A Muslim majority Indus Valley Civilization?

[ice_man]

i knew a chap from IVC his name was bunty Singh! a real nice chap!

BLOODY WHO CARES! about if IVC was muslim,jew or christian! even their bones have gone by now!

 

[vsdoc]

My personal view is that the only indisputable fact is India's connection with IVC. Everything else is debatable/irrelevant. If Pakistanis want to share the heritage it is upto them and their confidence to manage their identities. but any revisionist attempt to isolate India from IVC must be resisted.

The existence of India is an inconvenient irritant in that equation for Pakistan.

Not just India, but Hindu majority India.

Were all of India to have become Muslim, would Pakistan have even existed?

If the Pakistani Muslims were so in love with their heritage in the first place, why did they need to separate from the land and people of that heritage?

Just because they separated or were separated from the heritage faith?

You cannot walk out on the home and family and carry the family heirlooms away with you man.

At best you will be given a home. How you adorn it and maintain it thenceforth is up to you.

 

[rai_kamal]

Yes thats right, pakistan is from IVC..
All the vedas belongs to pakistani muslim..
They are the followers of vedas, and thats y they support jihad ..
Even Pakistan's previous name was , "Aryavarta"..

 

[GoodBoy]

Could not have said it better myself.
The wars with India are due to India's desire to dominate South Asia at any cost.
And Pakistan will always have a special spot for any and all Muslims, be they Arabs or Indonesians.

We Identify more with people Morocco then from India because we both have similar value structure and we have a common religion. This does not mean we are some how slaves to Arab imperialism.

Epic statement!

Breaking News : India shares its borders with Moroccons.Original African Moroccons are in shock.

And your government never taught you a thing about History.
Why don't you mention 47?
The root of the problem is that India is an aggressive country that wants to dominate South Asia.

In 47 Congress agreed that Muslims should have their own homeland, and that MUSLIM MAJORITY AREAS would go to Pakistan.

Included in these area was Punjab and Bengal, where Muslims made a small majority. Since Pakistan had no desire to creat hostility, we accepted the partition of Punjab and Benglal. We had no problems allowing the Sikhs and Hindus to go with the country they wanted. But even with India's size, she was not content and she tried to swallow up Kashmir even though it had a Muslim majority and should have gone to Pakistan on the deal India accepted.

The root of our problem is here. India's greed poisoned the atmosphere for the next 60 years and for the foreseeable future.

You know what homeland means?

Please define if you know....... I just got amused by the above definition of Pakistani as "Pakistanis are close to Moroccons than Indians".

 

[Developereo]

Totally agree with you. Nationality is a modern concept and as such has nothing to do with your race or religion. The history of nations and how they came to be on the other hand is not as simple or black and white. And sometimes the boundaries between politics and religion and region and language get blurred or coalesce.

Exactly.

These definitions of "identity" may be relevant to countries which are mostly homogeneous, but they sound archaic and quaint when viewed from the perspective of countries like the US, Canada, Australia, etc. As international migration and intermixing continues, this trend will continue.

 

[funtoosh]

these pakistanis are some times like anglo indians..
i have seen some anglo indian ladies chatting like.. oh he/she has 'gone back' to london. it would have been the first time they left indian shores.

 

[aks18]

stop this bull **** of belonging of indus civilization to each other ,, majority of sites are in pakistan it will remain in pakistan and the foreigners who will visit these sites will be issued pakistani visa not indian visa so stop it now fed up of such threads :S

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

That is the moot point here. How can a nation that was formed expressly rejecting the notion of co-existance and formed with Islam as its sole identity can now claim something which is explicitly non-Islamic ?

Anyway as I said, lets agree to disagree. Peace.

It isn't un-Islamic to be proud of the accomplishments of your ancestors regardless of them being Muslims or non-Muslims.

I don't mean to be flippant, but I am having trouble accepting the notion of IVC as being a requirement for anyone's identity, India or Pakistan. What do we tell immigrants? That they are forever second-class citizens because their "history" can never include the IVC? What does genetics or race have to do with national identity? Again, I refer to the concept of immigrants.

The simple answer is to look at countries like the US, Canada, Australia, etc. The national identity in these countries is defined by people who share a passport, possibly birth land, and a desire to work towards a common goal of furthering the interests of that country. That's good enough for these countries and works plenty fine.

Exactly, the IVC isn't a requirement to our identity. It just happens to be the only ancient civilization the article focused on. Pakistanis need to embrace all of their identities, be proud of them, & amalgamate them in to one. Citizenship on the basis of "jus soli" is perfectly acceptable, however a country should monitor the kind of people it grants a visa or nationality too. Otherwise we might have to deal with radicalized morons like the British have to.

 

[SamranAli]

why do indians want to steal our history?

they should be proud of what they have.

 

[Gautam]

why do indians want to steal our history?

they should be proud of what they have.

we're not interested in your 64 years old tiny history. trust me.

 

[INDIC]

why do indians want to steal our history?

they should be proud of what they have.

That is a shared history, don't you too claim all Islamic history of India as far as Tipu Sultan of Sourh India or Urdu language of Uttar Pradesh.

Indus valley has lots of sites in India, IVC without Lothal(india) is like Pakistan without Karachi.

 

[The SC]

Arabism is based on language & culture. I do not remember the exact words but the Prophet (PBUH) also said something along the lines of anyone who speaks Arabic is an Arab. Modern days Arabs are not a race, thus there can be no Arab gene. I can't tell you the reliability of those genetic studies that you may have read. However, in order for there to be an Arab specific gene, you are going to have choose one group from among them as being the original Arabs. Usually the Gulf Arabs are considered the original ones owing to the fact that they are primarily Ishmaelites.

Under the Arab caliphates the population of the Middle East & North Africa went through a process of Arabization, they weren't Arabs before that. I hope you aren't one of those people that believe Adam (PBUH) was an Arab or that all the languages of mankind descend from Arabic. It's a generally accepted rule that the 3 sons of Noah (PBUH); as in Shem, Ham, & Japheth are the fathers of the different races today. Shem is the father of the Semitic people & that includes everyone from the Syrians to Babylonians, & even Ishmaelites. Japheth is the father of all Indo-European people including all of Europe, & the Indo-Aryans & Indo-Iranians from Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, & parts of Northern India. Ham is the father of the Hamitic people which includes everyone from Africa including the Egyptians.

There is also the possibility that people could confuse the terms Arab & Semitic. Even then there is absolutely no reliable genetic study that has ever claimed or discovered that the whole is mixed with Semites. Some interesting trivia is that Madai bin Japheth bin Noah married a Semitic woman, & is widely accepted as being the father of the Median people & other Indo-Aryan people in general.

Sorry, but this goes before the Ishmaelites, the Arabs are the people who inhabited Arabia since time memorial.
It never crossed your mind that Aryan and Arabyan have a difference which is Ab meaning father in Arabic and India or Hind in Arabic is a famous ancient Arabic female name, its funny but give it a thought and laugh on crazy history written by people who didn't know the meaning of things.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But here are the scientific proofs


Of the earliest successful "out of Africa" migration (earliest migrants with living descendents) has generally been placed at 60,000 years ago as suggested by genetics, although attempts at migration out of the continent may have taken place as early as 125,000 years ago according to Arabian archaeology finds of tools in the region.

Recent African origin of modern humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


100,000-year-old human settlement in U.A.E. overturns what we know of our evolution.
Human artifacts recently discovered in the United Arab Emirates date back at least 100,000 years, which means our ancestors might have left Africa up to 125,000 years ago...twice as long ago as previously thought. What's going on here?

The tools discovered during an excavation in the U.A.E., located in the southeastern part of the Arabian peninsula, have been reliably dated to 100,000 years ago. Genetic evidence has suggested modern humans did not leave Africa until about 60,000 years ago, but these tools appear to be the work of our ancestors and not other hominids like Neanderthals.

If they are the work of our ancestors, then they've been found outside Africa at least 40,000 years ahead of schedule. But, as the paleontologists behind this discovery are quick to point out, the 60,000 year figure is one based on only one strand of evidence, and that's genetic data. It's a useful tool, to be sure, but using genetics to reconstruct a species's history can be tricky - genetic data once said domestic dogs were 120,000 years old, but more recent evidence has shown they're actually much closer to 20,000 instead.

This find is one of the first major archaeological discoveries that seems to place anatomically modern humans out of Africa - but, helpfully, still close to Africa, so it's a bit easier to reconstruct their path and timing of migration. That automatically makes this an intriguing find, although we can't instantly dismiss the old 60,000 years figure. This is an extraordinary claim and, as one of the best scientific maxims points out, it requires extraordinary evidence.

Well, I can't guarantee their evidence is sufficiently extraordinary, but at a press conference yesterday the researchers involved did lay out some compelling reasons to believe the basics of the find - that modern humans lived in Arabia 100,000 years ago - even if they were reluctant to discuss the wider implications.

100,000-year-old human settlement in U.A.E. overturns what we know of our evolution


Arabia the First Stop for Modern Humans Out of Africa, Suggests New Study
Questions surrounding when and where early modern humans first migrated from Africa to populate the rest of the world have long been a focus of debate and study among scientists, where genetic research has played a key role. Now, recent genetic research study results have been released by an international team of scientists. The research, published January 26 by Cell Press in the American Journal of Human Genetics, suggests that modern humans settled first in Arabia more than 60,000 years ago on their way out through the Horn of Africa.

Says senior study author Dr. Luisa Pereira of the University of Porto in Portugal (IPATIMUP): "A major unanswered question regarding the dispersal of modern humans around the world concerns the geographical site of the first steps out of Africa. One popular model predicts that the early stages of the dispersal took place across the Red Sea to southern Arabia, but direct genetic evidence has been thin on the ground."

Led by Pereira and Professor Martin Richards at the University of Leeds in the UK, in collaboration with colleagues from across Europe, Arabia, and North Africa, the researchers investigated this question by conducting a study of three of the earliest non-African maternal lineages associated with the time period when modern humans first migrated out of Africa. They compared data taken from mitochondrial DNA genomes from Arabia and the Near East with that of hundreds of other samples from Europe. Mitochondrial DNA, which traces the line of female descent in populations, has been extensively used by scientists to determine how different populations are related, thus revealing clues about human migratory patterns.

"Taken together, our results suggests that Arabia was indeed the first staging-post in the spread of modern humans around the world," concludes Richards, study co-author and currently Professor of Archaeogenetics at the University of Huddersfield.

Details of the study are published in Fernandes et al., The Arabian Cradle: Mitochondrial Relicts of the First Steps along the Southern Route out of Africa, The American Journal of Human Genetics (2012), doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2011.12.010.

The research was funded by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, the Leverhulme Trust, and the DeLaszlo Foundation.

Popular Archaeology

 

[Burger Boy]

Greeks absolutely have 100% rights, just like Indonesia has 100% rights to put Hindu Gods in their currency to showcase their Hindu pasts. Difference is Greeks didn't make a nation on Christianity and neither did Indonesia on Islam,

Actually Greece is an officially orthodox christian country. Indonesia is kind of strange because instead of having one official religion, they have five official religions.

 

[hankau62]

why do indians want to steal our history?

they should be proud of what they have.

Indian do not steal your history. Indians are associated with the historical event that happened long back at land which is present day Pakistan. The association can be seen as the continuation of custom, rituals and religious way.

Theoretically Pakistanis should also be proud of their history but for some reason, they do not want themselves to be associated with it. Its up-to Pakistani to hold or let go their History. No one can steal your history. Its up to you to be proud of your hindu/buddhist past, just like Indonesian are proud of their Hindus past and Iranian proud of their Persian past. No one can force you in this.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

Sorry, but this goes before the Ishmaelites, the Arabs are the people who inhabited Arabia since time memorial.
It never crossed your mind that Aryan and Arabyan have a difference which is Ab meaning father in Arabic and India or Hind in Arabic is a famous ancient Arabic female name, its funny but give it a thought and laugh on crazy history written by people who didn't know the meaning of things.

Taking the out of Africa theory in to account by your definition Arabs are Africans too right? The point is that just because a couple of tribes lived in Arabia years back does not mean that they are related or mixed. Both the Indo-European & ancient Semitic tribes once inhabited the Middle East before spreading out to other parts of the world. Both of these groups have their own language families & cultures. I am sure you realize that the Indo-European languages belong to a separate language group in comparison to Semitic languages.

The word Aryan originates from an Indo-European language, & the word Arab is purely Semitic in origin derived from the name of the Semitic patriarch named Eber. Similarities between words in different languages always exist due to cultural influence but it does not indicate similar origins.

As for the articles that you listed, they never state that modern Arab genes are present in the rest of the world, just like how modern African genes aren't present in the rest of the world either. The articles discuss the migratory patterns of people, not their ethnic affiliation. Assuming that the out of Africa theory is correct one must realize that both the Semitic & Indo-European tribes could have migrated & settled close to each other before expanding out further. It does not mean that they contain Arab genes because only Semites are usually considered Arabs. The Semitic lineage is completely different from the Indo-European one. I already know that you are a Muslim, having debated with you on other threads. Being a Muslim you probably know about the stories of Shem, Ham, & Japheth. Both the children of Shem & Japheth lived in the Middle East before expanding out further. Many bloodlines in ancient Arabia were memorized by heart, you may even want to check out the family trees of the Prophets of God for further proof & clarification. By the way, from a religious point of view the out of Africa theory is complete BS seeing as both Adam & Eve lived in the Middle East not Africa. By the way just because Adam & Eve visited Arabia, does not make them Arabs either. Remember that Prophet Noah (PBUH) is considered the second Adam, & he lived in the Middle East.

Here is another article that I am sure will interest you seeing as you are interested in human origins.

World's oldest human remains claimed in Israel

Israeli archaeologists have discovered human remains dating from 400,000 years ago, challenging conventional wisdom that Homo sapiens originated in Africa, the leader of excavations in Israel said on Tuesday.