What's new

A Muslim majority Indus Valley Civilization?

The Indus valley civilisation and its trade were vitally linked to the Arabs who were the Mesopotamian civilisation, the Egyptian civilisation and other major civilisations that pre-dated or coexisted with the Indus valley civilisation,

The Egyptian & Mesopotamian people are the ancestors of modern day Egyptian & Iraqi Arabs, however they themselves were not Arabs & nor did they speak Arabic. Modern Arabs consist of a variety of different people linked by a common language & culture. However, at the time of the revelation of the Quran, the Arabs consisted of one major ethnicity & those were the Ishmaelites or the descendants of Prophet Ishmael (PBUH). I assume that you already know that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself was the descendant of Prophet Ishmael (PBUH).

So to get rid of the Arab influence is to get rid of all these legacies and Islam itself, I am not even talking about the 60 000 years Arab genes!

Islam is not an invention or creation of Arabs. Islam is a divinely revealed religion sent down by God for all of mankind. The last Prophet (PBUH) was indeed an Arab, but the Prophets before him arose primarily from the Children of Israel. We are not Muslims because of Arab influence, we are Muslims because we believe that there is no God but Allah & Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is God's last messenger. Getting rid of Arab influence does not equate to getting rid of Islam, although as I mentioned earlier there is absolutely no such thing as "Arab cultural imperialism". Similarities between Pakistani & Arab cultures exist due to Islamic or religious influences rather than cultural ones.

What do you mean by 60000 years of Arab genes? Elaborate on that point, are you implying that all modern day Pakistanis are mixed with Arabs?
 
Extremely thoughtful and very scholarly article, but not perfect, nor the ideas it contains; The Indus valley civilisation and its trade were vitally linked to the Arabs who were the Mesopotamian civilisation, the Egyptian civilisation and other major civilisations that pre-dated or coexisted with the Indus valley civilisation, So to get rid of the Arab influence is to get rid of all these legacies and Islam itself, I am not even talking about the 60 000 years Arab genes!
The Muslim legacy of democracy and social well-being was far more sophisticated than the British one who itself was inspired by Islamic models and thoughts.

The main seaport of IVC was lothal in Gujarat from where they traded with middle east. One of world's earliest dock was found in Lothal.
 
I have a question for Indians: Where do they say in your textbooks the IVC was located??
 
This is a good article.. Pakistan was fine, until it got funding from wahabis from SA !!
Really, a culturally powerfull pakistan was needed to make it a favourable nation, like how the region was in the past ie 5000 years ago !!

Ya lol - The evil Wahhabiz obvsiously popped out of no-where after 9/11 in Pakistan. Makes perfect sense.
I'm guessing Saudi Arabia (read: Slave and Puppet of the West) is also allowed by their Masters to sponsor Terrorist Wahhabis in their countries to. Logic :whistle:
 
I have a question for Indians: Where do they say in your textbooks the IVC was located??

North-Western India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I believe most Pakistanis in PDF must be aware of the fact that Indian school curriculum (of History) was compiled by self Proclaimed Marxist Historians. It's the same as in Wikipedia/Publications of any reputed university in the world. You can check them online.
 
I have a question for Indians: Where do they say in your textbooks the IVC was located??

It mentions the name of provinces of Pakistan and states of India where IVC sites were found. I don't remember if the name Pakistan was mentioned.
 
Extremely thoughtful and very scholarly article, but not perfect, nor the ideas it contains; The Indus valley civilisation and its trade were vitally linked to the Arabs who were the Mesopotamian civilisation, the Egyptian civilisation and other major civilisations that pre-dated or coexisted with the Indus valley civilisation, So to get rid of the Arab influence is to get rid of all these legacies and Islam itself, I am not even talking about the 60 000 years Arab genes!
The Muslim legacy of democracy and social well-being was far more sophisticated than the British one who itself was inspired by Islamic models and thoughts.

An interesting point of view, not one I agree with, but certainly one to respect, and one which is worth response. I am sorry if that sounded condescending; such was not the intention.

There is no doubt that the trade relations of the IVC were with Dilmun/Bahrain and perhaps with points west, though that is somewhat misty. It has credibility; I seem to recall the polymath genius Professor Dani claiming something similar for central Asia. We can readily agree that ancient, proto-historic civilizations such as the Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian traded with the IVC. Whether this can be expanded to include the Egyptians I beg leave to doubt; we are now going from umbra to penumbra. Putting it in another way, trade between the Indus cities and Dilmun is at one level of certainty and confidence; the possibilities of such trade with Sumer, Akkad and Babylon, as well as the postulated trade with central Asia is at a lower level of certainty and confidence; the trade links with ancient Egypt may be at yet another level of confidence.

Where does that take us?

Do we believe that there has been an international trading community, an unrecorded economic free trade zone, regulated only by local rulers, and not subject to the crushing administrative control of the Roman Empire, for example, in this geography? Do we go on to believe that the geographical locations of these earlier prototypical civilizations gave way in some credible manner to those of current times? Is it possible to say with force and conviction that there has been continuous civilisation in the Indus Valley, and that there are no broken links? Can we, similarly, assume that present-day 'Arab' civilisation is an amalgam of Sumer, Akkad and Babylon, perhaps of Assyria?

I believe that there is no valid evidence that the culture and civilisation of Arabia Felix was identical with that of Arabia Deserta, but this can be discussed; it is certainly worth discussing.
 
Afghanistan has history of Hinduism, there are lots of remanent of Hindu-Buddhist temple in East Afghanistan. But I don't know if ancient Hindu Kamboja are the ancestors of Afghans.

Can you tell me what religion Balochs followed before converting to Islam.



Can you clarify if Ancient Kamboja are the ancestors of modern day Pathans.

That is difficult to say with certainty; the origins of those who call themselves Pathans today is wrapped in mystery. It is likely that today's Pathans are an amalgamation of more than one original ethnic group.

The Kamboja of epic times, that is, Kambojas mentioned from proto-historic times, were in two groups: the Kamboja proper, and the Parama Kamboja.

The former, the Kamboja, were evidently part of the tribes who seem to have come into India, or formed in India out of the individual families and groups that migrated over the Hindu Kush after the split from the Indo-Iranians. They are reported to have spoken the same language as the members of other tribes, and mingled closely with them. They may have been the ancestors of today's Kamboh, but unlikely to have contributed to the Pathan ethnic configuration.

The Parama Kamboja were different. They are reported as having lived north of the accepted Indo-Aryan groupings, perhaps in what later came to be known as Ferghana; spoke a distinctly different dialect - while comprehensible to the plains-dwelling Indo-Aryans, there were distinctive nouns, and distinctive verbs, which were declined differently from the declinations in the grammatical forms codified by Panini; while the Indo-Aryans described themselves as tall and fair, the Parama Kamboja were described by the epic poets as exceptionally tall and exceptionally fair; they were great horse breeders and blanket makers, and their horses and blankets made exceptional, princely gifts. They fought at Kurukshetra, as cavalry, and were devastating in that role.

The Parama Kamboja are now thought to be part of the Scythians who dominated the steppes before the conquests of Genghis and the subsequent Turkicisation of the steppes. Some of the eastern Scythians were driven out of Ferghana by the Yueh-Chi,fleeing their unrelenting enemy, the Hiung Nu. Under the shock of this attack, sometime in the first two centuries BC, the Scythians - including the Parama Kamboja elements, presumably - migrated to Balkh.

Further attacks followed, and it is possible that sections of these tribes went south from Balkh, to the southern parts of present-day Afghanistan, now known as Sogdiana=Sakasthan=Seistan. From there, they moved to dominate the Sind-Malwa-Rajasthan-Gujarat-Gangetic Doab, all the way to Mathura.

Another section may have moved earlier, perhaps two hundred years earlier, and may have formed the tribes known as Aspasioi or Aspakioi to the Macedonian army. But this is nowhere close to being established.

To sum up this very little understood topic: The Kamboja were not part of the groups that formed the Pathans. The Parama Kamboja may have been, but this is not certain.

Note: this was written entirely from memory without consulting references, and should be read in that light.

Most probably it is you as an Indian who is suffering from an Identity crisis.
The Indus valley was /is situated in what is known today as Pakistan and major parts of Afghanistan, neighbouring Iran the ancient Persian empire civilisation from the south and the mesopotamian civilisation from the north.
What was India at that time, no one seems to know and if you can enlighten this forum with some facts, please do.


What a sad decline from the quality of the earlier note.

North-Western India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. I believe most Pakistanis in PDF must be aware of the fact that Indian school curriculum (of History) was compiled by self Proclaimed Marxist Historians. It's the same as in Wikipedia/Publications of any reputed university in the world. You can check them online.

What is the point being made here? What is the influence of "self Proclaimed Marxist Historians"? Can you name one who hS compiled this "school curriculum"? Which school curriculum are you referring to, that is, which school exam does your remark relate to?
 
Indians are very clear: IVC is a part of Indian civilization and IVC is taught extensively in our school text books starting from 6th class to 12th class

Indeed it is, "Indian civilisation" is based upon the IVC and other more -farther- eastern "civilisations", it is a hybrid civilisation, and any hybrid living entity forcibly looses its purity and originality, adding or being too much influenced by shallow civilizations makes things worse.
The correct phrasing should be : India has a part of its culture in the IVC civilisation, no denial about it, but there are too many other influences on India, too many sects and too many dialects pointing out to too many ethnic groups.
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran have a few too - 4, 5 or 6 ethnic groups mostly homogeneous- , but very far from the hundreds that exist in India.
So India is an amalgam of cultures more than a civilisation, while in the past and at its best it was more IVC than anything else.

The Egyptian & Mesopotamian people are the ancestors of modern day Egyptian & Iraqi Arabs, however they themselves were not Arabs & nor did they speak Arabic. Modern Arabs consist of a variety of different people linked by a common language & culture. However, at the time of the revelation of the Quran, the Arabs consisted of one major ethnicity & those were the Ishmaelites or the descendants of Prophet Ishmael (PBUH). I assume that you already know that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself was the descendant of Prophet Ishmael (PBUH).



Islam is not an invention or creation of Arabs. Islam is a divinely revealed religion sent down by God for all of mankind. The last Prophet (PBUH) was indeed an Arab, but the Prophets before him arose primarily from the Children of Israel. We are not Muslims because of Arab influence, we are Muslims because we believe that there is no God but Allah & Muhammad (Peace be upon him) is God's last messenger. Getting rid of Arab influence does not equate to getting rid of Islam, although as I mentioned earlier there is absolutely no such thing as "Arab cultural imperialism". Similarities between Pakistani & Arab cultures exist due to Islamic or religious influences rather than cultural ones.

What do you mean by 60000 years of Arab genes? Elaborate on that point, are you implying that all modern day Pakistanis are mixed with Arabs?

Arabs didn't speak Arabic throughout time!

Not only Pakistanis but most humans have Arab genes, and these are recent scientific genetics science findings.
I have posted the articles on other threads, and you can google them too.
 
An interesting point of view, not one I agree with, but certainly one to respect, and one which is worth response. I am sorry if that sounded condescending; such was not the intention.

There is no doubt that the trade relations of the IVC were with Dilmun/Bahrain and perhaps with points west, though that is somewhat misty. It has credibility; I seem to recall the polymath genius Professor Dani claiming something similar for central Asia. We can readily agree that ancient, proto-historic civilizations such as the Sumerian, Akkadian and Babylonian traded with the IVC. Whether this can be expanded to include the Egyptians I beg leave to doubt; we are now going from umbra to penumbra. Putting it in another way, trade between the Indus cities and Dilmun is at one level of certainty and confidence; the possibilities of such trade with Sumer, Akkad and Babylon, as well as the postulated trade with central Asia is at a lower level of certainty and confidence; the trade links with ancient Egypt may be at yet another level of confidence.

Where does that take us?

Do we believe that there has been an international trading community, an unrecorded economic free trade zone, regulated only by local rulers, and not subject to the crushing administrative control of the Roman Empire, for example, in this geography? Do we go on to believe that the geographical locations of these earlier prototypical civilizations gave way in some credible manner to those of current times? Is it possible to say with force and conviction that there has been continuous civilisation in the Indus Valley, and that there are no broken links? Can we, similarly, assume that present-day 'Arab' civilisation is an amalgam of Sumer, Akkad and Babylon, perhaps of Assyria?

I believe that there is no valid evidence that the culture and civilisation of Arabia Felix was identical with that of Arabia Deserta, but this can be discussed; it is certainly worth discussing.

Arabia Felix was the source point of Arabia desert, the Arabs were city dwellers as well as nomads.

@ Joe Shearer

What a sad decline from the quality of the earlier note.

You should be saying it to yourself before saying that Pakistanis had an identity crisis.
I responded at your level!
 
@ Joe Shearer

You should be saying it to yourself before saying that Pakistanis had an identity crisis.
I responded at your level!

If that was not so, why did the author write this paper in the first place? It is not your claim that he is Indian, surely.

If you wish to contradict him, by all means, do so, but allow others to draw the obvious conclusions - that a Pakistani has written a paper about the identity crisis facing Pakistanis - without assuming low motives or responding with a bilious comment.
 
If that was not so, why did the author write this paper in the first place? It is not your claim that he is Indian, surely.

If you wish to contradict him, by all means, do so, but allow others to draw the obvious conclusions - that a Pakistani has written a paper about the identity crisis facing Pakistanis - without assuming low motives or responding with a bilious comment.

The article starts with "Who are we? For most of our history we have been caught between competing ideas about Pakistan." clearly shows an identity crisis that exist in the Pakistani society, and author is making no attempt to hide it either.

Indeed it is, "Indian civilisation" is based upon the IVC and other more -farther- eastern "civilisations", it is a hybrid civilisation, and any hybrid living entity forcibly looses its purity and originality, adding or being too much influenced by shallow civilizations makes things worse.
The correct phrasing should be : India has a part of its culture in the IVC civilisation, no denial about it, but there are too many other influences on India, too many sects and too many dialects pointing out to too many ethnic groups.
Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran have a few too - 4, 5 or 6 ethnic groups mostly homogeneous- , but very far from the hundreds that exist in India.
So India is an amalgam of cultures more than a civilisation, while in the past and at its best it was more IVC than anything else.

India is a continent sized mega country, and certain to have more than one civilisation as our heritage. IVC one among them.
 
Arabs didn't speak Arabic throughout time!

Not only Pakistanis but most humans have Arab genes, and these are recent scientific genetics science findings.
I have posted the articles on other threads, and you can google them too.

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

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

There is also the possibility that people could confuse the terms Arab & Semitic. Even then there is absolutely no reliable genetic study that has ever claimed or discovered that the whole is mixed with Semites. Some interesting trivia is that Madai bin Japheth bin Noah married a Semitic woman, & is widely accepted as being the father of the Median people & other Indo-Aryan people in general.
 
Arabism is based on language & culture. I do not remember the exact words but the Prophet (PBUH) also said something along the lines of anyone who speaks Arabic is an Arab. Modern days Arabs are not a race, thus there can be no Arab gene. I can't tell you the reliability of those genetic studies that you may have read. However, in order for there to be an Arab specific gene, you are going to have choose one group from among them as being the original Arabs. Usually the Gulf Arabs are considered the original ones owing to the fact that they are primarily Ishmaelites.

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

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

Time permitting, I should like to respond to this at greater length than at present, but it is no longer considered scientifically tenable to divide humanity into races as such. The idea of a mythical Shem, Ham and Japheth having symbolized the three divisions of the human species is also not taken terribly seriously, certainly not in academic circles. Perhaps we could look at these issues a little later; I have to rush out now.
 

Back
Top Bottom