Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Is the King Sun, Louis XIV of France a descendant of Prophet Mohammad ?
456 views
Skip to first unread message
Olivier
Mar 29, 2016, 1:52:53 PM3/29/16
to
Bronwen Edwards
Mar 29, 2016, 3:21:13 PM3/29/16
to
Seems like this lady and the Banu Qasi pop up regularly. Check this news group's archive - there have been many discussions about this.
taf
Mar 29, 2016, 3:46:58 PM3/29/16
to
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:52:53 AM UTC-7, Olivier wrote:
> http://www.valeursactuelles.com/louis-xiv-descendant-de-mahomet-60377
>
Louis XIV may be descended from Muhammad, but not through either of the lines shown. One is just sloppy genealogy, the other is made up.
Claim 1: that Alfonso VI married Zaida of Seville, daughter-in-law Lord of Seville, and a possible descendant of Muhammad, and she may be ancestor of Blanche of Castile, mother of St. Louis.
Truth 1: Alfonso had a liaison with Zaida of Seville, whom he may have subsequently married as his fourth wife. Whether wife of just mistress, she was not ancestress of Blanche of Castile. Zaida's ancestry is unknown, but there has been speculation that she was akin to her husband, and hence would have the same descend from Muhammad that he claimed. However, there is reason to believe that this claimed descent of the Seville lords simply invented a Muhammadan descent to justify their status.
How arose: Simple sloppiness or blatant disregard for the historical record. 'Alfonso married Zaida as his fourth wife, Blanche descends from Alfonso, therefor Blanche may descend from Zaida'. Except we know, without the slightest room for doubt, that Blanche descended from the first marriage of Alfonso VI and not from his fourth wife.
Analysis: Had the compiler not had some tunnel vision, they at least would have lit on a descent that, while still wrong, at least has some basis in genealogical writings:
1) the kings of Portugal had a descent from Alfonso VI via a mistress - the wrong mistress, but there has been some confusion here so it would be more understandable had they gotten it wrong this way. Louis XIV descends from this line many times over, but the compiler just looked straight back the French royal line and hence missed the more indirect lines.
2) There are broadly-distributed claims that an actual child of the fourth wife of Alfonso married into the Lara family and this strain made its way back into the royal line - these descents are based on an invented connection, made in good faith but based on mistaken assumptions. The connection of later higher nobility and royalty to the Lara bride was groundless and all such descents are flawed, but had they followed this, they would have been wrong, just not sloppy.
3) This is the intriguing part - I would have to look, but it is possible that Louis XIV does actually descend from the other daughter of Alfonso by his fourth wife, who married the king of Sicily. However, even were this the case, it is not entirely clear that Isabella, fourth wife of Alfonso VI, is the same as Zaida of Seville, baptized as Isabella, mistress of Alfonso, and likewise there is no firm basis for placing Zaida into the ruling family of Seville, and as I said, they likely invented their Muhammadan descent.
Claim 2: Toda Aznarez descended from Fortun ibn Qasi, husband of Aisha bint Abdelaziz, a great-granddaughter of Caliph Uthman by a daughter of Muhammad.
Truth 2: None. No evidence Toda descended from Fortun, no evidence of whom Fortun married, no such daughter of Muhammad.
How it arose: Someone wanting the rulers of Al Andalus to have a Muhammadan descent invented a marriage between Musa ibn Nasayr and an invented daughter of Caliph Uthman and his wife, Muhammad's daughter. Later, some modern genealogist yearning for an unusual ancestry invented a marriage of Fortun ibn Qasi to a descendant of Musa, and separately made the wife of king Fortun Garces a descendant of Fortun ibn Qasi, without the slightest evidence.
Analysis: There is historical agreement that the only daughter of Muhammad to herself have issue is Fatima, wife of his successor Ali. Uthman did marry two daughters of Muhammad, but apparently had no children (and given the context of the Shia/Sunni split, it seems unlikely a whole separate set of Muhammadan descendants would have passed unnoticed). Musa ibn Nasayr was son of a slave, and even though he was Uthman's governor of North Africa when he invaded Iberia, it is extremely unlikely that with the social stratification of the Caliphate, he would would have been given the Caliph's daughter, and further that nobody would have noticed it until so many centuries later.
As to Fortun ibn Qasi marrying a granddaughter of Musa ibn Nasayr, Fortune is known from a small number of sources - an ancient collection of Al Andalus pedigrees says that Musa ibn Musa ibn Qasi was son of Musa ibn Fortun, son of Fortun ibn Qasi, son fo Qassi (Cassius) the convert who founded the Banu Qasi kindred. In chronicles, we find mention of Musa ibn Fortun, which in naming his father may then relate to Fortun bn Qasi. It has recently been suggested that this pedigree has dropped two generations, that Musa ibn Musa was son of Musa ibn Fortun, son of Fortun ibn Musa, son of Musa ibn Fortun, son of Fortun ibn Qasi. This doesn't matter, as there is not the slightest indication as to whom he married, and given that this family were just local converted landowners, there isn't the slightest possibility they would have been given the daughter of Iberia's rulers. There was never anything to support this hypothesis other than that he named a son Musa (as if a conquered people, subjecting themselves to the new ruler, might not show their loyalty by naming a child after the conqueror).
Finally with regard to Fortun Garces and his wife, he married Auria. This is a name known to appear in the Banu Qasi family, so it is possible she belonged to this clan and such a marriage would have been consistent with the politics on the ground, it is just as possible she didn't - when we only know the name of a total of fewer than a dozen women throughout the entire period, you simply can't say she must be related to another woman of the same name. Some have pointed to the use of the name Loup for a son of hers (Lubb was the name of the Banu Qasi leader at the time) but both names, Auria and Loup, are Latin in origin ('gold' and 'wolf') and likely formed part of the greater Basque naming patterns of the time.
In summary then, this second is wishful thinking and outright invention.
taf
> http://www.valeursactuelles.com/louis-xiv-descendant-de-mahomet-60377
>
Louis XIV may be descended from Muhammad, but not through either of the lines shown. One is just sloppy genealogy, the other is made up.
Claim 1: that Alfonso VI married Zaida of Seville, daughter-in-law Lord of Seville, and a possible descendant of Muhammad, and she may be ancestor of Blanche of Castile, mother of St. Louis.
Truth 1: Alfonso had a liaison with Zaida of Seville, whom he may have subsequently married as his fourth wife. Whether wife of just mistress, she was not ancestress of Blanche of Castile. Zaida's ancestry is unknown, but there has been speculation that she was akin to her husband, and hence would have the same descend from Muhammad that he claimed. However, there is reason to believe that this claimed descent of the Seville lords simply invented a Muhammadan descent to justify their status.
How arose: Simple sloppiness or blatant disregard for the historical record. 'Alfonso married Zaida as his fourth wife, Blanche descends from Alfonso, therefor Blanche may descend from Zaida'. Except we know, without the slightest room for doubt, that Blanche descended from the first marriage of Alfonso VI and not from his fourth wife.
Analysis: Had the compiler not had some tunnel vision, they at least would have lit on a descent that, while still wrong, at least has some basis in genealogical writings:
1) the kings of Portugal had a descent from Alfonso VI via a mistress - the wrong mistress, but there has been some confusion here so it would be more understandable had they gotten it wrong this way. Louis XIV descends from this line many times over, but the compiler just looked straight back the French royal line and hence missed the more indirect lines.
2) There are broadly-distributed claims that an actual child of the fourth wife of Alfonso married into the Lara family and this strain made its way back into the royal line - these descents are based on an invented connection, made in good faith but based on mistaken assumptions. The connection of later higher nobility and royalty to the Lara bride was groundless and all such descents are flawed, but had they followed this, they would have been wrong, just not sloppy.
3) This is the intriguing part - I would have to look, but it is possible that Louis XIV does actually descend from the other daughter of Alfonso by his fourth wife, who married the king of Sicily. However, even were this the case, it is not entirely clear that Isabella, fourth wife of Alfonso VI, is the same as Zaida of Seville, baptized as Isabella, mistress of Alfonso, and likewise there is no firm basis for placing Zaida into the ruling family of Seville, and as I said, they likely invented their Muhammadan descent.
Claim 2: Toda Aznarez descended from Fortun ibn Qasi, husband of Aisha bint Abdelaziz, a great-granddaughter of Caliph Uthman by a daughter of Muhammad.
Truth 2: None. No evidence Toda descended from Fortun, no evidence of whom Fortun married, no such daughter of Muhammad.
How it arose: Someone wanting the rulers of Al Andalus to have a Muhammadan descent invented a marriage between Musa ibn Nasayr and an invented daughter of Caliph Uthman and his wife, Muhammad's daughter. Later, some modern genealogist yearning for an unusual ancestry invented a marriage of Fortun ibn Qasi to a descendant of Musa, and separately made the wife of king Fortun Garces a descendant of Fortun ibn Qasi, without the slightest evidence.
Analysis: There is historical agreement that the only daughter of Muhammad to herself have issue is Fatima, wife of his successor Ali. Uthman did marry two daughters of Muhammad, but apparently had no children (and given the context of the Shia/Sunni split, it seems unlikely a whole separate set of Muhammadan descendants would have passed unnoticed). Musa ibn Nasayr was son of a slave, and even though he was Uthman's governor of North Africa when he invaded Iberia, it is extremely unlikely that with the social stratification of the Caliphate, he would would have been given the Caliph's daughter, and further that nobody would have noticed it until so many centuries later.
As to Fortun ibn Qasi marrying a granddaughter of Musa ibn Nasayr, Fortune is known from a small number of sources - an ancient collection of Al Andalus pedigrees says that Musa ibn Musa ibn Qasi was son of Musa ibn Fortun, son of Fortun ibn Qasi, son fo Qassi (Cassius) the convert who founded the Banu Qasi kindred. In chronicles, we find mention of Musa ibn Fortun, which in naming his father may then relate to Fortun bn Qasi. It has recently been suggested that this pedigree has dropped two generations, that Musa ibn Musa was son of Musa ibn Fortun, son of Fortun ibn Musa, son of Musa ibn Fortun, son of Fortun ibn Qasi. This doesn't matter, as there is not the slightest indication as to whom he married, and given that this family were just local converted landowners, there isn't the slightest possibility they would have been given the daughter of Iberia's rulers. There was never anything to support this hypothesis other than that he named a son Musa (as if a conquered people, subjecting themselves to the new ruler, might not show their loyalty by naming a child after the conqueror).
Finally with regard to Fortun Garces and his wife, he married Auria. This is a name known to appear in the Banu Qasi family, so it is possible she belonged to this clan and such a marriage would have been consistent with the politics on the ground, it is just as possible she didn't - when we only know the name of a total of fewer than a dozen women throughout the entire period, you simply can't say she must be related to another woman of the same name. Some have pointed to the use of the name Loup for a son of hers (Lubb was the name of the Banu Qasi leader at the time) but both names, Auria and Loup, are Latin in origin ('gold' and 'wolf') and likely formed part of the greater Basque naming patterns of the time.
In summary then, this second is wishful thinking and outright invention.
taf
taf
Mar 29, 2016, 6:00:41 PM3/29/16
to
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 12:46:58 PM UTC-7, taf wrote:
> How arose: Simple sloppiness or blatant disregard for the historical
> record. 'Alfonso married Zaida as his fourth wife, Blanche descends
> from Alfonso, therefor Blanche may descend from Zaida'. Except we
> know, without the slightest room for doubt, that Blanche descended
> from the first marriage of Alfonso VI and not from his fourth wife.
Sorry, that should have said that she descends from the second marriage of Alfonso (to Constance of Burgundy).
> How arose: Simple sloppiness or blatant disregard for the historical
> record. 'Alfonso married Zaida as his fourth wife, Blanche descends
> from Alfonso, therefor Blanche may descend from Zaida'. Except we
> know, without the slightest room for doubt, that Blanche descended
> from the first marriage of Alfonso VI and not from his fourth wife.
>
taf
taf
Mar 30, 2016, 12:10:40 AM3/30/16
to
On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 at 10:52:53 AM UTC-7, Olivier wrote:
> http://www.valeursactuelles.com/louis-xiv-descendant-de-mahomet-60377
>
I will go ahead and add to my other response that I have yet to see a valid descent from Muhammad that goes through Al Andalus Iberia, and provable descents there from Muslims at all are pretty thin on the ground. Many of the claimed descents are just results of wishful thinking, error, unquestioning acceptance of dubious traditions, or selecting from unresolvable ambiguities the one solution that would produce the desired descent.
> http://www.valeursactuelles.com/louis-xiv-descendant-de-mahomet-60377
>
There were clearly innumerable conversions, but most conversos adopted Christian naming, even surnames, and become indistinguishable from the rest of the nobility. If you see a Muslim-sounding name in a pedigree, it is as likely to be that of a Mozarab (Christians living under Muslim rule can be found using Arab naming), so even finding a name like Abdelaziz is not definitive.
For all practical purposes, if you have seen a claimed Muslim line through medieval Iberia, it is almost certainly false or unprovable.
taf
sabaris...@gmail.com
Mar 30, 2016, 5:43:03 AM3/30/16
to
To add a lighter note to this interesting discussion, the practice of claiming descent from the Prophet Muhammad still goes on. My late husband (who was a quarter Arab, quarter Kashmiri and half Indian, his maternal grandfather being from Medina, and who was always told by his mother that he was a Sayyid, i.e. descended from Muhammad, but who never made an issue of it) was present when a man claimed to be a Sayyid and, when challenged, produced a witness who said: "Yes, he is; I was there when he became one!"
Lauren O'Brien
Mar 31, 2016, 8:48:06 PM3/31/16
to
Hi group! Great subject for a first post I think. The descendants of Muhammad is a compelling subject matter for me, since it might be the oldest family line on record. I delved into the topic at length last year. It outdoes the historical period of our old Irish genealogies, but I've also read that most lines are later fabrications. For instance, a Sufi sage might receive a sayyid lineage a generation or two after his death. So, one has to be cautious when examining sayyid and other Quraysh families.
I know of two possible paths that exist to link Muhammad to European royalty, both through the Idrisids. One is conjecture posed by Francisco Doria that would allow for the Sun King to be a descendant. I found another probable line mentioned on a forum or somewhere last year.
This second line centers on an Almohad prince Abu Zayd who converted to Christianity and was baptized Vicente. A line from him to the Prince of Liechtenstein is given on a past post here. Abu Zayd's family called themselves sayyids, but were only descendants of Muhammad through two women, excluding Fatima, which I would imagine made the lineage less impressive to Arabs at the time. It does however make it more likely to be true, since it couldn't have been used to legitimize their reign when there were documented agnate descendants of Idris living in Morocco.
The line would go: Abu Zayd Abd al-Rahman ibn Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Abu Hafs Umar al-Rashid ibn Abd al-Mu'min ibn Tal'u bint Atiyya ibn al-Jayr ibn Jalifa ibn Musa ibn Ali ibn Hasan ibn Gannuna bint Idris ibn Idris ibn Abdullah ibn Hassan ibn Hassan ibn Fatima bint Muhammad
The chart below (pp. 92 and 93), from my source, gives an extra generation, al-Qasim, in the lineage of Idris, which is incorrect.
https://www.academia.edu/1336038/Las_genealog%C3%ADas_de_c_Abd_al-Mumin_primer_califa_almohade
I know of two possible paths that exist to link Muhammad to European royalty, both through the Idrisids. One is conjecture posed by Francisco Doria that would allow for the Sun King to be a descendant. I found another probable line mentioned on a forum or somewhere last year.
This second line centers on an Almohad prince Abu Zayd who converted to Christianity and was baptized Vicente. A line from him to the Prince of Liechtenstein is given on a past post here. Abu Zayd's family called themselves sayyids, but were only descendants of Muhammad through two women, excluding Fatima, which I would imagine made the lineage less impressive to Arabs at the time. It does however make it more likely to be true, since it couldn't have been used to legitimize their reign when there were documented agnate descendants of Idris living in Morocco.
The line would go: Abu Zayd Abd al-Rahman ibn Abu Abdullah Muhammad ibn Abu Hafs Umar al-Rashid ibn Abd al-Mu'min ibn Tal'u bint Atiyya ibn al-Jayr ibn Jalifa ibn Musa ibn Ali ibn Hasan ibn Gannuna bint Idris ibn Idris ibn Abdullah ibn Hassan ibn Hassan ibn Fatima bint Muhammad
The chart below (pp. 92 and 93), from my source, gives an extra generation, al-Qasim, in the lineage of Idris, which is incorrect.
https://www.academia.edu/1336038/Las_genealog%C3%ADas_de_c_Abd_al-Mumin_primer_califa_almohade
norenxaq via
Mar 31, 2016, 9:12:37 PM3/31/16
to Gen-Med
On Mar 31, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Lauren O'Brien via wrote:
> Hi group! Great subject for a first post I think. The descendants of Muhammad is a compelling subject matter for me, since it might be the oldest family line on record.
Lauren O'Brien
Mar 31, 2016, 9:44:30 PM3/31/16
to
I do have some information on the Japanese royal family. First, The Fujiwara date to the 6th century, with Tokiwa-no-Omuraji, a contemporary of Emperor Jomei. Secondly, critical studies of the Japanese royal family accept their genealogy back to "Emperor" Keitai, and possibly his father and grandfather who were likely historical lords. This places the Japanese royal family in the same time frame as the oldest Irish families.
norenxaq via
Mar 31, 2016, 10:13:03 PM3/31/16
to Gen-Med
On Mar 31, 2016, at 6:44 PM, Lauren O'Brien via wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 9:12:37 PM UTC-4, norenxaq via wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 2016, at 5:48 PM, Lauren O'Brien via wrote:
>>
>>> Hi group! Great subject for a first post I think. The descendants of Muhammad is a compelling subject matter for me, since it might be the oldest family line on record.
>>
>> far from it... Confucius' line as well as the japanese royal family are older. the former by at least a millenium
>
> I don't read or speak Chinese, but I've not heard of solid documentation for the Confucius line. I understand they have held a position of honour for the last thousand years, but before that all I've ever seen is a list of names. How does that differ from the Irish genealogies purporting to trace back to antiquity?
> I think it was TAF, who has posted here, that mentioned in another post in the archives that Chinese genealogies present problems as they sometimes aren't literal biological lineages.
>
even if one was adopted by the senior line, the adoption came from a junior line within the family, never outside
>
> I do have some information on the Japanese royal family. First, The Fujiwara date to the 6th century, with Tokiwa-no-Omuraji, a contemporary of Emperor Jomei. Secondly, critical studies of the Japanese royal family accept their genealogy back to "Emperor" Keitai, and possibly his father and grandfather who were likely historical lords. This places the Japanese royal family in the same time frame as the oldest Irish families.
>
which is around 4-5 century ad. still older than mohammed's
>
taf
Mar 31, 2016, 10:33:36 PM3/31/16
to
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 5:48:06 PM UTC-7, Lauren O'Brien wrote:
> Hi group! Great subject for a first post I think. The descendants of
> Muhammad is a compelling subject matter for me, since it might be the
> oldest family line on record. I delved into the topic at length last
> year. It outdoes the historical period of our old Irish genealogies,
> but I've also read that most lines are later fabrications.
It is hard to quantify, but there have been historical instances (within the period of modern historical documentation) of dynasties that converted to Islam and within a few generations were claiming male-line descents from prominent Arab dynasties who, themselves, claimed descent from Muhammad.
> Hi group! Great subject for a first post I think. The descendants of
> Muhammad is a compelling subject matter for me, since it might be the
> oldest family line on record. I delved into the topic at length last
> year. It outdoes the historical period of our old Irish genealogies,
> but I've also read that most lines are later fabrications.
> I know of two possible paths that exist to link Muhammad to European
> royalty, both through the Idrisids. One is conjecture posed by
> Francisco Doria that would allow for the Sun King to be a descendant.
> This second line centers on an Almohad prince Abu Zayd who converted to
> Christianity and was baptized Vicente.
taf
taf
Mar 31, 2016, 10:39:32 PM3/31/16
to
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 7:13:03 PM UTC-7, norenxaq via wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2016, at 6:44 PM, Lauren O'Brien via wrote:
> > I think it was TAF, who has posted here, that mentioned in another post
> > in the archives that Chinese genealogies present problems as they
> > sometimes aren't literal biological lineages.
>
> even if one was adopted by the senior line, the adoption came from a
> junior line within the family, never outside
Recent DNA typing of one Emperor's descendants and those of his adoptive 'ancestors' revealed that at least one specific adoption among the high nobility did indeed come from outside the family.
> On Mar 31, 2016, at 6:44 PM, Lauren O'Brien via wrote:
> > I think it was TAF, who has posted here, that mentioned in another post
> > in the archives that Chinese genealogies present problems as they
> > sometimes aren't literal biological lineages.
>
> even if one was adopted by the senior line, the adoption came from a
> junior line within the family, never outside
taf
norenxaq via
Mar 31, 2016, 10:53:42 PM3/31/16
to Gen-Med
taf
Mar 31, 2016, 11:20:42 PM3/31/16
to
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-7, norenxaq via wrote:
> I am aware of a few of these. however, the subject was confucius' family.
> hence, my response was limited to that
And why would this one family have different adoption practices than their peers (particularly before being of the family of Confucius became 'a thing')? Because they later made the self-serving claim that was the case?
> I am aware of a few of these. however, the subject was confucius' family.
> hence, my response was limited to that
taf
norenxaq via
Mar 31, 2016, 11:43:59 PM3/31/16
to Gen-Med, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On Mar 31, 2016, at 8:20 PM, taf via wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-7, norenxaq via wrote:
>
>> I am aware of a few of these. however, the subject was confucius' family.
>> hence, my response was limited to that
>
> And why would this one family have different adoption practices than their peers
> (particularly before being of the family of Confucius became 'a thing')?
the family became important during the early han with the adaptation of his philosophy. nor is there evidence suggesting people were adopted in to claim confucius as an ancestor. this does not preclude pretenders however...
taf
Mar 31, 2016, 11:48:00 PM3/31/16
to
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 8:43:59 PM UTC-7, norenxaq via wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2016, at 8:20 PM, taf via wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-7, norenxaq via wrote:
> >
> >> I am aware of a few of these. however, the subject was confucius' family.
> >> hence, my response was limited to that
> >
> > And why would this one family have different adoption practices than their peers
>
> their adoptions were strictly within the family, which is my point
And we know this with such certainty, . . . how?
> On Mar 31, 2016, at 8:20 PM, taf via wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 7:53:42 PM UTC-7, norenxaq via wrote:
> >
> >> I am aware of a few of these. however, the subject was confucius' family.
> >> hence, my response was limited to that
> >
> > And why would this one family have different adoption practices than their peers
>
> their adoptions were strictly within the family, which is my point
taf
norenxaq via
Mar 31, 2016, 11:56:14 PM3/31/16
to Gen-Med, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
taf
Apr 1, 2016, 1:06:39 AM4/1/16
to
On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 8:56:14 PM UTC-7, norenxaq via wrote:
> through contemporary records
You are saying that there are surviving contemporary records that document every single adoption in every single branch of a 2500 year old family, such that it can be stated unequivocally that they never adopted anyone outside the male lineage?
I am going to express extreme doubt that this is the case.
taf
> through contemporary records
You are saying that there are surviving contemporary records that document every single adoption in every single branch of a 2500 year old family, such that it can be stated unequivocally that they never adopted anyone outside the male lineage?
I am going to express extreme doubt that this is the case.
taf
Lauren O'Brien
Apr 1, 2016, 1:09:34 AM4/1/16
to
> there is contemporary evidence for this
Any suggested reading material for this? The line might well be fully genuine. I just haven't read a critical assessment of it.
>
> even if one was adopted by the senior line, the adoption came from a junior line within the family, never outside
> > I do have some information on the Japanese royal family. First, The Fujiwara date to the 6th century, with Tokiwa-no-Omuraji, a contemporary of Emperor Jomei. Secondly, critical studies of the Japanese royal family accept their genealogy back to "Emperor" Keitai, and possibly his father and grandfather who were likely historical lords. This places the Japanese royal family in the same time frame as the oldest Irish families.
> >
>
> which is around 4-5 century ad. still older than mohammed's
I read about DNA testing on descendants of Confucius, but I couldn't find the specifics. We'd need to know how far apart the genealogies have the branches that were tested. If it's only five hundred to a thousand years, then it'd wouldn't help the case like if it were two thousand years.
norenxaq via
Apr 1, 2016, 3:01:00 AM4/1/16
to Gen-Med, gen-me...@rootsweb.com
On Mar 31, 2016, at 10:09 PM, Lauren O'Brien via wrote:
>> there is contemporary evidence for this
>
> Any suggested reading material for this? The line might well be fully genuine. I just haven't read a critical assessment of it.
>
>>
>> even if one was adopted by the senior line, the adoption came from a junior line within the family, never outside
>>> I do have some information on the Japanese royal family. First, The Fujiwara date to the 6th century, with Tokiwa-no-Omuraji, a contemporary of Emperor Jomei. Secondly, critical studies of the Japanese royal family accept their genealogy back to "Emperor" Keitai, and possibly his father and grandfather who were likely historical lords. This places the Japanese royal family in the same time frame as the oldest Irish families.
>>>
>>
>> which is around 4-5 century ad. still older than mohammed's
>
>
> When I mentioned Muhammad's family being the oldest line I wasn't merely tracing the family from him, but to his ancestor Adnan who is estimated to have lived in the first century BC. It's said the Adnanite Arabs kept decent genealogical records at the time and even that Caliph Abu Bakr was a genealogist.
>
his earliest ancestor with reasonable certainty is Fihr who lived around ad 200. I misremembered the above date... regardless, adnan's dates vary widely, as does his historicity. one source, of which I do not recall, dated him to around 500 bc...
>> even if one was adopted by the senior line, the adoption came from a junior line within the family, never outside
>>> I do have some information on the Japanese royal family. First, The Fujiwara date to the 6th century, with Tokiwa-no-Omuraji, a contemporary of Emperor Jomei. Secondly, critical studies of the Japanese royal family accept their genealogy back to "Emperor" Keitai, and possibly his father and grandfather who were likely historical lords. This places the Japanese royal family in the same time frame as the oldest Irish families.
>>>
>>
>> which is around 4-5 century ad. still older than mohammed's
>
>
> When I mentioned Muhammad's family being the oldest line I wasn't merely tracing the family from him, but to his ancestor Adnan who is estimated to have lived in the first century BC. It's said the Adnanite Arabs kept decent genealogical records at the time and even that Caliph Abu Bakr was a genealogist.
>
> I read about DNA testing on descendants of Confucius, but I couldn't find the specifics. We'd need to know how far apart the genealogies have the branches that were tested. If it's only five hundred to a thousand years, then it'd wouldn't help the case like if it were two thousand years.
>
willac...@yahoo.co.uk
Apr 13, 2016, 6:58:42 AM4/13/16
to
> This second line centers on an Almohad prince Abu Zayd who converted to
> Christianity and was baptized Vicente. A line from him to the Prince of
> Liechtenstein is given on a past post here. Abu Zayd's family called
> themselves sayyids, but were only descendants of Muhammad through two women,
> excluding Fatima, which I would imagine made the lineage less impressive to
> Arabs at the time. It does however make it more likely to be true, since it
> couldn't have been used to legitimize their reign when there were documented
> agnate descendants of Idris living in Morocco.
http://www.uiquipedia.org/images/4/40/ARBOL_aRENOS.jpg
Abu Zayd, Ruler of Valencia
M: Maria Ferrandis
Alda Ferrandis
M: Blasco Eximenez de Arenos
Sancha Eximenez
M: Rodrigo Ferrando Díaz, Señor de Benaguasil
Sancha Fernandez Diaz
M: Jaime de Aragón, Señor de Segorbe d. Aft 22 May 1285
Sancha Fernandez Diaz appears in Leo's database here:
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00470380&tree=LEO
Is the above line supported with any contemporary evidence? According to Leo's database King Louis XIV of France and King Charles II of England were descendants of Sancha Fernandez Diaz through the Kings and Queens of Navarre.
Olivier
Apr 13, 2016, 11:37:15 AM4/13/16
to
But is there a link between Abdul-Mu'min ben `Alī al-Kūmī (Almohades) and The Phophet Mohammad ?
J.L. Fernandez Blanco
Apr 13, 2016, 9:32:46 PM4/13/16
to
J.L. Fernandez Blanco
Apr 13, 2016, 9:33:59 PM4/13/16
to
0 new messages