Talk:Sayyid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed merge with Sayyid of Uttar Pradesh, Sadaat Amroha, and Sadaat-e-Bara[edit]

This subcategory isn't notable enough for its' own article. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose we merge Sadaat-e-Bara and Sadaat e Saithal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sadaat e Saithal was deleted due to and AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadaat-e-Saithal. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote[edit]

Discuss[edit]

  • Done. 45.116.233.55 (talk) 08:55, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The IP editor did not merge any content, but merely redirected the pages. I have therefore undone his redirects. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking into this, the merge was appropriately completed with this edit, and some surrounding edits. So, done of the 1st March 2018, although by 39.42.25.149 rather than 45.116.233.55. I've therefore added back the redirect to the moved content. Klbrain (talk) 21:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sayyid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sayyids & Notable Sayyids[edit]

Why separate lists called List of Sayyids and Notable Sayyids as separate sections? Agricolae (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In either case, a list of descendants of Muhammad is practically endless, ergo unmaintainable and I am thus removing it. Prime example of WP:LISTCRUFT if you ask me... --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A category of People who claim Sayyid title was created in 2018, and deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 15. – Fayenatic London 18:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sayyid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sayyid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:21, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Gardēzī Sadaat, Sayyid of Gujarat and Sadaat-e-Bilgram[edit]

These subcategories aren't notable enough for their own articles. I propose we merge Gardēzī Sadaat, Sayyid of Gujarat and Sadaat-e-Bilgram. 45.116.233.55 (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

Discuss[edit]

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Existence of descendants of Hasan Al-Askari" section- original research?[edit]

This section contains some unencyclopaedic tone as well as lack of sources for specific statements such as the alleged fact that "Genealogy trees of Middle Eastern and Central Asian families, mostly from Persia, Khorasan, Samarqand and Bukhara, show that Hasan al-Askari had also a second son called Sayyid Ali Akbar" is "definitely" indicative of descendants of Hasan Al-Askari, and that "Whether Al Askari had children or not is still disputed may be because of... political conflicts". Neither of these statements gives any citation, and their wording, particularly "definitely" and "may be" is suggestive of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.65.224 (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Y DNA SAYYIDS[edit]

Hello, what seems to be the issue, maybe I did not reference correctly? HijaziSultan (talk)

Muhammad had no sons who reached adulthood. His daughter Fatima married Muhammad's cousin Ali and had two sons, al-Hasan and al-Husayn. All the male descendants of the two grandsons of Muhammad are related to him in the paternal line, meaning they carry the Y-DNA profile of Muhammad and his clan, the Hashemites. The Arab noble Hashemite clan descends from Hashim, the great-grandfather of Muhammad. Among others, the royal houses of Morocco and Jordan belong to this clan today.

Testing two members of the Jordanian royal family has now made it possible to determine the Y-DNA profile of this line. Until now only the exact haplogroup was known: J1-L859. The Hashemites belong to the J1 haplogroup. This group formed some 16,000 years ago in the Middle East, probably in Anatolia or Mesopotamia. From there it migrated to the Arabian Peninsula, where its expansion was the greatest. Even today, this group is most commonly found in the Middle East and North Africa, but also in Europe. The exact subtype (J1-L859) is typical of the Arabian Peninsula. [1][2]

Haplogroup J1-M267, (specifically haplogroup J-P58, also called J1c3) is defined as belonging to the Prophetic Lineage which Prophets Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismael (Ishmael), Ishac (Isaac), Haroon (Aaron), and Mohammad would be categorized under.[3] It is also commonly referred to as the Cohen Haplogroup (Y-chromosomal Aaron) [4]. J1-L859 is located just downstream of J-P58 on the greater J1 phylogenetic tree. [5] [6]

A FamilyTreeDNA group has gone one step further to identify the exact Y DNA markers (beyond J1-L859 which they claim is only the Quraysh tribe marker) that belong to members of the Banu Hashem clan, Ali, Hasan ibn Ali, Husayn ibn Ali and their descendants. They claim to have done this by testing various prominent Sayyids and Sharifs from the Arabian Peninsula.[7]

The problem is that the sourcing here falls well short of Wikipedia's standards. You added one WP:RS to supply general information on the haplotype, but it does not even refer to Muhammad at all, and you are using your own synthesis (WP:SYNTH) to make the connection with Muhammad, while the rest is a bunch of self-published material that doesn't pass muster. It doesn't matter what a bunch of people participating in a FamilyTreeDNA project claim - crowdsourced web pages are not WP:RS (Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source). On FTDNA, the project manager can draw whatever conclusion they want, and if there is a chance to link to someone famous, they tend to do so even when the data do not support it. Your other sources? A professor waxing historic in a video of a university lecture about possible implications of someone else's unpublished finding is not up to snuff - that other research group needs to publish their finding for it to be usable (and if they haven't published it yet, after a decade, that tells you something too - that the result fell through). A tree that someone put on figshare? Anyone can put anything they want in a tree and put it online. Stuff uploaded to academia.edu but not otherwise published? same problem - all you need is a login to put something on academia.com, you don't need to actually know what you are talking about.
Wikipedia was never intended to be a place to publicize preliminary discoveries or personal research results that have not gone through appropriate editorial review. Such review both adds a check on its reliability and demonstrates that it is of enough interest to merit inclusion, as opposed to being simple trivia. Agricolae (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


The professor you say is waxing is one of the leading if not the leader in genealogical anthropology in the world. He has his own wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Wells. He's the leader of the National Geographic Geno Project, surely anyone dealing with this science knows his legitimacy. And yes the data has been published and recorded under the National Geographic project.

These are not my claims I have referenced www.igenea.com, FTDNA, and Geno 2.0 - Spencer Wells. These are literally the largest genetic DNA companies in the world. IGenea literally having a page on Prophet Muhammad's DNA.

And what about my 4th reference, which is a scientific journal published by Nature just a couple days a go. This is indisputable evidence for the Cohen Haplogroup belonging to the J1 tree. All my references are supplementary, I am not describing the prophetic lineage Cohin group, that is already well established and referenced in other wiki groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron

I don't have a problem pulling up more scientific journals. There's a ton of research for references since it's already a proven fact. Look at the references on those wiki pages for some.

FamilyTreeDNA is not a crowd sourced website, it's the most popular genetic Y-DNA testing website in the world. The company introduced J-L859+ being the haplogroup for the hashmites after testing the royal Jordan Royal family and validating their results. Those are their results, not crowdsources results. Any haplogroup downstream of J-L859 is crowd sourced and I have clearly said "The group claims". Hiding all these facts from the Sayyid webpage is bizarre to me. This is not new material, but material that should be shared with the community instead of them digging through other pages. HijaziSultan (talk)

It doesn't matter who the professor is - he is talking about someone else's data that had not been published, nothing but hearsay of preliminary results. As to the so-called Cohen haplotype (that hasn't been valid terminology for about 15 years, by the way) paper, that paper concludes that the haplotype is more than 20,000 years old, and hence Spencer Wells' dated cultural rhapsodizing from 10 years ago about a Prophetic Lineage is based on what turned out to be over-simplistic assumptions. Further, it makes no reference to either Muhammad nor the Sayyid so it is of no value to establish the connection, nor will any other journal article be that is just talking generically about J1-M267 and not specifically linking it to Sayyids (and even then one needs to be careful, but that would be a start). And yes, FTDNA is crowdsourced. That is how those 'projects' work - the testing just gives customers a bunch of numbers. They then collectively form projects, report their own results to the projects, report their own ancestry to the project, and then one of the group puts it together as they see fit. All FTDNA does is perform the original test and host the website (plus provide formatting templates), they do not manage, control or in any way evaluate the content, membership, or conclusions of these crowdsourced projects that they host. Agricolae (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


So you're of the personal opinion the Cohen Haplogroup is not J1? I think you stand alone there but regardless Ref4 doesn't make reference to Muhammad or Sayyid but it does to the Cohen Haplogorup J-P58 and that's all the information you need to know that this is the Prophetic Lineage. Have you disputed the the other wiki Jewish groups references as-well? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Aaron

Or is it just this one you have a problem with when the Cohen Modal is brought up? My Ref2 & Ref4 are references on those pages as-well, so seems odd to me you have a problem with them here. You keep dodging the www.igenea.com reference as-well. I have given 4/5 references and can easily pull up tens more, like I said this is not my opinion it's a scientific fact, and I want to share it and I am within my rights on wikipedia to do so. And again Dr. Spencer Wells data IS published, it's called the Genographic project. It has it's own wikipedia for it too for crying out loud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genographic_Project. I think you have homework to do before you write your next reply.

HijaziSultan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am of the opinion (and not just me) that the so-called Cohen haplotype shouldn't be called a 'Cohen haplotype'. The whole thing made for juicy press releases when it was originally noted that Cohens had this haplotype, but they didn't really do the study correctly or they would have realized that it was just a generic middle-eastern haplotype, with the Cohens only being a small subset of its possessors - just about all of these haplotype associations that made the news in the early days have been found to be overly-simplistic, the result of flawed assumptions and incomplete data. That (and the equally flawed claim it represents membership in some sort of 'Prophetic Lineage') is all beside the point because no WP:RS has been brought to the table that shows Muhammad carried this haplotype, so it doesn't matter. The mere existence of the Genographic Project does not prove the very specific claim that Muhammad carried L1-M267, and your darling igenea site is nothing but self-published marketing claims that by their very nature are inherently noncredible: just like it is not Wikipedia's purpose to announce scientific findings, it is not their purpose to do a DNA testing company's marketing for them. Agricolae (talk) 02:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you're the one bringing the opinion while I'm bringing the facts. Anyways, I am not here for a debate nor a discussion on the Cohen Haplogroup, If you want to debate that go ahead in the Cohen wiki pages (which is pretty much a non-debatable issue in the geoneology community) which makes me realize you don't have much knowledge in that field (Assumptions?? Incomplete data?? I hope this is a joke). Regardless I can write the facts and cite the sources and I am well within my right to do so. When I cite proper research papers, and you delete content based on your "opinion" I will be contacting the admins. If you have any problems with the scientific evidence I present such as the Nature Journal or any other scientific papers you can bring it up with the authors and publishers, I am not here to debate the content for me it's just a evidential source. The facts will remain on the page regardless of your opinion. If you have research papers (And Im sure you don't) that suggest J1 is not the Cohen haplogroup feel free to drop them below my references. I don't have a problem. J-P58 being the Cohen Haplogroup is Genealogy 101, it's best to not comment on subjects if you don't have enough knowledge of the subject. Again If you want to debate that I can send you some Anthropology forums so you can open your opinionated discussions there. HijaziSultan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what I wrote? because this Dunning–Kruger screed bears no resemblance to the actual problems I raised. This is not about debating anthropology, nor about your willful misrepresentation of what I said about the so-called Cohen haplotype. It isn't even about 'Truth'. It is about your added text falling short of Wikipedia's standards of sourcing (which tends to be taken more seriously when making scientific claims), as I explained. You have one off-handed comment in a university lecture on a YouTube video to someone else's unpublished work, you have a private company's marketing web page, and you have a self-published (as defined by Wikipedia) crowd-sourced website. None of these constitute a reliable source (again as defined by Wikipedia). The Nature paper might be a reliable source for a connection if it actually mentioned Muhammad or the Sayyids, but it doesn't. What it does say completely negates the picture you are trying to portray. Agricolae (talk) 14:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok just for the sake of argument I will agree with you and we won't dive deeper into this as it accomplishes nothing. So the nature journal is reliable source by your standard. Fair enough. I will use that to as a reference for J-P58. The journal clearly describes the link between J-P58 Ashkenazi Jewish J-L817 Haplogroup and the Arab J-L858. (On page 4 to make your life easier).

I will also bring other scientific articles to support J-P58 (theres literally hundreds, just google it). And I will change the the title from "Sayyid Y DNA" to "Sayyid Y DNA Claims". I won't mention J-L859 unless I can find scientific journal sources. Anyways are you okay with this?

Also, Agreed FamilyTreeDNA is not a scientific source unless it gets published, I see FTDNA being used on a wide variety of pages as a source so again I ask why is my reference the only one that is targeted? I would like to see you dispute it there too.

Anyways, let me know if the above is okay.

HijaziSultan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are not listening, or not hearing what I am saying. The reliability of the Nature paper is irrelevant, because you can't get from the Sayyids to the haplotype it is about by reliable sourcing. Were a link between the Sayyids and a specific haplogroup established based on reliable sourcing, then (and only then) you could use the Nature paper to provide limited context on the haplogroup. At this point, we lack such a reliably-sourced link, so any talk of the halplotypes is out.
As to you wanting to see me remove FTDNA use from other pages, I want to have infinite free time, a billion Bitcoin and my own private island. We don't always get what we want. I do remove references to FTDNA when I notice them, and have even done purging runs on occasion, but no one has the time to police all of Wikipedia. (And poor material anywhere does not justify poor material everywhere.) Agricolae (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am listening to what you're saying and even toned down my points just for the sake of argument. You're not making any sense here. That article says that J-P58 is the cohen haplogroup, period. So the prophetic lineage is through that, period. J-L858 being the referenced Arab group downstream of J-P58 is the prophetic lineage therefor, period. I'm trying my best to make this very basic for you. Everything I wrote above is referenced and scientifically documented so if you remove that content it's in clear violation of Wikipedia's editors rules. And I will be reporting.

At this point I think you're just a troll.

J-M267 wiki page literally has an entire section on this. And there's already like a hundred references on it there. You are 100% in the wrong and you must surely see this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267

Why are you trying your best to hide this from the Sayyid group? I feel personal sentiments in this.

HijaziSultan (talk)

Yet again, this misses the point, which is that 'you can't get there from here'. The chain of relevance would be the following:
  • 1. Sayyids can be shown to belong to this specific haplotype;
  • 2. Since Sayyids belong to this specific haplotype, here are the details on the haplotype that provide context.
If you cannot document the first part of this with reliable sources, the second part is rendered moot because its relevance is entirely dependent on the first. You could have all of the reliable sources in the world for the second part and it wouldn't matter if it lacks the demonstrable relevance provided by the first part, and that is lacking. Agricolae (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who said you can't do that backwards? Do you make the rules? Here I'll fix it for you.

  • 2. Cohen haplogroup belong to this specific haplotype, here are the details on the haplotype that provide context.
  • 1. Since this is the Cohen model, Sayyids must belong also to this haplogroup;

^^And this is exactly how scientific research has been done so far regarding the downstream variants of the cohen y model. I truly don't understand your issue. If you got got problems with the Cohen Haplogroup talk about it in the J-M267 wiki, don't waste my time time. It's literally that simple, this whole convo seems like a joke right now. HijaziSultan (talk)

Look at the name of this page! This page is about the Sayyids, not the Cohens. To be relevant on this page the information has to relate to the subject of this page. That is the point of having individual pages and not just dumping all of human knowledge together in one big unreadable master page - encyclopedias have individual articles that have information relevant to the subject of each article. To be pertinent to this page, about the Sayyids, the information needs to have a verifiable reliably-sourced link to the Sayyids. Agricolae (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine and it's not my purpose to go on and on about Cohen, like you said it's not the point of this page. But it's fundamental to understand that the lineage of the Prophet and Sayyids comes from the Cohen haplogroup - and this is the fact you are trying to hide (if I source this will it make you sleep better?) Not that it even needs to be sourced everyone knows Ismael and Ishaq share the same family tree) You're basically going in circles first you tell me Cohen haplogroup isn't real. I proved you wrong with references and other wiki pages now you are saying you don't want to show those references on this page...

Get the story straight! And it's completable relevant in-fact intrinsic to the discussion of Sayyids. I don't even have the intention of flooding the page with sources I can just wiki link the Cohen pages, once again I fail to understand the point of this discussion. Seems personal to you... HijaziSultan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say you don't want to go on about the Cohens, and yet you immediately continue your obsession with the Cohens and your reality-challenged summary of our discussion of them. You fail to understand the point because you are still not listening. There is no story to get straight, because you have not produced any reliable source linking Sayyids to any haplotype at all. Full stop. That renders any discussion of the mischaracterized 'Cohen haplotype' just as irrelevant as discussing the mischaracterized Genghis Khan haplotype or the mischaracterized Niall of the Nine Hostages haplotype in this article.Agricolae (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm pretty much done at this point. I will not repeat any of my points. Every genuine concern you raised has already been addressed. I'll be looking for this same energy in the J-M267 group, where P-58 is clearly defined as the Cohen haplogroup, if you don't raise it there means you are either scared of being embarrassed or using a personal bias to only attack this page because of some agenda you have. Only God knows why? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J-M267#J-P58 I will be forwarding his conversation to admins. Peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by HijaziSultan (talk • contribs) 19:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no problem if the M267 page indicates a connection with P58 because that connection is not in any way controversial. That has never been the issue here. It is a sine qua non for mentioning any information on any specific Wikipedia page that there be some demonstrable link between the information and the page's subject, and we don't have that here. In spite of your apparent fascination with the ramifications were there a connection, as I have pointed out repeatedly and you have ignored repeatedly, there is no reliable source that links the Sayyids to either M267 or P58, nor any haplotype for that matter. As to your repeated stated intention to copy this conversation to administrators, nobody is stopping you (but you might want to read WP:BOOMERANG before you do). Agricolae (talk) 23:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I explained it above multiple times but I’ll copy and paste the info from that wiki page here because clearly you haven’t even read it. And thank you ​for agreeing that "There is no problem if the M267 page indicates a connection with P58"-- your words.

I’m going to copy paste from that page, Under "Phylogenetics and distribution" It says: “J1c3d* Accounts for the majority of J1 in Yemen, Cohen Jews. as well as Quraysh including Sharif of Makkah of Banu Hashem clan.”

Not only does it say Cohen It says Quraysh and Banu Hashem LITERALLY WORD FOR WORD. You lost your argument not once, not twice, not three times, sorry I lost count.

Why do you have a problem if I post that in the Sayyid group? Why are you trying to conceal THIS?? This is actually hilarious for me, I'm going to wait for a response. Respectfully.

And I apologize if I'm coming strongly thats not my intention, it's just frustrating when J-M267 Wiki is clear as day about the Haplogroup of the Cohen, Quraysh, and Banu hashem and you don't have a problem with it there but as soon as you want to share that knowledge with the Sayyid wiki -(where it actually belongs) since it mentions Quraysh/Banu hashem you have a problem. It shows you are not being sincere with your concerns.

HijaziSultan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC) HijaziSultan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And is that claim referenced with a reliable citation? No it is not. Is it referenced with any citation at all? no it's not. Fail! Thanks for playing. Please try again when you have actual evidence. Agricolae (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And while we are at it, let me state this explicitly. It is far from a certainty that because the current royal family of Jordan has a particular haplotype that it must therefor have been Muhammad's haplotype and that of all Sayyids - just look at the Indian subcontinent Sayyid DNA results that are all over the place. It is also not clear to me the degree to which any individual haplotype is noteworthy, given that the defining characteristic of this group is their claim to descent from Fatima, which even were those claims true would not involve inheriting a Y chromosome from Muhammad. Agricolae (talk) 04:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you blind, Cohen is clearly referenced go check again. The only person you are fooling is your self. Clear as day. And while you're at it please look you the definition of cohen since you clearly don't know how it relates to Sayyids.

And if it's not referenced why don't you delete it there hypocrite?

Did you really just mention the Indian Subcontinent LOL. You understand 99.9999999% of them are fake right? They don't even have arab haplogroups except J1 & J2.I'm guessing you're one of these South Asian Sayyids x). In islam, science and tradition, sayyid descent is only from the male. This is why we have tribes in Arabia. I've tired of this convo, I'm just wondering how someone could be so delusional and ignorant. Are you sayyid from the South Asia with R6 or R7 haplogroup X)

HijaziSultan (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HijaziSultan (talk • contribs) 13:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And back you go to arguing about Cohen as it that had a relevance. It doesn't matter one iota what documentation there is for Cohen - this is not a page about Cohen it is about Sayyid, and there is no reliable source linking Sayyid to any haplotype. The DNA testing that has been published in reliable sources on people claiming to be Sayyids has returned a range of results, reinforcing what you have accepted above, that claiming to be a Sayyid and actually having a biological descent from Muhammad are not the same thing, amplifying why even were there a published DNA study linking an individual group of Sayyid claimants to a particular haplotype, it doesn't mean this is the haplotype of all Sayyids, needing to be discussed in detail here. By the way, have you read Wikipedia's policy on WP:CIVILITY? Agricolae (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What pint of Cohen being an ancestor of the Prophet and the SAYYIDS don't you understand???How many times have I said this? Go read the definition of what Cohen is. I feel like you have zero knowledge which is why we will end this discussion here. I'm losing brain cells talking to you, Jesus.

HijaziSultan (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point of it I don't understand is why you keep arguing something for which you have provided no reliable source, in spite of being told repeatedly that a source is needed. Agricolae (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cohen P58 source? I have provided. Cohen being the father haplogroup of the Sayyids? No problem, a simple family tree of Abraham is sufficient, I will happily provide this. What else do you need a source for? HijaziSultan (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A simply family tree of Abraham is not sufficient. You want to make specific scientific claims here about Sayyid DNA haplotypes. I have yet to see a family tree of Abraham published in a reliable source that attributes a specific DNA haplotype to Sayyids so no, such a tree would not support the claim being made.
An editor drawing specific scientific conclusions about Sayyid DNA by combining a traditional pedigree coming from ancient religious texts that for obvious reasons make no reference to DNA with a DNA result on P58 that made no reference to Sayyids would be a clear case of original research (WP:OR) by synthesis (WP:SYNTH), which Wikipedia editors are expressly prohibited from doing. You need a reliable source (WP:RS) that explicitly says 'Sayyids are members of haplogroup ____'. Even finding a reference saying 'we tested a Sayyid and he had haplotype _____' isn't good enough to draw a generalized conclusion about all Sayyids (as should be evident from the Indian study). Agricolae (talk) 17:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just made the claim that Abaraham and Muhammad are not related because it's based on "traditional pedigree coming from ancient religious texts". At this point, I'm done. You're madman.

HijaziSultan (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the claim I made. I tried to get across one of Wikipedia's policies - Wikipedia editors are not allowed to synthesize conclusions not explicitly stated by their sources. Whether what is found in a religious text represents authentic genealogy for events occurring two millennia earlier is a separate question that need not be discussed here. What is important is that these texts do not mention DNA haplotypes, for obvious reasons. As such the act of combining scientific DNA results on Cohens that don't mention the Sayyids with genealogical information from religious texts that don't mention DNA to reach a novel conclusion about the DNA of Sayyids not found in either source is a deduction, an example of the synthesis that policy proscribes Wikipedia editors from doing. Agricolae (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't waste my time with nonsense. Arbraham and Muhammad's relation is defined hundreds of times if not more on wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_in_Islam.

"I tried to get across one of Wikipedia's policies - Wikipedia editors are not allowed to synthesize conclusions not explicitly stated by their sources"

I don't get how much more explicit all the sources that say P58 is the cohen haplogorup can get. You're the problem here, for not being able to read those sources properly or not comprehending the definition of the word cohen. How many times are you going to lose this same argument, I've lost count honestly. HijaziSultan (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And yes religious text as 100% valid for this group because it is a religious affiliated group. The group pertains to SAYYID Muslims and every muslim believes in the Quran where Abaraham's relationship with Muhammad is described.

HijaziSultan (talk) 21:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HijaziSultan (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, but the issue is not whether the claimed genealogical descent of Muhammad from Abraham is verifiable or not: it is that the religious texts say nothing about Y haplotypes. How much more explicit do the Cohen sources need to be? They need to say, explicitly, that Sayyids have a specific haplotype. Now lets compare this requirement for a direct statement with what you are doing, combining 1) a scientific result about the Cohens that does not mention the Sayyids with 2)Jewish traditions about what constitute the Kohanim without reference to the Sayyids with 3) the Book of Exodus account of the descent of Aaron from the house of Abraham (which does not mention the Sayyids) with 4) the account of the family of Abraham in Genesis that does not mention the Sayyids with 5) a set of mutually incompatible claims about Adnan descending from Ishmael in Hadith, with 6) more consistent claims in Hadith that Muhammad descends from Adnan, with 7) the further genealogies of the Quraysh in Hadith that show Ali to have been a male-line cousin of Muhammad with 8) the further connection that Ali married Muhammad's daughter and 9) the conclusion of modern historians that all descendants of Muhammad (Sayyid) descend from the marriage of Ali and Fatima - combining all of that, none of which explicitly attributes to the Sayyids a specific haplotype, to reach a conclusion not found in any of them identifying a specific DNA haplotype as that of the Sayyids. Doing so is original research by synthesis, and Wikipedia editors cannot do original research, by synthesis or otherwise. No deduction, no extrapolation, no synthesis - nothing less that a direct statement about Sayyid DNA haplotypes in a reliable source. That is how explicit it needs to be. Agricolae (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3O Response: Having looked at the edit and discussion above, the proposed addition is textbook original research, and even uses "citizen scientists" in one reference. Without a reliable source explicitly confirming the connection, the proposed material is not appropriate to add to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seraphimblade (talk • contribs) 04:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.igenea.com/en/muhammad
  2. ^ Academia, J1 (2016). "Origins and history of Haplogroup j1". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ "Tracing the genetic ancestry of 200 undergraduate students" on YouTube Dr.Spencer Wells, Director of National Geographic's Genographic Project
  4. ^ Sahakyan,, H.; Margaryan, A.; et al. (2021). "Origin and diffusion of human Y chromosome haplogroup J1-M267". Nature. 385 (6659). doi:10.1038/s41598-021-85883-2.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  5. ^ Mas, V. (2013). "Y-DNA Haplogroup J1 phylogenetic tree". figshare. doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.741212. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  6. ^ https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-P58/
  7. ^ Hadi; Amili (2020). "Hashem & Y-DNA cousins (FGC8712 & L862 Geography)". This is a research project by citizen scientists. Over 1300 members.

Syed[edit]

The Syed’s of the known Saudi Arabia from Hejaz moved to south Asian areas like northern Pakistan and southern . I know a lot of people online who have said some Syeds claim Arab Ancestry but , What I have learnt is there is something called the Safavid Empire this happened about 300 to 500 years ago where this also happened Arab descendants of the Prophet Mohammed migrated to Sindh in order to escape the persecution of the Ummayid and Abbasid caliphs, and settled all over Sindh and parts of Punjab. The Syeds are actually decent of Hazrat Ali and also this The majority of Sayyids migrated to Iran from Arab lands predominantly in the 15th to 17th centuries during the Safavid era. Now a lot of Syeds are acting Indian and forget there real ancestors from Saudi Arabia 🇸🇦.-Zayd syed 202.187.226.76 (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan[edit]

Pakistan 111.119.183.2 (talk) 08:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MadRoyalist bias, vandalism and discrimination of sect[edit]

MadRoyalist has been utilising unreliable sources through website he has created himself I recommend the admins check these sites if they wish to see what I mean. Furthermore he has been boasting his own lineage and claiming a lineage maternally does not count as Sayyid instead as Mirza only within Shia Islam whilst making his ancestor the cover for this Wikipedia article when instead there are many other more famous and well known examples sources with better authenticity for sources utilised

  • with this he has also discriminated against Shia Sayyid via derogatory remarks and publishing content that a "Shia Sayyid can not be a real Sayyid" ironic considering his own sourced for claimed lineages for saint he shared are questionable due to being from 11th imam through 1 lineage which is denied by almost everyone Dragon819010 (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity of Syed Claimants[edit]

There are multiple millions of false claimants to the “syed” title. Especially in Iran, South Asia and Anatolia 2001:16A2:F421:9D00:ACA2:9000:6EB7:15BD (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Huge list with unnecessary articles.[edit]

it needs some work and removal of unnecessary unverified information. SaneFlint (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits, which I reverted, removed correctly sourced content, please specify what content you think is not referenced. Theroadislong (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong lots of references which are mentioned redirects to different websites. some of them don't have links but words 🤔 SaneFlint (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not have to be online. Theroadislong (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theroadislong means book pages are reliable SaneFlint (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes. Theroadislong (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sayyid&oldid=1210240414"