And we all know people FACTUALLY believe a lot of mythology.
its obvious muhammads cousin who was a christian priest who did not like orthodox christianity, and WROTE religious text in Arabic based on the bible, mirrors what the koran is to a T.
And traditions place this heretical priest and muhammad together on many occasions.
You have gone back to presenting unevidenced speculation as being close to certain.
You appear to be believing the mythology at this point. You are trying to have your cake and eat it by considering the tradition as a whole to be unreliable, but choosing it to be highly reliable whenever it suits an opinion that you have jumped to.
You have established that you are not making this judgement with recourse to analysis of scholarly enquiry, but based on a superficial glance at a few (probably anti-Islam) websites.
As such you present a crude and simplistic 'silver bullet' solution to a highly controversial, rapidly developing, and incredibly complex multi-disciplinary area of study.
The Quran clearly reflects the religious environment of the late antique Middle East, but trying to pin Waraqa as being this pivotal figure is just speculation. The earliest source for him, arguably, is during the time of Abd al-Malik.
If you keep berating others for 'refusing knowledge and academia', you really have to hold yourself to these standards also.
I have posted links to many scholarly articles in this thread that present a good cross-section of many issues in Western Islamic Studies:
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/academic-resources-for-early-islam.183021/
I have already provided you with a summary of what many of them think of 'your' theory (speculative and lacking evidence, unprovable and based on circular reasoning, etc.) I've also pointed out that some traditions have him as a Christian, others as a Jew and others as a Hanif. I also gave examples of why we shouldn't place too much confidence onto the '4 Hanifs' narratives as they seem to have been stripped of a larger historical context and relationship to groups of people that almost certainly existed, but have disappeared from the tradition.
Genuine scholars express their opinions with 10% of your confidence despite having 100 times more evidence that you do.
It really would do your understanding of the issue a world of good to have a look at some of them, as you don't really seem to know very much at all about the topic despite your stridency. It is this lack of knowledge that allows you to be so confident, the more you read, the more you will understand how much you don't know.
And if you don't wish to make the effort to learn, please can you start qualifying your statements about Waraqa as being highly speculative and very tentative.
