Shari Gaber What you don’t know about Quran, Much ado about nothing part-2 (updated)

Introduction:
in Part-1 I showed how Sharif twisted his own sources manipulated his gullible audience , lied about Arius, and foolishly confused him with other historical Character, made false assumptions on Quran that no muslim make such as the claim that Islam was the first to teach Jesus was just a messenger, when no muslim make such claim, used a failed and rejected orientalist scholar like Christoph Luxenburg who we showed several times to not only twist Syriac text meaning but also lack understanding of spelling, by this point anyone who value their time and efforts should stop addressing Sharif Gaber especially since sharif blocks people who criticize him as he did to me on twitter, this kid is clearly not interested in dialog but interested in the money he gains on patreon which is equivalent to money gained by 3 full paid qualified doctors, he thrives on money and deception like no other polemicist I have ever dealt with, and rely on the foolishness of his audience, of all the videos I addressed (which I stated that many times on many people I addressed) his video on Quran has to be the most deceptive an weakest video I ever dealt with, in all honesty it doesn’t need much research to debunk everything he comes up with, not only he claimed to have memorized the quran but never backed that with evidence, when you memorize the quran either by yourself or by the supervision of an imam in a mosque you need to be examined and when you pass you need a certificated that affirms you passed the exam of memorization, this kid made this claim with no evidence of him passing any exam, this doesn’t shock me in slightest if he lied about his memorization of quran, since we saw not just in part-1 but on other occuations I dealt with him he is ready to lie and fabricate his sources to make up his claim, so why should I believe that he memorized the quran now? In the mean time I shall now start with completing my refutation to his worst video yet, and I well explain why I got a bit harsh on him later when this article is completed, we will be continuing our refutation to his so called Syriac origin nonsense, as I said before any academic can just point to reviews of Christoph Luxenburg work and see how his work is received poorly and just skip all sharif arguments regarding Syriac origin of quran since he heavily rely on him, but I shall continue to debunk him claim by claim, we will all also debunk the claim that Quran in Syriac as a title means a christian script and reveal were the confusion come from, the last allegation regarding the British library quran being different will also be addressed and spoilers it will display how bad his research is, all will be addressed in subsequent articles.

Islam was the first to call Christians Nasara?

@11:39 sharif state “the names of all the religious figures in Quran are written in Syriac text (displays ibn warraq book Syriac influence on the style of the quran quoting Alphonse Mingana) names like Ishmael, Solaiman, Ishaq , Jacop, Zakaria, Mariam , Noah, the naming of all these names is Syriac , and not just names but also religious terms in Quran mostly are Syriac(displaying Robert Spencer book did Muhammad exist quoting also quoting mingana we shall address this so called historic figure alhonse mingala and expose ibn warraq and Robert and sharif) , among them aya, kafir, salat , nafis (self) , janah (heaven) Sayaat (sins) but even Quran calling Christians , there is no language in the world that called Christians Nasara except Syriac”

Now this kid mentioned many false things, we shall debunk the so-called figure alphonse Mingana for now

For complete dismantle of aphonse mingana credibility please visit Islamic awareness detailed explanation of his credentials

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/vowel.html

the great scholar Muhammad Mustafa Alazami even pointed out that Mingana have a poor grasp of Arabic language, often making mistakes when copying from bukhari

(Muhammad Mustafa al azami shows images of the inscription and the evidence he presents to refute Mingana, I can’t display it here, the book is available for free to download link presented in part-1, I will provide footnotes and you see the images yourself)

“Turning our attention to Dr.Mingana’s Hypothesis that early Arabic lacked an alphabet, I will present few dated and highly developed inscriptions which clearly shows otherwise, there are many Arabic inscriptions from 6^th century c.e. which vearly nearly approach the Arabic palaeography used in the first century A.H./ seventh century C.E.; my examples will progress from these into the Islamic era. (professor Azami proceed to present 6 examples and inscriptions with images to pre Islamic Arabic text)[1]

Later Al-Azami present Mingana as an ignoramus in Arabic script, making blunders in his copying of sahih bukhari

“Prof.Rev.Mingana held by some as ‘a great scholar of arabic’, has in fact shaky grasp of the subject at best, publishing an important manuscript of the tradition of bukhari he commits, in copying only handful of lines, the following blunders: incorrect transcription of وحدثني  (which he transcribes as وخدمني ); أبو الفضل بن  read as أبو المظفر  ; omission of such words as مقابلة  ; inability to read partial words such as اجازة  (which he conveniently drops altogether); addition of an extra و  ; erroneous translation of the terms ثنا  and أنا  , and so on, in a series of errors that can only be classified as incompetence (presents one of the plaimpsets leaves used by mingana)”[2]

I would not just add incompetence in place of azami words who is soft in describing mingana, any native Arabic speaker won’t make such hideous blunders as displayed above, mingana isn’t just incompetence he is also an ignorant , this is the scholar that ibn warraq, Robert Spencer and this Logan Paul of exmuslims YouTubers sharif gaber rely on?

Page 311 is where Azami dedicate a title for mingana dismantling his credibility, please proceed to read it

But let’s address this claim for a moment, that Quran is Syriac in origin because it mentions several Syriac names, how does that follow? That is a logical fallacy of non sequitur, just because a book mentions words that are Syriac in origin doesn’t mean the book itself is Syriac in origins, if I write a book of 100 pages and all the names I mention are Arabic the book, however, is in English, does this mean the book is originally in Arabic? How does anyone take such claim for real? Infact this claim shall backfire on Christoph Luxenberg himself, if a book becomes a different language by virtue of mentioning names that are originally on a different language then this renders Christoph Luxenberg book on quran originally in Arabic, because he mentions names that are Arabic in origin in it, does that make any sense to anyone?

Let’s debunk another claim, is it true that All prophetic names in quran are Syriac in origins? Yes, sharif stated “all” so no one here can claim I strawmanned him, but is it true?

Let’s take a name, Isa (jesus in Quran) does it compare to Yashwa in the bible?

Yashwa is ܝܫܘܥ

Isa is ܺܣܰ

Take Yahya, in Arabic ܛܰܗܝܰ

In Syriac (bible) it’s Yohanan ܛܳܗܰܢܰܢ or Johana ܗܰܢܰܢ

There are also Prophets names mentioned in Quran never mentioned in Bible or any Syriac text

Like Salih

Hood or Hud

Tho Al-Kifl

So much for “the names of all the religious figures in Quran are written in Syriac text”
seriously why did he make such claim?

Now let’s throw all these blunders out of the window

Is it true that Quran was the only book that called Christians with Nasara like any Syriac text?

First, we will read the combined Arabic translation of the bible and see if Nasara exist in the bible and work our way from there

As you can see from above, the word Nasara in Arabic is found in the combined Arabic translation of the bible this is also find is Iasu’ translation and the Catholic translation of Arabic Bible

The following is the Greek script containing the earliest mention of the word Nazrani

From Acts 24:5[3]

As you can see from above word

But will you believe me if I tell you that even sharif strawmanned mingana?

Sharif quoted Mingana via Robert Spencer and ibn warraq stating all prophetic terms in quran are Syriac in origin, but even mingana never said that

“however, it was shortly thereafter that alphonse mingana set the foundation for research on the Qur’an in light of Syriac in a study entitled “Syriac Influence on the Style of the Kuran” he provided a brief typology and some examples of Syriac words used in Quran, asserting that 70 percent of the quran’s “foreign vocabulary” is Syriac in origin”[4]

So sharif and ibn warraq and Robert Spencer took what mingana said and twisted it to make it sound that all terms in Quran are Syriac in origins, not just foreign terms, but all terms, literally making quran entirely Syriac, something mingana never said as stated above

That is astonishing, this trinity of deception (Sharif, Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer) even twist their own sources to fit their agenda

@12:17 sharif state “and of course there are words that have no meaning in Arabic nor any meaning in any other language, and has no meaning even if you try to filter it and return it to it’s origin (a method we already refuted in part-1) like the word Kawthar that has an entire Surah in Quran with it’s name, no one knew what it meant, and like usual hundreds of tafsirs, so some people said Kawthar this means spoils of war , and others said no this means great good or Qurtubi who mentioned 7 meanings to the same word or ibn al naqib who mentioned 26 different meaning to the same word”.

Hold a second? What is this kind of logic? If a word has multiple meaning, therefore it has no meaning? Is sharif smoking something here?

This is the first time I have ever heard of such logic if a word has multiple meanings, therefore, it has no meaning, let’s apply that to English.

"set," which had 430 definitions in the Second Edition of the  Oxford English Dictionary published in 1989. This record was certified by the Guinness Book of World Records.

In that edition of the OED, the entry for set runs 60,000 words.

It beats the others. Here are the runners-up for that edition:

Here's how the others stack up:

Run - 396 (definitions)

Go - 368

Take - 343

Stand - 334

Get - 289

Turn - 288

Put - 268

Fall - 264

Strike - 250[5]

So based on sharif logic, set, run, go, take, stand, get, turn, put, fall and strike all has no meaning
can anyone take that seriously? The fact that there are meanings to the word Kawthar Proves that it Does have to mean

Kawthar was also used in pre-islamic Poetry

يُحامي الحَقِيقَ إِذا مَا احْتَدَمْن ... وحَمْحَمْنَ فِي كَوْثَرٍ كالجَلالْ[6]

@12:50 Sharif state “the repeated citation of words and tafsiers and meanings to the majority of terms in quran in this shape, this is the biggest evidence that no one knew the meaning of these words”

Above sentence further proves that sharif believes that having multiple meanings to a word proves it has no meaning.

@13:00 Sharif state “or for example in Sura ‘Abas says (verse 31) { Wafakihatan waabba} what does aabaa means? It has no meaning (displays multiple meanings) or for example in Surah Hud verse  75 { Inna ibraheema lahaleemun awwahunmuneeb} awwah? What do awwah means? And like usual hundreds of Tafsiers some people said awwah means does a lot of awh from fear of god, and other people said awwah means merciful, and other people said awwah means Da’ia for good, notice how no one knows the meaning, and because of that they will come up with all the meanings as beautiful why?, because the term return to Abrahim, so the term has to be good, but if he said inna Fir’awin lahaleemun awwah it will be different, they will tell you awwah this means something cruel, and sometimes comes in meaning of someone unjust, all make up their fatwa”

so much nonsense to pack, and a new logic (abrahim is mentioned therefore the meaning has to be nice) is this kid for real? Where is the evidence for this? Couldn’t you pull from those hundreds of tafsiers a single reference to this claim?

To understand a word we need to take it back to it’s root, awwah comes from the root of the word awh أوه

According to Lisan al arab

أَوْهِ من كذا ، ساكنة الواو ، إِنما هو توجع[7]

Translation:

Awo from this, static waow, it means pain

Having multiple meanings to a word doesn’t prove it has no meaning as explained above from 430 different meanings of the word “set” in English, by sharif Logic set has no meaning

If you place a word in the context you can understand what meaning you drive from, the hundreds of Tafsir exist to give meaning to Arabic words without minding the context, as words alone

For example, ‘ain عين has multiple meaning, either human eye, or same or this same.

If I said

لقد استلمت الملف عينه

Translation: I just received the file (‘ainaho masculine ‘ain) itself

The word ‘ain was used here in the context of affirmed position.

But if I say

اشعر بالم في عيني

Translation: I feel pain in my (‘aini) eye

This word alone has multiple meanings but when placed in a correct context which meaning makes sense is used

That does not prove this word has no meaning, the same logic applies with aabaa

First mention? Therefore, it is the wrong one.

@13:43 sharif state “or for example verse 63 from sura Shu’ara { Then We inspired to Moses, "Strike with your staff the sea," and it parted, and each portion was like a great (kattawdi )towering mountain.} tawd? What does Tawd mean? They said it could mean mountain, they tell you he split the sea into two parts and each part became like a great mountain, logical, they indeed brought a correct word, on a word that is originally written wrong, it sould be Tawr, not Tawd, the Ra instead of Dal, but it was transmitted wrong, and evidence that the word Tawd this is not mentioned anywhere in Quran, but the word Tawr was mentioned 10 times, and every time it was mentioned with the same meaning that is with this word meaning mountain”

Yet more nonsense to pack, so let me get this straight if a word is never mentioned before in the Quran, therefore, it’s the wrong word? What a great nonsequitur fallacy.

At this point I can’t give sharif the benefit of the doubt at all, I lost not just all of it, but all respect to sharif in every form, he is coming up with every nonsense to fit is agenda

But let’s unpack this

This word is in fact common in pre-islamic poetry

رِقاً بِمَاءِ الذَّوْب يَجْمَعُه ... فِي طَوْدِ أَيْمَنَ مِنْ قُرَى قَسْرِ

شِرْكاً بِمَاءِ الذَّوْبِ يَجْمَعُه ... فِي طَوْد أَيْمَنَ فِي قُرى قَسْرِ

شِرْكاً بماءِ الذَّوْب تَجْمَعُه ... فِي طَوْدِ أَيْمَنَ مِنْ قُرَى قَسْرِ

صَحارِى تَغوَّلُ جِنّانُها ... وأحدابَ طَوْدٍ رفيعِ الِجبالِ

فأبرَح غازِيا أَهدِى رَعِيلًا ... أَؤُمّ سَوادَ طَوْدٍ ذى نِجالِ

كَأنَّ الجسْمَ للِرائِينَ طَوْدٌ ... وَهاديها كَأنْ جِذَعٌ سَحُوقُ[8]

Now here is what makes Quran so clear, there is one thing in common between Tawd and Tawr, and it’s not the close terminology, it’s mountain, both Tawd and Tawr reference mountain in meaning, however, there is one great difference between them

Tawr simply means just mountain, Tawd Means Great Mountain

الطَّوْد ُ: الجبل العظيم.[9]

Translation:
Tawd: Great Mountain

Tawr, however, means Just Mountain

الطُّورُ في كلام العرب الجَبلُ[10]

Translation:
Tawr in words of Arabs means Mountian

You can’t place a word on another just because they sound the same, we have a term for it, it’s called homophone

The, for example, the word Knew, and the word New, they both sound the same but wia th different meaning

But let’s read this line of poetry

صَحارِى تَغوَّلُ جِنّانُها ... وأحدابَ طَوْدٍ رفيعِ الِجبالِ

Deserts with it’s cover kills….and sharp curves as large as big as great mountains

Now change طود with طور

صَحارِى تَغوَّلُ جِنّانُها ... وأحدابَ طَوْر

Notice how I removed the last two sentences since they go against what Tawr means

Deserts with it’s cover kills….and sharp curves as big as mountains

It should be clear for now there is a difference in Tawr and Tawd, Tawd means Great Mountain, and Tawd just means Mountian
Update:
I also wanted to add the fact that Tawr isn't just mountain on it's own, but also the name of a mountain Prophet Moses called god from

الطور آية 1 ، 2 وَالطُّورِ وَكِتَابٍ مَسْطُورٍ ( قرآن ) : الْجَبَلُ الَّذِي نَاجَى فِيهِ مُوسَى رَبَّهُ ، سورَةٌ مِن سور القرآن . 

Translation:
Tawr verse 1, 2 Tawr and the written book (Quran) : it's a mountain that Moses called his lord from, one sura from Quran Suras

Source:
https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D8%B7%D9%88%D8%B1/

so we arrive at conclusion Tawr isn't just a mountain it's an actual name of a mountain, Sharif Confused it with Tawd which is a description of a great mountain.

Wrong Order? False Meaning?

Leave it to sharif Gaber, the scholar who will teach us how the Quran should place it words

@14:51 Sharif state “ for example in sura al mumtahana when he says { And if you have lost any of your wives to the disbelievers and you subsequently obtain [something], then give those whose wives have gone the equivalent of what they had spent. And fear Allah , in whom you are believers.}(60:11) what does mean? What does it mean And if you have lost any of your wives to the disbelievers? I want you to try and understand this word by yourself, you won’t , the sentence has something wrong with it, and like always hundreds of tafsiers , most of them say it means they ran away, meaning your wives ran away and went to disbelievers, but in reality this is just Fatwa , and even if that it means they ran away, why didn’t it say and if your wives ran away to Disbelievers? Or if your wives ran away and went to disbelievers? A clear simply and understandable word with no one will differ on it and no 100 tafsir will come up”

Yes, sharif create your own quran for us, it makes sense, since you already have a cult

The verse states the following وإن فاتكم شيء من أزواجكم, which later according to Tafsir commentators means if any of your wives leave you to disbelievers, now the reason why the word فاتكم شيء which made Sharif Confused Qurtubi mentions the context behind such words

وروى الزهري عن عروة عن عائشة رضي الله عنها قالت : حكم الله عز وجل بينكم فقال جل ثناؤه : "و أسالو ما انفقتم وليسألو ما أنفقوا" فكتب اليهم المسلمون : قد حكم الله عز وجل بيننا بأنه ان جاءتكم امرأة منا ان توجهوا الينا بصداقها, و أن جاءتنا امراة منكم وجهنا اليكم بصدقها فكتبوا اليهم : أما نحن فلا نعلم لكن عندنا شيئا , فأن كان لنا عندكم شيء فوجهوا به , فأنزل الله عز و جل : "و أن فاتكم شيء من أزواجكم الى الكفار...."[11]

Translation:

It was transmitted from Zuhri from ‘urwa from aisha may God be pleased with her she said: God judged between us, so he said { but ask for what you have spent and let them ask for what they have spent. That is the judgment of Allah ; He judges between you. And Allah is Knowing and Wise.} (60:10 the verse before 11 here which is the context that sharif omitted) so muslims wrote to them : god has ordained us between us and you that if a woman came from us that you bring her back to us with truthfulness, and if a woman from you came to us we bring her back with truthfulness from us so they wrote to them: as for us we don’t know but we have something, so if we have something then bring it forth so god brought down { And if you have lost any of your wives to the disbelievers….}

Now you see the context that you stripped away sharif? As always if you put Quran in context it will make perfect sense

Conclusion to Part-2

originally Part-2 was larger but I took and striped this part of it to post it immediately and quickly due to demand, next we shall continue our refutation to Sharif Gaber.

---

[1] Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami history of the Quranic text from revelation to completion, a comparative study with new and old testament page.122-125

[2] Ibid page.311

[3] http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm

[4] The Qur'an and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions By Emran El-Badawi page.27, Quoting Mingana on page.80

[5] https://www.thespruce.com/which-word-has-the-most-definitions-4077796

[6] https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%82%D9%8A%D9%82/

[7] https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D8%A3%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%87/?c=%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8

[8] https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D8%B7%D9%88%D8%AF/?c=%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8

[9] ibid

[10] https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D8%B7%D9%88%D8%B1/?c=%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8

[11] Jami’ Ahkam Alquran by Qurtubi vol.18