1) To Liberate:
You even misinterpreted me. I did not say that Tisdall "does not believe it (the Arabic Gospel of Infancy) is not the source for the story in the koran". He was an anti-islam writer and it was probably his mission to destroy Islam. The problem is: Tisdall did not have any PROOF to say that the Arabic Gospel of Infancy was available during the Prophet's time.
That is why he wrote:
i) "The style of the Arabic of this apocryphal Gospel, however, is so bad that it is hardly possible to believe that it dates from Muhammad's time."
ii) Because he cannot prove the Arabic Gospel of Infancy was available, he wrote "As, however, Arabic has never been supposed to be the language in which the work was composed, this is a matter of little or no consequence." Why would Tisdall suddenly abandoned the borrowing theory from that Arabic apocryphal? If he has the evidence, he would surely pursue the borrowing text theory here. Yet, he said the Arabic issue is of 'no consequence'?
iii) Tisdall went on to invite gullible Christians to consider the original "language it may have been composed." (If it is really written in Coptic, then what is the problem?).
iv) Tisdall believed that bec the original story was Coptic, it was through someone from Egypt that the Prophet might have learnt it. Tisdall wrote "This explains in what way Muhammad most probably became acquainted with the legend". Tisdall then started talking about Mary the Copt as a possible story-teller.
Is it really difficult for Liberate to comprehend?
2) To Loki:
And when these apocryphas are practiccly surrounding muhammed you assume that it was impossible for him to come into contact with them... aren't you a bit naieve?...
No. I am not being naive. I am trying to be objective and practical. If Loki said the "apocryphas are practiccly surrounding muhammed" then being an objective person , I seek Loki's proof? What does Loki mean by "practiccly surrounding muhammed". Is loki saying that the apocryphal was widely distributed at Mecca and medina?
Till now, Loki has been blabbering about the copying theory from the apocryphal but has not given a single proof. And I am only asking for proof.
Loki said
there is no 'dichotomy' i cleary said, all wich muhammed copied is done in the style of hearsay, remember muhammed his tales were written down by other while muhammed was preaching (not reading other materials) the fact that he repeats known stories is plagiarism and the fact that he doesn't repeat it exactly how it should is because it's hearsay.
and
The quran is the prime evidence of plagiarism, what makes you so blind that you do not see?
Let me ask Loki: How do you present your case of PLAGIARISM, in this context, to the readers? You use big words, surely you must be able to defend your statement?
Loki wrote:
In that same regard because i can't proof where he got all his sources from (for you know, that could of been many people and many sources) doesn't mean Muhammed didn't have any sources.
So, in short, Loki CANNOT PROVE that the Prophet copied or borrowed from any sources... but as with many anti-Islam Christians, he BELIEVES that the Prophet might have some sources. You see the contradiction?
Like Loki and Liberate, there are people who believe that someone taught the Prophet. However, if Loki and Liberate still lingers on the teacher-student hyphothesis, then tell us who is the teacher and provide us the evidence. Again, that wouldn't be so difficult, would it?
I need to go now. I will be on holidays at Bangkok for a few days and will be availble only next week. I will try to reply Loki's borrowing theory from the Jewish sources.
salam