Is Muhammad a Prophet of "the Devil"?

reply to post by blupblup

I'm sorry, blupblup, I didn't add anything. That is how it is. And matching up random words to pull perverse meanings out of thin air....I would exactly call that scholarly research. I would still like to know which Hadith you were talking about when you said "Volume 7, Book 6, Numbers 64 and 65".

The rest of your post may be useful to somebody, but is irrelevant to me. I never said any of the things that you are 'giving a reply to'. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Fact is fact, you can check it up yourself (if you wanted to), or you can believe what you are told by biased sourced. I never asked you any question relating to the nature of God or the qualification of clergy, and you certainly don't know what my reply to any such question would be.

*Babloyi spits out all the words that have been put in his mouth*


And Sparky, you make me sad. You didn't even have to go to page three on your own to check what I wrote, you could have looked a few posts above your own, where this exact same question was responded to, with a link to more detail.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by babloyi]

Matching up random words??? and i wasn't putting words in your mouth, i was giving you something to digest...but i guess the truth makes you lose your appetite.

Ok, i can see that you cannot see past the cloud of religion and the ignorance amazes me(even though the facts have been presented) so i'll move on to a real conversation about something more plausible.....maybe hitler is bigfoot, wow....i gotta a new one....

[edit on 1/7/08 by blupblup]

reply to post by blupblup


Sigh....I hate being dragged into this mud-slinging. You compared "Playing with dolls" with "play with her and she with you". Considering that it doesn't take much to realise the vast difference in these situations (unless one is looking for a specific angle), I'm not sure how else I could have phrased it except 'Matching up random words'.

Instead of talking about the 'cloud of religion and ignorance' I have been blinded by, why not post some of those 'facts' that you say have been presented, so that I may respond to them. I ask again, what did you mean by "Volume 7, Book 6, Numbers 64 and 65"?

Originally posted by babloyi
And Sparky, you make me sad. You didn't even have to go to page three on your own to check what I wrote, you could have looked a few posts above your own, where this exact same question was responded to, with a link to more detail.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by babloyi]

Thanks, This thread has gone on so long I forgot to check to see if this had been covered.

I admit I didn't notice that in your post. Thanks for pointing me in the rright direstion.

reply to post by Sparky63

And sorry for being so sharp and biting .

reply to post by babloyi



It looks like there is some valid doubt about her actual age. However there is no clear consensus. THe only clearly stated age is that of 9.
That will always be a stumbling block to those who doubt his standing as a prophet.

If some of the Hadiths can be questioned it casts a shadow n the veracity of the information contained in the others in my opinion.

Either way, I hope for Muhammad's sake and the girls, she was much older than 9.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Sparky63]

[edit on 1-7-2008 by Sparky63]

reply to post by Sparky63

Yes, indeed, there are many many hadith that are false. This is why there is such a large amount of research to ferret them out. A Hadith is basically "I, the collector heard that X said that Y said that Z said that Muhammad said: 'this, this and that'". Each person in the chain, all the way from the collector of the Hadith to the person who heard it from Muhammad, has to be scrutinised. The chain has to be made sure to be complete (there is no 'time jump' that leaves a gap between 'X said that... Z said', when X and Z could never have met). Each chain has to be checked that it is not too long. Each chain has to be cross referenced with another chain, and checked if the saying is the same, etc.

In the case of the age of Ayesha, the weak link in the chain of narrators is Hisham ibn `urwah, and this link is made even more suspicious due to the existence for more easily verifiable Hadith to the contrary.

[edit on 1-7-2008 by babloyi]

reply to post by babloyi


Let me ask you, in all seriousness, if it were firmly established that Ayesha was only 9 when Muhammad had intercourse with her, would that affect your view of him or the religion he established?

I may be mistaken in assuming that you are a Muslim, if so I apologize. Your wealth of knowledge on the subject though has me thinking that you are or were a Muslim.

I ask this in all seriousness as one who has rejected the religion of my own parents based on my own careful study of the Bible.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but if her age indeed was 9 and it was acceptable in the eyes of Allah for Muhammad to engage in sex with her , why would it not be acceptable for others to do the same?

Surely, Allah's standards of what is right & wrong do not depend on mans ever changing values.

Having asked the previous question let me assure that I am convinced that Aiesha (sp) must have been much older than 9. It is inconceivable to me that any man would believe that it would be ok to have sex with someone so young and then allow that information to become public knowledge.

reply to post by Sparky63


If it was established that Ayesha was prepubescent when Muhammad had intercourse with her, this would certainly change my view of Muhammad and Islam.

Many Christians make Jesus and the Christian religion look bad. I am a Christian and I dont understand how some people can say they are a Christian. Christianity is the most forgiving religion and half of Christians dont forgive; they lie, lust, kill, and etc. I believe many Christians dont even understand their own religion. Why is it that most Americans are Christian but yet we are in Iraq killing innocent people and destroying their families. True Christians would pass on the message of Jesus. Our duty as Christians is to help others, forgive others, and be messangers of God. Why is it that so much sex is on tv and in movies? What is wrong with people? Have people forgot why we are here or is everyone too busy living their lives how they want, that they dont care if how they live is wrong or right. So I hope someone reads this and understands where I am coming from. I am a Christian and I try to live my life the best I can and how I think God would want me to. I am not judging people in this comment, I am simply questioning people.

and all of u know that back in the day it was normal to have sex and marry underage girls....well underage by todays standards

Those of you who have a New Testament can read the scriptures for themselves, but it is interesting to turn to Revelation 9:1-11

In verses 1-6 it says that when the trumpet is sounded, not a star fell, but a star fallen to earth. In ancient times, just as now, stars are symbols of leaders. A star fallen to earth implies a degradation, or loss of station in some form. To him was given the key of the bottomless pit. He, this degraded entity was given the power to let out a bit of hellish influences on the earth.

2. "There arose a smoke" From that hellish source came forth an influence,
symbolized by smoke which darkened the earth.

3. "There came out of the smoke locusts." The destroying locusts symbolize
the destroying armies, as described in Nahum 3:15 and Exodus 12:12.
Notice that the came out of the hellish smoke, and this hellish smoke in
turn accessed by the key to the now open bottomless pit is the point of
their origin. Their origin was then the hellish bottomless pit which came
from the smoke.

4. "Unto them was given power" The power to hurt is strongly implied as
they are compared to scorpions having the power to hurt.

5. "they should not hurt the grass nor any green thing, neither any tree."
Locusts usually devour every green thing, leaving nothing but stubble,
but these particular locusts are commaned to preserve trees and
vegetation. "Only the men." Their special hurt and torment shall be
directed against men who are not sealed as God's own.

6. "They should not kill them." This would imply that these armies
symbolized by the locusts would not seek to destroy the races they
attacked, or the empires they attacked.

"Tormented for five months." This torment should continue for five months, or with one symbolic day being one year - one hundred fifty years.

"Their torment as the torment of a scorpion. This warfare and the subsequent torment imposed on those assaulted will be almost unbearable.

"Shall men seek death." the torment put on these afflicted peoples will be of such torment that men will permit death.

Verses 7-11

7. "And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared for war."
Now we find that this army of locusts is an army of horsemen.

"Crowns of gold" not actual crowns of gold, but the appearance of the riders was such as they had upon their heads an appearance like crowns of gold. An array of men wearing yellow turbans would have such an appearance.

"Faces of men" Bearded faces. Faces covered with beards. Unshaven.
Roman soldiers so familiar to John were shaven, so the beards would
be a discerning feature.

"Hair as the hair of women" These riders had long, flowing hair.

"Teeth as the teeth of lions." Riders with the teeth of lions would indicate a
certain fierceness.

"Breastplates as breastplates of iron." Not breastplates of iron, but breastplates much like iron breastplates. The Roman armies had both solid breastplates and the segmented lorica. The Roman breastplates were not quite the same thing that these riders were wearing. Maybe iron coats of mail.

Secular fulfullment:

The locusts, the horse, the army of horsemen, the scorpions, and indeed all symbols used, point to Arabia as the source from which these locusts come. Assuming more space, it's easy to line up the blowing of the previous horns to previous secular events.

The Western Roman empire had fallen in AD 476. There still existed the Eastern Roman empire with Constantinople as Capitol, also called the Greek Empire. It was against this Greek Empire that the Saracen effort was concentrated. How does this Arab movement generated correspond to the symbols?

Arabs:

1. They came forth from the home of the locusts.

2. They all fought on horseback. There was not a foot soldier among the
Muslims which in AD 632 swarmed the Eastern Empire.

3. They wore upon their heads something like crowns of gold. The
historians frequently speak of the "turbaned Arabs." In Ezekiel,
speaking of the Sabaens, an Arab tribe, says, "The Sabaeans of the
wilderness who put upon their heads beautiful crowns." The yellow
turbans of the Arab horsemen at a little distance would resemble
"crowns" of gold.

4. The locusts had "faces of men." The northern peoples, Greeks and
Romans shaved the face. The Arabs and Jews wore long, patriarchal
beards. John notes these locusts have the distinguishing mark of
manhood in the Middle East - the unshorn beard.

5. But to the faces of me is added, the "hair of women." The female
distinction is long hair, and as John beholds as riders rush by, long,
flowing hair from their shoulders and streaming in the air. Did the
Arabs of that time wear long hair? Pliny, a contemporary of John, speaks
(Nat.His. 7:28) of "the turbaned Arabs with their uncut hair."
Ammaniaus Marcelliunu in the fourth, and Jerome in the fifth century,
each speak of the hair of Arabia's heroes, flowing down upon their
shoulders. "He adjusted himself, twisted his beard, and folded his hair
under his turban, drawing it up from his shoulders."

6. But the locusts had "breastplates, as it were breastplates of iron."
Historians of the Arabian wars constantly speak of the iron coats
of mail. Muhammed stated, "Allah has given you coats of mail to
defend you in your wars."

7. Muhammed was literally a "fallen star." He was a prince by birth, the
heir to the rule of Mecca, but with his father and grandfather dying yet
while he was young, he was pushed aside to become an embittered
servant commoner.

8. "The locusts came out of the smoke." The Arabs were completely
unknown as a conquering force before Muhammed. The smoke of
his origin and the smoke of his imposture enabled an ignorant people
with the fierce, stern fanaticism of the Qur'an. It was a license to rape,
kill, pillage, and burn.

9. They had literal orders not to destroy vegetation. "Cut down no palm
trees, nor burn fields of corn." Gibbon, V5P189 This was from a desert
people where vegetation was most scarce.



Continued (just one more section)

reply to post by dooper


(Continued from previous Post)

10. Their destructive work was to continue for a prophetic five months, or 150 years. Though Muhammed began his work earlier, it was in AD632 that theArab hosts of cavalry burst outward in a conquest to assail the world, and begin their war on mankind. Within a hundred years, Palestine, Syria,
Mesopotamia, Egypt, northern Africa, and Spain had fallen under the
spread of Islam. In 732 Charles Martel stopped the advance of Islam in
Europe in the Battle of Tours. The West began pushing back.

In 762, the capital of the Saracen Empire was moved to Baghdad, and the
rulers began to enjoy peacetime pleasures. In 781, the Caliph Haroun Al Rashid was their ruler. This was the golden age of the Saracen power - the age of Arabian Nights. Baghdad was called the "City of Peace."

How long is this from the time when the torment that is Islam went out for jihad and attacked mankind? In AD 632, the Arabs burst forth to attack mankind, to which you add 150 years. That would bring us to 782, the second year of Haround Al Rashid's reign. In 782, did the torment of Islam continue against the West? No. Al Rashid was engaged in friendly correspondence with the Christian rulers of Europe, and this ended the efforts fo the Saracen Empire to forcibly convert the world to Islam. 150 years. Seems pretty accurate since the prophecy was made six hundred years earlier.

If anyone thinks this is just pulling a trumpet out of order, look at the next trumpet, and read it from the Book. Revelations 9:13-21

The Arabian scourge had ended by AD 782. It had taken from the Eastern Empire its provinces in Africa, and most of its possessions in Asia. The world of this era according to Gibbon was divided into three parts. Two had fallen before five destructive agencies. One still remained to be destroyed by the angels bound at the river Euphrates.

A few years before 1000AD, a fierce Tatar race , formidable in numbers and bravery left the shores of the Caspian and moving eastwards, settled on the banks of the Euphrates. They took the country east of the river and Persia became one of its provinces, even to India. But for two generations, they were somehow held , or bound by the river Euphrates.

Finally in 1057, sixty years and two generations after arriving, they crossed the river and marched on the eastern Roman Empire remains. These people were called the Turkomans, or Turkmen. We call them Turks.

There were four angels. This would imply four powers. This people of Turkomans werd divided into four kingdoms, under the four grandsons of Togrul, father of Malek Shah. This is described in Gibbon, V5P532. The mighty empire of Malek Shah was divided into four principalities under his four sons. There are then four angels of destruction.

Consider:

1. They were "bound" by the river Euphrates.

2. There were four commands.

3. Their armies were of horsemen, apparently countless.

4. The numbered their horsement by myriads instead of thousands.

5. "The Ottomans until a very recent period wore warlike apparel of scarlet,
blue, and yellow."

6. The first time gunpowder and firearms were employed in war was during
their campaign. Constantinople was taken by cannon fire. To quote
Gibbon, "The great cannon of Mahomet has been separately noticed; an
important and visible object in the history of the times; but that
enormous engine was flanked by two fellows almost of equal magnitude;
the long order of the Turkish artillery was pointed against the walls;
fourteen batteries thundered at once on the most accessible places;
and of one of these it is ambiguously expressed, that it was mounted with
one hundred thirty balls, or discharged one hundred and thirty bullets."

7 "There was power in the tails of the horses." This is a singular
statement. No less is the fact that that among the Turks, the horse's tail
is an emblem of power. The number of horse's tails determines rank. A
Pacha of three tails is a great officer. The emblem of the rule of the
Pachas, the most wasteful, oppressive, unjust rule the world has ever
seen, is the horse's tail.

It would seem that Muhammed and Islam was originated from the hellish influences released upon mankind.

Muhammed was spoken to in caves, in darkness, the opposite of the general symbols of Judiasm and Christianity.

The Muslim texts state specifically that Satan had cast his words upon the tongue of Muhammed. Yep. The Satanic verses. Now rescinded. But that was only because Muhammed was teaching two truths to two different cities and got caught on it.

And finally, Muslim texts, recorded of those who were followers and who were actually there stated that Muhammed began to imaging things which he did not do. Basically, Muhammed was delusional. Probably all his life.

David Koresh, Son of Sam, and numerous others have exhibited delusional evil. I feel certain that this is not the first time delusion had folks imagining certain things.

Unlike any other prophet in Judiasm or even Christianity, Muhammed could not verify his words came from God by performing miracles as a testament to his truth.

He could only promise murder, pedophilia, incest, booty, theft, terror, and carnal exploitations.

That's some Godliness.

reply to post by dooper


WOW very informative... I have studied the qur'an somewhat and a little of the hadiths.. I am not muslim though, The strange thing i also noticed in the qur'an is i found some real good common sense, and decent morals.. But i also found some disturbing verses which left me slightly bewildered.

reply to post by dooper

Hey dooper!

I don't think your dates (and some other things) fit. Here are some things I noticed:

1. The year 632 AD does not seem to be significant in any way other than the death of the Prophet Muhammad. The 'invasion' outside of Arabia began in 633 or 634AD (or if you want to take the date that Islam was traditionally first heard outside Arabia, 628AD). Anyhow, I'm suspicious as to how you turned 5 months into 150 years. Is a day in the sight of your lord a year?!
   
   
   
2. I'm not sure where you got your information about most of the muslims being on horseback, but it doesn't seem to be true. Like any normal army of the time, they had both infantry and cavalry. Anyhow, without specifying which battle you talk about, it is difficult to comment. For example, in the first major battle between the Arab muslims and the Persian Empire (Battle of Walajah), the muslims had a large infantry, and very few cavalry.
   Also, as a side point about your later comment about the pashas marking their rank with horse tails, it is something they picked up from the mongols, and it was generally yak-tails that were used.
   
   
   
3. I'm not sure where the idea of yellow turbans came from. I don't think any of the major figures in any of the battles wore a yellow turban. There was no uniform of any kind, so they wouldn't be wearing matching colours, but I believe the common colour was white, or black....neither of which would look like a crown from the distance (or probably even be visible). Besides, the Sabaeans were pretty far removed from anything to do with the Arab Muslims....they were completely eradicated 2 centuries before anything about Muhammad's people was even heard.
   
   
   
4. Now coming to the point about Muhammad's people. There was no 'king' or 'prince' in Mecca. In pre-islamic times, Muhammad's tribe had the (supposedly honourable) task of providing pilgrims with food and water, and he was descended from Qusai, the fellow who was supposed to have won back Mecca from a rival tribe, but that didn't denote any sort of 'royalty' on him. Mecca was ruled by a council.
   This doesn't mean, however, that he was of the level of 'servant commoner'. Muhammad was respected both for his lineage, his skill as a trader, and his honesty, and even after he started preaching Islam, he was protected and safe due to his family.
   
   
   
5. Minor point, but Islam instructs muslim men to keep their hair short, not long and flowing (as one might assume from watching current hollywood movies like the Kingdom of Heaven).
   
   
   
6. The Quran is not a 'license to rape, kill, pillage and burn'. In fact, it is quite the opposite. On the occasion where muslims were commanded not to destroy vegetation (which you mentioned), they were also told not to betray or be treacherous, not to mutilate, not to kill children, or women, or the aged, or monks, or non-combatants and not to kill animals except for food (which you didn't mention).
   
   
   
7. As to Muhammad being spoken to 'in caves and darkness', I believe the first revelation was in a cave, but that is it. I won't speak much about the satanic verses, but seeing your odd explanation of them, I'll assume you aren't all that well versed in the story. Suffice it to say, when the first mention of the event is some three four hundred years after the fact, I don't take much stock in its accuracy. As to claims of him being delusional, I'm not sure which 'muslim texts' you are getting that from. I'd be happy if you clarified?
   Also, accusations from Christians of the lack of miracles by Muhammad trouble me. If he didn't perform miracles, he's a fake, but if he did perform miracles, he's a false prophet. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Anyhow, there are a number of miracles he performed that are documented in Islamic literature, but these are certainly not emphasised on as one of the 'major greatnesses' of Muhammad, which I think neatly bypasses the criteria that Christians have set up.
   

Looking forward to hearing (seeing?) from you, and going over your response!

[edit on 14-10-2008 by babloyi]

reply to post by babloyi


Not a problem. I'm not sure of your sources, and I have to admit, I have one hell of a library. A more detailed group of sources will clearly indicate that the Muslims began their expansion in 632.

"Before the complete consolidation of his control over Arabia and Muhammed's death, [which just prior to he had announced, 'after this, there is only jihad.' the Muslim forces began to sweep northwestward and northeastward against the exhausted Byzantine and Persian empires." Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy, pp228.

You are correct to assume the one day equals one year in this prophecy.

It is curious that at the blowing of the next trumpet, you can use the same basic calculation yet again, and the dates match up. If you'll go back to my second 'section' you'll find that I suggest that the four angels were the four Turkish gransons of Togrul. The angels were released for a hour, a day, and a month and a year. 365 1/4 plus 30, plus 1, plus 1/12 equals 396 1/3 days, or 396 years and four months.

It's in sequence. The previous Arab scourge had fulfilled its work by AD 782. The Turks crossed the Euphrates in the year 1057. Constantinople fell in 1453. The interval was 396 years. Even the earlier trumpets are uncannily accurate.

I don't know. Two here in a row.

As far as your question that the Arabs weren't cavalry, you will find yourself at odds with the historians of the period, Muhammed's own followers wrote of such, and they truly were an army of horsemen, just as much as the hordes of Ghengis were cavalrymen. And the Turks did use horses tails as symbols of rank. I think if one used a yak tail, he didn't let anyone know!

I used the Sabaeans as I stated in Ezekial, who had previously described the desert Arabs. I can only assume these "crowns as crowns of gold" were descriptive of what John saw. There is no reason to believe they were black or white, or pink or whatever. They could be yellow as this too, later was a favorite color of the Turks.

Your point number four suggested that there were no kings or princes. No kings, I agree. However Muhammed was a minor prince by being born into a prominent family of Mecca of the Banu Hashim, which had a lot of influence with the rule of Mecca. Oral traditions also indicate that Muhammed was born special, born of royal blood, which was subsequently noted and suggested by another (I can't remember the name) while part of a caravan.

You say Muslims are required to keep their hair short. Since when? The very contemporaries of Muhammed, and later his followers of the day - the historians of the day document otherwise.

The teachings of Muhammed was indeed a license to rape, kill, pillage and burn. Cities, houses, villages. Booty. Muhammed got a 20 cut off the top of all booty, and distributed the other 80% among his followers. Muhammed killed a mother, and then pumped the daughter. Look deeper into this. The research is all there. These guys were bad, and their sole motivation was greed, indulgence, carnal desires, and plain evil.

"By Allah, I did not come to fight for nothing. I wanted a victory over the Ta'if so that I might obtain a slave girl and make her pregnant." Tabari VIII: 130

"When the Apostle looked down on Khaybar he told his companions, 'O Allah, Lord of the Devils and into what error they throw, and Lord of the winds and what they winnow, we ask Thee for the booty of this town and its people. Forward in the name of Allah.' He uses to say this of every town he raided." Ishaq: 510

Finally, as to Muhammed being spoken to in caves and darkness:

Allah's Apostle became sick and could not offer his prayer. A lady came and said, 'Muhammed! I think your Satan has forsaken you, for I have not seen him with you for two or three nights!' On that Allah revealed, 'By the night when it darkens, your Lord has neither forsaken you, nor hated you." Bukhari V6B60N8

I'm getting tire of typing, but about the delusional thing with Muhammed. You can get lots and lots of references, but I'll give you this one:

"Magic was worked on Allah's Apostle and he was bewitched so that He began to imagine things which in fact, He had not done." Bukhari:V6B60N8

Sorry so long, but Muhammed was an outright criminal, determined to get his piece of that action not only in Mecca, but with a band of murderers who now were justified by their "prophet" they could do whatever they wanted.

The god of Meccans was the pagan moon-god Allah. You'll note, oddly, Muhammed never, ever, taught a different god Allah. The Meccans never, ever accused him of teaching a different god. Allah. moon-god.

Not Jaweh, I AM of Christianity and Judiaism.

reply to post by dooper

Hello again, dooper. It's obvious now that your sources are faulty, so I am somewhat hesitant to take anything you quote at face value. For example, you twice quote Bukhari:V6B60N8 (and each time it has something completely different written in it!), but neither times is it a correct quote. If you check up Bukhari:V6B60N8, you'll see it talks nothing about Satan or any lady, or magic. It talks about Quranic recitation. You can check that up yourself online here.

You make use of Tabari (once again with a wrong quote), but you do not realise that it is Tabari's history itself which I am referencing when I say that there is nothing about only using horsemen. The main source of information about Battle of Walajah (which I mention again), was in fact Tabari, and it goes into great detail with such things as the fact that most of the arab army consisted of infantry, with few cavalry!

Also, if there are no kings, what on earth would a prince be doing there? It is a basic and very obvious, unopposed fact that there was no 'royal family' in Mecca. Like I said, the Quraish were the traditional caretakers of the Ka'aba, and the Bani Hashim (of which Muhammad belonged) were responsible for feeding and providing water to pilgrims. The story you mention does exist in literature, it occured when Muhammad was a child, but it is not talking about any 'royal blood'. It speaks of his 'noble lineage' (going back all the way to Ishmael and thus Abraham). Muhammad was seen by a Christian Monk called Bahira, who foretold Muhammad's prophethood.

So despite your one hell of a library, I urge you to make sure it has honest books . At the moment, at least for me, if one is wrong, I can hardly trust the others. Anyhow, I am curious: What say you to the findings that your source is wrong?

[edit on 15-10-2008 by babloyi]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

 

You know what they say Fox. If ya can't beat them join them... We would be happy to have you in the family. Jesus died for you too.




[edit on 2/17/2008 by Bigwhammy]

jesus died because he was a threat to the powerful at that time. this was done thousands of years before him and thousands of years after him. pure and simple, history provides us with the struggles of the haves and the have nots...this isn't rocket science, good verses evil, devil verses god, it has always been a fight for fairness and equality over the many millienias.

reply to post by babloyi

Since the writings, especially the original Qur'an is absolutely terrible, there are multiple translations of these books into different languages. What I use is a blend of the different translations. There are multiple translations into English. Just as in the Bible, you can use the King James version, the New International version, the New American Standard Bible, and the New Living Translation, and while they all say basically the same thing, by reading them all in parallel, you really get a feel for the words and intent of the authors. You used only one.

I'm not going to argue over nits. I've done a bit of homework. And over the years of my search, everything fits. Chronologically. Historically. Culturally. Militarily. Religiously. Even going back to the blowing of the first horn, second, and so on. I find everything in sequence, in order, unique to each period, and descriptive of what contemporary historians document. It becomes painfully clear what each horn stands for.

Multiple sources I have read over the years indicated the Arab Muslims of this period did in fact favor yellow turbans. And if you think you can get all your sources off the internet, and I'm not saying you do, but let me suggest that you come to your own conclusions after you've studied for a few years on this alone.

You don't have to have a prince come from a king. In later times, in Western cultures, this may be so, but the designation is dependent upon the laws and customs of the culture or nation you specifically mean. English determinations will differ from French, or Polish, or Russian on and on.

You're a bright young man. I say young because you almost have to be younger than me! Continue to study, with both a critical mind and an open mind. If you see a progression of 0, 2, 4, 6, 10, 12, 14, 16 and so on, you can often assume that the missing number will be 8. Not necessarily, but it's a fair assumption.

Good luck, and I wish you well.