|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|WikiProject Islam||(Rated Start-class)|
Why do you use the Arabic names for these people?
Beacuse it has to be "politically correct". I think they should use the names wriiten in the Bible. Arnie Gov 02:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Ishmaelites is mentioned in "Comstock Mining and Minors" by Eliot Lord (written 1882) published by USGS 1883 pg 15. They seemed to be persons without the value of property ownership as the word was used for persons who stole food and provisions seemly with some sort of right to those food and provisions because of proxsimity.
The Old testatment was written with the Assyrian empire in recent memory, so it only makes sense to link the Jews/Ismaili Arabs to Ashur claiming a prestigous lineage!
- The lineage is Mythical/Legendary the medieval Arabs recognized this and simply began to claim the lineage through Qahtan of the Yemen and Adnan of Hejaz.
- Should the article mention that this is a smei-legendary lineage? Modern studies clerly links the Hebrews to Southern Mesopotamia and the Arabs to varied origins.--Skatewalk 18:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
This article needs quite a bit of rework. I've tried to clean up the nonsense and POV polemic and replace with raw facts, but what is there still does not do the topic justice. And why the table with Ishmael's descendant according to the the book of Jashar?? Jashar is largely fable. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks to do clean up but please avoide to remove cited statments.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- Hi I'm removing it again, the verse doesn't say that the term "Ishmaelites" applied to the descendants of Keturah's children. The verse in Jubilees is correct but does not explain clearly the exact usage of the terms. The verse points out that the descendants of Ishmael and his brothers intermingled but then makes an ambiguous statement "they were called Ishmaelites and Arabians". Looking at this statement in isolation it is not clear how the terms are actually applied. Looking at how the terms are used in the Bible and other works one sees that "Ishmaelites" is used for the descendants of Ishmael, including Ishmaelites who had been absorbed into the Midianite armies at the time of Judges (Midianites are descended from Midian, Ishmael's brother) although eventually the term excludes the Hagrites who became a separate group, while "Arabian" is used only in a later era to mean the mingled peoples of the desert (i.e the early Nabatean Arabians who shouldn't be confused with the modern Arab nation and who are descended from a mix of Ishmaelites, descendants of Keturah and also other tribes not descended from Abraham at all). Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- My friend,You have no right to remove documented statements according to it's opposition with your original research.If you have any documented facts that supports your opinon. Please simply add it! Here is wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia! And False and Ture is not belong to here. Everything should be documented. Please also refer to WP:NOR.--Submitter to Truth (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- What original research? I do have the right to remove statements that are just plain wrong. The verse from Jubilees does say that the term "Ishmaelites" was applied to the descendants of Ishmael's brothers, that is your personal misunderstanding of the verse. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- My Friend, as I told before here is Wikipedia! The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Please refer to WP:NOTTRUTH also. You have no right to remove documented statment that you personally call it wrong! I ask others to help us solve this issue!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 18:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- And your statement is not verifiable, its falsifiable, the original statement of the article that "Ishmaelites" are descended from Ishmael is verifiable,e.g. the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry for "Ishmaelite" says "a descendant of Ishmael". Oxford English dictionary says "a descendant of Ishmael, a son of Abraham and Hagar", Encarta says "descendant of Ishmael: in the Bible, a descendant of Abraham's son Ishmael". The article should reflect these mainstream definitions which all agree that the term refers to descendants of Ishmael and not your invented interpretation that it includes descendants of his 6 brothers which is not actually supported by the verse you quote form Jubilees. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
My Friend you have the right to add the above mentioned descriptions. And I have the right to add what is descrbed by The Book of Jubilees which is in my opinion the most complete and the oldest definition I have ever seen:
Book of Jubilees 20:13 And Ishmael and his sons, and the sons of Keturah and their sons, went together and dwelt from Paran to the entering in of Babylon in all the land which is towards the East facing the desert. And these mingled with each other, and their name was called Arabs, and Ishmaelites.
Also according to some scholars in Bible Medianites also known as Ishmaelities according to Gen 37:28 which confirms the above definition.
So that is not my invention! The current manuscripts of the book of Jubilees is older than the manuscripts of Bible itself!
- You have a very strange understanding of what that verse is saying. Consider the following statement: "The people of Sweden, Norway and Denmark intermingled and their descendants were called Swedes, Geats, Danes and Vikings." That would be a correct statement but it would not mean that all Vikings were called Danes. Yet that is the type of conclusion that you are drawing from the passage. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- The NET Bible site you mention above shows that the majority view is that Ishmaelites means descendants of Ishmael, the old and outdated ISBE provides one commentators confused discussion which is contradicted by other commentators, the Tektonics site which is generally not regarded as a reliable source shows the same confused discussion. The problem goes back to smartass criticisms of the Bible in the 19th century which claimed that the Bible was inconsistent about whether Joseph was sold to Midianites or Ishmaelites and knee jerk reactions by apologists who tried to claim that the terms were interchangeable without actually looking at how the story is presented in other texts and how traditional commentators have viewed it. The story as recounted in the Bible as well as other Jewish works is that the brothers planned to sell Joseph to Ishmaelites they saw in the distance. But then he was stolen from the pit by passing Midianites who sold him to the Ishmaelites and then the brothers found him missing. The Ishmaelites sold him into Egypt via the Medanites. This is what the account in Genesis 37:25-36 actually says. Nowhere does it say Ishmaelites = Midianites = Medanites and indeed in other accounts of the story in Jewish literature it is absolutely clear that there are three different groups involved, long before 19th century pseudo-scholarship came along. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I entered the exact verse in the article with the exact wording that in the verse. Strange understanding is for those that change the scriptures according to their personal beliefs!!!--Submitter to Truth (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Does secular history agree that the modern day Arabs are descendants of the Ishmaelites? I realize that Islamic theology claims they are, but is this belief accepted as historical fact? The article is rather silent on the historicity of this claim. --B (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
My reverts of recent edits
I've removed or rewritten some of the material added in recent edits. Relying on a forged book (Book of Jasher (Pseudo-Jasher) while not even linking to the correct article suggests at the best carelessness that might exist throughout their edits. I also found for instance "In Kebra Ch.83: "Many countries are enumerated over which Ishmael ruled" - Kebra however is a disputed geological feature, not a book. "In the Jewish Samaritan Book of Moses" wasn't helpful either as the source is a book called "The Secrets of Moses", so a link to the Book of Moses is inappropriate. Putting all of these non-biblical sources under a section heading "Biblical origins" is also inappropriate. I've explained the rest of my edits in the edit summaries.  looks like a useful source but the quote that was in the footnote is not from the source. There is still some poor/confusing writing left. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
- I should note that it looks as though snippets have been used as sources, which is something that should only rarely if ever be done as it leaves out important context which may alter the meaning of what can be seen in the snippet. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
snippet are extra, I think you should check the public library or the U library, many books are free online from the u.
why delete section genetic geneology?
I provided good references research studies). 02:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Which don't mention Ishmaelites. Sources need to discuss the subject. Do you have any peer reviewed sources on genetics that mention Ishmaelites? The idea that Arabs are descendants of Ishmael is a religious belief, not a scientific one. Genetic information doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
this is what it says in the article: quote: "were added to the set of haplotypes shown in . All three Arabic haplotypes joined the lower, predomi- nantly non-Jewish branch on the right of . After the addition of the Arab haplotypes, all 25 of the haplotypes in the branch contained 162 mutations on 25 markers, which gives 4,125±525 years to a common ancestor, slightly older that age of the branch without those three haplotypes. This time period is close to that of the legendary Biblical split into the Jewish and the Arab lineages of the Abrahamic tribes," "the most recent common ancestor of Jews and Arabs of haplogroup J1 (subclade J1e) lived 4300�500 years ago, and he had the "J1 Abraham Modal Haplotype", former "Cohen Modal Haplotype" signature. From him a split occurred between the Jewish and the Arabic lineages in haplogroup J1 (J1e*)They were practically the same people, and were called the Bedouins (or we call them Bedouins now). 4200�500 years before 19 .....present they split, on the grounds of some apparently very serious reason, which likely had a religious, that is a cultural and spiritual connotation. The split was, judging from the sharpness of parting of their DNA genealogical lineages, quite a decisive one. Naturally, the split occurred not along the haplogroups J1 and J2, but across them. That was how the Jews and the Arabs had acquired both J1 and J2 haplogroups. The story of Abraham and his siblings, Ishmael, and Isaac and Jacob, the patriarchs of the Arabs and the Jews, respectively, was told and re-told by the Arabs and the Jews of all the haplogroups. Hence, it is reasonable to believe that each haplogroup which was involved in the separation process, would have had its own "Abraham", who lived about 4,200 years ago. (If some haplogroup does not show such a split involving both the Arabs and the Jews and going back to about 4,200 ybp and earlier, then either there were no Jews and Arabs with such a haplogroup in those times, or they were not involved in the split). To verify this hypothesis, I have composed a 25 marker haplotype tree ..."Valentino2013 (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
See WP:RSN#Can these sources be used to genetically trace Arabs (or rather 'Ishmaelite Arabs') to Abraham? and please respond there. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Nebel et at says that documented records is support to the dna studies , the documented recotds he referebce several books that statesthat Arabs were mentioned as Ishmaelites in Assyrian royal chronicles discovered 100 years ago that equate arabs with ishmaelites even mention king of Qedar as king of the ismaelites once and king of arabs. the king of nabateans mentioned, Teiman and other sons of ishmael are mentioned as the arch enemy of the assyrian empire. these records lasted for 400 years untill Cyrus destroyed the last king of the Kaldanians in 550 BC. Nebel continue that one haplotype was found in three distant countries (palestine, yemen, and morocco) exact match he claims thery are represent the arabic expansion in the 7th century and these haplotype refer to aarecent common ancestor, Recent means leass that 4000 years ago. Common means one man. Genetic geneology by definition you do not need to have the body of the ancestor to prove it, Geneology DNA can prove it scientifically. I am surprised why all the worry since many scientific articles had proved R1a1 came from one man lived 5500 years ago, and many Most recent common ancestors are proved by DNA for several nations. You can see the quote above. I can put all the quote or I can just refer to the article with a live link so any body can read them in their leisure time. In wikipedia there is a page named (Y-chromosomal Aaron) the body of Aaron was not needed to prove Cohen Modal Haplotype found in living Cohanim, existed. Why double standards? Actually Nebel and the other two researchers decided that Aaron must be in J1 based on their finding the Arabs have high J1!!. There is a online calculator that can measure MRCA in a second just input the numbers of 6 strs (haplotype ) of two persons. people at Arab DNA have been using it for years and theMRCA is less than 3800 years between two arabs all the time. go check the results of family Tree DNA website about Arabian Peninsula and see 95% are J1 (private business headed by Nebel who dscovered the Aaron Modal Haplotype) http://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna_j/default.aspx?section=ycolorized http://precedings.nature.com/documents/4206/version/1/html you see dr Behar and Hammaer and Nebel who discovered the Cohan Modal and they have their own company FTDNA http://www.familytreedna.com/about.aspx http://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna_j/default.aspx Valentino2013 (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Ishmael is not a religious belief and the Arabs say Ishmael their ancestor.regaRDLESs OF what THE non scientific BIBLE SAYS. tHE REFS "aNCIENT RECORDS FROM NORTHERN ARABIA" AND MANY OTHER BOOKS SAY THAT iSHMAEL IS MENTIONED IN THE ASSYRIAN ROYAL CHRONICLES (discovered 100 years ago ". Herodotus mentioned that the Nabateans told him they decend from Ishmael in 450 BC. did you publish books? then you can cite them here or you have to look briefly at the referencesValentino2013 (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC) end of quote
- Those sources appear to argue that a particularly branch of the haplogroup J1 goes back to a shared ancestor between Jews and Arabs which is then called y-chromosomal Abraham in the same way that the first shared human mtDNA ancestor is called Mitochondrial Eve. I find it highly doubtful that anyone would actually believe that that person is the Biblical Abraham.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Why did they believe Cohen Modal Haplotype or Y-chromosomal Aaron. Aaron was decided based on several men who have Cohen last names and they decided that the Modal they discovered have to be in J1 (high in arabs) so it can lead to Aaron. They based their assumptions that those people are truely the descendents of Aaron because they can not possibly lie and that they are very sure they descend from Aaron) and that was that.is that scientific? and all 400 million arabs claims about Ishmael their ancestor and the assyrian records is not scientific?? is this about double standardsValentino2013 (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- No scientist believes that what is called Y-chromosomal Aaron has anything to do with a real Aaron, which is why our article says it was " jocularly dubbed "Y-chromosomal Aaron"." And as our article says, "was not specific just to Cohens, nor even just to Jews, but was a survival from the origins of Haplogroup J, about 30,000 years ago". Dougweller (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- It simply means that there was a single common ancestor for a particular lineage among a population in a particular geographical area. There are also other lineages, of course. I've no idea what you are saying about Aaron. Who "cannot possibly lie"? The article on Y-chromosomal Aaron makes no claim that it supports (or even fits with) Biblical accounts of Aaron. Paul B (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
as per definition of Genetic genealogy you don't need the grave or the body of the Most Recent common ancestor to prove he existed or he was your common ancestor with a group of people. There is a calculator at ysearch tells you some guy in australia is your third level cousin (so he is your third level cousin by law, you like it or not ,it does not matter, if he has inheritanc from your say grandfather he will take his inheritance , DNA does not lie). We have people who say they are descendents of a man named Ishmael since 850 BC (3 thousand years ago ) and up till now they still make this claim. DNA genealogy proved they are all descendent from a man in the same time they claimed of Ishmael, plus many other documented evidences throughout history such as the 7th century conquest that brought the J1- Modal containg the specific DYS388=17 to north africa which is of that Most Recent common ancestor calculated with certainty, plus the separation of both lineages , which means you can't find a most recent commomn ancestor between some jews and some arabs after the date of the MRCA, while arabs can among themselves, and jews can among themselves, meaning two arabs can have a MCRA who lived 1000 years ago and so on. There are many calculations of MRCA all over the plaqce and in wiki about Europpeans, especially, why does that not bother you.Valentino2013 (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- What professional genealogist makes claims that go that far back? For genetic genealogy you need an authentic genealogy. There's a big difference between a cousin in Australia and claiming a genealogical relationship to someone thousands of years ago that no one can prove even existed. And you haven't answered Paul's question about Aaron and who "cannot possibly lie?" Dougweller (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Update. I attempted to delete this section because by my reading it all depends on whether Nebel et al (geneticists) really associate a haplotype with Ishmael. If you look at Nebel et al, there is no mention at all of it, not even as a folk belief. So effectively this section is unsourceable. Valentino2013 has reverted the deletion saying that (if I understand the edit comment) Ishmael is mentioned in sources mentioned by the article. I do not see how that can justify it. Does anyone else?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
- I deleted it again for the same reasons. We seem to have an editor here who doesn't understand our sourcing policy and our policy on original research which is also evident in other articles he's edited or created. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I have only slowly realised that the genealogy section has probably consistently been copyvio, at least Valentino's edits. I've warned him twice, once over another article, and will ask for him to be blocked if this continues. The OR problem is minor compared to the copyvio issue. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
you haven't told me what copyright material I added to ishmaelites. Ishmael is mention by name in Klyosov study and Ishmael name mentioned in the assyrian inscriptions Nebel refered to the book by Ephal 1984 that reports the assyrian records mention arab and ishmael internatively on span of 300 years.hence the arab claim they are descendent from one man 4000 years ago is true as evidenced by genetic genealogy studies starting from Nebel 2002 who concluded scientifically that arabs have a recent common ancestor and then Kolsov proveed in 2008 after many people got tested, this is the same what haqppened to the studies concerning CMH and called it Y chromosomal Aaron so what is the differenceValentino2013 (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- Doug listed the websites in one of his edit summaries. For example, this website contains the sentence: "However, J1 is the only haplogroup that researchers consider “Semitic” in origin because it is restricted almost completely to Middle Eastern populations". Your section contains the sentence: "Haplogroup J1 originated in the southern part of the Mesopotamia and is the only haplogroup that researchers consider “Semitic” in origin because it is restricted almost completely to Middle Eastern populations." Paul B (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)