>> Algebra also has roots in Al Gharb... the boy of Bled es Siba... wasn't
>> sleeping while the rest did... no no no he solved the great questions of
>> matter...
>> Op 12-4-2012 1:01, Yusuf B Gursey schreef:
>>> On Apr 11, 6:37 pm, Warhol<mol...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> what did you do, sleep during elementary reading and writing Arabic?
>>>> Op 11-4-2012 23:14, Yusuf B Gursey schreef:
>>>>> On Apr 10, 12:40 pm, samsloan<samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Khazars and the Jewish Question
>>>>>> Sam Sloan
>>>>>> If all or almost all Jews alive today are descendants of Abraham,
>>>>>> which is what Jewish scholars claim, then the men would all share the
>>>>>> same Y-chromosome DNA type or haplogroup.
>>>>>> Since they do not, this shows that this story is not true.
>>>>>> Abraham had two sons, Ismail by his servant Hagar and Isaac by his
>>>>>> wife Sarah. According to both the Bible and the Quran, Ismail is the
>>>>>> father of all Arabs and Isaac is the father of all Jews.
>>>>>> If true, the Arabs and the Jews would all belong to the same
>>>>>> haplogroup but again DNA testing shows that this is not true.
>>>>> "Arab" includes a variety of populations that speak Arabic.
>>>>> linguistically, Classical Arabic and Biblical Hebrew are very close,
>>>>> and some propose an Arabo-Canaanite group. there are extinct varieties
>>>>> of Arabic called Ancient North Arabian known from graffiti in the
>>>>> South Semitic script. they have some features that they share with
>>>>> Biblical Hebrew not shared by Classical Arabic.
>>>> Arabic ain't the correct connotation... of al Gharbi they made Arbi
>>>> which translates now to arabic... this happened in the age of the
>>>> ottomans, who erased the husseiniyan(Arabic) history... and to steal the
>>>> heritage of AlGharbi...
>>>> Hassan
>>>> Family name
>>>> Meaning "handsome", "good", "manly", "strong", "benefactor", "Son of
>>>> Osain", "Son of Oisín", "Cantor", "singer"
>>>> I must remember my friends here my heritage in Jerusalem... the western
>>>> wall is private property of my family... yes the wall all the yids pray
>>>> against... is mine... and the gate to that leads to the temple mount is
>>>> mine to... The Magh-Rabbi Gate.
"Cholcians, Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only peoples in the world
who practice circumcision and they have always done so. The
Phoenicians and Palestinian Syrians are the first to admit that they
learnt the practice from Egypt, and the Syrians who live in the land
between the Thermodon and Parthenius rivers, and their neighbors the
Macrones, say that in their case it is a recent import from Colchis.
[...] The Phoenicians who have come in contact with Greece have
stopped copying the Egyptians with respect to their genitalia, and do
not cut off their children's foreskins."
> "Cholcians, Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only peoples in the world
> who practice circumcision and they have always done so. The
> Phoenicians and Palestinian Syrians are the first to admit that they
> learnt the practice from Egypt, and the Syrians who live in the land
> between the Thermodon and Parthenius rivers, and their neighbors the
> Macrones, say that in their case it is a recent import from Colchis.
> [...] The Phoenicians who have come in contact with Greece have
> stopped copying the Egyptians with respect to their genitalia, and do
> not cut off their children's foreskins."
Actually, nobody knows who the Khazars were or what language they
spoke since no Khazar writings survive. It is just assumed that they
were Turkic, with no proof.
I find it interesting that the Khazars dominated the exact area where
the Indo-European Family of Languages originated. However, that was
four thousand years ago, long before the Khazars existed. From their
homeland north of the Black and Caspian Seas, the Indo-European Family
of Languages spread West to Europe and South to India but perhaps
ceased to be spoken in their homeland of West Asia and Eastern Europe.
> > "Cholcians, Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only peoples in the world
> > who practice circumcision and they have always done so. The
> > Phoenicians and Palestinian Syrians are the first to admit that they
> > learnt the practice from Egypt, and the Syrians who live in the land
> > between the Thermodon and Parthenius rivers, and their neighbors the
> > Macrones, say that in their case it is a recent import from Colchis.
> > [...] The Phoenicians who have come in contact with Greece have
> > stopped copying the Egyptians with respect to their genitalia, and do
> > not cut off their children's foreskins."
On Apr 16, 6:02 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, nobody knows who the Khazars were or what language they
> spoke since no Khazar writings survive.
AFAIK, it would be more proper to say that no writings in Khazar
language survived (IIRC, there was at least one surviving fragment
with a peculiar combination of various languages), unlike
correspondence in other languages. Authenticity of what survived was/
is, AFAIK, disputed based on many considerations, including purely
political ones.
> It is just assumed that they
> were Turkic, with no proof.
Most probably they were a mixture of the various groups because
contemporary sources distinguish 'white' and 'black' (as in 'black-
haired') Khazars with the noticeably different appearance.
OTOH, Turik/Hunnish element was almost definitely present: to mock
Khazar Kahan, citizens of one besieged town used a pumpkin with the
hanging long 'mustaches' and tiny slits for the eyes (Kahan was
seriously pissed off with this display).
One of the arguments in a favor of the Turik roots is a fact that the
Khazars appeared on the scene soon after disintegration of the 1st
Turik Empire even if their initial appearances was as one of the 2nd
rate tribes.
> I find it interesting that the Khazars dominated the exact area where
> the Indo-European Family of Languages originated. However, that was
> four thousand years ago, long before the Khazars existed.
Yes. And IIRC they initially appeared in the area North of the modern
Derbent and only later moved to the areas you mentioned.
> From their
> homeland north of the Black and Caspian Seas, the Indo-European Family
> of Languages spread West to Europe and South to India but perhaps
> ceased to be spoken in their homeland of West Asia and Eastern Europe.
On Apr 16, 6:02 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Actually, nobody knows who the Khazars were or what language they
> spoke since no Khazar writings survive. It is just assumed that they
> were Turkic, with no proof.
we have some proper names, the self identification of the Khazars in
Joseph's letter, the statement by Arab authors that the Khazars have
teh same language as the Bulghars, a word in Runic letters that can be
read as Bulghar Turkic.
> I find it interesting that the Khazars dominated the exact area where
> the Indo-European Family of Languages originated. However, that was
> four thousand years ago, long before the Khazars existed. From their
> homeland north of the Black and Caspian Seas, the Indo-European Family
> of Languages spread West to Europe and South to India but perhaps
> ceased to be spoken in their homeland of West Asia and Eastern Europe.
> > > "Cholcians, Egyptians and Ethiopians are the only peoples in the world
> > > who practice circumcision and they have always done so. The
> > > Phoenicians and Palestinian Syrians are the first to admit that they
> > > learnt the practice from Egypt, and the Syrians who live in the land
> > > between the Thermodon and Parthenius rivers, and their neighbors the
> > > Macrones, say that in their case it is a recent import from Colchis.
> > > [...] The Phoenicians who have come in contact with Greece have
> > > stopped copying the Egyptians with respect to their genitalia, and do
> > > not cut off their children's foreskins."
On Apr 16, 2:39 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 6:02 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, nobody knows who the Khazars were or what language they
> > spoke since no Khazar writings survive. It is just assumed that they
> > were Turkic, with no proof.
> we have some proper names, the self identification of the Khazars in
> Joseph's letter, the statement by Arab authors that the Khazars have
> teh same language as the Bulghars, a word in Runic letters that can be
> read as Bulghar Turkic.
Yusuf, do me a favor: if you are answering to Sam's post, don't get me
included on the top of the list: I did not write a single word out of
what you are quoting and objecting to. :-)
As a matter of fact, _my_ post was along the same lines as yours.
> On Apr 16, 2:39 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 6:02 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Actually, nobody knows who the Khazars were or what language they
> > > spoke since no Khazar writings survive. It is just assumed that they
> > > were Turkic, with no proof.
> > we have some proper names, the self identification of the Khazars in
> > Joseph's letter, the statement by Arab authors that the Khazars have
> > teh same language as the Bulghars, a word in Runic letters that can be
> > read as Bulghar Turkic.
> Yusuf, do me a favor: if you are answering to Sam's post, don't get me
> included on the top of the list: I did not write a single word out of
> what you are quoting and objecting to. :-)
> As a matter of fact, _my_ post was along the same lines as yours.
> > > > Actually, nobody knows who the Khazars were or what language they
> > > > spoke since no Khazar writings survive. It is just assumed that they
> > > > were Turkic, with no proof.
> > > we have some proper names, the self identification of the Khazars in
> > > Joseph's letter, the statement by Arab authors that the Khazars have
> > > teh same language as the Bulghars, a word in Runic letters that can be
> > > read as Bulghar Turkic.
> > Yusuf, do me a favor: if you are answering to Sam's post, don't get me
> > included on the top of the list: I did not write a single word out of
> > what you are quoting and objecting to. :-)
> > As a matter of fact, _my_ post was along the same lines as yours.
> huh? the post is clearly a response to samslaone
I already sent my apologies: there was something strange with
displaying the list of names when I saw your response first time.
> On Apr 16, 2:39 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 6:02 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Actually, nobody knows who the Khazars were or what language they
> > > spoke since no Khazar writings survive. It is just assumed that they
> > > were Turkic, with no proof.
> > we have some proper names, the self identification of the Khazars in
> > Joseph's letter, the statement by Arab authors that the Khazars have
> > teh same language as the Bulghars, a word in Runic letters that can be
> > read as Bulghar Turkic.
> Yusuf, do me a favor: if you are answering to Sam's post, don't get me
> included on the top of the list: I did not write a single word out of
> what you are quoting and objecting to. :-)
> As a matter of fact, _my_ post was along the same lines as yours.
Oops, by some crazy reason, when I was writing my answer, my name was
on the top of your list but when I see response, it disappeared. My
apologies.
On Apr 16, 2:39 pm, Yusuf B Gursey <ygur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 6:02 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Actually, nobody knows who the Khazars were or what language they
> > spoke since no Khazar writings survive. It is just assumed that they
> > were Turkic, with no proof.
> we have some proper names, the self identification of the Khazars in
> Joseph's letter, the statement by Arab authors that the Khazars have
> teh same language as the Bulghars, a word in Runic letters that can be
> read as Bulghar Turkic.
the Khazars seemed to have had a dynastic connection to the Turk
Empire (Asaitic Turks) as seen from the fact that they were called
"Turks" and from a line in Joseph's letter. but linguitically they
were Bulghar Turks. also toponyms are evidence of the Bulgharo-Turkic
origin of the Khazars. among them is Azak (Russian Azov), which is
Bulgharo-Turkic (of a certain period) of Turkic "foot" / "mouth of a
river"
On Apr 26, 9:35 am, John Briggs <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 26/04/2012 13:55, samsloan wrote:
> > The book is out now finally. It already has some sales and a sales
> > rank.
> Just out of interest, do you have permission to re-publish this book,
> and if so, from whom?
> --
> John Briggs
This, seemingly, never stops Sam (remember similar story from some
months ago?).
The question is why was it necessary to publish this notorious and,
AFAIK, thoroughly compromised, piece of ideological crap? Especially,
taking into an account that ideology behind this exercise totally
misfired: instead of being a savior from antisemitism, this book
turned out to be one of the favorite tools of the antisemits (among
other things, it became one of the cornerstones for Lev Gumilev's
theory on how the Khazar-Jews had been trying to slow down development
of the Slavs).
> On Apr 26, 9:35 am, John Briggs <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > On 26/04/2012 13:55, samsloan wrote:
> > > The book is out now finally. It already has some sales and a sales
> > > rank.
> > Just out of interest, do you have permission to re-publish this book,
> > and if so, from whom?
> > --
> > John Briggs
> This, seemingly, never stops Sam (remember similar story from some
> months ago?).
> The question is why was it necessary to publish this notorious and,
> AFAIK, thoroughly compromised, piece of ideological crap? Especially,
> taking into an account that ideology behind this exercise totally
> misfired: instead of being a savior from antisemitism, this book
> turned out to be one of the favorite tools of the antisemits (among
> other things, it became one of the cornerstones for Lev Gumilev's
> theory on how the Khazar-Jews had been trying to slow down development
> of the Slavs).
I completely agree that the intention of the author has backfired. The
author said that he wrote the book to stop antisemitism. However,
instead it has been used to promote antisemitism.
However, it is not true that the theory has been disproved or
compromised. Many, perhaps even most, Jews believe it or some version
of it. One example of this is Shlomo Sand, an Israeli who writes that
he would be imprisoned and jailed if he could not prove his life-long
connection to Israel.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:00:37 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
>On Apr 26, 6:35 am, John Briggs <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On 26/04/2012 13:55, samsloan wrote:
>> > The book is out now finally. It already has some sales and a sales
>> > rank.
>> Just out of interest, do you have permission to re-publish this book,
>> and if so, from whom?
>The work is public domain because the author and his wife committed
>suicide in a suicide pact, leaving no heirs.
I don't think that suicide makes a work public domain. As for heir,
there is law saying something like heirs are family relatives, starting from close relatives (children, parents, sibling) to cousins.
You could be sued by cousins if they learn about that...
-----Original Message-----
From: Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene....@fr.invalid>
To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thu, Apr 26, 2012 10:21 am
Subject: Re: The Khazars and the Jewish Question
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:00:37 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:
>On Apr 26, 6:35 am, John Briggs <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> On 26/04/2012 13:55, samsloan wrote:
> > The book is out now finally. It already has some sales and a sales
> > rank.
> Just out of interest, do you have permission to re-publish this book,
> and if so, from whom?
The work is public domain because the author and his wife committed
suicide in a suicide pact, leaving no heirs.
I don't think that suicide makes a work public domain. As for heir,
here is law saying something like heirs are family relatives, tarting from close relatives (children, parents, sibling) to cousins.
ou could be sued by cousins if they learn about that...
------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@rootsweb.com ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of he message
> On Apr 26, 8:36 am, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 9:35 am, John Briggs <john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > On 26/04/2012 13:55, samsloan wrote:
> > > > The book is out now finally. It already has some sales and a sales
> > > > rank.
> > > Just out of interest, do you have permission to re-publish this book,
> > > and if so, from whom?
> > > --
> > > John Briggs
> > This, seemingly, never stops Sam (remember similar story from some
> > months ago?).
> > The question is why was it necessary to publish this notorious and,
> > AFAIK, thoroughly compromised, piece of ideological crap? Especially,
> > taking into an account that ideology behind this exercise totally
> > misfired: instead of being a savior from antisemitism, this book
> > turned out to be one of the favorite tools of the antisemits (among
> > other things, it became one of the cornerstones for Lev Gumilev's
> > theory on how the Khazar-Jews had been trying to slow down development
> > of the Slavs).
> I completely agree that the intention of the author has backfired. The
> author said that he wrote the book to stop antisemitism. However,
> instead it has been used to promote antisemitism.
> However, it is not true that the theory has been disproved or
> compromised.
Of course, it was because it is in a direct contradiction with the
known facts, like the Jews moving from medieval Germany to Poland and
not other way around (actions of Casimir the Great are, AFAIK, not in
doubt). Ditto for presumably total conversion of the Khazars: it is
well-known that quiet a few of them converted either into Christianity
or into Islam before leadership (and _some_ rank and file) adopted
Judaism. Then, the areas of the former Khazar Kingdom (at the time of
conversion) are practically void of the Jews (except for those who
moved into these areas reasonably recently and for the Karaims in the
Crimea).
>Many, perhaps even most, Jews believe it or some version
> of it.
I have no idea why do you think so.
> One example of this is Shlomo Sand, an Israeli who writes that
> he would be imprisoned and jailed if he could not prove his life-long
> connection to Israel.
There is a big difference between someone's personal experience and
majority. Most of the Jews whom I know don't believe in this story so
what does this prove? Especially taking into an account that Shlomo
Sand is anything but a representative of ANY majority (except perhaps
majority of the extreme lefties).
> DNA testing has proven that The Jews are not all descended from
> Abraham or Israel
Taking into an account that Abraham is a legendary figure and that, as
a result, his DNA are hardly available, this statement does not make
any practical sense. The same goes for the attempt to use the Bible
literally (unless you are going to tell that you believe description
of the Creation as well).
On Apr 26, 11:53 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 8:36 am, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
> DNA testing has proven that The Jews are not all descended from
> Abraham or Israel and thus are not all "The Children of Israel".
Quote:
"In June 2010, genetic research supervised by geneticist Harry Ostrer
of the New York University School of Medicine, and published in the
American Journal of Human Genetics, led to a whole series of
journalistic comments on Sand's book.[13] An article in Newsweek
titled "The DNA of Abraham's Children" challenges through genetic
analysis Sand's assertion that modern European Jews are descended from
Khazars, a Turkic group: "The DNA has spoken: no." This study,
Newsweek writes, undermines rather than supports Sand's position,
showing instead how modern Jewish genes can be traced back to a common
people of Middle East origin.[14] A New York Times article on the same
studies notes they "refute the suggestion made last year by the
historian Shlomo Sand in his book The Invention of the Jewish People
that Jews have no common origin but are a miscellany of people in
Europe and Central Asia who converted to Judaism at various times".
[15] Similarly, an article in Science states that Sand's hypotheses
"clash with several recent studies suggesting that Jewishness,
including the Ashkenazi version, has deep genetic roots". According to
Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania,
Ostrer's study "clearly shows a genetic common ancestry of all Jewish
populations." Geneticist Noah Rosenberg of the University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, states that although Oster's study "does not appear to
support" the Khazar hypothesis, it "doesn't entirely eliminate it
either."[16]
On Apr 26, 12:10 pm, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
> On Apr 26, 11:53 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > DNA testing has proven that The Jews are not all descended from
> > Abraham or Israel
type.> Taking into an account that Abraham is a legendary figure and
that, as
> a result, his DNA are hardly available, this statement does not make
> any practical sense. The same goes for the attempt to use the Bible
> literally (unless you are going to tell that you believe description
> of the Creation as well).
OK Let me modify that last statement.
DNA testing has proved that no one man, be it Abraham, Israel or
somebody else, is the father of all or most the of the Jews or that
Tamar or anybody else is the mother of most of the Jews. If Abraham
was the father then all male Jews would share the same Y-DNA
haplogroup. If Tamar (the hooker) was the mother they they would all
share the same mtDNA type.
European Jews are about as diverse as all Europeans in DNA types so
this proves that the Jews are not much more related to each other than
all Europeans are related to each other.
On Apr 26, 12:16 pm, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:
> According to
> Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania,
> Ostrer's study "clearly shows a genetic common ancestry of all Jewish
> populations." Geneticist Noah Rosenberg of the University of Michigan,
> Ann Arbor, states that although Oster's study "does not appear to
> support" the Khazar hypothesis, it "doesn't entirely eliminate it
> either."[16]
> Wiki article regarding Shlomo and his "theory".
I am of course familiar with Oster's study and I have dealt with it in
my reprint of the book.
All you have to do is look at the map and see that in order for modern
humans to get from Africa to Europe they had to travel through the
Middle East. Thus, all of us, whether we are Jews or not, have our
origins in the Middle East.
It really does not matter whether the European Jews are Khazars or
not. The point is that the European Jews are converts from some other
religion. They are not direct descendants of the Jews that Moses led
from Egypt to Israel, a trip of only 230 miles that took 40 years.
You can see conversions taking place today. For seven years I worked
with a company of Orthodox Jews in Queens. They were originally from
Iran. Their top manager was an Indian who wore a yarmulke every day
and said he was Jewish. There are some Jews in India.
A few years ago I met him on the street. He said he had lost his job
there. He was no longer wearing a yarmulke.
I am sure he was never Jewish. He had just said he was Jewish to get
the job.
> On Apr 26, 6:35 am, John Briggs<john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> On 26/04/2012 13:55, samsloan wrote:
>>> The book is out now finally. It already has some sales and a sales
>>> rank.
>> Just out of interest, do you have permission to re-publish this book,
>> and if so, from whom?
> The work is public domain because the author and his wife committed
> suicide in a suicide pact, leaving no heirs.
That is just untrue - you have violated US and UK (European) copyright. The Koestler estate and his publishers will be in contact with you. Commercial piracy is, of course, a crime.
-- John Briggs
> On Apr 26, 12:10 pm, AlexMilman <alexmil...@msn.com> wrote:> On Apr 26, 11:53 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > DNA testing has proven that The Jews are not all descended from
> > > Abraham or Israel
> type.> Taking into an account that Abraham is a legendary figure and
> that, as
> > a result, his DNA are hardly available, this statement does not make
> > any practical sense. The same goes for the attempt to use the Bible
> > literally (unless you are going to tell that you believe description
> > of the Creation as well).
> OK Let me modify that last statement.
> DNA testing has proved that no one man, be it Abraham, Israel or
> somebody else, is the father of all or most the of the Jews or thatTamaror anybody else is the mother of most of the Jews. If Abraham
> was the father then all male Jews would share the same Y-DNA
> haplogroup. IfTamar(the hooker) was the mother they they would all
> share the same mtDNA type.
> European Jews are about as diverse as all Europeans in DNA types so
> this proves that the Jews are not much more related to each other than
> all Europeans are related to each other.
Sam this is not the case.
mtDNA is only passed to you from your mother.
Males do not pass any mtDNA to their offspring at all.
So Tamar passed her mtDNA to her sons and daughters both, but ONLY Her
daughters passed it on to their children.
So, the fact that some or even most Jews don't share the same mtDNA
does not mean that Tamar was not the *ancestress* of them all, only
that there were also intermarriages and conversions.
That all Jews do not share the same Y-DNA does not prove that Abraham
was not the ancestor of them all, only that there were other male
ancestors as well. But we already knew that there have been
intermarriages and conversions among the Jews.
> > On Apr 26, 6:35 am, John Briggs<john.brig...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> On 26/04/2012 13:55, samsloan wrote:
> >>> The book is out now finally. It already has some sales and a sales
> >>> rank.
> >> Just out of interest, do you have permission to re-publish this book,
> >> and if so, from whom?
> > The work is public domain because the author and his wife committed
> > suicide in a suicide pact, leaving no heirs.
> That is just untrue - you have violated US and UK (European) copyright.
> The Koestler estate and his publishers will be in contact with you.
> Commercial piracy is, of course, a crime.
> --
> John Briggs
