Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 161

Thread: The y DNA haplogroup of the Prophet

  1. #141
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    4,432
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Jewish & British
    Y-DNA (P)
    J1-Z18271
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c5
    Y-DNA (M)
    R1b-U152
    mtDNA (P)
    U7a5

    Israel Israel Jerusalem United Kingdom England Scotland Isle of Man
    Here's Fig. 2 from Hammer et al. (2009):

    מכורותיך ומולדותיך מארץ הכנעני אביך האמורי ואמך חתית
    יחזקאל פרק טז ג-


    ᾽Άλλο δέ τοι ἐρέω, σὺ δ᾽ ἐνὶ φρεσὶ βάλλεο σῇσιν:
    κρύβδην, μηδ᾽ ἀναφανδά, φίλην ἐς πατρίδα γαῖαν
    νῆα κατισχέμεναι: ἐπεὶ οὐκέτι πιστὰ γυναιξίν.


    -Αγαμέμνων; H Οδύσσεια, Ραψωδία λ

  2. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Agamemnon For This Useful Post:

     Awale (02-27-2021),  Biharguy (03-01-2021),  Coldmountains (02-24-2021),  hartaisarlag (02-24-2021),  Helves (02-26-2021),  Iyyovi (02-25-2021),  Shamash (02-24-2021),  subzero85 (02-25-2021),  SUPREEEEEME (02-25-2021),  Táltos (02-25-2021),  Targum (02-24-2021)

  3. #142
    Registered Users
    Posts
    219
    Sex

    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.
    Last edited by royaljoker; 02-25-2021 at 06:39 PM.

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

     Iyyovi (02-26-2021)

  5. #143
    Registered Users
    Posts
    219
    Sex

    Also I dont wanna get drawn into some long argument of the Prophet's(saw) Y-DNA. This is just my view of things.

  6. #144
    Registered Users
    Posts
    928
    Sex
    Location
    סוף מערב
    Ethnicity
    Western Jewish
    Nationality
    USA
    Y-DNA (P)
    E-BY173375
    mtDNA (M)
    J1c7a
    Y-DNA (M)
    R-FGC18222
    mtDNA (P)
    H7e

    Quote Originally Posted by royaljoker View Post
    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?
    The clock indicates the moment—but what does eternity indicate?

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

     Agamemnon (02-25-2021),  Helves (02-26-2021),  Iyyovi (02-26-2021),  leorcooper19 (02-26-2021),  royaljoker (02-25-2021),  Shamash (02-26-2021),  subzero85 (02-25-2021)

  8. #145
    Registered Users
    Posts
    219
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by hartaisarlag View Post
    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)

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

     Iyyovi (02-26-2021)

  10. #146
    Registered Users
    Posts
    546
    Sex
    Ethnicity
    Awadhi
    Y-DNA (P)
    J2- (J-Z6082)
    mtDNA (M)
    M3d1a

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibne Sharif View Post
    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-chro...er_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?

  11. #147
    Registered Users
    Posts
    219
    Sex

    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.

  12. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to royaljoker For This Useful Post:

     Aben Aboo (02-25-2021),  Ibne Sharif (02-26-2021),  Iyyovi (02-26-2021)

  13. #148
    Registered Users
    Posts
    219
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by hartaisarlag View Post
    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.
    Last edited by royaljoker; 02-26-2021 at 06:05 PM.

  14. #149
    Gold Class Member
    Posts
    800
    Sex
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Ethnicity
    Polish/British Isles
    Nationality
    U.S.
    Y-DNA (P)
    R-A9185
    mtDNA (M)
    H1
    mtDNA (P)
    J1c2

    Poland England Ireland Munster
    Quote Originally Posted by royaljoker View Post
    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....is-et-al-2020)
    YFull: YF14620 (Dante Labs 2018)

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to pmokeefe For This Useful Post:

     royaljoker (02-27-2021)

  16. #150
    Registered Users
    Posts
    219
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by pmokeefe View Post
    There was a thread on the Hyksos in 2020:
    https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....is-et-al-2020)
    So from that thread it can be concluded that Hyksos were Levantines. Whether they were Hebrew is not yet determined. ??

Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-10-2020, 09:53 PM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-30-2018, 11:55 PM
  3. Seal of the Prophet Isaiah may have been found
    By Piquerobi in forum History (Ancient)
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-22-2018, 04:24 PM
  4. Was the Prophet Muhammad a Jew?
    By firemonkey in forum J1-M267
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-16-2016, 07:58 AM
  5. Haplogroup R1
    By Melcombe in forum R/R0
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-18-2014, 03:15 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
  •