Thank you, your position is much clearer now.
That might be interesting, but that is not what I was asking. I asked you if you base those specific requirements on revelation, or on empirical evidence and (or?) philosophical arguments. That is, if you wanted to demonstrate that having a repulsive trait disqualifies a prophet, would you point to some sacred text, or to some study of believability in general?
I know that’s your position.
But I am asking for something different. That is, would we be aware of contrary evidence, if it did exist?
Let’s take an example. As far, as an average inhabitant of USSR was concerned, all available evidence was showing that Lenin and Stalin have never done anything evil. But we know that is not evidence of their “sainthood” (none of us is going to claim “There is no god but Marx, and Lenin is his prophet!” or “There is no god but Lenin, and Stalin is his prophet!”).
Instead, that resulted from a double approach:
- Sometimes Soviet propaganda just proclaimed evil deeds to be good (so, disbanding the Constituent assembly was praised).
- Sometimes Soviet censorship prevented contrary evidence from being mentioned.
So, contrary evidence did exist (sometimes “elsewhere”, sometimes “previously”), but average inhabitant of USSR was not in position to know about it. Thus, Lenin and Stalin had “good reputation”, but it was “artificial”.
And I’m asking, if you can show that things couldn’t be like that with Muhammad. That is, would claiming that he was not trustworthy have been somehow discouraged by government or society - to the extent that that would also be a sufficient explanation of good reputation?