A Muslim majority Indus Valley Civilization?

[p(-)0ENiX]

Heh, heh. No, nothing quite so risible. Just to say that you are giving up points and operating under the shadow of those to your right, who still remain literalists with no one to oppose their being asinine.

So what do you mean by "operating under the shadow of those to your right" or by "yielding excessive ground to the unconverted"?

What is foolish about having a literal view of the scripture? You do realize that all Muslims interpret the Quranic stories literally right?

By the way you messed up the remaining part of my post in your quote below the response. The hyperlink to the Pathans being related to the lost tribes isn't appearing correctly.

**********​

Here is another research on the genetics of the Pakistani population.

Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan

Abstract

Eighteen binary polymorphisms and 16 multiallelic, short-tandem-repeat (STR) loci from the nonrecombining portion of the human Y chromosome were typed in 718 male subjects belonging to 12 ethnic groups of Pakistan.

These identified 11 stable haplogroups and 503 combination binary marker/STR haplotypes. Haplogroup frequencies were generally similar to those in neighboring geographical areas, and the Pakistani populations speaking a language isolate (the Burushos), a Dravidian language (the Brahui), or a Sino-Tibetan language (the Balti) resembled the Indo-European–speaking majority.

Nevertheless, median-joining networks of haplotypes revealed considerable substructuring of Y variation within Pakistan, with many populations showing distinct clusters of haplotypes. These patterns can be accounted for by a common pool of Y lineages, with substantial isolation between populations and drift in the smaller ones.

Few comparative genetic or historical data are available for most populations, but the results can be compared with oral traditions about origins. The Y data support the well-established origin of the Parsis in Iran, the suggested descent of the Hazaras from Genghis Khan’s army, and the origin of the Negroid Makrani in Africa, but do not support traditions of Tibetan, Syrian, Greek, or Jewish origins for other populations.

**********​

Here is another interesting, but old article dating "April 15, 2009".

**********​

Pakistanis' ignorance to their roots.​

It is common for Pakistanis to look back to their history starting in the 7th century AD when their ancestors were first exposed to Islam during Muhammed Bin Qasim's temporary presence in Sindh. Instead of looking back even further to their roots -which predate Islam- they identify with the invading nations and rulers who were mostly Islamic.

They (Pakistanis) go even further and fall under the delusion to believe these rulers as their "ancestors" (though there was minor race mixing with invading Arabs, Persians, Turko-Mongols and the local population, the majority still remain the same).

According to many Pakistanis, these supposed "ancestors" of theirs "brought civilization" to present-day Pakistan and the rest of Southern Asia. Before that there was no civilization there, at least from what they think.

Even those such as Zaid Hamid continue to carry the typical false slogan that Pakistanis have carried for generations that "we 'Muslims' ruled over the Indians for a thousands years and gave them civilization."

To really know who these 'Muslims' were (almost as if the word has a racial or tribal meaning) it is important to look into the history of these 'Muslims' who did indeed rule Pakistan and the rest of South Asia and if they really did bring civilization.

The first Muslims who stepped foot into Pakistan were the Arabs led by Muhammed Bin-Qasim, though it is believed they were not able to establish a firm control over the natives and were later driven out. Looking at Arab history, culture, ethnicity, linguistics it should be obvious to most people that Arabs are certainly not the ancestors of present-day Pakistanis. It does not take an anthropologist or a historian to point this out, but common sense. If one is still not convinced, then he/she is free to research Arab history, culture, genetics, linguistics. After all in the modern age of technology there are so many free resources out there to be used anytime whenever desired.

The second Muslim rulers of Pakistan were the Ghaznaviods. The general historic consensus is that they were a Persian-ruled dynasty but with an army consisted of Turko-Mongols. The Persians originate in the Fars province (Persia) of present day Iran while their army of Turko-Mongols were mostly of Altaic origins in present-day Mongolia and Siberia. Like the Arabs, the Ghaznavids's background can be further researched and from what is known, and they surely did not share a common origin with present-day Pakistanis.

Next came the Ghurids, another Persian-led force. What is known about their linguistics is that they were an Iranic-speaking people like the Persians (search Iranic languages to fully understand the meaning of the term) just like most of Pakistan's western populations the Baloch, the Pakhtuns. But, linguistics does not necessary coincide with genetics!

Take the Iranic-speaking Hazaara in Afghanistan. Just by looking at them, their Altaic/Turanoid origins become very obvious. Even recent genetic findings suggests that Pakhtuns and Baloch, though Iranic speaking share common genes with the Dardic speaking Kashmiris.

Coming back to the Ghurids, the theories are that most of them originated along the Afghanistan-Tajikistan areas. These areas are not part of present day Pakistan, nor are their current inhabitants Pakistanis.

After that came the Mughals (a corruption of the word "Mongol"), another empire like the Ghaznavids ruled mainly by Persians, but with a mainly Turko-Mongol army. It is common for Pakistanis to claim to be of Mughal descent. Unless they're willing to call the present-day Turko-Mongoloid peoples of the former USSR and Mongolia their 'cousins' despite their different Mongoloid skull structure -as opposed to the Caucasoid skulls of most Pakistanis - or their Altaic languages -as opposed to the majority Indo-European languages of Pakistanis, then they should stop calling the Mughals or any other foreign Muslim empires their "ancestors."

Instead Pakistanis should wake up and learn more about the history of their country and their people!

Given the basic insight to these invading empires, they certainly were not the ancestors of Pakistanis. In fact the British who were the last invading empire also shared something in common with Pakistanis as well!

1) They were Caucasoid by skull type like most Pakistanis.

2) They too spoke an Indo-European language (English).

Based on this should Pakistanis start claiming British ancestry now!?! Or that the British Raj was somehow a 'Pakistani Empire'?? Also note there have been many intermarraiges between Brits and Pakistanis and continues even today as there is a huge Pakistani community in Britain. This does not make the majority of Pakistanis of British descent, just a small handful. Likewise the same can be said for other invading empires.

Another common trend for Pakistanis is to unquestionably swallow Indian propaganda and see their pre-history as "Indian" or "South Asian" or "desi."

Many brainwashed, Indianized Pakistanis, like the Islamists, always like to always associate with the other. Pakistanis who have a Pan-South Asian mindset wish for their pre-Islamic history which spread mostly and were based in Pakistan to be known as "Indian" or "South Asian". The truth is most ancient civilizations based in Pakistan did NOT spread over South Asia!

"Desi" is a term popular amongst Pan-South Asians. It is used to refer to Dravidian, Dardic, and Indo-Aryan speakers. But strangely enough it does not apply to Iranic speakers (ie. Balochis, Pakhtuns) despite Iranic speakers in Pakistan sharing common linguistics, genetics with Indo-Aryan and Dardic speakers. (Search Indo-Iranic languages).

The word "desi" has no scientific acceptance in modern-day anthropology or linguistics. A Dardic-speaking Kashmiri has no linguistic relation to a Dravidian speaking Tamil. Dravidian languages belong to a completely different and un-related language family than Dardic and Indo-Aryan languages. Dardic and Indo-Aryan along with Iranic are part of the Indo-Iranic family of languages.

What's more is that genetically the Dravidians lack R1A genetic markers that are least found in Southern India (though some sources state Tamils have a significant R1A contribution than other Dravidian speakers; suggesting genetic contributors in their gene pool coming from more northwards) while Dardic and Iranic-speakers in Pakistan have it the most.

So clearly "Desis" are no more than a people of an imagination based on ignorance, pseudoscience and false political propaganda.

Pakistan's new generation face an identity tug of war between Islamic Mid-Easternization and Indianization. The problem is that Indian propaganda has reached even western historians; who are often manipulated & used to promote false historic propaganda created for political agendas. But today some are starting to question Indian pseuodo-history. Such as the terms "partition of India" or the "ancientness" of so-called "Hinduism."

Many are even coming to the realization that these ideas were merely invented by the British. "India" and "Hinduism" did not exist prior to the 18th century. If they did exist as far back as pre-historic times, some ancient texts whether Bhuddist, Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit, Persian or any other would have mentioned this phenomenon.

Contrary to popular myth the history of "India" and "Hinduism" are works of fiction! Before the British occupied the subcontinent by force, there was no such religion as "hinduism" instead there were many distinct and diverse cults in the region that the British grouped into their terminology of "hinduism!"

The republic of "India" was formed in 1947 by joining together various princely states of the Peninsula into one country. The rest that refused to join (mainly Hyderabad, Goa, Junagara and then later on Kashmir, which triggered war with Pakistan) were invaded by military force.

Pakistani people on the other hand were a nation going back at least 3000 BC.

The maps showing the Indus Civilization -one of the oldest in the world- spread all over Pakistan. Most of the IVC's map coincides with that of Pakistan's present day map. It's main cities Harrappa, Mohinjadarro are also situated deep within Pakistan in various provinces.

Many Indian propagandists and Pan-'South Asian' Pakistanis blindly argue there was no border dividing the two lands. If we apply that logic, then most of the world was "one nation" as strictly defined, modern-day borders are a relatively new concept. Most of the world was not divided by internationally known borders as we know them today.

Indian propagandists also like to parade small sites like Lothal as "proof" of their claims on the IVC and other pre-historic Pakistani civilizations. While the IVC was based in Pakistan, it had colonies in Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, India but you don't see anyone claiming the IVC or Vedic as "Afghan" or "Iranian" civilizations.

Most Muslim countries/nations are proud of their pre-Islamic history and don't use their religion as a subsitute for their identity. Not even the stateless Palestinians!

Egyptians are proud of their pre-Islamic and pre-Arab civilizations. Even the Catholic Italians are proud of Roman civilization, despite that it was not a Christian civilization till much after. Despite that the modern-day Italian state was established only in the 18th century. It's time Pakistanis do the same!

Before 1947 Pakistan did not have it's present-day name. But neither did India before the 1800s or Italy before the 1800s, neither did Afghanistan before 1747. But now that these are the current names of the lands and the people, they are used to apply to the same land and people in prehistoric times. The same logic can be applied for Pakistan. It is time the new generation of Pakistanis not make the mistake of their forefathers and learn about their roots which predate Islam by thousands of years. It should be passed on forever by each generation instead of being given away for free to history thieves eager to steal it.

Here are some basic facts on Pakistanis:

- They are mostly Caucasoid by skull type.

- They mainly speak Indo-Iranic languages. (up to 99%) . Balochi, Sindhi, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Undri (Urdu) and Pakhtun are Indo-Iranic languages as are all the other languages of Pakistan which descend from a common proto-Indo

- Iranic language spoken around the second milliniea BC. Only Brahui (Dravidian), Baltistani (Sino-Tibetian), and Burusho (language isolate) are non-Indo-Iranic or even Indo-European, however it's speakers are not that genetically distinct from the rest of Pakistanis.

- They are geographically located around the Indus river.

- They formed a single civilization/nation from the days of the Indus Civilization from 3000BC till today.

- They carry common R1A genetic markers clearly indicating obvious common ancestry.

Mostly the north western Iranic speakers and the Dardic speakers are said to be closely related with a higher frequency of R1A genetic markers as opposed to the Indo-Aryan speaking population with slightly lower R1A frequencies (mainly Punjabis and Sindhis), however they are still all connected!

Even the non- Indo-European speaking populations - mainly the Brahuis, Hunzas (also called Burushos) and Baltistanis- do not stand much out genetically.

A brief analysis of a study at an American university on Pakistani genetics:

Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan

**********​

 

[Kambojaric]

The Indus is to Pakistan what the Nile is to Egypt. Egypt may have changed names, may have been Aegyptus, Hikuptah or Misr or may have been ruled from Rome, Damascus or Baghdad, but at the end of the day it is still the land of the Nile.
Similarily Pakistan may have been the IVC or have been ruled from Kabul or Delhi, but Pakistan is still the land of the Indus. It is time for us to read our history and become proud of who we are and what our ancestors were.

 

[tvsram1992]

The Indus is to Pakistan what the Nile is to Egypt. Egypt may have changed names, may have been Aegyptus, Hikuptah or Misr or may have been ruled from Rome, Damascus or Baghdad, but at the end of the day it is still the land of the Nile.
Similarily Pakistan may have been the IVC or have been ruled from Kabul or Delhi, but Pakistan is still the land of the Indus. It is time for us to read our history and become proud of who we are and what our ancestors were.

Yes but you not the descendants of IVC Muslims originated from different place you know . So your ancestors are not from IVC

 

[Joe Shearer]

So what do you mean by "operating under the shadow of those to your right" or by "yielding excessive ground to the unconverted"?

What is foolish about having a literal view of the scripture? You do realize that all Muslims interpret the Quranic stories literally right?

By the way you messed up the remaining part of my post in your quote below the response. The hyperlink to the Pathans being related to the lost tribes isn't appearing correctly.

**********​

Here is another research on the genetics of the Pakistani population.

Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan

**********​

Here is another interesting, but old article dating "April 15, 2009".

**********​

Pakistanis' ignorance to their roots.​

It is common for Pakistanis to look back to their history starting in the 7th century AD when their ancestors were first exposed to Islam during Muhammed Bin Qasim's temporary presence in Sindh. Instead of looking back even further to their roots -which predate Islam- they identify with the invading nations and rulers who were mostly Islamic.

They (Pakistanis) go even further and fall under the delusion to believe these rulers as their "ancestors" (though there was minor race mixing with invading Arabs, Persians, Turko-Mongols and the local population, the majority still remain the same).

According to many Pakistanis, these supposed "ancestors" of theirs "brought civilization" to present-day Pakistan and the rest of Southern Asia. Before that there was no civilization there, at least from what they think.

Even those such as Zaid Hamid continue to carry the typical false slogan that Pakistanis have carried for generations that "we 'Muslims' ruled over the Indians for a thousands years and gave them civilization."

To really know who these 'Muslims' were (almost as if the word has a racial or tribal meaning) it is important to look into the history of these 'Muslims' who did indeed rule Pakistan and the rest of South Asia and if they really did bring civilization.

The first Muslims who stepped foot into Pakistan were the Arabs led by Muhammed Bin-Qasim, though it is believed they were not able to establish a firm control over the natives and were later driven out. Looking at Arab history, culture, ethnicity, linguistics it should be obvious to most people that Arabs are certainly not the ancestors of present-day Pakistanis. It does not take an anthropologist or a historian to point this out, but common sense. If one is still not convinced, then he/she is free to research Arab history, culture, genetics, linguistics. After all in the modern age of technology there are so many free resources out there to be used anytime whenever desired.

The second Muslim rulers of Pakistan were the Ghaznaviods. The general historic consensus is that they were a Persian-ruled dynasty but with an army consisted of Turko-Mongols. The Persians originate in the Fars province (Persia) of present day Iran while their army of Turko-Mongols were mostly of Altaic origins in present-day Mongolia and Siberia. Like the Arabs, the Ghaznavids's background can be further researched and from what is known, and they surely did not share a common origin with present-day Pakistanis.

Next came the Ghurids, another Persian-led force. What is known about their linguistics is that they were an Iranic-speaking people like the Persians (search Iranic languages to fully understand the meaning of the term) just like most of Pakistan's western populations the Baloch, the Pakhtuns. But, linguistics does not necessary coincide with genetics!

Take the Iranic-speaking Hazaara in Afghanistan. Just by looking at them, their Altaic/Turanoid origins become very obvious. Even recent genetic findings suggests that Pakhtuns and Baloch, though Iranic speaking share common genes with the Dardic speaking Kashmiris.

Coming back to the Ghurids, the theories are that most of them originated along the Afghanistan-Tajikistan areas. These areas are not part of present day Pakistan, nor are their current inhabitants Pakistanis.

After that came the Mughals (a corruption of the word "Mongol"), another empire like the Ghaznavids ruled mainly by Persians, but with a mainly Turko-Mongol army. It is common for Pakistanis to claim to be of Mughal descent. Unless they're willing to call the present-day Turko-Mongoloid peoples of the former USSR and Mongolia their 'cousins' despite their different Mongoloid skull structure -as opposed to the Caucasoid skulls of most Pakistanis - or their Altaic languages -as opposed to the majority Indo-European languages of Pakistanis, then they should stop calling the Mughals or any other foreign Muslim empires their "ancestors."

Instead Pakistanis should wake up and learn more about the history of their country and their people!

Given the basic insight to these invading empires, they certainly were not the ancestors of Pakistanis. In fact the British who were the last invading empire also shared something in common with Pakistanis as well!

1) They were Caucasoid by skull type like most Pakistanis.

2) They too spoke an Indo-European language (English).

Based on this should Pakistanis start claiming British ancestry now!?! Or that the British Raj was somehow a 'Pakistani Empire'?? Also note there have been many intermarraiges between Brits and Pakistanis and continues even today as there is a huge Pakistani community in Britain. This does not make the majority of Pakistanis of British descent, just a small handful. Likewise the same can be said for other invading empires.

Another common trend for Pakistanis is to unquestionably swallow Indian propaganda and see their pre-history as "Indian" or "South Asian" or "desi."

Many brainwashed, Indianized Pakistanis, like the Islamists, always like to always associate with the other. Pakistanis who have a Pan-South Asian mindset wish for their pre-Islamic history which spread mostly and were based in Pakistan to be known as "Indian" or "South Asian". The truth is most ancient civilizations based in Pakistan did NOT spread over South Asia!

"Desi" is a term popular amongst Pan-South Asians. It is used to refer to Dravidian, Dardic, and Indo-Aryan speakers. But strangely enough it does not apply to Iranic speakers (ie. Balochis, Pakhtuns) despite Iranic speakers in Pakistan sharing common linguistics, genetics with Indo-Aryan and Dardic speakers. (Search Indo-Iranic languages).

The word "desi" has no scientific acceptance in modern-day anthropology or linguistics. A Dardic-speaking Kashmiri has no linguistic relation to a Dravidian speaking Tamil. Dravidian languages belong to a completely different and un-related language family than Dardic and Indo-Aryan languages. Dardic and Indo-Aryan along with Iranic are part of the Indo-Iranic family of languages.

What's more is that genetically the Dravidians lack R1A genetic markers that are least found in Southern India (though some sources state Tamils have a significant R1A contribution than other Dravidian speakers; suggesting genetic contributors in their gene pool coming from more northwards) while Dardic and Iranic-speakers in Pakistan have it the most.

So clearly "Desis" are no more than a people of an imagination based on ignorance, pseudoscience and false political propaganda.

Pakistan's new generation face an identity tug of war between Islamic Mid-Easternization and Indianization. The problem is that Indian propaganda has reached even western historians; who are often manipulated & used to promote false historic propaganda created for political agendas. But today some are starting to question Indian pseuodo-history. Such as the terms "partition of India" or the "ancientness" of so-called "Hinduism."

Many are even coming to the realization that these ideas were merely invented by the British. "India" and "Hinduism" did not exist prior to the 18th century. If they did exist as far back as pre-historic times, some ancient texts whether Bhuddist, Greek, Arabic, Sanskrit, Persian or any other would have mentioned this phenomenon.

Contrary to popular myth the history of "India" and "Hinduism" are works of fiction! Before the British occupied the subcontinent by force, there was no such religion as "hinduism" instead there were many distinct and diverse cults in the region that the British grouped into their terminology of "hinduism!"

The republic of "India" was formed in 1947 by joining together various princely states of the Peninsula into one country. The rest that refused to join (mainly Hyderabad, Goa, Junagara and then later on Kashmir, which triggered war with Pakistan) were invaded by military force.

Pakistani people on the other hand were a nation going back at least 3000 BC.

The maps showing the Indus Civilization -one of the oldest in the world- spread all over Pakistan. Most of the IVC's map coincides with that of Pakistan's present day map. It's main cities Harrappa, Mohinjadarro are also situated deep within Pakistan in various provinces.

Many Indian propagandists and Pan-'South Asian' Pakistanis blindly argue there was no border dividing the two lands. If we apply that logic, then most of the world was "one nation" as strictly defined, modern-day borders are a relatively new concept. Most of the world was not divided by internationally known borders as we know them today.

Indian propagandists also like to parade small sites like Lothal as "proof" of their claims on the IVC and other pre-historic Pakistani civilizations. While the IVC was based in Pakistan, it had colonies in Iran, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, India but you don't see anyone claiming the IVC or Vedic as "Afghan" or "Iranian" civilizations.

Most Muslim countries/nations are proud of their pre-Islamic history and don't use their religion as a subsitute for their identity. Not even the stateless Palestinians!

Egyptians are proud of their pre-Islamic and pre-Arab civilizations. Even the Catholic Italians are proud of Roman civilization, despite that it was not a Christian civilization till much after. Despite that the modern-day Italian state was established only in the 18th century. It's time Pakistanis do the same!

Before 1947 Pakistan did not have it's present-day name. But neither did India before the 1800s or Italy before the 1800s, neither did Afghanistan before 1747. But now that these are the current names of the lands and the people, they are used to apply to the same land and people in prehistoric times. The same logic can be applied for Pakistan. It is time the new generation of Pakistanis not make the mistake of their forefathers and learn about their roots which predate Islam by thousands of years. It should be passed on forever by each generation instead of being given away for free to history thieves eager to steal it.

Here are some basic facts on Pakistanis:

- They are mostly Caucasoid by skull type.

- They mainly speak Indo-Iranic languages. (up to 99%) . Balochi, Sindhi, Kashmiri, Punjabi, Undri (Urdu) and Pakhtun are Indo-Iranic languages as are all the other languages of Pakistan which descend from a common proto-Indo

- Iranic language spoken around the second milliniea BC. Only Brahui (Dravidian), Baltistani (Sino-Tibetian), and Burusho (language isolate) are non-Indo-Iranic or even Indo-European, however it's speakers are not that genetically distinct from the rest of Pakistanis.

- They are geographically located around the Indus river.

- They formed a single civilization/nation from the days of the Indus Civilization from 3000BC till today.

- They carry common R1A genetic markers clearly indicating obvious common ancestry.

Mostly the north western Iranic speakers and the Dardic speakers are said to be closely related with a higher frequency of R1A genetic markers as opposed to the Indo-Aryan speaking population with slightly lower R1A frequencies (mainly Punjabis and Sindhis), however they are still all connected!

Even the non- Indo-European speaking populations - mainly the Brahuis, Hunzas (also called Burushos) and Baltistanis- do not stand much out genetically.

A brief analysis of a study at an American university on Pakistani genetics:

Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan

**********​

I could raise objections to most of what you have cited, but shall confine myself to literal interpretations of scriptures - irrespective of religion.

A literal interpretation of scripture is illogical and irrational. It does not matter how strongly people believe in it being true. These are just collections of myth and legend and commandments, with no possible proof other than the faith of the believer. The numbers of the faithful don't matter; that is the common excuse trotted out equally by supporters of Intelligent Design, those who insist that Ram Janmabhoomi was below the Ayodhya Mosque, and no doubt a flood of those who insist on literal interpretations.

If your position is that the Koran is to be interpreted literally, there is nothing to discuss, and I need not bother. Your discussion with The SC also need not proceed, because you cannot combine the wholly irrational reports in the Koran with the findings of geneticists; genetic findings are intimately part of the evolutionary pattern, and therefore intrinsically opposed to creationism, hence to the teachings of the Koran.

I thought that you were soft-pedaling scientific views due to the sensitivity of the subject among the religious right, and that was what my remark meant. It seems that those literalist views are your own views, hence my remarks are superfluous.

 

[pk_baloch]

never say again that balochs are not the decendent of hazrat amir hamza .....what about those arab and iranin baloch who also claim that they are the decendent of ameer hamza . here is the proof and there are many other poofs too..

History of the Baloch people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[pk_baloch]

I read that Baloch migrated to present day Pakistan from Syria 5000years ago, are you sure about your comments.

actually baloch are directly decended from amir hamza and they migrated into the transnational area of balochistan from syria.. these migration from syria mainly occured in about 4th century and were almost completed by the end of 7th cenrury...Until the 12th century, Balochistan was inhabited by independent semi-nomadic groups, organized under respective clans. With the passage of time, the population of this region increased giving rise to the present tribal system in the area

 

[pk_baloch]

@joeshearer who is abu hamza


and i donot read huge types of messages now.. sorry for neglecting ur comment....

 

[INDIC]

actually baloch are directly decended from amir hamza and they migrated into the transnational area of balochistan from syria.. these migration from syria mainly occured in about 4th century and were almost completed by the end of 7th cenrury...Until the 12th century, Balochistan was inhabited by independent semi-nomadic groups, organized under respective clans. With the passage of time, the population of this region increased giving rise to the present tribal system in the area

So, according to you Baloch never migrated to Balochistan 5000 years ago and thus, Dravidian Brahuis are the natives of Balochistan.

 

[Rafi]

Indus Valley is our virsa, proud to be Pakistani.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

I could raise objections to most of what you have cited, but shall confine myself to literal interpretations of scriptures - irrespective of religion.

A literal interpretation of scripture is illogical and irrational. It does not matter how strongly people believe in it being true. These are just collections of myth and legend and commandments, with no possible proof other than the faith of the believer. The numbers of the faithful don't matter; that is the common excuse trotted out equally by supporters of Intelligent Design, those who insist that Ram Janmabhoomi was below the Ayodhya Mosque, and no doubt a flood of those who insist on literal interpretations.

If your position is that the Koran is to be interpreted literally, there is nothing to discuss, and I need not bother. Your discussion with The SC also need not proceed, because you cannot combine the wholly irrational reports in the Koran with the findings of geneticists; genetic findings are intimately part of the evolutionary pattern, and therefore intrinsically opposed to creationism, hence to the teachings of the Koran.

I thought that you were soft-pedaling scientific views due to the sensitivity of the subject among the religious right, and that was what my remark meant. It seems that those literalist views are your own views, hence my remarks are superfluous.

I haven't confined myself to the literal meaning of scripture, neither am I unwilling to change my mind if presented with evidence refuting my views. Don't go around calling other people's interpretation of their own religious scripture as being illogical or irrational. I assure you that most Muslims literally believe in the Quranic stories regarding the prophets & belief in them is a requirement to call yourself a Muslim.

I have no idea about who this person called "Ram Janmabhoomi" was. Your reference to the flood, are you talking about Noah's flood in the Bible? The Quranic view is different, & I don't believe in the whole world being flooded since that is illogical & goes against the scientific research that I have undertaken regarding the subject.

The member "The SC" is a strict Pan-Islamist, I remember reading his posts on other threads where he continuously made comments like "the Muslim Ummah will prevail". In fact I remember arguing with him over the subject of Islamic & ethnic nationalism on the same thread. For someone that obsessed with Islamic nationalism, I found it amusing that his scientific views regarding the origins of the different races of mankind weren't consistent with Islamic teachings. That is why I kept bringing up religious view points in my arguments made against him, & of course while discussing Semitic people, Shem is going to come up naturally since most of their tribes trace their descent from him.

Besides that, I am more than willing to accept genetic studies even if they go Islamic teachings. If you had read my earlier posts on this thread, you would know that I believe in freedom of thought & speech, & I encourage being tolerant of different views regardless of how much an individual may disagree. I also disagree that science is opposed to creationism. Science never rejects God, but it rejects models of God. For example the worship of idols is naturally going to be rejected by science or anyone with a brain.

Like I said earlier, most Muslims literally believe in the Quran scripture. Scientific views are always evolving & science itself encourages arguments & critical thinking. Muslims should study & tolerate all kinds of scientific views. The views that go against Islamic teachings must be studied as well, but I doubt you will find people willing to accept views that go against Islam.

**********​

Here are a few more interesting articles for reading.

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

ABSTRACT

Seven thousand five hundred fifty-six (7556) haplotypes of 46 subclades in 17 major haplogroups were considered in terms of their base (ancestral) haplotypes and timespans to their common ancestors, for the purposes of designing of time-balanced haplogroup tree. It was found that African haplogroup A (originated 132,000 ± 12,000 years before present) is very remote time-wise from all other haplogroups, which have a separate common ancestor, named β-haplogroup, and originated 64,000 ± 6000 ybp. It includes a family of Europeoid (Caucasoid) haplogroups from F through T that originated 58,000 ± 5000 ybp.

A downstream common ancestor for haplogroup A and β-haplogroup, coined the α-haplogroup emerged 160,000 ± 12,000 ybp. A territorial origin of haplogroups α- and β-remains unknown; however, the most likely origin for each of them is a vast triangle stretched from Central Europe in the west through the Russian Plain to the east and to Levant to the south. Haplogroup B is descended from β-haplogroup (and not from haplogroup A, from which it is very distant, and separated by as much as 123,000 years of “lat- eral” mutational evolution) likely migrated to Africa after 46,000 ybp.

The finding that the Europeoid haplogroups did not descend from “African” haplogroups A or B is supported by the fact that bearers of the Europeoid haplogroups, as well as all non-African haplogroups do not carry either SNPs M91, P97, M31, P82, M23, M114, P262, M32, M59, P289, P291, P102, M13, M171, M118 (haplogroup A and its subclades SNPs) or M60, M181, P90 (haplogroup B), as it was shown recently in “Walk through Y” FTDNA Project (the reference is incorporated therein) on several hundred people from various haplogroups.

Arabian Artifacts May Rewrite 'Out of Africa' Theory - Yahoo! News

Newfound stone artifacts suggest humankind left Africa traveling through the Arabian Peninsula instead of hugging its coasts, as long thought, researchers say.

Modern humans first arose about 200,000 years ago in Africa. When and how our lineage then dispersed has long proven controversial, but geneticists have suggested this exodus started between 40,000 and 70,000 years ago. The currently accepted theory is that the exodus from Africa traced Arabia's shores, rather than passing through its now-arid interior.

However, stone artifacts at least 100,000 years old from the Arabian Desert, revealed in January 2011, hinted that modern humans might have begun our march across the globe earlier than once suspected.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

never say again that balochs are not the decendent of hazrat amir hamza .....what about those arab and iranin baloch who also claim that they are the decendent of ameer hamza . here is the proof and there are many other poofs too..

History of the Baloch people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

actually baloch are directly decended from amir hamza and they migrated into the transnational area of balochistan from syria.. these migration from syria mainly occured in about 4th century and were almost completed by the end of 7th cenrury...Until the 12th century, Balochistan was inhabited by independent semi-nomadic groups, organized under respective clans. With the passage of time, the population of this region increased giving rise to the present tribal system in the area

I researched some of the stuff you mentioned & came across this link.

Baluchi Facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Baluchi

Legend has it that the Baluchi people are directly descended from Amir Hamza, one of Mohammed's uncles, and migrated into the transnational region of Baluchistan from somewhere in the vicinity of Aleppo, in Syria.

There is no scientific basis to this theory at the moment whatsoever. These legends remind me of the stories of the lost tribes of Israel, they too have no genetic evidence whatsoever.

Take a look at some of the studies I mentioned in my earlier posts.

Y-Chromosomal DNA Variation in Pakistan

Abstract

Eighteen binary polymorphisms and 16 multiallelic, short-tandem-repeat (STR) loci from the nonrecombining portion of the human Y chromosome were typed in 718 male subjects belonging to 12 ethnic groups of Pakistan.

These identified 11 stable haplogroups and 503 combination binary marker/STR haplotypes. Haplogroup frequencies were generally similar to those in neighboring geographical areas, and the Pakistani populations speaking a language isolate (the Burushos), a Dravidian language (the Brahui), or a Sino-Tibetan language (the Balti) resembled the Indo-European–speaking majority.

Nevertheless, median-joining networks of haplotypes revealed considerable substructuring of Y variation within Pakistan, with many populations showing distinct clusters of haplotypes. These patterns can be accounted for by a common pool of Y lineages, with substantial isolation between populations and drift in the smaller ones.

Few comparative genetic or historical data are available for most populations, but the results can be compared with oral traditions about origins. The Y data support the well-established origin of the Parsis in Iran, the suggested descent of the Hazaras from Genghis Khan’s army, and the origin of the Negroid Makrani in Africa, but do not support traditions of Tibetan, Syrian, Greek, or Jewish origins for other populations.

The Baloch are primarily Indo-Iranian people, some of them may be mixed with foreigners, but that admixture does not change the origins of the people as a whole.

 

[pk_baloch]

So, according to you Baloch never migrated to Balochistan 5000 years ago and thus, Dravidian Brahuis are the natives of Balochistan.

hahahhaha funny!!!! kahani abhi baqi he mere dost LOL..phir kya hota he k HAHAHHAHHA......
briefly telling u about native people and invaders what i have heard and read that balochistan k area men kam dravidian the but the and proves through mehrgrah civilization ..but mehrahgrah civilization mohen jo daro se purani the and was destroyed earliar ......reason ye tha k wahan kam log rehte the because of the climate of that area .....most of the dravian lived in mohen-jo-daro and trade from mohen jo daro........
bohat se invaders i.... like british ,turk,iran and abbasid people aur different parts of pakistan men divided ho gaee........sub ki shadiyan ho gaee aik dousrea se .mukhtalif logon ki mukhtalif logon se phir sub hanse khushi rehne lage LOLZZZ........



bahe jo bhi ho we baloch are decendant of hazrat hamza .....by the way i get online on pdf 2 or 3 times but only for few minutes now .and donot read huge msgs ..we will discuss later ...

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

bahe jo bhi ho we baloch are decendant of hazrat hamza .....by the way i get online in pdf 3 or 4 times but only for few minutes now .and donot read huge msgs ..we will discuss later ...

Why is the quote of my post in your post empty lol?

Denial is never a good thing. Without genetic evidence, this theory has been discredited as a fabrication probably developed for closer association with Islam. In any case, you should be proud of your history & heritage. You don't need to associate yourself with a particular race to be loyal to Islam. Remember that all races & ethnicities are equal in the eyes of God.

This legend of Balochi descent is similar to the theory of descent from the lost tribes of Israel for the Pasthuns & Kashmiris. The theory/legend of the lost tribes lack genetic evidence as well, but you might want to read up on it. Like some other legends, it's an extremely interesting read & it contains elements of both facts & fiction.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I haven't confined myself to the literal meaning of scripture, neither am I unwilling to change my mind if presented with evidence refuting my views. Don't go around calling other people's interpretation of their own religious scripture as being illogical or irrational.

It is for the sake of your first sentence that I re-enter this discussion, frankly against my better judgement.

Even a preliminary look at the nature and content of scripture will have indicated to you the incompatibility of scientific investigation, and of writings or texts that claim divine sanction. If it has not, your studies are far from complete, and your positions are likely to be compromised by belonging to two diametrically opposite views of the universe or of humanity. You can either be convinced about Ham, Shem and Japhet, or about contemporary scientific doctrine that rejects racial stereotyping by Caucasoid, Mongoloid and Negroid. Not both.

Sadly, it is not possible to maintain a convenient seat on the fence (this is a metaphor; please don't say that you are not aware where this fence is, and please don't ask for its GPS or geographic coordinates); it is not a valid position to hedge and say that you have not confined yourself to the literal meaning of scripture, that only indicates an uneasy compromise between the logical and rational, and its polar opposites.

If you are not convinced that these two points of view are irreconcilable, then for an atheist, even for an agnostic, wholly affiliated to the scientific process in the case of the physical and natural sciences, and to the supremacy of logical and rational analysis in the case of history and other branches of knowledge, discussion with you involves a constant iteration of first principles and a frustrating inability to find common ground. As in the present instance.

I am not calling people's belief in the literal truth of their particular variety of scripture illogical or irrational; this is implicit in anyone's acceptance of the scientific or of the logically evolved points of view. No compromise exists.

I assure you that most Muslims literally believe in the Quranic stories regarding the prophets & belief in them is a requirement to call yourself a Muslim.

I believe you, and believed you the first time around. So do staunch Christians of a sort believe in the Biblical stories about their prophets; belief in them is mandated as a requirement to call themselves Christians. You may substitute here any of the 47 different groups of scriptures listed in a popular on-line resource of moderate to low accuracy, and say the same about the flock that clusters around each of that list of 47 (again, 'flock' is a metaphor).

Now it is not my intention or my desire to present facts or conclusions as a Muslim, or as a Hindu, or as an adherent of any religion, so whether or not a literal understanding and belief in the text of the Holy Koran is a prerequisite for claiming to be a Muslim is wholly irrelevant. What is relevant is the scientific, or, where the scientific method cannot be applied, the logical and rational point of view.

Neither point of view allows for a literal acceptance of scripture.

In order to avoid the vicissitudes of on-line correspondence on an iPad, I am putting out this comment, as a preliminary.

I have no idea about who this person called "Ram Janmabhoomi" was. Your reference to the flood, are you talking about Noah's flood in the Bible? The Quranic view is different, & I don't believe in the whole world being flooded since that is illogical & goes against the scientific research that I have undertaken regarding the subject.

The member "The SC" is a strict Pan-Islamist, I remember reading his posts on other threads where he continuously made comments like "the Muslim Ummah will prevail". In fact I remember arguing with him over the subject of Islamic & ethnic nationalism on the same thread. For someone that obsessed with Islamic nationalism, I found it amusing that his scientific views regarding the origins of the different races of mankind weren't consistent with Islamic teachings. That is why I kept bringing up religious view points in my arguments made against him, & of course while discussing Semitic people, Shem is going to come up naturally since most of their tribes trace their descent from him.

Besides that, I am more than willing to accept genetic studies even if they go Islamic teachings. If you had read my earlier posts on this thread, you would know that I believe in freedom of thought & speech, & I encourage being tolerant of different views regardless of how much an individual may disagree. I also disagree that science is opposed to creationism. Science never rejects God, but it rejects models of God. For example the worship of idols is naturally going to be rejected by science or anyone with a brain.

Like I said earlier, most Muslims literally believe in the Quran scripture. Scientific views are always evolving & science itself encourages arguments & critical thinking. Muslims should study & tolerate all kinds of scientific views. The views that go against Islamic teachings must be studied as well, but I doubt you will find people willing to accept views that go against Islam.

**********​

[/QUOTE]

 

[Cr.7]

The history of pakistan started since 1947
The history of hindustan started since thousand years