It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.

[Rayaan]

Can I start with 2, first?
Liars claim things about other people. Typically, liars refrain from attributing anything to themselves... it's one of the rules.

But liars typically do not make supernatural claims about dead people, especially since it's obvious that they (just like everyone else) have no way of even knowing such things ... unless they received them via divine revelations.

If they claim to know such (unknowable) things, then they've automatically ascribed supernatural abilities to their own selves.

1. If Mo was the legendary leader people hailed him to be (in those two notes about him predating Sebeos), then such tales of divine inspiration could easily surface. Like I said before, these tales may have been just people jesting, or suggesting... but others may have picked it up as truth and passed it on... that's why I called it a rumor.

They do surface - all found in the oral traditions recorded in the hadiths.

And your answer still evades the question, which is:
How can a person (i.e. the rumor starter) make a supernatural claim about some dead guy without first convincing people that he has divine and/or psychic abilities? How else can he claim to know such things that no one else knows?

Or maybe the tale came to him with the requirement of a few grains of salt... maybe the tale came to him from some hearsay merchant, some hearsay fugitive.

Or maybe it didn't. (I can start using "maybe" to suit my arguments just like you do ... it's just so convenient).

Fugitive? from where? these fugitives would be fleeing Mehmet's arabs? Then they were the enemy... odd.

Enemy or not, it still doesn't negate the interpretation that the words "command from on high" in Sebeos's quote seems to refer to God's command, which you admitted previously.

Anyway... Hearsay, rumor... human nature.
Why do you keep dismissing these as unlikely players in the tale?

Because I believe in the sacred texts.

You, of course, prefer to believe in hearsay and rumor theories which you have no evidence for, either.

No, it doesn't imply that.
But that is one option of how things came to be.

So that also means that nothing about that quote implies what you've been arguing for (i.e. the "option of how things came to be"). There's no actual implication of a rumor ... it's just an "option" ...

Then what about the option that the rumor was true from the very beginning? Does that have less of an implication? If so, then why?