It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.

[Hoopington]

3. The guy speaks from a position of authority or trustworthiness and is hence not questioned one bit..

Then now the question is ... why do you think that this guy who is in a position of such authority/trustworthiness - and is not questioned one bit - ever want to ascribe prophethood to someone else who is dead?

I mean, if the guy is trustworthy enough or powerful enough, and no one even questions him, then he could have just as easily claimed himself to be a Prophet and still nobody would object to it because ... well, as you just said ... he is not questioned one bit. That would have been more preferable to him than claiming someone else to be a prophet. So what could have possibly prevented him doing that? Did he think that people might not trust him if he claimed to be a prophet?

People wouldn't have questioned the guy one bit if he told them to believe in something. So, why would he have to invent another prophet if he already has enough power and authority to make people submit to his own commands?

Maybe your rumor hypothesis finally ended up refuting itself ...

Stretching it a bit, I can see it as you do... but I'm not fond of stretching and this is stretching it too far beyond what's written..

I don't think that's stretching, but rather it's an act of connecting the dots.

The problem that I see with your reading, is that you're looking at each sentence one-by-one and then each time you say "Nope, still not a prophet," "Nope, still not a prophet," "Nope, still not a prophet," "Nope, still not a prophet." But what you fail to understand that is that if you take all the sentences in that quote and intelligently merge all of that to form a whole picture, it would most reasonably convey to you the image of a Prophet (and a leader as well) even though there is no one sentence in there which explicitly mentions him as a Prophet. But perhaps that's because you're just more of a compartmentalized thinker than I am.

I'm happy with whatever that I've explained and I don't need to elaborate on that quote any further. It's fine if you disagree with me. Afterall, it won't really make a difference to me, and the same goes for you, too, I believe.

How many other people are you aware of that have spoken on behalf of a god? (and people have believed in them!)
hint: pope. hint2: pharaoh

Still leading us back to your Mo being a preacher, not unlike those two in the hints..

It's simple: If the two people in those hints never made the claim that they receive new inspirations/revelations from a god, then they would be considered as preachers only. If they did make such a claim, then by definition (and not necessarily true in reality) they would fit under the description of a prophet.

What's your take on that? What exactly, to you, is the key difference between a preacher and a prophet?

that the words inside the bracket are not really there or are illegible? They are filled in by the translator.

I thought so, too.

Further, there is nothing in any of these which is inconsistent with what you insist is a name being a "title" since muhammad means "the praised one." I submit this is similar to the earliest Greco-Roman writers who heard of Christus (or Chrestus) but not anyone named "jesus," until the later second century. The reason is simple. Jesus was a later invention.

I don't honestly see how that implies a later invention, though.

Of course "Muhammad" has a meaning ("the praised one"), but it is also a proper name just like you might have a name with a meaning behind it. But, what makes you think that the meaning of his name has anything to do with his actual existence? You continued to the next sentence by mentioning something about a guy named Christus/Chrestus, but that doesn't necessarily have to be true regarding Muhammad's existence. Just like poca, it seems that you're just trying to shove Islam and Muhammad under the same understanding you have of Christianity simply because you guys like to put every detail about a religion into your unenlightened "It's all the same bullshit!" folder.

Oh, and writing "Muhammad" with a small case letter doesn't negate it as being a proper name either, as you did in your post. That was a nice trick though.

Sorry, but all I've read so far is that you believe in the teachings of a man who lived around 1,500 years ago, in a dusty desert, who enjoyed beheading those who didn't submit and who enjoyed sexual relations with children.

You believe he is a prophet purely because somebody else told you, and because somebody wrote it in a book.

The rest is you desperately trying to justify your belief in him being a prophet, based on the fact that somebody told you he was and that it's written in a book.

A book that was cobbled together long after he died.

Why would anyone doubt it??