Aristotle had said: "...These Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers;
Why take aristrotle as authority on the matter? Also, importantly, "india" today is a country with defined boundaries, "india" in the past tended
to mean anything in the east. So this could simply mean that the jews are an eastern religion.
As far as the number of sources stating that the jews are indian calani or somesuch, its probable that they are all passing on the aristotle
information (which, apparently, isn't actually shown to come from aristotle), rather than independantly arriving at these conclusions.
There are certain striking similarities between the Hindu god Brahma and his consort Saraisvati, and the Jewish Abraham and Sarai
Consider also that Abraham was originally Abram, and that he changed his name latter. Perhaps that idea of him changing the name because of the new
faith is just a way to explain why its abraham amoung the jews, when the name was originally Abram. Which might be broken down to Ab-Ram, Ram being a
The theory is interesting. I would also note that the Harrapan script, which is undeciphered, is thought
to be related to semitic, or at least
a branch on the Elamo-Semitic language family. Perhaps, at least, we have an dravido-semitic 'culture group' that stretches from the jordan to the
They dwelt from Havilah (India), by Shur, which is close to Egypt, all the way to Asshur."
This doesn't make any sense. Asshur is closer to egypt than india. It makes no sense to say from india to asshur in this way.
he saw a country of more than a thousand cities, together with villages, that had been deserted because the Indus had abandoned its proper
This is probably the cities of harrapan.
I'd say that the greatest stumbling block to this idea, which has the harrapans moveing into the west as a migration of people, is that there are no
genetic links indicating this, and rather the genetic studies that I have seen seem to link the northern indians with the central asians.
Many of the citations in the page are from Indian authors who make 'arm waiving' arguments based on similarities of names to claim that india is the
source of everything, which is common. Its a sort of indian nationalism/jingoism.
Notice that the page also states that
Indeed they are mentioned as Kassites, Hittites, Syrians, Assyrians, Hurrians, Arameans, Hyksos, Mittanians, Amalekites, Aethiops (Atha-Yop),
Phoenicians, Chaldeans, and many others
Are all indians. Which, again, seems rather unlikely. They are basically saying everyone that was anyone were indian refugees, mixing the semites,
like the phoenicians and chaldweans, with the properly indo-europeans, like the Hittites, and throwing in the ethiopians. That just doesn't stand
up. Its too much to say that a population, from harrapa, migrated westward, and in some pulses the refugees are speaking semitic languages, and in
other puleses mixed in they just happen to speak indo-euopean languages, even very basic ones, etc etc. They shoudl all be speaking one language
group or language family at least.
Here's an example of how the ancient Indians identified people: The leaders were called Khassis (Kassites), Kushi (Ku#es), Cossacks (Russian
military caste) Caesars (Roman ruling caste),
Again, weak etymologies. Khassis as 'indian' for leader, they migrate to...italy? And one family that ends up becoming kings, completely through
their own actions, Caesar, are the same word, and in an indo-european laguage? Also, caesar is a family, not a caste, its silly to call it a caste,
the people doing this study are just making really wide glosses.
Cathay (Chinese leaders), Kasheetl/Kashikeh among the Aztecs,
So this migration from northern india (er, actually, its really pakistan, but the people proposing this seem to be, agian, indian jingoists), creates
judaism, the roman empire, the chinese, and the aztecs???
Minimally to have these similarities woudl require that the indian language, (and again, thats vague, are we talking about dravidian or the northern
vedic languges? Something else?? what exactly??) was the base language in the extremely distant past, and that all these languages, latin, hebrew, the
aztec language, are all in the same language family, which, again, is untenable.
Look at more of the very shoddy and jingioist reasoning that is accepted:
One of the shrines in the Kaaba was also dedicated to the Hindu Creator God, Brahma, which is why the illiterate prophet of Islam claimed it was
dedicated to Abraham.
The kabba was really a hindu shrine to brahma, because, well, they were stupid and didn't know what was what, and just figured it was for Abraham,
because that sounds like brahma.
the guy says so himself : they came from mesopotamia
No, he doesn't say that. He is telling the story as it is generally known.
What I am saying is that the customs and traditions of India are not the instructions given to the Hebrews under the Law of Moses.
Fair enough, however, the article is concerned about Abraham, in so far as he is the orginator of judaism, as being a bahraman from india, and the
hebrews being, infact, a people that migrated from india. Moses would come into play much later.
The Persians are decendents of Abraham through his son Ishmael
Ishmael is usually presented as the father of the arabs. The persians are not arabs. Are you saying that ishmael is not the father of the arabs, but
rather the persians, or that the persians are arabs?
This price was put on him by Holy men. This is not done in Judiasm.
What are you kidding???? Even in a biblical context, which I expect you'd take with authority, the jewish religious leaders, whom the pharisees
were, executed a heretic, jesus.
In Islam it is convert or suffer the Sword. "May the Sword of Islam rest upon the neck of the Infidel."
Um, no. Forced conversions are not permited. The 'hack at their necks' is for when the 'nonbeleivers' have invaded your country and are trying to
destroy you, then it is permissible, and encouraged, that you fight with them to the death. This is what the hebrews did. The hewbrews and arabs were
both semitic nomads, they were violent, and at different points in history claimed that they worhsipped the supreme creator of the universe, whom,
they say, abraham worshipped.
This thread is about Abraham actually being part of a vedic religion. What do you think about the primary arguements offered in the website, which are
mostly etymological? What do you think about abraham actually being, rather than from modern iraq, originally being from modern pakistan?