It wasn't Mohammed who founded Islam.

[pocaracas]

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?

If it was just one person, then, maybe because he knew he'd be questioned if he claimed prophethood for himself... people only do Suspension of disbelief for a few things.
If one guy makes an extraordinary claim about himself, then that gets called... if he makes it about someone else, it gets harder to call it.

If, on the other hand, we're dealing with a rumor, and who knows how those start, then it is far far easier for an individual to take it from rumor to fact, if that person is in a position of some power.

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.

You see a "command from on high" as signifying that it came from a god. That is not necessarily so. There are many other candidates that can fit the bill.
Your view is biased toward a god. Mine isn't. I also keep in mind that Sebeos was a bishop, so a believer in some god... also biased in some form.

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?

Are you saying that a prophet need only claim to receive guidance from a god?
Is the reality of such claim not required?

Many preachers claim to receive inspiration from god or jesus or whatever, still to this day... why don't we take them seriously? Or as seriously as Mehmet?