Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Storm Large

Tabernacle is greater than Kaaba

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam[shalom]...

This HYPOTHESIS has been debunked.

An abstract from Ashkenazi geneticists Arthur Steinberg and Batsheva Bonné-Tamir:

Human Genetics_

Volume 55, Number 3 / September, 1980

I don't mean to be rude, but 1980 was 29 years ago. Science progresses. An article published in 1980, even if using the best science available at the time, cannot "debunk" science conducted more recently.

As Behar notes (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1380291), the analysis of complete mtDNA genomes was not generally available until this decade.

Also, I don't know how they taught you in science class, but you don't get points by pointing out the ethnicity of a researcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now here is an Afrocentric take on the Kohanim and the Cohen gene...

the cohanim(kohanim) factor its a chromosomal gene which is a distinct signature haplotype of judaic origin, similar to what exist in major jewish population, who trace their ancestry to Aaron brother of Moses. This Kohen gene is completely absent in the gentile and non-jewish people.

Lemba males from Africa carry a higher concentration of this jewish priestly DNA chromosome than Europeans and American Jewish population. The kohen concentration is up to 53.8% on Lemba males and 8.8% in Ashkenazis and other jewish groups.The research was done by America Israel and England to determine this...

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I'm glad you brought up the Lemba. Perhaps the most surprising story in Jewish genetics involves this Bantu-speaking people of about 50,000 living in southern East Africa. Their appearance and lifestyle are largely similar to other Bantu-speaking groups, with a few notable exceptions: They practice circumcision, have a ritualized slaughter procedure for animals, avoid eating pigs and have a strong tradition that their ancestors migrated from "Sena in the north by boat." When westerners came into contact with the Lemba and noticed the similarity of their customs to Jewish practices, they wondered whether "Sena" might be Sana in Yemen and whether the Lemba were of Jewish descent.

A British anthropologist, Tudor Parfitt (of the University of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies) arranged for genetic testing of members of the tribe, finding that 10% of Lemba men carry the kohen modal haplotype on their Y chromosomes. Even more impressive, the Lemba have a priestly clan whom they call the Buba. Fully 52% of Buba men who were tested bear that same marker of kohanic descent. Although mtDNA testing has not yet taken place, it seems likely that the origins of at least some portion of the tribe date back to the arrival on African shores of male Jews, and their subsequent marriage to local women. Only vestigial Jewish traditions were maintained among a population that is animist and Christian in practice. In no sense - cultural or halachic - can the Lemba be considered Jews today, although some of them have expressed an interest in returning to Judaism.

Here's the wikipedia snippet on Lemba genetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemba#DNA_testing):

A recent genetic study in 1996 suggested that more than 50% of the Lemba Y chromosomes are Semitic in origin;[11] a subsequent study in 2000 reported more specifically that a substantial number of Lemba men carry a particular polymorphism on the Y chromosome known as the Cohen modal haplotype, which is indicative of Y-DNA Haplogroup J found amongst some Jews, and in other populations across the Middle East.[12]

One particular sub-clan within the Lemba, the Buba clan, is considered by the Lemba to be their priestly clan, while among Jews, the Kohanim are the priestly clan. The Buba clan carried most of the Cohen modal haplotypes found in the Lemba. Among Jews the marker is also most prevalent among Jewish Kohanim, or priests. As recounted in Lemba oral tradition, the Buba clan "had a leadership role in bringing the Lemba out of Israel" and into Southern Africa.[13]

Now, you mentioned that, among the Lemba's "Buba" (priestly) clan, the incidence of the Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH) was a little over 50%. That is in fact what the study found. You can find it online at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1288118. (Note on some of the authors: Mark Thomas at the University of London is a well-respected population geneticist; Karl Skorecki at the Technion did the pioneering research in incidence of the CMH among Ashkenazi, Sephardi, and other Jewish groups; Tudor Parfitt is the aforementioned British anthropologist).

However, I think you must be getting bad information or perhaps confusing yourself when you are talking about the incidence of CMH in the Ashkenazi population. According to Skorecki et al. (1997), the CMH was found in 45% of Ashkenazi kohanim, 56% of Sephardi kohanim and 10%-13% of other male Jews (i.e. not kohanim). This is using the most conservative interpretation of the CMH (6/6 match); if you count those with a 5/6 match, the proportions are 69% of Ashkenazi kohanim, 61% of Sephardi kohanim, and pretty much the same percentages as before (14-15%) for non-kohen male Jews.

A good summary of this area of research is available at wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron.

In other words, it looks like the Lemba did almost as good a job as the mainstream Jewish community in preserving the kohen lineage. That's pretty impressive considering they were completely cut off from the world Jewish community for two thousand years or more.

Edited by BostonJew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am wondering how do "Jewish PRIESTS" called the Kohanim have their VERY OWN DNA ?

The kohen status is transmitted through the father. If you are a man and your father is a kohen, then you are a kohen. If your father is not a kohen, then you are not a kohen.

Thus, it was reasonable to assume a priori (and Skorecki's and subsequent data confirmed) that Y-chromosome features would reflect this.

There are no such modal haplotypes such as CMH[Cohan Modal Haplotype] assigned to let's say :

Buddhists Lamas of Tibet

Shaolin Priests of China

Amun Priests/Tehuti Priests/Ptah Priests/etc.,etc., of ancient Egypt

Baal Priests of Phoenicia[ancient Lebanon]

Eastern Orthodox Priests of Greece & Anatolia[Turkey]

Roman/Vatican Popes of once exclusively Latin/Italian heritage

Olmec/Toltec/Aztec Priests of Mexico

Inca Priests of Peru

Mayan Priests of Central America

Magi Priests of ancient Persia[iran]

Brahman Priests of India

Etc.,

Etc.,

I can't comment on all of those you list, but I know for at least some of them that they are not associated with patrilineal descent.

However, there is a concept of a "gotra" in Hinduism that is not entirely dissimilar. There are 49 gotras, which are clans whose members trace their descent patrilineally from a common ancestor, usually a sage of ancient times. Knowing the gotra is important because in the Hindu religion two members of the same gotra cannot marry. A private company offers a 37-marker Y-chromosome test to verify gotra status, although to the best of my knowledge it has not resulted in peer-reviewed publications.

And why do the Lemba of Black African[Negroid] genealogy have a MUCH HIGHER percentage of this CMH[Cohan Modal Haplotype] than even traditional Ashkenazi[European] Jews of Europe and North America ?

As you'll see in my other post, your numbers are off. The Lemba's "Buba" clan does have an impressive percentage of CMH, but (depending on whether you are counting all 6 features of CMH or only 5/6) it is either only slightly higher, or lower, than the CMH incidence among Ashkenazi kohanim.

Can you remind me again why you are so fascinated with Jewish genetics? It's an intellectually interesting topic, to be sure, but you seem to be obsessed with it.

Edited by BostonJew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But perhaps you are missing something basic about genetics. Today a common and well-accepted technique of genetics (whether on humans, animals, plants, bacteria, or whatever) is to compare a set of individuals and project backwards to the most recent common ancestor.

Salam[shalom].

How exactly is this projection to the most recent common ancestor achieved ?

Especially, since there is no positive proof who were exactly the most recent common ancestors of Kohanim "Jews" ?

Do you seriously believe that "Jews" are a genealogical race of people ?

Have you done enough research to know how many "Jewish" sects existed circa 200 B.C.-1000 A.D throughout the Near East and North Africa ?

And what about Dr. Shlomo Sand/Arthur Koestler/Hugo von Kutschera conclusion that Asheknazi "Jews" were genealogical descendants of the Khazars ?

You didn't answer regarding the Khazar ancestory of the Ashkenazi Jews...

Since you seem to "understand" genetics, how exactly do you compare a set of contemporary individuals to the nearest common ancestor ?

An ancestor means someone of the past...What "Jewish" genetics have been preserved scientifically to arrive at this CMH[Cohan Modal Haplotype] ancestry ?

You also didn't take into account the concept of geographics...

And how exactly can this mutation of the "Jewish Cohan gene" be seriously determined ?

All you are doing is repeating some of the Wikipedia nonsense regarding "Jewish" genetics....

First and foremost : JEWS ARE NOT A BIOLOGICAL OR GENEALOGICAL RACE OF PEOPLE. PERIOD.

Everything else is entirely pseudo-academic...

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be rude, but 1980 was 29 years ago. Science progresses. An article published in 1980, even if using the best science available at the time, cannot "debunk" science conducted more recently.

Salam[shalom].

So a genetic test of Jewish Libyans, Ashkenazi Jews, and Armenians would show different results in 2009 as opposed to 1980 ?

Did the haplotype frequencies suddenly change among Jewish Libyans, Ashkenazi Jews, and Armenians since 1980 ?

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, there is a concept of a "gotra" in Hinduism that is not entirely dissimilar. There are 49 gotras, which are clans whose members trace their descent patrilineally from a common ancestor, usually a sage of ancient times. Knowing the gotra is important because in the Hindu religion two members of the same gotra cannot marry. A private company offers a 37-marker Y-chromosome test to verify gotra status, although to the best of my knowledge it has not resulted in peer-reviewed publications.

Salam[shalom].

The concept of "gotra" is in NO WAY SIMILAR to the Kohanim or CMH [Cohan Modal Haplotype]...

Since I am East Indian by birth and ethnicity, with my ancestors being originally Buddhists and Brahmans before converting to Islam, let me enlighten you on what a "gotra" is...

It is a SOCIAL ORDER or caste ...

It has nothing to do with genetics or modal haplotypes...

The term "gotra" in Vedic Sanskrit, meant "cow-pen"...

Cows were at the time the most valuable possession of a family group, so with time, the term "gotra" began to refer to the family group who owned a particular pen of cows. The term was associated eventually with just the family group and its lineage.

"Gotra" was applied to the three main divisions of Indian society :

Brahman - The Priestly caste

Kshatriya - The Warrior caste

Vaishya[Vanika] - The Merchant caste

Basically a Brahman is not supposed to claim Brahman status by birth. He must be reborn by learning and attain Brahmanical status through the achievement of a mental and cultural status befitting a Brahman. Any one born low could become a Brahman by elevating his learning and conduct and similarly one who had achieved Brahmanical status could be pushed to a lower strata if his conduct became to demand such relegation. A Brahman must be "Re-born" and that is why he is called "Dwija- twice born".

The case of sage Vishwamitra is the example. Thus the gotra must have been of the lineage of the learning one chose rather than the lineage of one's birth.

There are subgroups of "gotras" which are more specific and detailed as for example, among the "gotras" of the Vaishya[Merchant] caste that could include : potters; weavers; jewellers; etc...

The word "gotra" although literally meaning "cow-pen" is applied to one's SOCIAL lineage. Basically, a "gotra" can also be like a family name. For example, the Anglican surname "Arrowsmith"...This could imply that the Arrowsmith family once upon a time long ago were arrowsmiths by profession.

Relating specifically to, let's say, the priestly Brahmans, yes...The family clan's lineage would be named after a particular sage. However, as stated earlier it is subject to change and not restricted to one's birth lineage.

Here is an article excerpt on the origins of the concept of "gotra" :

GOTRA

Gotra is one of the many considerations that exist during match making in the traditional manner. Janmakundalis (horoscopes) of the prospective bride and groom are compared to see if a match could he made.

Gotras have to be different while Matchmaking for a Marriage

While in matching Janmakundalis the consideration is for the common and symmetrical features, but surprisingly while comparing Gotras the requirement is that the bride and groom should belong to different Gotras. If their Gotras are identical a match cannot be made. Today most of us may not be aware as to what Gotra is. Its meaning is lost and it is doubtful whether even the astrologers who compare horoscopes can satisfy an inquisitive student as to the origin and meaning of Gotra and the reason why identical Gotras preclude a match in a traditional Hindu marriage.

Gotra Originated as the Common Cowpen or Cow Shed During the Tribal Aryan Past

The origin of this concept of Gotra also seems to lie in a tribal ethos and is linked to the system of common ownership of property. The word Gotra literally means cowpen or cowshed and is derived from "Go" meaning cow.

With the domestication of animals, cattle became an important source of meats and milk. With the rearing of cattle, hunting as the principal source of subsistence lost its importance and the lifestyle became less nomadic as compared to the earlier days when hunting was the main activity of sustenance. With the coming of a pastoral way of life it was possible to have individual ownership of the means of subsistence which was impossible during the days of hunting.

But the older practice of holding property in common could not die out abruptly. Even in a pastoral society the principle means of subsistence - cattle - continued to be held as common property. The members of a tribe had one object for solidarity and this was the cattle they held in common. While in a society of hunters, the prisoners of wars and other fellow travellers could either be sacrificed or absorbed into the tribe so as to increase the strength of the hunt party; the pastoral society ruled out such absorption of new members who would only be additional mouths to feed. The tribe henceforth became an endogamous clan which kept outsiders out and insiders in.

Sa-Gotra (Marriage Within a Gotra) was the Norm Originally

But the endogamous clan still retained some features of the tribal way of life like common ownership of property (and promiscuity). This new solidarity that emerged from the common ownership of cattle, acquired the name Gotra from its very nature. But then the Gotra which was the foundation of life and livelihood also became its limit. Sexual pairing was limited to member of a Gotra. This form of pairing was termed Sagotra. Our Present day prohibition on marriage within one Gotra is a later development.

The shift from pairing within a Gotra to prohibition on marriage between two members having the same Gotra must be a result of a variety of factors.

As long as promiscuity survived, society must have been matriarchal as the mother would have been the only identifiable parent. But with the rising productivity and gradual emergence of individual holding of property, this way of life had to make way for another.

The title to the increasing hoard of wealth was held by male members of a clan due to their being the physically dominant sex. It was the efforts of the more powerful males that won for the clan the property of other clans and also enabled defense of their own property from being grabbed by other clans. With the gradual increase in productive power, the acquisition of slaves etc. The title to property also changed from being collective to individual. This change in the title to property from communal to individual must have been the result of evolution over hundreds of years. But why did this change have to prohibit the established practice of marriage within a Gotra?

The answer perhaps lies in Human Social Evolution. Primitive promiscuity as it exists among the lower animals, also existed among humans to begin with. Later on came monogamous marriage. Simultaneously, with the rise in the productive power of human beings there came about accumulation of property initially in the form of cattle. The common ownership of this object of wealth made essential marriage only within members of the clan that held the wealth so as to prevents outsiders from claiming a share of it. But while this solidarity was based on the common ownership of wealth there still existed a commonality in the title to that wealth. And this commonality was first disturbed with the removal of promiscuous matriarchy which did take place with the passage of time. In matriarchy and its earlier form, promiscuity, there existed no bar on members of a clan (Gotra) whether they be the progeny of the same mother, the father not being an identifiable parent.

But with the eclipse of matriarchy and the coming of individual ownership and monogamy, the father became an identifiable parent and strains of patriarchy appeared. The ethic of matriarchal society that allowed marriage between the progeny of one mother or between paternal cousins now came to be frowned upon as these progeny were now the sons and daughters of one (identifiable) father or of one grandfather. This encouraged marriage outside the clan (Gotra). The prohibition on marriage outside a Gotra was made irrelevant by individual ownership of property and the custom of inheritance whereby property passed from father to son. As the title to property was individual and private and the transfer of this title to property was also fixed, there was no reason why a female member of one Gotra should not be tied in wedlock with a male member of another Gotra. Thus while formerly marriage within a Gotra was the rule, later marriage outside a Gotra became one.

Today it is difficult to imagine that marriage within one Gotra between members who were the progeny of one mother or were immediate maternal cousins by virtue of having the same grandmother could have once been a solemn custom. But the later rigid injunction against marriage within a Gotra itself implies that once the practice of marrying within one Gotra must have existed.

Thus as Sa-gotra marriage was once the norm, there arose the need for its prohibition. Something that has never existed need not be prohibited. Hence the existence of prohibition on Sagotra marriage itself is one evidence of its existence sometime in the past. With the disappearance of a pastoral society and also the clan ownership of cattle (Gotra as 'cowpen'), the emergence of monogamy and ownership of property and later urban civilization and with it a much wider social unit of human existence, the Gotra as an institution and a consideration for matchmaking vanished and marriage outside one's Gotra became the rule. But even afterwards the custom of prohibition on marriage within a Gotra continued. Today this prohibition is still observed as a matter of ritual and custom when even the original connotation of the term Gotra is generally not known.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I hope you have now understood the DISSIMILARITY between the concept of the Kohanim gene or CMH [Cohan Modal Haplotype] and the ideology of "Gotra"....

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you remind me again why you are so fascinated with Jewish genetics? It's an intellectually interesting topic, to be sure, but you seem to be obsessed with it.

Salam[shalom].

From Wikipedia itself :

Today, the official status of Kohen is assumed by anyone who can trace their ancestral heritage to a confirmed Kohen; which is essentially no one. It is for this reason that authorities within Orthodox Judaism maintain that a Israelite is not technically obligated to pay a modern day Kohen for the Pidyon Haben ceremony (He would ask for the five coins back after he gave it to the Kohen).

The above, however, is not Wikipedia nonsense...

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The kohen status is transmitted through the father. If you are a man and your father is a kohen, then you are a kohen. If your father is not a kohen, then you are not a kohen.

Salam[shalom].

An article excerpt :

One source of early confusion was a widespread popular notion that only Cohens or only Jews could have the Cohen Modal Haplotype. It is now clear that this is not the case. The Cohen Modal Haplotype (CMH), whilst notably frequent amongst Cohens, is also far from unusual in the general populations of haplogroups J1 and J2 with no particular link to the Cohen ancestry. These haplogroups occur widely throughout the Middle East and beyond. So whilst many Cohens have haplotypes close to the CMH, a greater number of such haplotypes worldwide belong to people with no likely Cohen connection at all.

------------------------------------

So are all "Cohens"--"Jewish" or non-Jewish--biologically or genealogically descended from Nabih Harun[Aaron] ?

The fundamental concept of a Kohen is a priestly lineage descended from Prophet Harun[Aaron], the brother of Prophet Musa[Moses]...

The "Cohen" gene has been included by genetic anthropologist Dr. Spencer Wells in his groundbreaking "Genographic" study...THE JOURNEY OF MAN.

This study scientifically combines the study of genetics and geographics. The misnomered "Cohen" gene is chronologically AGES OLDER than the physical and historical existence of Prophet Harun[Aaron].

The so-called "Cohen" gene originated in Africa...

---------------------------------------

From a NatGeo article excerpt :

DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who—about 60,000 years ago—began a remarkable journey.The Genographic Project is seeking to chart new knowledge about the migratory history of the human species by using sophisticated laboratory and computer analysis of DNA contributed by hundreds of thousands of people from around the world. In this unprecedented and of real-time research effort, the Genographic Project is closing the gaps of what science knows today about humankind's ancient migration stories.

The Genographic Project is a five-year research partnership led by National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence Dr. Spencer Wells. Dr. Wells and a team of renowned international scientists and IBM researchers, are using cutting-edge genetic and computational technologies to analyze historical patterns in DNA from participants around the world to better understand our human genetic roots.

The three components of the project are:

--to gather field research data in collaboration with indigenous and traditional peoples around the world;

--to invite the general public to join the project by purchasing a Genographic Project Public Participation Kit;

--to use proceeds from Genographic Public Participation Kit sales to further field research and the Genographic Legacy Fund which in turn supports indigenous conservation and revitalization projects.

------------------------------------

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I don't know how they taught you in science class, but you don't get points by pointing out the ethnicity of a researcher.

Salam[shalom].

My memories of science class and research of 19th-20th Century CE progression of Western[European]-dominated studies in socio-anthropology led to almost shocking, unabashed politically-oriented, ethnocentric, pro-"White" or Euro-Caucasian agenda which today is laughable and scientifically dismissed...

Pointing out ethnicity has its purpose in whether or not a study is biased or motivated by a political or ethnocentric agenda...

My own personal "agenda" is to investigate, question, and even challenge ANY and ALL theological fallacies and myths which are harmful or potentially harmful to humanity as a whole...And which cause unnecessary levels of socio-religious, socio-politcal injustice.

In this board, I have indiscrimately questioned Judeo-Christian; "Hindu"[*an exonym by origin which never existed in Vedic Sanskrit/Classical Sanskrit/Prakrit/Pali linguistics]; and even our own Standard Islamic fallacies, distortions, and outright fabrications...

Judeo-Christianity/"Hinduism"/Standard Islam all have their share of zealots and fanatics...This is generally caused by falsefied history, not historicity...

I'm not really "obssessed" with "Jewish genetics"...I'm just questioning and even challenging its veracity...As I have the ideology and concept of Ahadith, as opposed to the direct guidance of the Holy Qur'an in our own theological parlance of Standard Islam...Peace brother.

Even the concept and ideology of RACISM and ethnocentrism has been covered in The Holy Qur'an...

The very metaphor of Iblis/Shaytan[satan] refusing to bow to the creation of mud[i.e. bacteria] which is us humans in the prototype of Adam, is an act of RACISM.

Iblis the Shaytan felt himself RACIALLY superior as a Jinn[made of pure or smokeless fire] to Adam[Man], who was essentially made of substance or clay.

Throughout human history, this THEME has manifested itself time and again, to this very day, causing terrible injustice and conflicts...It is almost the cruellest of ironies that the propagator of human RACISM is not human at all...But a FALSE concept imbedded by one whom we cannot see, but clearly sees us...

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, there is a concept of a "gotra" in Hinduism that is not entirely dissimilar. There are 49 gotras, which are clans whose members trace their descent patrilineally from a common ancestor, usually a sage of ancient times. Knowing the gotra is important because in the Hindu religion two members of the same gotra cannot marry. A private company offers a 37-marker Y-chromosome test to verify gotra status, although to the best of my knowledge it has not resulted in peer-reviewed publications.

Salam[shalom].

I believe I know where you might have gotten the notion that the ORIGINAL ideology behind the social caste system of "GOTRA" could be linked to the concept of a DNA Y-Chromosome...

There are some "Hindu" fundamentalists[i.e. Hindutva advocates] who have attempted to REDEFINE and RE-INVENT what "gotra" really meant in our early Aryo-Dravidian society.

As with certain kinds of revisionism, an almost apologetic tone has been adopted to conceal the true nature of what "gotra" really represented in East Indian culture...An essentially social custom that could be used as a tool for divisiveness in a CASTE SYSTEM, that was and still is, prevalent in Aryo-Dravidian society...

Here is a remarkable, if not subtly contradictory, article excerpt by TRS Iyengar that tries to equate the ideology of "gotra" to modern scientific study of DNA lineage :

What is Gotra?

How did the people thousands of years ago realize that genetically there was transference of some unique characteristics only from father to son (in the form of Y-chromosomes) ? In recent past when it was fashionable to condemn all Indian traditional systems as of no value, non-believers have referred to 'Gothra' as archaic, unscientific, irrelevant and male chauvinistic! The Scientifically proven factor DNA type test and assertions are more closer to the Gotra lineage matters. And to the Vedic line state nothing less than what your researchers & scientists speaking about!

Modern DNA & genetic research has confirmed male line Y-chromosomal transference, through 8 generations in case of Thomas Jefferson. 'Gothra' in essence really stands for Y-chromosomal identity.

In the very recent, US President (& Author of Declaration of Independence of United States) Thomas Jefferson's paternity of his slave Sally Fleming's children has been in news. For nearly 200 years, since US president Thomas Jefferson's time, many traditionalists maintained that Jefferson did not cohabit with Sally. But some descendants of Sally maintained otherwise and claimed to be progeny of the ex-president. This old historical controversy has now been resolved using modern genetic DNA analysis methods (Source - Founding father by Eric S Lander & Joseph J Ellis and Foster et al, Nature [ Volume 396 - 5 November 19980] pages 14, 27 & 28).

The genetic DNA study of descendents of Jefferson family and Sally Fleming's family, has confirmed with very high probability that, US President Thomas Jefferson was indeed the father of at least one of the sons of Sally Fleming. How was this genetic work done? Geneticists used a scientific fact, that most of the male Y-chromosome is passed intact from father to son. Females do not carry the Y-chromosome. With modern advances in genetics, this fact has been used to trace paternal lineage, and resolve stories like Thomas Jefferson's.

Thomas Jefferson did not have surviving sons from his legal wife. But his paternal uncle's male lineage is in tact to present time.. The genetic Y-chromosome of these persons (eight generations down from Thomas Jefferson's paternal uncle) living at present time was used as the reference. This was compared with intact male line persons from (Five generations down from) Sally Fleming living presently. The geneticists used polymorphic markers so that Y-chromosome can be distinguished by haplotypes. They found that Sally Fleming's son Eston's male line progeny had same haplotypes as Field Jefferson who was paternal uncle of Thomas Jefferson. Using other physical and living proximity factors, the geneticists have concluded with high probability that Eston Fleming was the son of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Fleming.

In the western countries, there are lots of research undertaken on the lineage and geneology.

But in India, there is no basis for equating genetics and race, other than specifying one's Gothram. And more interestingly, there is no female lineage taken into account! That is, if you are provided the genographic profile of a random Indian, you would not be able to say to which caste or tribe that person belongs. Conversely, if you know the race of a person, you would not be able to say what genetic lineage that person will have. Race is a social phenomenon. Genetics is a biological phenomenon.

The Indian patrilineal pool is very diverse and cuts across castes and tribes. The Indian mitochondrial DNA pool (female ancestry) falls into just four types, attesting to how closely related all Indians are to each other. Researchers suggest, that there is no link between language (Indo-European, Indi-Arabic and Dravidian) and genetic lineage.

Most of the genetic differences between people are superficial. However, genographic profiles provide a way for us to understand our own origins and the migratory path of our ancestors (they may also be useful for understanding potential susceptibilities to certain diseases among people with different genetic lineages).

This class of human male lineage research is now very active and is being conducted in native populations of Wales, England, in Iceland and to establish uniqueness, paternity, historical lineage, medical issues and intellectual issues of heredity etc amongst various population groups. Does this not ring a bell amongst traditional Hindus who believe in 'Gothra' identification carried down from Sanathana-dharma orthodoxy?. 'Gothra' is an identity carried by male lineage in India from time immemorial. Most people have Gothra chain names traceable to Rig Vedic Rishis like 'Gowthama', 'Vasishta' 'Viswamithra' and to first sons of Vaivaswatha Manu like Angirasa & Bhrigu. Purana such as Vishnu Purana refer to individual identity through 'Gothra'. Listings of more than 250 Gothra chains have been explicitly listed. I have heard of instances of even Muslims converted from Hinduism still keeping track of their 'Gothra'.

In a classic example, I cite that Buddha, named Siddhartha was of 'Gowthama Gothra'.. It means that his Y-chromosomes were probably from Rig-Vedic Rishi 'Gowthama Rahoogana'.

Nearly 2500 years have passed since death of Lord Buddha, but many 'Gowthama Gothra' individuals exist even today. They can claim genetic relation to Buddha. Typically 4 generations occur in 100 years and in 2500 years nearly 100 generations are complete. Other 'Gothra' chains may have run 100-200 generations from Vedic period if male lineage did continue unbroken. Do Y-chromosomes remain intact after, say 100 generations of unbroken male issues? Genetic mutations may or may not have changed some Y-chromosomes. The Gotra lineage is the one aspect that is very interesting field of research for future to see if persons of same 'Gothra' in the present generations have common and unique Y-chromosomal features. Only deep study with dedicated research could bring about the truth, that Vedic Era findings are certainly more authentic and scientific one that our forefathers relied aptly.

In conclusion, considering the above, no doubt, the Gotra lineage and DNA roots, probably, are one and the same way to find out the Family tree from the roots!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Note the THIRD emboldened sentence...

That the East Indian mitochondrial DNA pool or female ancestry falls into JUST FOUR TYPES...

Sounds quite similar to the theory of half of the Ashkenazi Jewish lineage coming from FOUR FEMALES...

Iyengar's own statement that "Race is a social phenomenon. Genetics is biological phenomenon." is a contradiction in itself. The ideology of "gotra" is of a social nature, not of a biological nature...

At the article's conclusion, Iyengar tries to fuse or merge the SOCIAL ideology of "gotra" with the BIOLOGICAL science of DNA.

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't answer regarding the Khazar ancestory of the Ashkenazi Jews...

OK, let's start with Arthur Koestler.

Arthur Koestler was a Hungarian-born secular Jew who was distinguished primarily as a novelist and essayist. His most famous work was a novel called Darkness at Noon, set in 1938 during the Stalinist purges and Moscow show trials. He did not have any training -- any -- in history or ethnography, let alone the then-very-nascent field of genetics. However, he did publish works on paranormal topics such as telepathy, psychokinesis, and levitation. You can read about his life in general at

In 1967 he published a book called The Thirteenth Tribe in which he argued that Ashkenazi Jews (unlike Sephardi, Yemenite, Persian, Romaniote, and other branches of Jews) were not descended from Jews of antiquity, but rather descendants of the Khazars, a Turkic people who dominated the Pontic steppe and the North Caucasus from the 7th to the 10th century CE. Although records of the Khazars are thin, it appears that the royal family, probably some of the nobles, and possibly (but possibly not) some of the peasants converted to Judaism around the 8th century CE.

You can read about this book at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Thirteenth_Tribe

Of course, in 1967, we didn't have techniques of genetics (such as polymerase chain reduction) that we do now, so no one can fault Koestler for what he didn't know about genetics. However, there were three major flaws in his argument that were apparent even at the time (and were critically reviewed as such).

First, his argument rested largely on the premise that the number of Jews in Europe was not sufficient to explain the Ashkenazi population boom of the 16th century. However, this itself has two flaws. (1) The Khazar khaganate fell in the 10th century, and the Khazars disappear from the records entirely by the time of Genghis Khan. Yet the Ashkenazi population boom did not occur for another 500 years. (2) The Ashkenazi population boom of the 16th century has a simpler explanation: the end of the Black Death (bubonic plague) in Europe.

Second, the linguistic evidence is completely to the contrary. Everyone agrees that the Khazars were Turkic and their home region was the north and west shores of the Caspian Sea (today, parts of Russian & Kazakhstan). Here is a map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khazar_map1.PNG

If the Ashkenazi Jews were descendants of Khazars, and if they maintained a distinct language (as opposed to the language of whichever society they lived in), you would expect them to either speak a Turkic language, or possibly - a stretch - a Slavic language.

However, neither is true. Everywhere that Ashkenazi Jews historically lived -- from France to Russia -- their first language was Yiddish, which is a Germanic language spiced with Hebrew vocabulary. Specifically, Yiddish is a descendant of High German, the dialects historically spoken in the upland and mountainous areas of central and southern Germany. The Yiddish spoken by Ashkenazi Jews in western France is not precisely the same, but is certainly mutually intelligible, with the Yiddish spoken deep in Russia.

In order for Koestler's theory to work, then, the Khazars would have had to move all the way from central Asia to the Rhineland in Germany; discard their native Turkic language; then spread out from the Rhineland in both directions, including back east precisely to where they had just come from, only this time speaking Yiddish instead of a Turkic language. This is, and I am going to use very gentle language, implausible. Instead, a much simpler hypothesis is that the Ashkenazi Jews descended from a group that had occupied the Rhineland and then fanned out west (to France, Belgium, etc.), north (to northern Europe), and east (central and eastern Europe, Balkans, Baltic states, Russia).

Put differently, given the language evidence, all the Ashkenazi Jews had to be in the Rhineland in the 10th century anyway, so it doesn't add any explanatory value, and adds considerable complications unsupported by any historical or archaeological evidence, to suggest that, say, the Jews of the Crimea first migrated from the Crimea to the Rhineland, then from the Rhineland back to the Crimea.

Finally, if Koestler's theory were correct, the Jewish communities would have moved west from Khazaria such that the oldest communities would be closest to the point of origin, and the farthest communities would be the "youngest." Yet this is unsupported by history. One of the oldest Jewish communities outside Germany is in France. Every Jewish schoolboy knows of Rashi, who lived in 11th century Troyes (in the Champagne district in northern France). Rashi's uncle was Shimon the Elder, the Rabbi of Mainz in Germany. Although Troyes had a small Jewish community (about 100 people), it had a yeshiva of longstanding by the time Rashi was growing up. By contrast, substantial Jewish communities only appeared in Eastern Europe and Russia later. And in central Asia, Jewish communities were scattered, edge-of-frontier-type settlements. Yet if the Khazar theory was correct, the oldest yeshivot should be in the Kazakh steppes, and Jews should be unexplained in Germany and France until much later in history.

These were the major criticisms advanced in 1967. As I've said elsewhere, subsequent DNA science has put Koestler's theory to bed.

Now -- and this is important -- this is not to say that there was no Khazar influence on Ashkenazi Jewry. It is not implausible that some number of Khazars would have fled the conquests of the Kievan Rus or, later, the Mongols. Some of those Khazars may have been Jewish, and some may have joined established Jewish communities. But that is quantitatively and qualitatively different from Koestler's theory, that the entire Ashkenazi Jewish community is Khazar.

First and foremost : JEWS ARE NOT A BIOLOGICAL OR GENEALOGICAL RACE OF PEOPLE. PERIOD.

No one except Jew-haters ever said Jews are a "race." I don't know who you're arguing with when you say this; certainly not me.

Salam[shalom].

So a genetic test of Jewish Libyans, Ashkenazi Jews, and Armenians would show different results in 2009 as opposed to 1980 ?

Did the haplotype frequencies suddenly change among Jewish Libyans, Ashkenazi Jews, and Armenians since 1980 ?

Hi Al Afza,

You're obviously not going to believe anything I say, so do me a favor. Perhaps you have a friend or cousin who has taken classes in genetics (or biology in general) at a university in an Arab or Muslim country. Please just ask this question:

"Friend/Cousin: Are the chromosomal analytical techniques available in 2009 more accurate, more reliable, or otherwise more well developed than the techniques available in 1980?"

When you get your answer, let's return to this topic.

Salam[shalom].

The concept of "gotra" is in NO WAY SIMILAR to the Kohanim or CMH [Cohan Modal Haplotype]...

Since I am East Indian by birth and ethnicity, with my ancestors being originally Buddhists and Brahmans before converting to Islam, let me enlighten you on what a "gotra" is...

I am willing to concede that I have no first-hand knowledge of the "gotra" concept, and it may be entirely different. I only know the claims made by the private companies that offer this testing, and I only offered it as a possible analogy. Perhaps there is no other people in the entire world that has a patrilineal lineage of any type, although I doubt it. Surely in some Arab countries there must be some concept of a "clan" or "tribe" that descends from the father? If so, you could take 100 men who all claimed to trace their ancestry patrilineally through this line and compare their Y-chromosomes to see how well it holds up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really "obssessed" with "Jewish genetics"...I'm just questioning and even challenging its veracity...As I have the ideology and concept of Ahadith, as opposed to the direct guidance of the Holy Qur'an in our own theological parlance of Standard Islam...Peace brother.

Even the concept and ideology of RACISM and ethnocentrism has been covered in The Holy Qur'an...

The very metaphor of Iblis/Shaytan[satan] refusing to bow to the creation of mud[i.e. bacteria] which is us humans in the prototype of Adam, is an act of RACISM.

Iblis the Shaytan felt himself RACIALLY superior as a Jinn[made of pure or smokeless fire] to Adam[Man], who was essentially made of substance or clay.

Throughout human history, this THEME has manifested itself time and again, to this very day, causing terrible injustice and conflicts...It is almost the cruellest of ironies that the propagator of human RACISM is not human at all...But a FALSE concept imbedded by one whom we cannot see, but clearly sees us...

A few things bothered me about the discussion.

First, you may be under the misimpression that Jews in general, or Ashkenazi Jews in particular, have some doctrine that we are "racially superior" to others. That is not true. Now, I'm not denying that you won't find individual racists in any Jewish community -- frankly, you'll find individual racists in any community, period. But there is no such doctrine.

Second, the constant harping on Ashkenazi ethnic descent seems profoundly ethnocentric or racist in the sense that it seeks to create totally unnecessary tensions between Ashkenazi Jews and other Jews (Sephardi, Persian, Yemenite, etc.), who nobody accuses of not having a longstanding Jewish descent.

Third, and this really gets my goat, is that the constant harping on Ashkenazi ethnic descent rubs salt in a very real aspect of why our (I say "our" because I am 7/8ths Ashkenazi) ancestors did include non-Jews, and that is rape -- by Crusaders, Cossacks, pogromists, villagers riled up by church authorities, whatever. Now we know this happened -- we have historical accounts of many of these events, and for every event with a detailed written history, there were probably 10 with no written history -- but by constantly saying "ooh, 50% of your genes don't have this haplotype," it sounds like you're trying to enumerate the number of my great-grandmothers that were raped by Cossacks. I don't know what passes as an insult in East India, but repeatedly insinuating that "large numbers of your great-great-great....grandmothers were raped while your great-great-great...grandfathers and their little children had to stand by helplessly and watch" is not a nice thing to say -- even though it is probably true. So yes, some of my maternal ancestors took it from a Crusader, and you can see that influence in the mtDNA. Happy?

Fourth, the harping on Jewish genetics is really offensive and demeaning (and ethnocentrist and racist) to converts and descendants of converts, because it implies that converts or descendants of converts are somehow not "real" Jews, when in fact they are accorded a very high status. Many of our most famous figures were converts or descendants of converts. Ruth, an ancestor of King David, King Solomon, King Hezekiah, King Josiah, the entire historical royal family of Judah, and indeed the messiah, may he come speedily in our day, was a convert. Onkelos, who provided one of only two completely approved translations of the Torah into another language, was a convert. Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest rabbis of all time, was a convert. For that matter, Abraham, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel (from the Torah) were converts. By questioning the bona fides of the entire Ashkenazi Jewish world, it seems like you're suggesting that Abraham, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, Rachel, David, Solomon, Rabbi Akiva, and the messiah are somehow deficient.

Or let's take an even starker case: the Jews of Ethiopia (Beta Israel). This community has a tradition that they are descended from the union of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, some 3000 years ago. Even if you assume that King Solomon & the Queen of Sheba had a child, it was one child, and a child with a non-Jewish mother, so both he (or she) and his/her spouse would have to convert, and then more converts to form an actual community. In fact, genetic testing shows that the Ethiopian community has very little genetic linkage to the other Jewish communities around the world. (There is some very slight relation to Yemenite Jews, suggesting a small amount of gene flow between Ethiopia and Yemen as a possible explanation.) In other words, most people at this point believe that the Ethiopians are descendants of at least some converts, whether 3000 years ago or some other point in time. (Here I should note that in the 1970s, Chief Sephardi Rabbi Ovadia Yosef ruled that they were descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes. However, this is not universally agreed.)

So here you have this community that at some point in the ancient past most likely stemmed from converts to Judaism. For thousands of years, they practiced Judaism as best they knew how, living piously and in accordance with the Torah and mitzvot (as well as they knew how) despite being almost totally cut off from the rest of the Jewish world, living in dire poverty, and being subjected off-and-on to persecution by their Christian neighbors and rulers. Finally, in the 1980s, faced with even worse persecution (and poverty) by the Marxist government of Ethiopia, they all left their villages, many traveling 800-1000 miles on foot, to join the rest of the Jewish people. (I'm not going to say any more about how they did that because I don't want to discuss politics here.) Are you going to say that they're somehow "not as good" because they're descendants of converts? For shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things bothered me about the discussion.

First, you may be under the misimpression that Jews in general, or Ashkenazi Jews in particular, have some doctrine that we are "racially superior" to others. That is not true. Now, I'm not denying that you won't find individual racists in any Jewish community -- frankly, you'll find individual racists in any community, period. But there is no such doctrine.

Second, the constant harping on Ashkenazi ethnic descent seems profoundly ethnocentric or racist in the sense that it seeks to create totally unnecessary tensions between Ashkenazi Jews and other Jews (Sephardi, Persian, Yemenite, etc.), who nobody accuses of not having a longstanding Jewish descent.

Third, and this really gets my goat, is that the constant harping on Ashkenazi ethnic descent rubs salt in a very real aspect of why our (I say "our" because I am 7/8ths Ashkenazi) ancestors did include non-Jews, and that is rape -- by Crusaders, Cossacks, pogromists, villagers riled up by church authorities, whatever. Now we know this happened -- we have historical accounts of many of these events, and for every event with a detailed written history, there were probably 10 with no written history -- but by constantly saying "ooh, 50% of your genes don't have this haplotype," it sounds like you're trying to enumerate the number of my great-grandmothers that were raped by Cossacks. I don't know what passes as an insult in East India, but repeatedly insinuating that "large numbers of your great-great-great....grandmothers were raped while your great-great-great...grandfathers and their little children had to stand by helplessly and watch" is not a nice thing to say -- even though it is probably true. So yes, some of my maternal ancestors took it from a Crusader, and you can see that influence in the mtDNA. Happy?

Fourth, the harping on Jewish genetics is really offensive and demeaning (and ethnocentrist and racist) to converts and descendants of converts, because it implies that converts or descendants of converts are somehow not "real" Jews, when in fact they are accorded a very high status. Many of our most famous figures were converts or descendants of converts. Ruth, an ancestor of King David, King Solomon, King Hezekiah, King Josiah, the entire historical royal family of Judah, and indeed the messiah, may he come speedily in our day, was a convert. Onkelos, who provided one of only two completely approved translations of the Torah into another language, was a convert. Rabbi Akiva, one of the greatest rabbis of all time, was a convert. For that matter, Abraham, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, and Rachel (from the Torah) were converts. By questioning the bona fides of the entire Ashkenazi Jewish world, it seems like you're suggesting that Abraham, Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, Rachel, David, Solomon, Rabbi Akiva, and the messiah are somehow deficient.

Or let's take an even starker case: the Jews of Ethiopia (Beta Israel). This community has a tradition that they are descended from the union of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, some 3000 years ago. Even if you assume that King Solomon & the Queen of Sheba had a child, it was one child, and a child with a non-Jewish mother, so both he (or she) and his/her spouse would have to convert, and then more converts to form an actual community. In fact, genetic testing shows that the Ethiopian community has very little genetic linkage to the other Jewish communities around the world. (There is some very slight relation to Yemenite Jews, suggesting a small amount of gene flow between Ethiopia and Yemen as a possible explanation.) In other words, most people at this point believe that the Ethiopians are descendants of at least some converts, whether 3000 years ago or some other point in time. (Here I should note that in the 1970s, Chief Sephardi Rabbi Ovadia Yosef ruled that they were descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes. However, this is not universally agreed.)

So here you have this community that at some point in the ancient past most likely stemmed from converts to Judaism. For thousands of years, they practiced Judaism as best they knew how, living piously and in accordance with the Torah and mitzvot (as well as they knew how) despite being almost totally cut off from the rest of the Jewish world, living in dire poverty, and being subjected off-and-on to persecution by their Christian neighbors and rulers. Finally, in the 1980s, faced with even worse persecution (and poverty) by the Marxist government of Ethiopia, they all left their villages, many traveling 800-1000 miles on foot, to join the rest of the Jewish people. (I'm not going to say any more about how they did that because I don't want to discuss politics here.) Are you going to say that they're somehow "not as good" because they're descendants of converts? For shame.

Salam[shalom].

So your methodical and collected demeanour from earlier postings finally came unhinged...

The problem is, TRUTH, both subjective and objective, cuts like the paper it is written on...

Here is a copy-paste of a commentary from a guy named Daniel to author Jon Entine [Abraham's Children] :

----------------------------------------------------------------

Here's what's really interesting.

Myth #1: The northern kingdom of Israel was exiled and scattered to the four winds, resulting in 10 lost tribes. What do we say of this? The anthropological, historical, and genetic evidence does not bear this out. All we have are tales. The story is false. What can lost apostates do for us anyway?

Myth #2: Rome destroys the second temple and carries away the Jewish nation into exile, scattering it to the four winds. What do we say of this? The anthropological and historical records do not bear this out.

But wait! DNA evidence shows this scenario to be absolutely true and Ashkenazim and Sephardim (including Mizrakim) all share common pristine ancestry with just a smattering of variation, just as the myth has told us.

The story gets even better though, because genetic research will confirm all the more what we have always believed. Accordingly, the wealthy and educated Ashkenazim/Sephardim are genetically the most Jewish with the least variation. Ironically, the poor and less educated Jews from Yemen are barely holding on to their Jewish DNA. And finally, just by coincidence the impoverished and backwards Ethiopian Jews aren't genetically Jewish at all!

It's funny how recent DNA findings tend to tell us what we already know.

------------------------------------------------------------------

FYI the "Jewish" Messiah already came...But he was not accepted : Isa ibn Maryam [Jesus, Son of Mary].

FYI Abraham, Sarah, David, and Solomon [Peace Be Upon Them] weren't Ashkenazi Jews, nor their progenitors...

And its amazing how presenting Ashkenazi Jews as always victims [in this case Ethiopian Jews were also included], but that same empathy is completely absent when dealing with the Palestinians...Whose land the Ashkenazi Jews STOLE.

And that was not enough...

Cultural theft or stealing someone else's heritage is indeed an even more shameful thing.

FYI Indian people don't endlessly play their own historical persecution to death at the hands of the British, either...Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi proved this when he visited England as Mahatma Gandhi...

Presenting oneselves as perpetual victims is a cop out...

My course throughout this discussion was to respond and offer analysis on why the Jewish Tabernacle is really NOT greater than the Kaaba...Simply because the Kaaba is the real tabernacle.

In order to follow a linear course, the subject of the source of the English Bible being the Tanakh[Hebrew Bible], led me to present the facts that the Hebrew language itself was a partial imitation of Arabic.

Then this led to the very foundation of what is the definition of being "Jewish"...This inevitably led to the subject of genealogy...

Did you by chance ever hear of what a Sufic [islamic mysticism] definition of a community is [especially a religious one] ?

Community = Irrationals unified by hope of the impossible.

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second, the constant harping on Ashkenazi ethnic descent seems profoundly ethnocentric or racist in the sense that it seeks to create totally unnecessary tensions between Ashkenazi Jews and other Jews (Sephardi, Persian, Yemenite, etc.), who nobody accuses of not having a longstanding Jewish descent.

For shame.

Salam[shalom].

Most of the top cabinet ministers of Israel since 1948, have been Ashkenazi Jews. When was the last time an Ethiopian or Yemenite or Iranian Jew was given a high cabinet post ?

Forget about any one of them becoming Prime Minister...

Speak of racism or ethnocentrism...

Iranian Jews have in recent years openly criticised Israel's policies toward the Palestinians...And furthermore, Irani Jews are PROUD to be both Jewish and Iranian. Just go on to YouTube and type in "Iranian Jews" and one can listen to firsthand interviews with Irani Jews regarding Israel and the Ashkenazi Jewish policies...

Of course, these documentaries would NEVER be aired on FOX TV or CNN...

Dr. Norman Gary Finkelstein[a Jewish American of Ashkenazi descent] has been a frequent guest on both Al-Jazeera Network and Iranian Television, offering his analysis and perspective on Ashkenazi-run Israel's internal policies and its never-ending UN resolution violations...

This too can be viewed on YouTube, but rarely or never on FOX TV or CNN...

By the way, Dr. Finkelstein is currently BANNED from entering Israel and was detained and refused entry the last time he tried...The highly respected Dr. Finkelstein was actually going to Israel to visit a close Palestinian friend named Musa Abu Hash-Hash[and NO he is not a dealer in hashish]...

He gave an interview regarding this which can be viewed on YouTube as well...

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Ashkenazi Jews were descendants of Khazars, and if they maintained a distinct language (as opposed to the language of whichever society they lived in), you would expect them to either speak a Turkic language, or possibly - a stretch - a Slavic language.

However, neither is true. Everywhere that Ashkenazi Jews historically lived -- from France to Russia -- their first language was Yiddish, which is a Germanic language spiced with Hebrew vocabulary. Specifically, Yiddish is a descendant of High German, the dialects historically spoken in the upland and mountainous areas of central and southern Germany.

Salam[shalom].

Then how do you explain some Turkic words that are part of the Yiddish language ?

Yiddish - kabak = squash; pumpkin Turkic - qabaq = squash; pumpkin

Yiddish - kavene = watermelon; melon Turkic - qawun = watermelon; melon

Yiddish - yarmulke = skullcap; canopy Turkic - yagmurluk = skullcap; rain-covering; canopy

Yiddish - pupik = navel Turkic - goopik = navel

Here is an anonymous response from the Gothic Yiddish website :

------------------------------------------------

The historical smoking gun is Priscus' account of the language of the Scythians under the first Turkic dynasty to rule the southern area of modern Russia. The first coincidence is that the Tanakh [i.e. Hebrew Bible] refers to Scythians as ASKENAZ. The second coincidence in Priscus' account is that these Scythians come from the many nations of southern Russia (probably mostly Slavic speakers and some Iranian), but they use Gothic as one of two national languages. The third coincidence is that they have no knowledge of Greek. The fourth coincidence is that they have knowledge of Latin, which they use in commercial dealings. Hence mostly slavic speakers speaking a Germanic language as a second language with no Greek loans, but some Latin loanwords. Sounds like Yiddish without the medieval Hebrew Aramaic.

----------------------------------------------

Here is a map of Scythia :

350px-Scythia-Parthia_100_BC.png

Here is a map of Khazaria :

webmap1.jpg

From a Wikipedia article excerpt :

The word "Ashkenaz" first appears in the genealogy in the Tanakh (Genesis 10) as a son of Gomer and grandson of Japheth.

The Scythians(Ishkuz), who were called Ashkuzain in Assyrian inscriptions, from Lake Ascanius and the region Ascania in Anatolia[Turkey] derive their names from this group. The "Ashkuza" have also been linked to the Oghuz branch of Turks including nearly all Turkic peoples today from Turkey to Turkmenistan[Turkestan].

References to Ashkenaz in Yossipon and Hasdai's letter to the king of the Khazars would date the term as far back as the tenth century, as would also Saadia Gaon's commentary on Daniel 7:8.

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Second, the linguistic evidence is completely to the contrary. Everyone agrees that the Khazars were Turkic and their home region was the north and west shores of the Caspian Sea (today, parts of Russian & Kazakhstan).

Salam[shalom].

Appending to my previous reply :

So several items were established...

The very word Ashkenaz [erroneously listed in some sources as a medieval Rabbinical name for Germany] LINKS itself to the ancient Scythians...

Who were the Scythians ? The forefathers or direct ancestors of the Khazars...

What is the Hebrew name for the Scythians in the Hebrew Bible [The Tanakh] : ASHKENAZ

This dates back to the Tiberian or Aleppo[Halab] Codex, which is the VERY FIRST Hebrew language text period that dates to 920 A.D.; it is the complete Tanakh[Hebrew Bible or Old Testament]...

Scythia was called ISHKUZ or ASHKUZ...

The ancient Assyrians called the Scythians "Ashkuzain"...And Scythia "Ashkuza"...

There are enough archaelogical inscriptions that are indisputable PROOFS of this...

The GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION of Scythia and the Scythian Empire is the exact same as that of their descendants the Khazars, except it overlapping an even larger area...

Both Scythians and Khazars are undeniably a Turkic people...

The origin of the Ashkenaz name is directly derived from the geographical region of the Bursa Province of Anatolia[Turkey] called Ascania[Ashkenaz] which harbours Lake Ascanius[Ashkenaz]...

Ascania[Ashkenaz] and Lake Ascanius[Ashkenaz] were named after anyone of THREE semi-mythological or fictional characters of Greek mythology :

--The 1st Ascanius[Ashkenaz]: during the Trojan War the region by the Lake Iznik was held by the Phrygians, who sent troops to the aid of King Priam[father of Paris who abducted Helen, wife of Menelaus]; these troops were led by the brothers Phorcys and Ascanius[Ashkenaz], sons of Aretaon as related in Homer's ILIAD;

--Ascanius[Ashkenaz], son of Aeneas;

--Ascanius[Ashkenaz], another son of King Priam, who also features in legends of the Trojan War in Homer's ILIAD.

So there is NO SHAME or should be NO DENIAL of the etymological roots and origins of the very name of ASHKENAZ...

Also, there is NO historical, archaeological, or geographical DOUBT that the very name Ashkenaz is directly linked to the Turkic Scythians and their direct genealogical descendants the Turkic Khazars...

Today, Lake Ascanius[Ashkenaz] is called Lake Iznik in Bursa Province, Turkey...

180px-Iznik_G%C3%B6l%C3%BC_985a.jpg

Lake Iznik, as seen from the town of Iznik.

240px-Lake_Iznik_NASA.jpg

Lake Iznik, Turkey

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam[shalom].

Epilogue :

The name Ashkenaz has two incarnations in the Hebrew Bible [Tanakh]...

Ashkenaz the son of Japheth and grandson of Noah[Nuh]...

Japheth was one of the "Biblical" Noah's sons along with Ham and Shem...

Ham settled in the continent of Africa, and either became Black or sired the Black race who were consequently known as Hamites...

Another theory has it that Ham did NOT sire the Black race but sired the Imazighen or Berber people who have been scientifically proven to be INDIGENOUS NORTH AFRICANS...And are now regarded by many genetic anthropologists as the ORIGIN of the White or Caucasian genetic race. These same geneticists conclude that BOTH the "white" and "black" races originated in the African continent.

Shem settled in Near Eastern Asia and sired the Shemites [semites]...Which are ALL the Saracens[Near Easterners] and Arabs...

Japheth's son Ashkenaz settled in Europe and sired all of the Europeans or Euro-Caucasians...

In the Greek manuscript--the Septuaginta [seventy]--which was the blueprint for the VERY FIRST compilation of what became the Bible[in Greek language] in 325 A.D., Ashkenaz was ASCANIUS.

From Wikipedia sources :

Ascanius[Ashkenaz] was the name of THREE Greek mythological figures :

--Ascanius[Ashkenaz], son of Aretaon; during the Trojan War the region by the Lake Iznik was held by the Phrygians, who sent troops to the aid of King Priam[father of Paris who abducted Helen, wife of Menelaus]; these troops were led by the brothers Phorcys and Ascanius[Ashkenaz], sons of Aretaon as related in Homer's ILIAD;

--Ascanius[Ashkenaz], another son of King Priam, who also features in legends of the Trojan War in Homer's ILIAD.

--Ascanius[Ashkenaz], son of Aeneas; Ascanius was the son of Aeneas and Creusa. After the Trojan War, as the city burned, Aeneas escaped to Latium in Italy, taking his father Anchises and his child Ascanius with him, though Creusa died during the escape. Ascanius later fought in the Italian Wars. Virgil's Aeneid says he had a role in the founding of Rome as the first king of Alba Longa. According to another legend mentioned by Livy, Ascanius may have been the son of Aeneas and Lavinia and thus born in Latium, not Troy. Thirty years after the founding of Lavinium, Ascanius founded Alba Longa. He had a son or grandson called Aeneas Silvius.

Ascanius was also called Iulus or Julus. The Gens Julia, or the Julians, the clan to which Julius Caesar belonged, claimed to have been descended from Ascanius/Iulus, his father Aeneas, and, ultimately, the goddess Venus, the mother of Aeneas in myth, his father being the mortal Anchises.

-----------------------------------------

The 2nd incarnation of the name Ashkenaz in the Hebrew Bible [Tanakh] is the positive identification of the Scythians; this is from the ancient Assyrian name for the Scythians being Ashkuzain or Ashkuzai ...

Also, the word scythe as in the enormous blade which is used to reap harvest is derived from the Scythians; they apparently invented the scythe.

The Assyrian descriptions also give the same geographical location which includes Lake Ascanius[Ashkenaz], Asia Minor/Anatolia[Turkey] as Ashkuzain territory...

From Eric M. Flaxenburg's essay :

The Scyths were a fierce horsebreeding culture that controlled the Black Sea steppes from the Caspian shores to the Balkans. Herodotus speaks of them with great respect, indeed awe, and their highly sophisticated goldwork is still being uncovered.

Ashkenaz, the same ancient Hebrew word, was used by medieval rabbis to describe Germans or their lands.

The most common contemporary use of the word, Ashkenazi, is reserved for Yiddish speaking Jews of European origin and their descendants. This branch of Jewry and their Germanic tongue can be traced back to, at least, the eighth century. They are, by language, rite, and appearance, different from that other large group of Jewry, the Sephardim as well as the many lesser groups who fled the Roman destruction, such as the green-eyed Tat of the Caucasus, the Bene Israel of India, the Kai Fung of China, etc.

The Scyths ruled a vast expanse from the Eighth to the Second Century B.C. when they were pushed westward by a kindred nation of horsemen, the Sarmatians. Nevertheless, there was ample opportunity and motive for contact between ancient Jews and their Scythian neighbors.

The first such opportunity occurred in B.C. 722 when Sargon II of Assyria carried off the ten northern tribes of Israel. How many he carried off (27,290 by his own count).

It is reasonable to assume that Sargon II chose to carry off the artisans and intellectuals of the Ten Tribes...and that, these skilled captives were instrumental in building Dar Sharrukin, the fortress of the north commenced by Sargon II (Sharrukin in Assyrian) in B.C. 717. The concept behind this new city was not only to protect the northern frontiers of the Assyrian Empire but, even more, to open the way north for further expansion. Contact here between Hebrew captive and allied Scythian tribesmen must have certainly been facilitated.

In B.C. 705 Sargon II was killed in battle with the Cimmerians who were subsequently destroyed and driven west by the Scythians.

Did the Ten Tribes, both, as individuals and tribal groups, escape and join themselves to the Scythian/Ashkazi/Ashkenazi tribes?

Was it their fate to disappear into the maw of the barbarian north?

Had they done so, it is unlikely that they would have been known by any name resembling the Jutes or Judaeans. These ten tribes were of the Northern Kingdom and would have identified themselves by their individual tribal names, or as Israel or Jacob...or...Angle.

The Yiddish or Ashkenaz word for Jacob is Yankel.

It is a nazalization of the Biblical root Y/K/B meaning heel or ankle. (Jacob, you will recall, came forth from his mother's womb grasping Esau's heel or ankle). It is a rare Ashkenaz family that does not have an Uncle Yankel...and yes, Yank for short.

-----------------------------------------

It could also be hypothesized that the Scythians were descendants of the mythical Trojans; there is absolutely NO DOUBT that the Scythians[Ashkuzain] WERE ancestors of the Khazars.

I do not adhere to much of Mr. Flaxenburg's essay regarding the concept of "lost ten tribes" and a "Jewish diaspora" or "dispersia". Since, there was no DIASPORA or dispersing...

I included Flaxenburg's essay because it links the Scythians with Jewish proselyters or missionaries and because of Flaxenburg's detailed account of Sharrukin[sargon] II supposedly carrying off the Ten Tribes as captives from Palestinian "Israel" to build build his fortress Dar Sharrukin...

My own personal hypothesis has Sharrukin[sargon] I being the conqueror who ended the Syrian Eblan Bani Israili dynasty of rulers nearly two millennia earlier than Sharrukin[sargon] II...This of course from some of the epigraphy of Giovanni Pettinato, of the Italian archaeological team, that in the 1970's discovered the Ebla Tablets. The Ebla Tablets being the VERY FIRST ancient artifacts found to actually contain names and narratives of the traditional monotheist scriptures. These names being that of Archangel Mikailu[Michael]; Adamu[Adam]; Hawwa[Eve]; Abramu[Abraham]; Esaum[Esau, Yaqub Israil's fraternal twin brother]; Shaulum[saul]; Daudum[David]; etc...

It is important to note that NO SUCH archaeological finds have ever been discovered to this day in Palestine/Israel...Nothing that even mentions the names of ancient monotheist traditional figures or their narratives.

As for Flaxenburg's version of the so-called "Diaspora" or dispersing which links Jewish proselyters and missionaries with the Scythians[Ashkuzain], this of course occurred much later in history when the Scythians[Ashkuzain] evolved into Khazars and adopted en masse, Judaism as their state religion. This was a result of Jewish missionaries and proselyters trying to preserve Judaism, which was in danger of becoming a marginal religion at the very least, if it survived its competition with the global sweep of Christianity and Standard Islam. Historically, Khazar conversion to Judaism was a precedent. Although, Judaism originated in Palestine, with the division of the monotheists[muwahidun] into Nasrani[Nazarenes] and Yahudi[Judeans], there was no ruling Jewish nation or land upto that time in history. The Khazar nation was the world's very first Jewish state.

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third, and this really gets my goat, is that the constant harping on Ashkenazi ethnic descent rubs salt in a very real aspect of why our (I say "our" because I am 7/8ths Ashkenazi) ancestors did include non-Jews, and that is rape -- by Crusaders, Cossacks, pogromists, villagers riled up by church authorities, whatever. Now we know this happened -- we have historical accounts of many of these events, and for every event with a detailed written history, there were probably 10 with no written history -- but by constantly saying "ooh, 50% of your genes don't have this haplotype," it sounds like you're trying to enumerate the number of my great-grandmothers that were raped by Cossacks. I don't know what passes as an insult in East India, but repeatedly insinuating that "large numbers of your great-great-great....grandmothers were raped while your great-great-great...grandfathers and their little children had to stand by helplessly and watch" is not a nice thing to say -- even though it is probably true. So yes, some of my maternal ancestors took it from a Crusader, and you can see that influence in the mtDNA. Happy?

Salam[shalom].

Brother we are in agreement...The CHRISTIAN Crusaders were real pieces of work. It is clearly evident that the real bitter enemy of Western Judaism has been Western Christianity...

Even in India, the Portuguese Christian missionaries who came to "SAVE OUR SOULS" burned alive about 2000 South Indians before some of us started to convert to Christianity...

I SINCERELY feel for the terrible fate of Ashkenazis[scythians/Khazars] at the hands of the Christian West--both in Russia and Europe...

However, what I cannot understand is the hatred our Ashkenazi Jewish brothers have for the Muslim community in general...?

Under Muslim Spain, Judaism FLOURISHED and was given full freedom of expression and practice. This is a historical FACT.

Some of the greatest Jewish minds[e.g. Musa bin Maymun; Solomon bin Gabirol; etc.] from that Moorish era were recognized "Arabized Jews" and learned Arabic as their 2nd native language.

But again, I cannot understand why the unfortunate resentment for the Muslim community by Ashkenazi Jews when historically, their bitterest enemies were Western Christians...?

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam[shalom].

The Scythians[Ashkenazi/Ashkazi/Ashkuzain] were also categorized into two groups : Scythians and Indo-Scythians. When the Scythians[Ashkenazi] evolved into Khazars, these two groups were identified as : Ak[White]-Khazars and Kara[Black]-Khazars. Although both groups were Caucasian, the Ak-Khazars tended to be fairer complected with blonde, sandy-blonde, and red hair and blue, green, or gray eyes. The Kara-Khazar were distinguished as being medium-fair complected with brown, dark brown, and black hair and hazel, brown, or dark brown eyes.

The Indo-Scythians had migrated from Southern Russia into NE Persia(Iran); Afghanistan; Uzbekistan; Tadzhikistan; Baluchistan[in Pakistan].

Ashkenaz was the ancient name for Scythia. The etymology of the very name Scyth comes from Skuza = Archer; the Scythians/Ashkenazi were among the most skillful archers. The ancient Assyrian linguistic adaptation for the Scythians was Ashkuzain and Scythia was Ashkuza; In Pahlavi and Farsi, Scythia was Ashkuz or Ishkuz.

In original Hebrew or Massoretic Tiberian Hebrew, Scythia was Ashkenaz and the Scythians were Ashkenazi...

Also, in Greek mythology, the TWO legendary Trojans : Ascanius, son of King Priam of Troy; Ascanius, son of Aeneas, 2nd cousin of King Priam; were both excellent archers. Ascanius, son of King Priam, was also brother of Paris. Paris was the one who had fired the arrow at Achilles' heel, which killed Achilles during the Trojan War in Homer's ILIAD.

Also, the town of Ascania[Askenazi] harbouring Lake Ascanius[Askenaz], which is present-day town of Iznik and Lake Iznik, was named NICAEA in post-Julio-Claudian Roman times.

This very same Ascania/Nicaea/Iznik was where the very 1st Christian emperor of Rome, Constantine I (the Great), held the legendary Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.

At this council, the Elders of the Seven Ecumenical Churches of Christianity met and where 1800 Christian scholars compiled what became the BIBLE. The ACTUAL name of what later came to be called THE BIBLE was the Creed of Nicaea. This was the very first standardized or uniform written doctrine of Christianity. It was at the imperial decree of Emperor Constantine I (the Great).

Coincidentally, orthodox Muslim scholars of the Abbasid Caliphate studied this formation of the Biblical prototype, which was the Nicene Creed. They copied this Christian historicity into their own theological parlance and recorded a FICTIONALIZED account of 3rd Caliph & 1st Umayyad Caliph, Uthman ibn al-Affan, similarly also ordering a uniform or standardized version of the Holy Qur'an.

First and foremost, this IMPLIES that the Holy Qur'an had conflicting versions which needed to be uniform and standardized. This in itself is implicit SHIRK and KUFR on the part of standard Islamic or orthodox Muslim scholars of the Abbasid Caliphate.

Later, orthodox Muslim apologists tried to "clarify" this by stating that the Quranic Suwar[plural for surahs] were in different orders from the varied sources, and some had differing titles or names...

The fact is that the Three Volume[30 Para] Ali Codex [Al-Mushaf Al-Ali], the OLDEST existing authentic handwritten Holy Qur'an, is in CHRONOLOGICAL order. The current order of the Holy Qur'an was NOT the work of an alleged Zayd bin Thabit(???), a supposed secretary(???) of Prophet Muhammad, but the work of the Abbasid orthodox Muslim scholars of Harun ar-Rahsid's Caliphate. The mastermind behind this was Harun ar-Rashid's grand vizier[prime minister], Yahya Barmaki; the Barmaki[Barmecides] family were originally Afghan Buddhists who converted to Islam.

The Ali Codex [Al-Mushaf Al-Ali] is EXISTING PROOF that the Holy Qur'an, word-for-word and letter-for-letter, has in NO WAY changed since it went from OT[oral tradition] to WT[written tradition] under Caliph Ali ibn Abu Talib's caliphate(656-661 A.D.); there are other existing 8th century A.D. handwritten copies of the Holy Qur'an[including earlier 7th century A.D. copies calligraphed by the Hashimite Sayeds Hasan b. Ali; Husayn b. Ali; Ali b. al-Husayn; and 8th century A.D. copies by Hashimite Sayeds Mohd. al-Baqir; Jafar as-Sadiq; Ali ar-Raza] all of which historically ATTEST to the Holy Qur'an's UNALTERED sacred texts.

Muslim scholar Maudoodi's categorization of which Quranic Suwar[plural for surahs] were revealed in Mecca and in Medina had to have been based on the Ali Codex [Al-Mushaf Al-Ali] of 660 A.D.[40 A.H.]...Whether Maudoodi formally acknowledged this or not...Or even if Maudoodi or his biographers attributed this to "other" sources. The historical facts are that only Caliph Ali had been attributed with writing down the Holy Qur'an in its original chronological order. This tradition was upheld by his genealogical descendants, the Hashimite Sayeds or Ithna Ashari[Twelve] Aimma[Leaders]...

Neither of Prophet Muhammad's contemporaries that were traditional Quranic preservationists[huffaz], such as Ubay bin Kab, "Abdullah" ibn Masood, Abu Musa Ashari, Muadh ibn Jabal, etc., were ever accredited with actually writing down the Holy Qur'an. Nor were their alleged "arrangements" of the Quranic Suwar[i.e. Surahs] ever known to be in chronological order. In summation, there are NO existing copies of the Holy Qur'an attributed to Ubay bin Kab, "Abdullah" ibn Masood, Abu Musa Ashari, Muadh ibn Jabal or any of the traditional preservationists[huffaz].

The 8th Hashimite Sayed, Imam Ali ar-Ridha[ar-Raza], had handwritten the last copy of the Holy Qur'an in its original chronological order; the Imam Ali ar-Raza(766-822 A.D.) was a historical contemporary of Abbasid Caliph Harun ar-Rashid(763-809 A.D.), and his highly influential and politically powerful grand vizier[prime minister], Yahya Barmaki.

Yahya Barmaki, was of the direct lineal descent of the Barmakis[Barmecides] of Balkh, Afghanistan. Although, it was once considered that the Barmakis were Zartosht(Zoroastrians), historicity has it that the Barmakis were originally Afghan Buddhist priests of the family of PRAMUKH; hence, Barmaki is a Khorasani Farsi corruption or adaptation of Pramukhi.

No handwritten copies of the Holy Qur'an exist of any of the last four Hashimite Sayeds : Mohd. at-Taqi; Ali an-Naqi; Hasan al-Askari; Mohd. al-Mahdi. The general consensus is that the last four Hashimite Sayeds/Islamic Aimma were prevented from handwriting anymore Holy Qur'ans in their original chronological order by the Abbasid Caliphate.

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appended to my previous posting :

Photocopies of authentic 7th-8th century A.D. Holy Qur'ans handwritten by the Hashimite Sayeds/Islamic Aimma :

post-25505-12549827869126_thumb.jpg

post-25505-12549827997085_thumb.jpg

post-25505-12549828186306_thumb.jpg

post-25505-1254982844478_thumb.jpg

post-25505-12549828633178_thumb.jpg

post-25505-12549828798878_thumb.jpg

post-25505-125498290624_thumb.jpg

Perhaps, it is clear why the famous saying of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) went : The Qur'an is with the Ahlul Bayt[People Of The House], and they are with the Qur'an...

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why oh why these early Quran were not written with diacritical & vowel marks? It causes some differences in reading & it makes non-Arabic speakers could not read them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why oh why these early Quran were not written with diacritical & vowel marks? It causes some differences in reading & it makes non-Arabic speakers could not read them

Salam.

That's a question that could only have been properly answered by those who actually wrote them...

However, a point to note is that NONE of the ancient landmark historical and theological documents, whether on parchment or clay tablets, contained diacritics...

This includes the early Christian works written in Greek and BEFORE Hebrew...

Just as in modern-day English...Diacritics are not used anwhere in the world. ALL English-language usage in public or private sectors contain NO DIACRITICS.

It is generally accepted that everyone who has studied in the English medium UNDERSTANDS English without any need of diacritics. There is no need to diacritically emphasize long vowels, short vowels, soft consonants, hard consonants, etc...

The Arabic language, from the latter half of the 7th century A.D. thru 10th century A.D., was the LINGUA FRANCA of the civilized world. Just as English, French, and Spanish were during the age of European colonial expansion.

Even in the ever-growing Spanish language, no diacritics are used anywhere in the world. It is automatically assumed that ALL Spanish speakers understand what they read...

The Aryo-Dravidian languages generally used in present-day India, Nepal, etc., do not use any diacritics either. Neither "Hindi"; Gujarati; Tamil; Telugu; Malayali; Kannada; etc...

This is the same with oriental languages such as Chinese[Mandarin & Cantonese]; Japanese; Korean; Vietnamese; etc...

----------------------------------------------

As footnotes, the early Holy Qur'ans in Kufic script handwritten by the Hashimite Sayeds eventually came under the appropriation of the Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, Iraq. During the foundation of the Safavid dynasty of Persia(Iran) by the Azeri Shah Ismail I, son of Shaykh Haidar, Iraq had been annexed by him into the Safavid empire. Shah Ismail I then transferred nearly ALL the early Holy Qur'ans handwritten by the Hashimite Sayeds[islamic Aimma] to Persia(Iran). These Holy Qur'ans are presently at : Astan-e-Qods Razavi museums, which are three museums, the Markazi, Malek Abad and Ganjineh-ye-Qoran Museums in Mashhad, Iran; Astaneh Moqaddaseh Museum and Mar'ashi Najafi Library in Qom, Iran.

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean by diacritical marks in Arabic are dot points, e.g. dot to differentiate ba, ta, ya, nun

Knowing that the absence of diacritical & vowel marks has lead to differences in reading, considering the pictures you gave above are truly Quran written by Imams, have you ever wondered why the Imams didn't write Al-Quran with diacritical marks & dot points to avoid reading differences & to ensure there's only 1 way to read & write Al-Quran which should be easy enough that even a non Arabic speaker can read Al-Quran easily & accurately?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I mean by diacritical marks in Arabic are dot points, e.g. dot to differentiate ba, ta, ya, nun

Knowing that the absence of diacritical & vowel marks has lead to differences in reading, considering the pictures you gave above are truly Quran written by Imams, have you ever wondered why the Imams didn't write Al-Quran with diacritical marks & dot points to avoid reading differences & to ensure there's only 1 way to read & write Al-Quran which should be easy enough that even a non Arabic speaker can read Al-Quran easily & accurately?

Salam.

I know what you mean by diacritical marks...

Hafs Ibn Sulayman Ibn al-Mughirah Ibn Abi Dawud al-Asadi al-Kufi (90-180 AH) was the one traditionally accredited with adding diacritical marks to the Holy Qur'an.

Hafs ibn Sulayman's great-grandfather Abi Dawud al-Asadi was a contemporary of Caliph Ali ibn Abu Talib. Traditionally, Abi Dawud al-Asadi was one of those Hejazi Arab settlers of Kufa[suristan City] dubbed "Neo-Kufans", that contributed in the development of the Kufic Arabic script, which was derived from the Sassanid Pahlavi script.

Abi Dawud al-Asadi was of the Bani Asad clan of the Meccan Quraysh. The development of the Kufic Arabic script was during the caliphate of Uthman ibn al-Affan[644-656 A.D.], even though its formation had absolutely NOTHING to do with Uthman. Historically, neither was Uthman involved with the development of the Kufic Arabic script, nor did he authorize it in any way, shape, or form. In fact, Uthman ibn al-Affan was most probably not even aware of its formation by the Neo-Kufans at Kufa. Uthman ruled out of Madinah, Arabia and had nothing to do with Kufa, Iraq from any significant historical standpoint.

One logical reason why the Hashimite Sayeds DID NOT use diacritical marks was that the margin of error in erroneous copying and mistakes by human hand could cause mispronunciation. With the Arabic language being so ultra-sensitive to the slightest change in vocalization, which could lead to a completely different meaning, human handwritten errors in diacritical markings would have been inevitable. There were no printing presses then in the Near East. The use of diacritical marks is a delicate issue and requires painstaking care and caution. To avoid such margins of error, especially when it came to arduous, painstaking handwritten material, it would have been more logical to EXCLUDE them. I know this may not make sense, but if you gave it some deep thought, it does make sense.

Also, the photocopies I provided are indeed authentic ones of the Holy Qur'ans handwritten by the Hashimite Sayeds/Islamic Aimma. Nearly all of the Holy Qur'ans calligraphed by the Hashimite Sayeds are today in Iran. As I already mentioned, they were appropriated by Shah Ismail I from Iraq.

Since, the Islamic revolution of 1979 in Iran, for the longest time any photocopying of the landmark Holy Qur'ans of Islamic history, especially the ones handwritten by the Hashimite Sayeds, were prohibited.

Any photocopies in circulation of those Holy Qur'ans are extremely rare indeed. Only tourists and pilgrims who go to Qom and Mashhad in Iran, have seen them. THERE IS NO DOUBT TO THEIR AUTHENTICITY as they have been examined by some of the top scholars around the world. However, because of their proprietorship by the "Shi'ite" state of Iran and the stigma attached to this within the non-Shi'ite Islamic world, these Holy Qur'ans have most sadly been neglected and ignored.

On the other hand, the orthodox scholars of standard Islam that have been promoting FICTIONALIZED accounts from Abbasid times, about the supposed written Holy Qur'ans during the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, have COME OUT FLAT IN PRODUCING ANY OF THESE ALLEGED HOLY QUR'ANS.

From a purely ARCHAEOLOGICAL standpoint, THEY DO NOT EXIST. No supposed Holy Qur'ans written during the caliphates of Abu Bakr, Umar, or Uthman have ever been found to this day.

The so-called differently "arranged" versions of the Holy Qur'an by Ubay bin Kab, "Abdullah" ibn Masood, Zayd bin Thabit(???), Abu Musa Ashari, Muadh ibn Jabal, etc., etc., ARE NOWHERE IN SIGHT TO THIS VERY DAY.

The two ALLEGED "Uthman" Qur'ans in Istanbul, Turkey and Tashkent, Uzbekistan are in KUFIC SCRIPT...The Kufic Arabic script was barely completed in its development when Uthman ibn al-Affan was assassinated in Madinah in 656 A.D.; in Uthman's lifetime, only the Ma'il and Mashq Arabic scripts were in use in the Arabian Peninsula.

All those fictionalized ahadith about Uthman allegedly "standardizing" the Holy Qur'an come up flat archaeologically...

According to unanimous standard Islamic and orthodox Muslim history, only Uthman's supposed "standardized" Holy Qur'an was kept in existence while all "The other copies already in the hands of Muslims in other areas were collected and sent to Medina where, on orders of the Caliph[uthman ibn al-Affan], they were destroyed by burning or boiling."

How, the Muslim Ummah, in general, can even ACCEPT such hadith regarding Uthman's supposed method of "standardizing" the Holy Qur'an--the very word of Almighty Allah (swt)--is beyond any reason or intelligence.

However, for the sake of the integrity of the Muslim Ummah, THERE ARE EXISTING HANDWRITTEN COPIES of the Holy Qur'an to this very day of the Hashimite Sayeds/Islamic Aimma...From Caliph Ali ibn Abu Talib to Imam Ali ar-Raza.

Also, if the current arrangement of the 114 Suwar[surahs or scriptures] of the Holy Qur'an supposedly dates back to Uthman ibn al-Affan and Zayd bin Thabit, then what is the explanation for the authentic Holy Qur'ans of Caliph Ali and the other Hashimite Sayeds being in CHRONOLOGICAL order...And not in the current order that is in circulation around the world ?

Wa Huwa Ala Kulli Shayin Qadir.

Edited by Al-Afza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×