even if we grant the etymology, the deification/divine attribution is a stretch. a lot of these tropes like the sea of ink/outweighing other sages/sonship is used for other rabbis as well. one of the sources cited (Bava Metzia 59b) actually has Eliezer being EXCOMMUNICATED, far from deification. nothing cited constitutes worship to a divine figure. contrast this with the ontological sonship claims of Christians about Christ along with explicit worship to a divine figure. with this in mind, its strange that a clear book (6:114, 16:89) would draw this parallel
libyano presents an initially pretty convincing argument but after some poking around i don't know if it stands up to scrutiny.
the linguistic connection between Eliezer rather than Ezra is a reach. for an arabic reader to recognize that the name refers to eliezer would require:
1. recognition that its using that diminutive form (maybe plausible, but its also just a common name form)
2. recognize that the "el" is chopped off for some reason (requires knowledge of hebrew) (keep in mind that the Quran keeps the el part for like every other hebrew name that has it)
3. connect this to a specific rabbi (requires talmudic literacy)
4. understand the joke that "the great" is converted to "the small"
contrast this with the simple and obvious conversion to Ezra the Scribe's name (which is what https://t.co/lVpZH3EiIF translates it as, which matches the position of basically historical scholar and tafsir). if the Quran wanted to mock a rabbi, why use an obscure phonetic transformation no Arab listener would recognize as an insult? occam's razor
to be fair the claim "claimed to have talked to demons" in the post is not original to anti-Islamic polemics, ibn ishaq's biography and other instances like the Satanic verses set this precedent. i think to address this point specifically rather than just drawing an inference from your prophetic argument, you would have to show why ibn ishaq's writings on this and the narration of the satanic verses is weak. otherwise Muhammads initial doubts and the fact he was influenced even temporarily would seem to undermine his prophethood
"claims to be the final prophet of God"
Yes, because he is. The evidence above establishes that he was a true prophet, and once that is established, whatever a true prophet states about prophethood and its finality must also be true.