History questions not worth their own thread V

Status
Not open for further replies.
AFAIK the Old Testament says that the Isrealites/Jews are God's chosen people, and many Christians and Jews today believe it in varying degrees.
Since Islam also is based on the same book, why don't the Jews have a special place in the Quran and Islam?

Actually, Jews and Christians are referred to as 'people of the Book'; consequently, they do have (had) a special place in Islam.

If I remember correctly, Muslims descend from Ismael while Jews descend from Israel. That is, each from one of the two sons of Abraham.

I don't quite see how a religion can 'descend', except in a figurative way; Muslims do not 'descend' from Ishmael, nor do present-day Jews 'descend' from Israel. It contradicts conversion, which has played a significant part in both Judaism and Islam.
 
In early Judaism, and arguably still today, there wasn't much difference between being ethnically and religiously Jewish: converts could come in, for sure, in the same way that foreigners can be naturalised, but the core of the Jewish nation was, well, the Jewish nation. Certainly, as Genesis understands it, the present-day (ethnically-Jewish) 'core' population of Israel ought to be considered the biological descendants of Abraham. The same mindset applies to 'the Palestinians' (I think) being 'descended' from Ishmael.
 
Yeah, the idea is that in the times when those where written, the followers of the religion were all or almost all of the same ethnicity and thus descendants from either. It does have to do more with the people, but the whole of the followers can claim to follow the favoured son of Abraham.
 
JEELEN said:
I don't quite see how a religion can 'descend', except in a figurative way; Muslims do not 'descend' from Ishmael, nor do present-day Jews 'descend' from Israel.

It's often employed quite literally.

JEELEN said:
It contradicts conversion, which has played a significant part in both Judaism and Islam.
No, it doesn't. The Sejarah Malayu claims that the Malacca Royal Family are descendants of Iskandar a descendant of Ishmael. Anyone who married a member of the Malaccan Royal Family can therefore claim descent from Ishmael. I wouldn't be surprised if other court annals made similar claims with the effect of giving pretty much everyone who wants it a means of claiming descent from Ismael.
 
I descend from Jesus II, the little brother of Jesus who is never mentioned in the Bible because he was just an ordinary guy.
 
taillesskangaru said:
I wouldn't imagine claiming descent from Ishmael to be a particularly difficult claim to "prove".
Maori are the lost tribe of Israel.
 
Japanese are Maori. It explains how we're almost white.
 
Nice. We're all sons of Abraham after all, aren't we? We all should be either Jews or Muslims. Or both.
 
Nice. We're all sons of Abraham after all, aren't we? We all should be either Jews or Muslims. Or both.

I am a son of Lucy, iirc
 
And I am a son of Adam and Eve. And Noah and Abraham.
 
Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosomal Adam, to be precise - both of whom lived probably over 200,000 ya (+/- several dozen thousand). And to be even more precise - all of us except 11 guys from Mbo tribe (Cameroon) and 1 guy Albert Perry (South Carolina), who descent from another Adam who lived 340,000 ya.

It's like claiming descent from Noah.

Noah is a classic example of a population bottleneck:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bottleneck

The Toba catastrophe theory suggests that a bottleneck of the human population occurred c. 70,000 years ago, proposing that the human population was reduced to perhaps 10,000 individuals[3] when the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia erupted and triggered a major environmental change. The theory is based on geological evidences of sudden climate change and on coalescence evidences of some genes (including mitochondrial DNA, Y-chromosome and some nuclear genes)[4] and the relatively low level of genetic variation with humans.[3]

(...)

On the other hand, in 2000, a Molecular Biology and Evolution paper suggested a transplanting model or a 'long bottleneck' to account for the limited genetic variation, rather than a catastrophic environmental change.[7] This would be consistent with suggestions that in sub-Saharan Africa numbers could have dropped at times as low as 2,000, for perhaps as long as 100,000 years, before numbers began to expand again in the Late Stone Age.[8]

Is it possible that his Ark was large enough to transport 10,000 or even just 2,000 individuals, though? :p :mischief:

nor do present-day Jews 'descend' from Israel.

Just to mention that there are considerable differences between Y-DNA haplogroups % of Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews:



Each such main haplogroup (all of them further divide into many subclades) means a common male ancestor at some point (many thousand years ago).

10 generations ago, each of us had 1024 ancestors, all of whom lived at that very same time. But just 2 of them were in direct lineages.

Of course Y-DNA haplogroup only tells you about oldest common male ancestor in direct patrilinear lineage (while mtDNA haplogroup about oldest common female ancestor in direct matrilinear lineage). If we go 10 generations back in time, each of us had 1024 ancestors (512 male and 512 female ones) at that time. Only 2 of those 1024 can be "traced" by haplogroup research. You inherit your features from all of your 1024 genetic ancestors - except for mitochondrial DNA (which is inherited from direct female ancestor each time) and Y chromosome (which is inherited from direct male ancestor each time).
 
Yeah. Either Homo Sapiens Sapiens is much older than it is currently thought (oldest anatomically modern human remains found so far are about 195,000 years old, which was in agreement with results of haplogroup research until Albert Perry was found, but is no longer in such agreement now), OR Albert Perry's great, great, great... grandfather was not a Homo Sapiens Sapiens, but some other human who had fertile offspring with a female of our species.

BTW:

Small traces of Neanderthal DNA were also already found in white people from Europe and North America, but not in people from other continents, which is evidence that there were some intermarriages / interbreeding between Neanderthals and our species after we went out of Africa and colonized Europe (IF we even are two different species, because maybe Neanderthals were in fact the same species as we are, but just looked differently as a group - after all, today people from different parts of the world also have various physical appearances). Here is a wiki article about this archaic admixture into our DNA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaic_human_admixture_with_modern_Homo_sapiens

Homo-Stammbaum%2C_Version_Stringer.jpg


====================================

Maybe we should change our opinion about Neanderthals as "primitive savages" ???: :)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=12791695&highlight=Neanderthal#post12791695

Neanderthal.png
 
Cut the condescending tone will you

I will - I didn't mean it to sound like this, my apologies if it did sound in a condescending way. :c5unhappy:

And when I wrote "we should" I wrote "we" as all people (not "we forumers of CivFan") - many people still think about Neanderthals this way.

In general in my opinion scientists prematurely and too eagerly distinguished a hell of a lot of various "archaic human species".

Now it is slowly turning out that in fact perhaps many of those "species" were not separate species, but the same one.

After all, when two individuals can have fertile offspring with each other, it usually (maybe not always) means that they are from one species.
 
It's often employed quite literally.

Just pointing that, unfortunately, such claims have little basis in fact.


No, it doesn't. The Sejarah Malayu claims that the Malacca Royal Family are descendants of Iskandar a descendant of Ishmael. Anyone who married a member of the Malaccan Royal Family can therefore claim descent from Ishmael. I wouldn't be surprised if other court annals made similar claims with the effect of giving pretty much everyone who wants it a means of claiming descent from Ismael.

There is a similar claim from the Moroccan royal dynasty. So what? I was commenting on religion, not dynasties.

You could also have mentioned the 'Jewish people' claim to Israel, 'land of their forefathers'. If there was an ancient Jewish people, present days Jews have little in common with them. (Let alone the question if Jews ever formed a majority in ancient Palestine.)

Caesar claimed direct lineage from Venus.

So, yes, it does.
 
If one follow all the claims of ancestry, I'm a descendant of Thor. So there's that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom