I am amused at Liberate's obstinate stand on the copying theory. Liberate think that by throwing ad hominem attack he would gain credibility. Let me just state a few things which Liberate is leading the readers the wrong way:
1) Liberate kept asking for Quraish Arabic script. I have already told Liberate many times the SCRIPT is not an issue. It is the language and style of the Quran Arabic vs the Egyptian Arabic. See the Wikipedia Ency. for details
2) Liberate keep getting confused at what I meant by SOURCE. I have told Liberate so many times, Tisdall believed that the Arabic Gospel of Infancy was the SOURCE. However, Tisdall believed that it was more through oral channel rather than textual copying. Tisdall believed it was the same source (apocryphal) but transmitted through oral rather than scriptual.
3) Liberate kept telling the readers the Arabic Gospel of Infancy was borrowed from earlier apocryphals. We all know that. What we want to hear is how the Arabic Gospel of Infancy became available to the Prophet as what Liberate believed
4) Liberate went on even to argue that when Tisdall said that "Mohammed was not consulting any written document" to mean he actually consulted that document. You can see how a person like Liberate will try to change white to black, vice-versa
5) Liberate said there were heretical Christians in Hijaz. But his quoting from hadith pointed out to Jews and Waraqa (there is no historical records that Waraqa is a heretic). Who are the heretical Christians, Liberate?
6) The hadith said that Waraqa knew the Gospels. The hadith did not say he preached the Gospel. Anyway, Waraqa died a few years after the first revelations. Yet, after that the revelations continued.
7) Liberate's obsession with the word 'plagiarised' led him to believe anything. The context is not on the childhood of Jesus but Liberate believe it must be so.
I hope I do not have to repeat the same argument again...
salam