So to me the whole Adnanite-Qahtanite thing as well as the prophet (saw) being a descendant of Abraham are pretty much the same weight as historical information. And to pick and choose what fits your hypothesis is really just confirmation bias. Either you take them both or reject them both. If the whole andante thing doesnt exist then prehaps the prophet (saw) isn't related to the Cohenim (I'm not saying that but I'm just trying to explain a point)

So I find it strange that while people feel that the cohenim haplgroup being the same supports the contention of the J-L859 being Hashemite they ignore the other factors which generally weigh the same. In the end L859 might just be the Hashemite haplogroup but if we're looking at the Prophet's (saw) dna we should really only look at his and not make other assumptions and if we do make those assumptions i dont think there should be picking and choosing.

I also have deep reservations about how the whole research is being conducted. Because FTDNA has essentially taken the Jordanian Y-DNA. Tested it and said that since it aligns with the Cohanim it must be the Alid one.

The link between Arab (and likely Seyyid) J-L859 and Jewish J-ZS2102 is definitely worthy of exploration, but a point of clarification: this small Jewish (and so far, entirely Ashkenazi) branch is nowhere near the main pan-Jewish J1 kohen branch (J-Z18271).

Given their common ancestry ca. 1100 BCE, a date that roughly coincides with both the Israelite and Arab ethnogeneses, as well as conflicting circumstantial evidence (on one hand, J-Y6074/FGC8712's heavily Arab phylogenetic neighborhood; on the other, the Jewish branch's direct upstream Armenian link), it is very hard to say whether the common ancestor of this branch was Israelite/Israelite-adjacent or Arab, and whether he lived in the Levant or in Arabia. And say, perhaps, he lived on the eastern fringe of the southern Levant, which would explain a lot (likelier than an origin deep in Arabia, given that Armenian connection)—did the ancestor of Jewish J-ZS2102 enter the Israelite/Jewish gene pool around, say, 1100 BCE, or much later, perhaps, during classical times (think: Idumeans)? Or, if J-Y6074/FGC8712 was firmly Israelite, when between 1100 BCE and late classical times did the ancestors of the Quraysh make it down from Israel to the Hejaz?

royaljoker
02-25-2021, 09:42 PM
The link between Arab (and likely Seyyid) J-L859 and Jewish J-ZS2102 is definitely worthy of exploration, but a point of clarification: this small Jewish (and so far, entirely Ashkenazi) branch is nowhere near the main pan-Jewish J1 kohen branch (J-Z18271).

Given their common ancestry ca. 1100 BCE, a date that roughly coincides with both the Israelite and Arab ethnogeneses, as well as conflicting circumstantial evidence (on one hand, J-Y6074/FGC8712's heavily Arab phylogenetic neighborhood; on the other, the Jewish branch's direct upstream Armenian link), it is very hard to say whether the common ancestor of this branch was Israelite/Israelite-adjacent or Arab, and whether he lived in the Levant or in Arabia. And say, perhaps, he lived on the eastern fringe of the southern Levant, which would explain a lot (likelier than an origin deep in Arabia, given that Armenian connection)—did the ancestor of Jewish J-ZS2102 enter the Israelite/Jewish gene pool around, say, 1100 BCE, or much later, perhaps, during classical times (think: Idumeans)? Or, if J-Y6074/FGC8712 was firmly Israelite, when between 1100 BCE and late classical times did the ancestors of the Quraysh make it down from Israel to the Hejaz?

Thanks !!

The interesting things that are worth pointing out (taken from the book "Muhammad: His life based on the earliest sources")

1. Ishmael comes with his mother Hagar and settles in the Valley of Makkah and marries a Jurhamite women
2. He asserts that the Kaba was visited by Jews until idolatry began -which is attributed to the Jurhamites
2. The Yemeni Jurhamites come to makkah and increasingly become overbearing until they are driven out at some point for their injustices.
3. The Tribe of Khuza'a take over Makkah. They're Ishmaelite and at some point went to Yemen (from Makkah) only to return back north
4. A chieftain of the Khuza'a, on a return trip from Syria, convinces the Moabites to give him a diety and so he brings back the Moabite diety of Hubal and sets it in Makkah
6. Qusay (son of Kilab son of Murrah son of Ka'ab son of Lu'ay son of Ghalib son of Fihr -aka Quraysh, Quraysh is a sort of Nickname attributed to Fihr by sunnis and hence his descendants are called Quraysh while Shia ascribe it to Qusai only. but they do this for political reasons to exclude the first two caliphs as legible for succession), said to live around 400 years after Christ, marries a daughter of the Khuza'ite chief Hulayl and succeeds him as ruler of Makkah and also becomes King

If Qusay lived around 400ad and there are 16 generations after Adnan until you reach Qusay (who is the 16th). Judging by my own (oriental) family tree that would be about 500 years. So we could assume Adnan to have lived around 100bc. But most histories I've read, place him around the time of Jeremiah (as). I'm not sure how friendly they were to their Jewish cousins, because Ishmaeilites seemed to have according to traditions (though I'm not sure how strong) have participated in conflicts against their cousins in Israel. Right up to Ma'ad son of Adnan.

In following with the prophet himself. Muslim scholars shun mentioning the names between Abraham (as) and the prophet (saw). Imam Malik the founder of the one of the Sunni Schools of Jurisprudence held anyone who could claim to trace their lineage from before Adnan as a lier. But at the same time the scholars affirm his descent from Abraham (as)

subzero85
02-25-2021, 09:50 PM
The detailed breakdown by 6-marker haplotype (the paper's Table B, available only online) suggests that at least some of these groups (e.g. E3b, R1b) contain more than one distinct Kohen lineage. It is possible that other lineages may also exist, but were not captured in the sample.

Hammer et al. (2009) identified Cohanim from diverse backgrounds, having in all 21 differing Y-chromosome haplogroups: E-M78, E-M123, G-M285, G-P15, G-M377, H-M69, I-M253, J-P58, J-M172*, J-M410*, J-M67, J-M68, J-M318, J-M12, L-M20, Q-M378, R-M17, R-P25*, R-M269, R-M124 AND T-M70.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron#Kohanim_in_other_haplogroups

Below is a quote from a Jewish DNA study. (Jeffery Mark Paul ?)

There are, of course, other explanations for the ethnic origin of the Jewish G2a1a cluster. Bennett Greenspan stated that about 10% of Ashkenazi Jews are in haplogroup G and that the percentage for Sephardic Jews and Arabs is about the same; in contrast, only about 3% of Ukrainians are in haplogroup G.74F75 This would appear to support a Middle Eastern ethnic origin for the Jewish G2a1a cluster.
Greenspan also pointed out that conquering groups (e.g., Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Mongols, Romans, Cossacks), would rape the women and slaves that they conquered and that Jewish women raised their offspring as Jews, so that the introgression of foreign genes into the Jewish gene pool provides another possible explanation.

The same situation has happened with the Sadaat linages where a Child born on the bed has been legitimized as a family name carrier or The Wives/Cocubines previously bored Kids passed on the claim to the linage. This is one quite logical explanation to the many diverse Haplo Group claiming the Hashemite descent.

There's Cohanim that are H-M69?

royaljoker
02-25-2021, 09:55 PM
To be clear.

It seems that there is archaeological evidence of Adnan being somewhat contemporary to Jeremiah. The Namara Inscription would also position him as being firmly before 326 BC.

Here I've essentially just copied and pasted from Wiki.But it would seem to suggest that Adnan had been Hijazi.

"
From the poems composed by Pre-Islamic poets, and from their statements, it can be concluded that Ma'ad was more venerated and more important than his father Adnan, evidenced by the number of times when he was mentioned in Pre-Islamic poetries, and how he was described and honored by his descendants' tribes when boasting against other tribes, some other poets even considered it as "disgrace" not to be a descendant of Adnan and Ma'ad.[11][12]

Some other poems also celebrated and honored the victory of the people of Ma'ad against the tribe of Madh'hij in South Arabia.[13][14]

When the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II attacked the Qedarite Arabs during the time of Adnan, Ma'ad was sent away by his father, and after the defeat of the Qedarite and the death of both Adnan and Nebuchadnezzar II, many Adnanites who were not forced to live in Mesopotamia have fled away to Yemen, but Ma'ad, as the successor of his father, ordered them to return to Hijaz and Northern Arabia.[15][16][17][18]

The defeat and displacement of the people of Ma'ad seemed to be viewed by Pre-Islamic Arabs as a disastrous event, so that it was used as a proverbial measure in describing the horror of their later defeats.[19][20]

In Pre-Islamic Poetry[edit]
Ma'ad, unlike his father, was mentioned countless times by Pre-Islamic Arab poets across the whole Arabian Peninsula, including Ghassanid and Christian poets, even in the famous Seven Mu'allaqat.

From those poems, it can be seen that Ma'ad was venerated by Pre-Islamic Arabs, and for some reason, they believed that all the glories throughout the whole Arab history is considered nothing when compared to the glory of Ma'ad.[21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]

From some other poems, it appears that the nation of Ma'ad presented a large majority among Pre-Islamic Arabs.[31][32][33]

In Nabataean Inscriptions[edit]
Ma'ad was mentioned by name in the Namara inscription as a nation that was conquered by the Lakhmid king Imru' al-Qays ibn 'Amr, along with other Arab nation from North, Central-West and South Arabia.[34][35][36][37]

From some of the reports of about the relations between the Lakhmids and the nation of Ma'ad, it can be concluded that the kings of the Northern Arab kingdoms feared them and viewed them as mighty opponent because of their powerful war tactics, even when they conquered them, they treated their kings with high respect as important people, and gave them large conquered colonies to rule, as reported in the Namara inscription.[38] Such views are also supported by the Classical Arabic writings.[39][40]
"


I also think that it may very well have been that Adnan would be a minority haplgroup and that several other adnanites had essentially "adopted" the Adnanite mantel seeing as it was a "disgrace" to not descend from Adnan or Ma'ad. Adoption being an acceptable method of transferring lineage non-biologically. But what can be said is that the biological descendants of Adnan should have a fairly stark difference from Qahtanites. As Adnanite would be foreigners who were Arabised as descendants of Ishmael while Qahtanites had been solidly established by the time of Ishmael's arrival. Guessing by the fact that tribes such as Jurham were already established.

royaljoker
02-26-2021, 06:00 PM
The link between Arab (and likely Seyyid) J-L859 and Jewish J-ZS2102 is definitely worthy of exploration, but a point of clarification: this small Jewish (and so far, entirely Ashkenazi) branch is nowhere near the main pan-Jewish J1 kohen branch (J-Z18271).

Given their common ancestry ca. 1100 BCE, a date that roughly coincides with both the Israelite and Arab ethnogeneses, as well as conflicting circumstantial evidence (on one hand, J-Y6074/FGC8712's heavily Arab phylogenetic neighborhood; on the other, the Jewish branch's direct upstream Armenian link), it is very hard to say whether the common ancestor of this branch was Israelite/Israelite-adjacent or Arab, and whether he lived in the Levant or in Arabia. And say, perhaps, he lived on the eastern fringe of the southern Levant, which would explain a lot (likelier than an origin deep in Arabia, given that Armenian connection)—did the ancestor of Jewish J-ZS2102 enter the Israelite/Jewish gene pool around, say, 1100 BCE, or much later, perhaps, during classical times (think: Idumeans)? Or, if J-Y6074/FGC8712 was firmly Israelite, when between 1100 BCE and late classical times did the ancestors of the Quraysh make it down from Israel to the Hejaz?

Btw when you say that 1100 BCE, roughly co-incides with Israelite and Arab ethnogeneses. Would that mean that a Y-Abraham would be dated to that time period rather than the historical views of him as being circa. 2000 BCE (+/- some hundred years) ?

Edit: And would that date be based on Genetics/ Archealogy or both ? I had previously been under the impression that the Hyksos represented the Hebrew presence in Egypt, and if they are date to circa. 1500 BCE it would indicate that the Hebrew nation pre-dated 1100 BCE.

Equally I'm not sure if Hyksos being Hebrews is just pseudoscience. I'm not that well read on jewish history.

pmokeefe
02-26-2021, 07:26 PM
Btw when you say that 1100 BCE, roughly co-incides with Israelite and Arab ethnogeneses. Would that mean that a Y-Abraham would be dated to that time period rather than the historical views of him as being circa. 2000 BCE (+/- some hundred years) ?

Edit: And would that date be based on Genetics/ Archealogy or both ? I had previously been under the impression that the Hyksos represented the Hebrew presence in Egypt, and if they are date to circa. 1500 BCE it would indicate that the Hebrew nation pre-dated 1100 BCE.

Equally I'm not sure if Hyksos being Hebrews is just pseudoscience. I'm not that well read on jewish history.

There was a thread on the Hyksos in 2020:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21088-Who-were-the-Hyksos-Challenging-traditional-narratives-(Stantis-et-al-2020)

royaljoker
02-27-2021, 10:22 PM
There was a thread on the Hyksos in 2020:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21088-Who-were-the-Hyksos-Challenging-traditional-narratives-(Stantis-et-al-2020)

So from that thread it can be concluded that Hyksos were Levantines. Whether they were Hebrew is not yet determined. ??

KLMDG
02-28-2021, 12:14 AM
-----

KLMDG
02-28-2021, 12:39 AM
The Quraysh's progenitor was Fihr ibn Malik, whose full genealogy, according to traditional Arab sources, was the following: Fihr ibn Mālik ibn al-Naḍr ibn Kināna ibn Khuzayma ibn Mudrika ibn Ilyās ibn Muḍar ibn Nizār ibn Maʿadd ibn ʿAdnān. Thus, Fihr belonged to the Kinana tribe and his descent is traced to Adnan, the semi-legendary father of the "northern Arabs". According to the traditional sources, Fihr led the warriors of Kinana and Khuzayma in defense of the Ka'aba, at the time a major pagan sanctuary in Mecca, against tribes from Yemen; however, the sanctuary and the privileges associated with it continued to be in the hands of the Yemeni Khuza'a tribe. The Quraysh gained their name when Qusayy ibn Kilab, a sixth-generation descendant of Fihr ibn Malik, gathered together his kinsmen and took control of the Ka'aba. Prior to this, Fihr's offspring lived in scattered, nomadic groups among their Kinana relatives. (Credit of text goes to Wikipedia.)

Now think on the word "Northern Arabs" VS the "Southern Arabs" and correlate the present with G VS J1. :) B)
43505

you need to realize that our line (J1-L858) is northern ... same goes for its ancestor lines + as well as FGC11 which dominates the Bedioun population in Saudi Arabia
not southern ..
regardless, your haplogroup arrived into the Peninsula in post-islamic era (centuries after the conquest), it doesn't fit the time of Ali R.A let alone the narrative of Ismael arriving thousands of years ago at all , also it has 0 Arabian tribes in it especially in Najd and Hejaz