Page 42 of 55 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 543

Thread: UP Syed Results

  1. #411
    Registered Users
    Posts
    91
    Sex

    Could someone give me a rundown of why J is the main contender and held on to so religiously by all geneticists, and what the second most likely contenders are like ba'alawi G, or idrisi/Senussi E. And why R is completely out of the picture, although Abraham was originally from Uch, it could be that he had R1a, and the Shaibites are R1a. And surely there is a confirmation bias in that all non-J sayyids are least likely to join research projects. And if J is indeed found out then where is the Adnan/Qahtan divide. One hardly sees something like R1a among the Qahtanites (I may be wrong I'm not up to date).

    Also what would be the scenario of the Hashemites of Jordan were not J. What would be scientific conclusions then ? What if the Hashemites were G,E or R or something as remote as D?

    Personally, as one (somewhat religious scientist) once said to me, the science is too raw to be proclaiming something so grave as who is and who isn't a descendent of the prophet (this was some years back). But I'd still like to know about what the merit of each argument is. And I personally have a big belief in the Ba-alawis (something personal and unscientific, and of course if its proven without doubt that they aren't I'll accept it -though the science would have to have fully matured for me to accept it)

  2. #412
    Registered Users
    Posts
    91
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by royaljoker View Post
    Could someone give me a rundown of why J is the main contender and held on to so religiously by all geneticists, and what the second most likely contenders are like ba'alawi G, or idrisi/Senussi E. And why R is completely out of the picture, although Abraham was originally from Uch, it could be that he had R1a, and the Shaibites are R1a. And surely there is a confirmation bias in that all non-J sayyids are least likely to join research projects. And if J is indeed found out then where is the Adnan/Qahtan divide. One hardly sees something like R1a among the Qahtanites (I may be wrong I'm not up to date).

    Also what would be the scenario of the Hashemites of Jordan were not J. What would be scientific conclusions then ? What if the Hashemites were G,E or R or something as remote as D?

    Personally, as one (somewhat religious scientist) once said to me, the science is too raw to be proclaiming something so grave as who is and who isn't a descendent of the prophet (this was some years back). But I'd still like to know about what the merit of each argument is. And I personally have a big belief in the Ba-alawis (something personal and unscientific, and of course if its proven without doubt that they aren't I'll accept it -though the science would have to have fully matured for me to accept it)
    I'm not a luddite, I'm actually a medic by profession so I read medical papers, but I don't get the genetic anthropology world with their small sample sizes of 150 and grand conclusion jumping. And certain pre-requisite theories (although I've recently been told by a geneticist, that its been confirmed without doubt that jews are not khazars and so their J should be accepted scientifically)

    I'd like to wait some decades before accepting anything and even then as one user said I'd prefer it every sayyid claim was tested.

  3. #413
    Registered Users
    Posts
    91
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by royaljoker View Post
    I'm not a luddite, I'm actually a medic by profession so I read medical papers, but I don't get the genetic anthropology world with their small sample sizes of 150 and grand conclusion jumping. And certain pre-requisite theories (although I've recently been told by a geneticist, that its been confirmed without doubt that jews are not khazars and so their J should be accepted scientifically)

    I'd like to wait some decades before accepting anything and even then as one user said I'd prefer it every sayyid claim was tested.

    Also by no means am I looking down on the field I just think that like all scientific fields it needs time

  4. #414
    Registered Users
    Posts
    91
    Sex

    One last thing guys. R-L657 was the haplogroup of the Shaibites, does that mean they aren't in fact qurayshites. They are after all perhaps the second most solid pedigree of the muslim world (after the Hashemites of Jordon). Having had some divine intervention in their appointment as well.

    Also I was told by someone that the main J Haplogroup contender (can't remember what the exact subclade was called), didn't actually seem to develop in hejaz and seemed to have come from an Isaac descendent who migrated only some generations before the prophet (saw)

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to royaljoker For This Useful Post:

     parasar (12-02-2020)

  6. #415
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    8,006

    https://www.britannica.com/biography...nt-scholarship
    "The saga of Abraham unfolds between two landmarks, the exodus from “Ur of the Chaldeans” (Ur Kasdim) of the family, or clan, of Terah and “the purchase of” (or “the burials in”) the cave of Machpelah. Tradition seems particularly firm on this point. The Hebrew text, in fact, locates the departure specifically at Ur Kasdim, the Kasdim being none other than the Kaldu of the cuneiform texts at Mari. It is manifestly a migration of which one tribe is the centre. The leader of the movement is designated by name: Terah, who “takes them out” from Ur, Abram his son, Lot the son of Haran, another son of Terah, and their wives, the best known being Sarai, the wife of Abram. The existence of another son of Terah, Nahor, who appears later, is noted.
    Most scholars agree that Ur Kasdim was the Sumerian city of Ur, today Tall al-Muqayyar (or Mughair), about 200 miles (300 km) southeast of Baghdad in lower Mesopotamia, which was excavated from 1922 to 1934. It is certain that the cradle of the ancestors was the seat of a vigorous polytheism whose memory had not been lost and whose uncontested master in Ur was Nanna (or Sin), the Sumero-Akkadian moon god. “They served other gods,” Joshua, Moses’ successor, recalled, speaking to their descendants at Shechem.

    After the migration from Ur (c. 2000 BCE), the reasons for which are unknown, the first important stopping place was Harran, where the caravan remained for some time. The city has been definitely located in upper Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, in the Balikh valley and can be found on the site of the modern Harran in Turkey. It has been shown that Harran was a pilgrimage city, for it was a centre of the Sin cult and consequently closely related to the moon-god cult of Ur. The Mari tablets have shed new light on the patriarchal period, specifically in terms of the city of Harran.

    There have been many surprising items in the thousands of tablets found in the palace at Mari. Not only are the Ḫapiru (“Hebrews”) mentioned but so also remarkably are the Banu Yamina (“Benjaminites”). It is not that the latter are identical with the family of Benjamin, a son of Jacob, but rather that a name with such a biblical ring appears in these extrabiblical sources in the 18th century BCE. What seems beyond doubt is that these Benjaminites (or Yaminites, meaning “Sons of the Right,” or “Sons of the South,” according to their habits of orientation) are always indicated as being north of Mari and in Harran, in the Temple of Sin."


    Interestingly this south and right equivalency I had mentioned on another post about Deccan.
    "Ultimately from the word for right, which facing east, becomes south."
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post721075

  7. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to parasar For This Useful Post:

     Alain (12-03-2020),  deuterium_1 (12-02-2020),  Jatt1 (12-02-2020)

  8. #416
    Moderator
    Posts
    1,781
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Z93 (Indo-Aryan)
    mtDNA (M)
    H28/W(M) : H1b5
    Y-DNA (M)
    Wife (P) : R1a-Z280

    Quote Originally Posted by royaljoker View Post
    One last thing guys. R-L657 was the haplogroup of the Shaibites, does that mean they aren't in fact qurayshites. They are after all perhaps the second most solid pedigree of the muslim world (after the Hashemites of Jordon). Having had some divine intervention in their appointment as well.

    Also I was told by someone that the main J Haplogroup contender (can't remember what the exact subclade was called), didn't actually seem to develop in hejaz and seemed to have come from an Isaac descendent who migrated only some generations before the prophet (saw)
    The frequency of R1a-L657 outside the Gulf Region is below 2% and in Hejaz under 1% based on FTDNA. They are for sure a fascinating case but based on how very rare L657 is in in Hejaz we can not fully exclude that the lineage just arrived in the last 1500 years in the region. Based on how rare L657 likely was in Pre-Islamic/Early Islamic Arabia and frequent in South Asia the chance for a South Asian to have an Arab Syed L657 line are very very low if not close to null. I am sceptical about L657 before the Islamic period in Arabia because L657 was very rare or even absent among ancient Persians, Kurds and Levantines/Jews. I also would not associate Mitanni with L657 at least not for now (Indo-Aryan Mitanni could also be dominated by Z2123 or Z2122). So way or another L657 arrived most likely from Gedrosia, Central Asia and South Asia in the region. Contacts with this regions really intensified in the Islamic period so most L657 is likely post-Islamic.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Coldmountains For This Useful Post:

     Alain (12-03-2020),  royaljoker (12-03-2020)

  10. #417
    Registered Users
    Posts
    91
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by parasar View Post
    https://www.britannica.com/biography...nt-scholarship
    "The saga of Abraham unfolds between two landmarks, the exodus from “Ur of the Chaldeans” (Ur Kasdim) of the family, or clan, of Terah and “the purchase of” (or “the burials in”) the cave of Machpelah. Tradition seems particularly firm on this point. The Hebrew text, in fact, locates the departure specifically at Ur Kasdim, the Kasdim being none other than the Kaldu of the cuneiform texts at Mari. It is manifestly a migration of which one tribe is the centre. The leader of the movement is designated by name: Terah, who “takes them out” from Ur, Abram his son, Lot the son of Haran, another son of Terah, and their wives, the best known being Sarai, the wife of Abram. The existence of another son of Terah, Nahor, who appears later, is noted.
    Most scholars agree that Ur Kasdim was the Sumerian city of Ur, today Tall al-Muqayyar (or Mughair), about 200 miles (300 km) southeast of Baghdad in lower Mesopotamia, which was excavated from 1922 to 1934. It is certain that the cradle of the ancestors was the seat of a vigorous polytheism whose memory had not been lost and whose uncontested master in Ur was Nanna (or Sin), the Sumero-Akkadian moon god. “They served other gods,” Joshua, Moses’ successor, recalled, speaking to their descendants at Shechem.

    After the migration from Ur (c. 2000 BCE), the reasons for which are unknown, the first important stopping place was Harran, where the caravan remained for some time. The city has been definitely located in upper Mesopotamia, between the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers, in the Balikh valley and can be found on the site of the modern Harran in Turkey. It has been shown that Harran was a pilgrimage city, for it was a centre of the Sin cult and consequently closely related to the moon-god cult of Ur. The Mari tablets have shed new light on the patriarchal period, specifically in terms of the city of Harran.

    There have been many surprising items in the thousands of tablets found in the palace at Mari. Not only are the Ḫapiru (“Hebrews”) mentioned but so also remarkably are the Banu Yamina (“Benjaminites”). It is not that the latter are identical with the family of Benjamin, a son of Jacob, but rather that a name with such a biblical ring appears in these extrabiblical sources in the 18th century BCE. What seems beyond doubt is that these Benjaminites (or Yaminites, meaning “Sons of the Right,” or “Sons of the South,” according to their habits of orientation) are always indicated as being north of Mari and in Harran, in the Temple of Sin."


    Interestingly this south and right equivalency I had mentioned on another post about Deccan.
    "Ultimately from the word for right, which facing east, becomes south."
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....l=1#post721075
    Thats very very interesting Parasar, Btw Bani Yamina, in my minds refers to the Ishmaelites.

    In the middle east, concubines were often referred to as possessions of the right hand. Thats how the Quran refers to them (I'm sure the torah is proabably the same but its nothing i can confirm), and of course Hagar was a concubine of Abraham. If they aren't benjaminites then they would seem to be Ishmaelites.

    Also the arabs as a race used to view south as north. It wasn't until recently that the maps changed. For them yemen was north and syria was south.

  11. #418
    Registered Users
    Posts
    91
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    The frequency of R1a-L657 outside the Gulf Region is below 2% and in Hejaz under 1% based on FTDNA. They are for sure a fascinating case but based on how very rare L657 is in in Hejaz we can not fully exclude that the lineage just arrived in the last 1500 years in the region. Based on how rare L657 likely was in Pre-Islamic/Early Islamic Arabia and frequent in South Asia the chance for a South Asian to have an Arab Syed L657 line are very very low if not close to null. I am sceptical about L657 before the Islamic period in Arabia because L657 was very rare or even absent among ancient Persians, Kurds and Levantines/Jews. I also would not associate Mitanni with L657 at least not for now (Indo-Aryan Mitanni could also be dominated by Z2123 or Z2122). So way or another L657 arrived most likely from Gedrosia, Central Asia and South Asia in the region. Contacts with this regions really intensified in the Islamic period so most L657 is likely post-Islamic.

    But thats the thing, what if R isn't submitting to the projects because they're being told they aren't Arab, a bit like what we're doing here with U.P. Sayyids, how many of the U.P. Sayyids who got R are really going to submit themselves compared to those who got J. Are there any independent surveys of arabs, apart from self-submission projects ?

    If you look at the R1a Arabia FTDNA project, and under the "R1a (Z93+ > Z94+ > FT1974531+ ‹+F2597›) (M634+)››L657+››Y5+" sub heading. You'll find that those arabs are quite old arabs. They share a minute genetic distance with Shaibites. Most if not all of the group are hashemites of prominent lineages. Of course you're right, its a very small group to reflect the main line of Hashemites. But I feel that there isn't something quite right about the sampling and I readily admit this isn't my field and I barely know anything so really my conclusions should be taken with a pinch of salt -just being humble.

    Something I find quite confusing is that Indian R-L657 is said to have come from the broad middle east (with the aryan invasion), but arabian R-L657 is not accepted as being purely middle eastern. Could it not have been the case that some pockets remained ? On Y-Full, R-Y167746 is said to be about 1650 years old, and every name under it is completely arab and belongs to the aforementioned Arab sub group. So it could entirely be the case that a sayyid of that sub-group who at least was arab 1650 years ago could have migrated and really always had been Arab at least from1650 years back.

    It could also be the case that Adnanites are a very small percentage of the original population. Hence why there is no noticeable divide in the J-Haplogroup that could indicate Y-Qahtan. Moreover Qahtanite was a very old lineage by the time of even Abraham. Ideally there should a level of major distinction between the lineages but I'm told the UAE tribes (from Qahtan are also J2).The lineage of adnan was very prestigious and could possibly have been adopted. Or perhaps qahtanites were frequently adopted by adnanites, after all the strength of a tribe was in its numbers and Pre-islamic and islamic sources readily admit these. These are just speculations, but somewhere I feel that the conclusion that have brought us to J are also in truth just speculations -albiet with their own proofs. And again these are just shots in the dark, I readily admit that I don't know anything and I'd love to learn more maybe I'm wrong.

  12. #419
    Registered Users
    Posts
    91
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by royaljoker View Post
    But thats the thing, what if R isn't submitting to the projects because they're being told they aren't Arab, a bit like what we're doing here with U.P. Sayyids, how many of the U.P. Sayyids who got R are really going to submit themselves compared to those who got J. Are there any independent surveys of arabs, apart from self-submission projects ?

    If you look at the R1a Arabia FTDNA project, and under the "R1a (Z93+ > Z94+ > FT1974531+ ‹+F2597›) (M634+)››L657+››Y5+" sub heading. You'll find that those arabs are quite old arabs. They share a minute genetic distance with Shaibites. Most if not all of the group are hashemites of prominent lineages. Of course you're right, its a very small group to reflect the main line of Hashemites. But I feel that there isn't something quite right about the sampling and I readily admit this isn't my field and I barely know anything so really my conclusions should be taken with a pinch of salt -just being humble.

    Something I find quite confusing is that Indian R-L657 is said to have come from the broad middle east (with the aryan invasion), but arabian R-L657 is not accepted as being purely middle eastern. Could it not have been the case that some pockets remained ? On Y-Full, R-Y167746 is said to be about 1650 years old, and every name under it is completely arab and belongs to the aforementioned Arab sub group. So it could entirely be the case that a sayyid of that sub-group who at least was arab 1650 years ago could have migrated and really always had been Arab at least from1650 years back.

    It could also be the case that Adnanites are a very small percentage of the original population. Hence why there is no noticeable divide in the J-Haplogroup that could indicate Y-Qahtan. Moreover Qahtanite was a very old lineage by the time of even Abraham. Ideally there should a level of major distinction between the lineages but I'm told the UAE tribes (from Qahtan are also J2).The lineage of adnan was very prestigious and could possibly have been adopted. Or perhaps qahtanites were frequently adopted by adnanites, after all the strength of a tribe was in its numbers and Pre-islamic and islamic sources readily admit these. These are just speculations, but somewhere I feel that the conclusion that have brought us to J are also in truth just speculations -albiet with their own proofs. And again these are just shots in the dark, I readily admit that I don't know anything and I'd love to learn more maybe I'm wrong.

    BTW, every name under R-Y167746 is Hashemite, from both Hassan and Hussain. They have records that places them always in Arabia and they have very prestigious lineages that were involved in Arab politics quite early on. And they're close to the Shaibites. Personally if I was a geneticist I would think that would be something to investigate.

  13. #420
    Moderator
    Posts
    1,781
    Sex
    Y-DNA (P)
    R1a-Z93 (Indo-Aryan)
    mtDNA (M)
    H28/W(M) : H1b5
    Y-DNA (M)
    Wife (P) : R1a-Z280

    Quote Originally Posted by royaljoker View Post
    But thats the thing, what if R isn't submitting to the projects because they're being told they aren't Arab, a bit like what we're doing here with U.P. Sayyids, how many of the U.P. Sayyids who got R are really going to submit themselves compared to those who got J. Are there any independent surveys of arabs, apart from self-submission projects ?

    If you look at the R1a Arabia FTDNA project, and under the "R1a (Z93+ > Z94+ > FT1974531+ ‹+F2597›) (M634+)››L657+››Y5+" sub heading. You'll find that those arabs are quite old arabs. They share a minute genetic distance with Shaibites. Most if not all of the group are hashemites of prominent lineages. Of course you're right, its a very small group to reflect the main line of Hashemites. But I feel that there isn't something quite right about the sampling and I readily admit this isn't my field and I barely know anything so really my conclusions should be taken with a pinch of salt -just being humble.

    Something I find quite confusing is that Indian R-L657 is said to have come from the broad middle east (with the aryan invasion), but arabian R-L657 is not accepted as being purely middle eastern. Could it not have been the case that some pockets remained ? On Y-Full, R-Y167746 is said to be about 1650 years old, and every name under it is completely arab and belongs to the aforementioned Arab sub group. So it could entirely be the case that a sayyid of that sub-group who at least was arab 1650 years ago could have migrated and really always had been Arab at least from1650 years back.

    It could also be the case that Adnanites are a very small percentage of the original population. Hence why there is no noticeable divide in the J-Haplogroup that could indicate Y-Qahtan. Moreover Qahtanite was a very old lineage by the time of even Abraham. Ideally there should a level of major distinction between the lineages but I'm told the UAE tribes (from Qahtan are also J2).The lineage of adnan was very prestigious and could possibly have been adopted. Or perhaps qahtanites were frequently adopted by adnanites, after all the strength of a tribe was in its numbers and Pre-islamic and islamic sources readily admit these. These are just speculations, but somewhere I feel that the conclusion that have brought us to J are also in truth just speculations -albiet with their own proofs. And again these are just shots in the dark, I readily admit that I don't know anything and I'd love to learn more maybe I'm wrong.
    This question can only be fully answered with ancient dna from Arabia of course but i remain sceptical because L657 in Arabia before 600 A.D because L657 is pretty much absent among Christian Arabs, Jews, Kurds, Assyrians and even rare among Persians. It peaks in the Gulf region were a big presence of Indian, Baluch and other Iranic immigrants is documented. From here these lines could diffuse deeper into Arabia in the last 1500 years.

    Arabs are extremely "oversampled" at Yfull and FTDNA compared to Baluchs, Afghans, Iranians and Indians, which likely have very similar L657 clades so some old L657 subclades looks at Yfull specific for Arabs, but with better sampling i doubt this will be still the case. For now most of the Indian L657 samples on Yfull are just from few academic studies and few private Indian L657 samples were uploaded at Yfull.

    L657 orginates in Fatyanovo-Abashevo and Corded Ware. It arrived via Central Asia/BMAC in South Asia. Some speculate that Mitanni Indo-Aryans in Bronze Age Syria were R1a-L657, because they were Indo-Aryan speaking, but this is for now just speculation and some Indo-Aryan groups like Kalash lack L657 and are dominated by R1a>Z2124>Z2123. Z2123 is also not rare among Indians so there is a good chance Mitanni in the Near East lacked L657 and were rather dominated by Z2123. For me L657 rather looks like a line specific/typical for a subset of Bronze Age Indo-Aryans, which via Arachosia migrated into South Asia. So we still see lot of L657 in Gedrosia/Arachosia and India but less so in Iran, Kafiristan and West Asia, which all have or had an Indo-Aryan presence once. But again only ancient dna can give us an answer here and maybe i am mislead by modern distribution of L657.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Coldmountains For This Useful Post:

     Alain (12-03-2020),  deuterium_1 (12-03-2020),  Jatt1 (12-03-2020),  parasar (12-03-2020),  royaljoker (12-03-2020)

Page 42 of 55 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Syed DNA
    By hussain.r97 in forum FTDNA
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: Yesterday, 11:22 PM
  2. Can Indians and Pakistanis be Syed?
    By Ali16 in forum Genealogy
    Replies: 82
    Last Post: 07-02-2020, 04:21 PM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-19-2019, 04:12 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-01-2018, 01:48 AM
  5. Pakistani Syed needs help analyzing data
    By Taqi_G in forum Southern
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 04-20-2018, 11:26 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •