Apostate prophet in no prophet's land; when do prophets prophecy?

In answer to the video "Allah is Merciless"

All of Muhammad, and any other prophet practices and utterances cannot be automatically assumed as divinely inspired, and the Quran itself sometimes disapproves of some of Muhammad's deeds and words 66:1,80:1-10. The same is the case of other prophets, including as eminent as Ibrahim who, despite of being an illustrious example to emulate, immitating him does not include all aspects of his life deeds 60:4. That is why the Quran repeatedly announces obedience to the messenger instead of 'Muhammad', albeit they are the same person. The 'message' remained connected to the 'messenger' and it was in this capacity of the 'messenger' that Muhammad needed to be obeyed. The Prophet forbade Muslims to write down anything other than the Quran. And effectively, the traditions weren't compilled until centuries following his death. The reason was that he used to make statements and deal with people in different ways that were the result of particular circumstances, which narrators might believe to be of universal and permanent bearing. From divine knowledge, the prophet Muhammad had only access to what His Lord granted him 6:50,7:203,72:26-7. That knowledge took the form of a divine scripture to

16:64"make clear to them that about which they differ, and (as) a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe".

Muhammad believed

7:158"in Allah and His words (the Quran)" this is why Allah tells us to "follow him so that you may be guided".

To follow Muhammad means to follow what was sent to him from signs and/or revelation

7:157"and follow the light which has been sent down with him".

This reflects in the hypothetical scenario of a people not having received a messenger, complaining that had they had one in their midst, then they would have followed God's signs, not necessarily the messenger

28:47,20:134"..O our Lord! Why did You not send to us a messenger so we would have followed YOUR SIGNS (not the messengers) before we were humiliated and disgraced?".

Again with the example of the qiblah, we are told to only follow Muhammad in what Allah has commanded him

2:143"and We did not make the Qiblah that you observed in the past except that We know who follows the messenger from the one who turns back upon his heels".

It is very compelling to read how the Quran says that it is itself the best hadith.

39:23"Allah has revealed the best HADITH, a book conformable in its various parts, repeating, whereat do shudder the skins of those who fear their Lord, then their skins and their hearts become pliant to the remembrance of Allah; this is Allah's guidance, He guides with it whom He pleases; and (as for) him whom Allah makes err, there is no guide for him"  

45:6"These are the communications of Allah which We recite to you with truth; then in what HADITH would they believe after Allah and His communications".

Anything besides that best hadith, Allah tells us that the rightly guided are those people who use their brains and reflect over them, following only the best and discarding what is inapplicable or that contradicts the Quran

39:18"Those who listen to the word (qawl or saying), then follow the best of it; those are they whom Allah has guided, and those it is who are the men of understanding".

The Quran contains such warning because

31:6"of men is he who takes instead frivolous hadith to lead astray from Allah's path without knowledge, and to take it for a mockery".

These verses warning to keep the best hadith and discard all frivolous and counterproductive talks, useless and misleading narratives, provide clear evidence that idle tales were even being disseminated at the Prophet's time. If this was then already a problem reaching such levels that the Quran had to correct it, then how much worse did the problem potentially manifest after the prophet's death? It further tells us to investigate thoroughly any information of importance related by an untrustworthy source 49:6. Muslims are not required to accept whatever rumor and report is disseminated about their prophet or on his behalf, no matter who the narrator is. If the Quran itself plainly corrects its messenger in every day life, besides the prophet himself admitting to making mistakes in common affairs, how much so should one be prudent when deciding on the truthfulness of a story? Neither does the Quran request the outright dismissal of the report based on the unreliability of the source. It simply advises caution in the authentication process of the narration itself which doesnt only include reliability of the transmitor but also of the information in light of certain established facts. For example all ahadith on a particular subject should be gathered together to form a better picture and establish a pattern, which will then become a criterion of authenticity.

That is just common sense for anyone with a slightest spark of intellectual honesty, seeking to interject into a discussion occuring centuries ago, reported differently, through various angles and people in each repetition within a vast corpus. This opens the way to the possibility that the source might be telling the truth despite its untrustworthiness. Hadith scholars mostly stress on scrutinizing the narrator and do not give much importance to scrutinizing the content of the report. It should also be noted, a few verses down in 49:12 it warns not to harbour ill thoughts of others who have not shown through their words or deeds any misapropriateness or imorality. People should first and foremost think well of one another, abandon the kind of outright suspicion and ill founded inquisitiveness (with harmful objectives).