Shari Gaber What you don’t know about Quran, Much ado about nothing part-1

Introduction:

I have decided to make this the first work I promised to update an article on DTT regarding banu qurayza and make an article in request from TMA containing my five best arguments against him

But I decided that this should be my first refutation from now, and so far this will be one of the easiest refutations I have ever done, Sharif Gaber video on Quran is by far one of the worst videos I have ever dealt with, and his fan base is even more gullible than I thought
in this article, we will refute every portion of his arguments, and if happened to be too long I will dedicate several parts as refutations

I know I didn’t resume my refutation to TMA 7 reasons why I left Islam, but that will also take it’s time, for this time being, this poorly researched video by Sharif that made spark among English ex-Muslims duo to the fact that no one responded to it, I will be the first to take him on, and drag his dignity and integrity on the floor with it, Arab Muslims have already destroyed his video from Dr.Haitham Tal’at to Dr.Sami Amir

Many portions of this article is taken and translated from the works of Dr.Sami Amir and Dr.Haitham Tal’at

Make sure to check their works below

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCm85scTKjex-ah3psqbykvw/videos
above is Dr.Sami Amir, the author of the book hunting for the word of god, who made 30 videos discussing each allegation Sharif made, but unfortunately only in Arabic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWLU1CQyx5o&feature=youtu.be

above is Dr.Haitham Tal’at addressing most of Sharif allegation also available only in Arabic

However, I suspect that more and more will come, I even saw some deists ex-Muslim who stated that he already knew Sharif video was weak

when I addressed, Sharif Gaber, converted2islam, TMA and Ben Shapiro before, I stated many times how these specific works are the worse, but sometimes they do make points I agree with, so at no point did I said everything 100% in their videos is wrong, but this time I think it’s the first time where I see someone who is 100% wrong in everything he says, there is literally nothing correct Sharif stated in that video.

Nevertheless here is my Refutation

I wanted to access an online search engine used by Sharif But guess what happened when I looked into his twitter account it get worse.

He blocked me, at no point did I make any death threats at all to be blocked, I never even harassed him in my PM to him, all I did was ask him questions that he didn’t answer or replied to in the PM and he block me?

Chapter One: The start of the catastrophe:

@00:5-00:37

Sharif starts his video with a strawman already, stating that Christian theologians from 325 AD comes the council of nicea, based on the words of Sharif, christen bishops like Arius were confused regarding if Jesus was a god or a prophet, but let us see the very source he used to justify his claim, the Roman emperor decided to gather all Christian bishops to discuss the issue of Jesus divinity (according to his own word) but does his source actually say that?.

Given the fact that he also used Wikipedia in this shows how nonacademic he is, but let us continue, he cites not surprisingly Robert Spencer, but does Robert Spencer agree with him?

As you can see above nowhere Does Robert state that Arius believed that Jesus was just a prophet sent to humanity at all, just Arius Different from the rest that Jesus was created from god and not Coeternal with him, further evidence of Arius belief that Jesus was indeed God will be presented

Did Arius Believe Jesus was a prophet?

What comes next is a Shocker, do not take it from me, take it from his own source
When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity During the Last Days of Rome by Richard E. Rubenstein, stating that his fellow bishops said “what are you doing?”

If you noticed something different here, it is that Sharif did not show a quote from that specific page at all, as he did to the rest.

Therefore, he gives us the page number, if we check precisely in that chapter “When Jesus Became God” page.57

It states the following, and again this is His own source provided from the screenshot above

“Did Arius deny Christ's divinity? He did not, since whether the Son was perfect by will or by nature, whether he was God's subordinate or his equal, God had raised him up to rule by His side in heaven and there was none like him. Surely, considering the difficulty of understanding such matters with certainty, there was room in the Church for differences of opinion about the Son's mysterious relationship to the Father! Alexander would have none of it. He ordered the priest on the spot to repudiate his errors and to agree to preach the correct doctrine that Jesus was no less than God on earth, the Creator become human to redeem our sins. When Arius refused to recant, the bishop terminated the meeting and called upon all Egypt's bishops to attend an important council in Alexandria.”[1]

That is your own source Sharif.

Even his opponent Athanasius of Alexandria documented his ideas

Athanasius Wrote 4 documents in response to his opponent Arius

In his work Thalia Athanasius quotes Arius, Arius gives the following description of Jesus

“Then wishing to form us, thereupon He made a certain one, and named Him Word and Wisdom and Son, that He might Form us by means of Him”[2]

For further understanding of the pre Nicaean Christian belief read “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More Than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers” by David Bercot

Now the only possible source that Sharif might have confused Arius with the claim of Jesus humanity and prophethood is a book written by Dan Brown called The Da Vinci Code

Bart Ehrman already refuted these allegations in his book “Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine”

The so-called Rise of Popularity:

@01:02 Sharif stated that Arius Ideas started to become popular that they almost rebelled on the empire, he cites Theodore Noldke The quran, but gives no page number at all, but what I assume what he meant here is his Book “history of the quran” he doesn’t have a book titled “The Quran”

Now I already have this book, so I decided to look through its pages to find out just where Theodore Noldeke did mention Arius Heresy

Up until I was able to find it texts Sketches from eastern history by Nöldeke, Theodor

So I did whatever serious researcher, and looked for mentions of Arius in it, in my shock there was no mention of him, the closest we got was Darius who was a Persian King, so apparently Sharif Confused Darius with Arius

What a surprise

The closest we have to a mention of an empire was on page.13 “sematic race”

Where Theodore mentions Mu’away contributions to the Umayyad dynasty empire in conjunction to the Roman Empire at page.14

Later mentions at page.60 he starts with emphases of the rise of Muhammad religion in the native land of Christians and Zoroastrians, let alone no mention of any Christian missionaries traveling in chapter “The Koran” no mention even in the Chapter “The Koran” regarding Arius

Now if you are a loyal fan of Sharif, ask yourself this question, why would he cite 3 sources that disagree with him, the go forth and give a footnote with no page number and an obscure chapter name but has no relation on the entire chapter to what he claims? Why didn’t he even bother to give us abstract from each page regarding any affiliated claim?

Ask yourself these questions.

We are already 1 minute in and so many atrocities were committed

Let’s accept for the sake of argument that the followers of Arius did indulge in the journey in Arabian peninsula, is there any evidence that followers of Arius did exist or had influence in Hijaz and affairs of Arabian tribes in medina?

There are absolutely no evidence for such claim

We do have several names of Christian Tribes in arabia

Al-milkania, Ya’aqiba Nasatira  Qasasina, Lakhminion, Banu Tagalub, Wail bin Rubai’a, Bakir[3] [4]

Several of these sources above does mention Arius followers, but only in conjunction to general tribes of Christianity.

The earliest source we have of religious criticism of Islam comes from John of Damascus

Who wrote a book on Heresy, where he discussed the rise of islam in Arabian peninsula, and earlier he discussed many Christian tribes that existed prior to islam, no mention at all to Arius tribes or followers existing in Arabia.

He does mention, however, a tribe of Elcesaites, which are close but not identical to Ebonites, they only existed in Arabia located in the Dead Sea[5]

Not even close to Hijaz

If there is even a slight of presence of Arius followers in Hijza we would have sources that testify them paying Jizyah to muslims

But even so, if they did exist, in light of the above sources (from Sharif himself) it’s impossible for them to influence the rise of Islam, due to the fact that they still believe in the divinity of Jesus in contraction to Islamic ideas.

If Arius Followers have such Radical Views, where is their holy book? There is no record of a Holy book written and spread by Arius followers that differs from the Gospel

Is there any evidence that Arius Followers followed the same holy book Christians do? Yes

Ulphilas, was a Goth Bishop who was an Arian Christian, Translated the Bible in the 4^th century to Gothic Greek, he translated the bible exactly as we have it today, except for 1^st Kings and 2^nd Kings for fear that it will entice Gothics to war[6]

There are locations in Arabian Peninsula with Christian tribes attributed to them

Ayla (‘uqba), Doma Jandal, Ma’an, Tabuk, wadi Al-Qura, Yathrib, Ta’if[7]

@02:06

Sharif stated that this idea that Jesus was not god and mere prophet was not originally Islamic but existed prior to the rise of Islam

This claim is based upon the perception that Islamic beliefs were the first to come up with the idea that Jesus was not god and mere prophet, this is an insane way of thinking and a strawman at it’s core.

Quran makes reference to the belief that Jesus was a prophet before, injecting the idea that prior to Islam Christians did preserve the concept on Jesus nondivine nature

Before we indulge into this let’s understand better who are the Ebionites

“They believed that Jesus was born a man by ordinary birth, but became exalted to a status greater than Moses and higher than the prophets through his outstanding virtues because God's angel dwelt in him. They practiced strict asceticism in their lives. In the fourth century Epiphanius”[8]

So they believed that Jesus is of a higher statue than Moses and other previous prophets, this is on complete contradiction to Islamic beliefs, as all prophets are viewed equal, we will compare their ideas to Islamic ideas furthermore.
{Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.}

Quran 2:62

@ 02:24, Sharif Asks, “if these ideas were already there, why is it needed for a prophet to come and say it again?” he affirms that Jesus prophethood was an Islamic invention, but is that true?

{I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.} Quran 5:117

Since we already debunked the claims that Arius was believing that Jesus was a prophet even from Sharif own sources, and showed there is no presence of Ebinoties or Arius followers in Arabia we can easily ignore this question since it’s based on a false assumption, but part of it as we saw was true, there was in history (note I said in history) there were Unitarian beliefs of Jesus being just a prophet and not divine, however as we saw, these beliefs were later overthrown by orthodox Christianity, that belief in trinity is now so mainstream that monolithic beliefs in god from early Christianity is now such a tiny minority that it needed to be revised, it needed to be reinstated.

The Relations that Has no connections to His video:

This is evident by Sharif asking @02:52 “what does Arius have to do with Quran?”

@03:04 Sharif stated “after the persecution of Arius Followers when they traveled to Arabian Peninsula they took the bible, but these books were written in the language that was used to write books at that time, of course not the Arabic language, the Arabic language has no relations at all to it, but it was a second language called the Aramaic language, which another language is branched from it, it’s called the Syriac Language, the Syriac language was the official language to any book that was written at that time, what happens is that when this religion comes, this religion is not new, but rather a collection of Christian ideas, ideas that believed that there is one god, and this Jesus was just a mere man, and this Quran in majority was nothing but translation to the Christian books that entered the Arabian Peninsula by the Priests (referring to Arius Priests) who have been persecuted, the books that were written in Syriac language”

That was a lot of Nonsense; let us deconstruct it
“after the persecution of Arius Followers when they traveled to Arabian Peninsula”

We have already debunked the above statement so let us continue.
“ideas that believed that there is one god, and this Jesus was just a mere man”

The closest we have to such beliefs as discussed was a Christian tribe that existed near the Dead Sea far from Hijaz
“and this Quran in majority was nothing but translation to the Christian books that entered the Arabian Peninsula by the Priests (referring to Arius Priests) who have been persecuted, the books that were written in Syriac language”

We do have a Document of outmost importance in Arabian Peninsula to Christianity

The book is called Diatessaron is written by Tatian collecting four gospels in one story; let us assume that it was written in Syriac Language, there is a version of the book that is written in Peshitta version in 5^th century, which is a simplified version.

Gorge anton kiraz Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels Aligning the Old Syriac (Sinaiticus, Curetonianus), Peshitta and Harklean Versions

The book does not give any reference to Syriac translation existing in Arabian Peninsula at all

The book gives comparative history to both Syriac and Pheshittan version and the third one Harklean version, when was it written and how did it drive from Syriac tradition.

No where does the book gives any reference to Arius Followers let along existence of a Syriac Text in Arabian peninsula, there is a surviving text of Diatessaron in Arabic translated to Arabic in 11^th century, this is the earliest book of Christian tradition that exist in Arabia (this despite the claim that the Quran was a translation of Syriac literature, we have here it most important Syriac text with the earliest translation goes way to 11^th century not 7^th or 8^th century)

“Tatian’s Diatessaron survives only in fragments quoted by polemical works and a later Christian Arabic translation by Abū al-Faraj al-T. ayyib (d. 434/1043) At any rate, the existence of a Syriac Gospel text earlier than this is a matter of debate, which principally revolves around the issue of whether or not the Syriac Gospels in general reflect an ancient Palestinian Aramaic substratum going back to the first century”[9]

First, let us point out how important Diatessaron is

“Most Scholars agree that the Old Syriac Gospels, the Subsequent official text of the Syriac Church were Heavily Influenced by the Diatessaron”[10]

There is confusion to what language originally Diatessoron was written in; either it was Syriac or Greek[11]

“The nature of the Qur’ān’s original dialect and its relation to the Arabic language (North Arabian) proved controversial from the start. Theodor Nöldeke recognizes the frequent use of—among other things— Christian and Rabbinical Aramaic formulae in the Qur’ān, but ultimately agrees with the traditional theory that classical Arabic or fus.h.ā existed as a spoken language among Arab tribes even prior to the rise of Islam and that this, therefore, reflects the original expression of the Qur’ān.”[12]

Furthermore, Badawi (probably a Christian scholar) Lay down statement from Watt that Meccan Tribes had little to no knowledge of Christian texts
“Watt, the Qur’ān’s depiction of a Trinity comprised of God, Mary and Jesus (Q 5:116), its claim that the Jews call Ezra “the son of God” (Q 9:30), and other such heterdox beliefs which he perceived as mistakes, provide evidence that Mecca had little knowledge of Hebrew and Christian scripture”[13]

The Quran Does address and acknowledge the existent of Christian traditions (who happened to be Syriac or generally Aramaic) but to say the Quran is originally a Syriac script translated or falsely translated into Arabic, is a claim no serious academic makes

“The language, to which Mingana is referring, of course, is Syriac. It is crucial to keep in mind that while much of its cultural and linguistic inspiration came from the Syriac—or more generally Aramaic—sphere, the Qur’ān is indeed an Arabic scripture which was conveyed through the person of Muhammad at a time when he was formulating the religion that would come to dominate almost the entire late antique Near East.”[14]

As we will see later, this claim is not backed by any logical or historical evidence at all, Sharif used a failed Hypothesis written by an orientalist named Christopher Luxenburg, we will address him later on
all those claims that the Quran is originally a Syriac scripture or a false translation of a Syriac tradition is baseless and has no evidence at all

We can derive three ideas from the sources we invested

1-      Diatessoron was the original Christian Manuscript  in arabia and Levant

2-      There is no evidence that Diatessoron was originally Syriac and there is much debate about that

3-      The earliest translation of Diatessoron to Arabic Dates back to 11^th century far from 7^th and 8^th century

Chapter Two: The Failed Hypothesis of Syriac Quran:

@04:00 Sharif state “have you asked yourself why the Quran Kept repeating itself saying it was written in Arabic? Why a book that is obvious it was written in Arabic says over 50 times that it’s written in Arabic, why would you mention the language that you wrote the information with it?, for example the Greek authors who wrote the new testament they didn’t have to write ones that this book was written in Greek, because it’s obvious that it was written in Greek, except that this information is irrelevant, the repeat of the sentences in Quran that state it was written in Arabic is evidence of another scenario, evidence for example that there are people who knew this Quran is not Arabic, and that is what exactly is happening , a lot of people believed that the one who wrote this Quran, heard from Christian priests, translated it and attributed it to it”

For anyone who will accuse me of strawman and say “Sharif never stated that the Quran is not Arabic in origins”

This statement from Sharif proves you wrong “is evidence of another scenario, evidence for example that there people who knew this Quran is not Arabic”

Therefore, Sharif does believe that the quran in origins was not Arabic at all, moving on.

That is a load of nonsense let us deconstruct it.

Why the Quran does keeps on saying its Arabic

Well simple answer is that several tribes had their own delicts; Karl Vollers stated that there are multiple Tribes who spoke different delicts of Arabic Koine and that Fusah (classical Quranic Arabic) was developed later in Islamic civilization [15]

Quranic Arabic came to challenge old pre Islamic Arabic, which many might suspect that this is not regarded as Arabic at all, but a different language, similar to how Turkish language share the same litters and text with English but is a different language, similar to how Persian share Arabic literature and letters but is radically different, so Quran state multiple times that it’s indeed Arabic to dispel such suspicion

@04:52 Sharif state citing verse 9:61 “some people who harmed Muhammad said he used to {othon} meaning he took words he heard from other people”
let’s read the verse

{And among them are those who abuse the Prophet and say, "He is an ear." Say, "[It is] an ear of goodness for you that believes in Allah and believes the believers and [is] a mercy to those who believe among you." And those who abuse the Messenger of Allah - for them is a painful punishment.}

Take close attention to what Sharif did, he did not even bother to show a single screenshot of what this word means and translated out of thin air

Tafsir Tabari state that Othon here means a bringer or hearer of goodness

Note he doesn’t care to read what it later state “Say, "[It is] an ear of goodness” he forgets it knowing his audience won’t bother with it

So what does ear here means, it resembles the term new, good news means someone who brings forth a good future and events

Sharif stated that Othon here means he heard from Christian Priests, but cites no evidence for that at all, no Tafsir no commentary even mentions this

Where did he come up with this?

The only possible explanation is that what is meant here is that these hypocrites believed Muhammad to be bad news, and quran says to say he is good news, but the most proper definition is ear, meaning Muhammad is ear for what is good for you

But let’s put it in Sharif logic (if there is any)

People used to harm him because he listens (from priests). Does this sentence alone without context make any sense to you? What people? And what did he listen to?

Unlike the qur’anic explanation where it states that he listen to everything the Quran instructs the read to “Say, "[It is] an ear of goodness” meaning he hears only goodness, the qur’anic explanation makes more sense than Sharif version if we accept it, still don’t believe me ? Let’s read the hadith cited by ibn Kathir which is authentic as I checked the chain of narration

روي معناه عن ابن عباس ومجاهد وقتادة. قال الله تعالى { قُلْ أُذُنُ خَيْرٍ لَّكُمْ } أي هو أذن خير، يعرف الصادق من الكاذب[16]

Translation:

It’s mentioned regarding it’s meaning from ibn ‘abbas and mujahid and qutada god said {say he is ear of goodness for you} meaning he is ear of goodness, knows the liar for the one that tells the truth[17]

@05:06 Sharif cites verse 8:31 “and other people said this is found in other places because we heard it before, and for that you will find verses that say {And when Our verses are recited to them, they say, "We have heard.} means we heard it before and other people said who ever wrote this Quran, transmitted it from a non Arabic source, because there is a lot of foreign words , Quran responded and said we know that you said there is a foreigner teaching him, no no no, this is wrong this Quran is Arabic and not transmitted from somewhere else  {And We certainly know that they say, "It is only a human being who teaches the Prophet." The tongue of the one they refer to is foreign, and this Qur'an is [in] a clear Arabic language.} 16:103 ”

So let us deconstruct this

First regarding 8:31 says {And when our verses are recited to them, they say, "We have heard.}

Sounds quite damning does it. It looks like the Quran already admit that it is nothing but a Syriac text transmitting from priests, right?

Wrong

Let us see what major Tafsir scholar agreed regarding this verse
Tafsir Tabari:

حدثنا القاسم، قال: ثنا الـحسين، قال: ثنـي حجاج، قال: قال ابن جريج، قوله: { وَإذَا تُتْلَـى عَلَـيْهِمْ آياتُنا قالُوا قَدْ سَمِعْنا لَوْ نَشاءُ لَقُلْنا مِثْلَ هذَا } قال: كان النضر بن الـحرث يختلف تاجراً إلـى فـارس، فـيـمرّ بـالعبـاد وهم يقرءون الإنـجيـل، ويركعون ويسجدون. فجاء مكة، فوجد مـحمداً صلى الله عليه وسلم قد أنزل علـيه وهو يركع ويسجد، فقال النضر: قد سمعنا، لو نشاء لقلنا مثل هذا للذي سمع من العِبـاد. فنزلت: { وَإذَا تُتْلَـى عَلَـيْهِمْ آياتُنا قالُوا قَدْ سَمِعْنا لَوْ نَشاءُ لَقُلْنا مِثْل هذَا }[18]

Translation:

Qasim told us, from Hussain, from Hajjaj, from ibn Jarih god’s words { And when Our verses are recited to them, they say, "We have heard. If we willed, we could say [something] like this} said : Nazir bin Harith was going to market to Persia, so he goes by worshipers as they read the gospel, they pray and prostrate, so he came to mecca and found the prophet peace be upon him had a revelation, and he bow down and prostrate, so Nazir said: we have heard, if we willed we could say something like the worshipers heard, so verse was revealed { And when Our verses are recited to them, they say, "We have heard. If we willed, we could say [something] like this}[19]

This is a common theme of mentioning Nazir bin Harith in tabari later on

Ibn Kathir said

وقد قيل إن القائل لذلك هو النضر بن الحارث لعنه الله[20]

Translation:

It was said that the one who said that was Nazir Bin Harith, may god Curse him

Qutubi

نزلت في النَّضر بن الحارث[21]

Translation:

It was brought down on Nazir bin Harith

As if this does not make it more clear, this was revealed on Nazir bin harith, and those words mentioned in the verse was directly the words of Nazir bin harith

Therefore, what are we going to unpack here?

Well from tabari who gives the full account, nazir went to a market in Persia, (note Persia, not mecca, far from Muhammad residence) he saw Christians reading from the bible and praying and kneeling and worshiping

So when he returned to mecca saw Muhammad having revelations, then pray and kneel down in worship, and concluded {if we could we can say the likes of it} meaning he was merely attributing Muhammad owning a holy book and worshiping to Christians

Not as Sharif want you to think (this verse is evidence that people during Muhammad time knew the Quran was Syriac)

How did he jump from this to that conclusion Is beyond me

Let us break this down, if I was receiving revelations and praying, then someone goes to market and see Christians doing the same thing but with their own holy book

Return to me and says {if I could I would say something like this} then Sharif will conclude that the book that I write down revelations on is Syriac?

How did he jump from A to B like this, this is like a nonsequitur rocket fired from mars

However, notice yet again he does not bother showing any Tafsir to this verse if he could it will break down his allegation

Now let us go back to 16:103

{And We certainly know that they say, "It is only a human being who teaches the Prophet." The tongue of the one they refer to is foreign, and this Qur'an is [in] a clear Arabic language.}

Note the word (tongue) we will get back to it, keep this in mind

So let us see his logic, this verse state that people accused the prophet of using a tongue referred to as foreign therefore the quran is foreign (or in this case Syriac) in origin?

Again non-sequitur fallacy

But let us see what this verse actually means in detail, there is one keyword that Sharif slept it by unnoticed, and that is the word يلحدون which sound similar to Atheist ملحد so why does the Quran cite a word in relation to atheism in a verse that has nothing to do with it? The answer is quite simple, because atheism isn’t the only meaning of the word يلحدون because if you take it in context of atheism it will be ألحدوا meaning proclaimed atheism in past tense, not in progressive verb tense, but this should tell us that the word means something else, according to Lisan Al-Arab, the most Authentic Arabic to Arabic Dictionary

أَلْحَدَ فلانٌ : عَدَلَ عن الحقّ وأَدخل فيه ما ليس منه .[22]

Translation:

Someone Alhad: meaning deviated from the truth and inserted in it what is not correct.

So subsequently let us put it in context this word simply says that there were two positions, one saying that this is a foreign tongue, another says that this is Arabic tongue

If we put it in that context the word clearly state that the Quran is responding to the above two stipulations and state the latter is the most correct

In relation to this verse, Ibn Tamiya explain the second part of it

فكيف يتصور أن يعلمه أعجمي وهذا الكلام عربي ؟[23]

Translation:

Then how can someone imagine a foreigner teach him this Arabic words

Ibn Taymya seems to imply that this means that it’s impossible for a foreigner to teach Muhammad Arabic words in contradiction to their mother language

Now let us enter Tafsires and see what they say regarding this

Tafsir Bagawi makes the following claims

قال ابن عباس : كان رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يعلم قينا بمكة ، اسمه " بلعام " ، وكان نصرانيا ، أعجمي اللسان ، فكان المشركون يرون رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يدخل عليه ويخرج ، فكانوا يقولون إنما يعلمه " بلعام " .[24]

Translation:

Ibn abbas said, the prophet ﷺ knew about someone in mecca named Bal’am, and he was a Christian, foreign (a’jam) in tongue, so polytheists saw the prophet ﷺ enters his house and leaves so they said that he was teaching him foreign tongue

Now let us deconstruct it, notice how all translations agree that it says (foreign Tongue) instead of (forging language), there is a big difference here.

What does foreign tongue differ from foreign language

In context of ‘Ajami, foreign tongue simply means an unclear behavior and unclear way of speaking a language, similar to how when someone travel to forging land and adapts to it’s culture, his tongue adapts to it aswell, if I as an arab spend too much time in America, my Arabic tongue get affected by exposure to that culture, do I have evidence for that? Yes

Let’s see what Lisan Al-Arab have to say

كانت في لسانه لُكنة وعدم إفصاح في الكلام :- لم يستطعْ التعبيرَ عن نفسه بسبب عُجْمته - عجُم لسانُه بعد أن أقَام مدَّة طويلة في بلاد أجنبيّة .[25]

Translation:

In his tongue had a special dialect, and unclear on speech:- he couldn’t express himself clearly because of his foreign (‘ujimato of of the variants of the word ‘ajam) his tongue became ‘ajam foreign after living in this country for long time.

So it’s clear that the verse was Not speaking about language but rather speech pattern and tongue patterns, not a radically different language, evidenced by the end of the verse where it says {clear} why did it decide to use the word Mubin {clear}? Because clearly the context is not a different language but speech pattern here, if this was in context of language the word clear won’t be necessary at all, since distinguishing between two language is easily made, but distinguishing between two conflicted speech pattern one  is confused and unclear Arabic, other is Fusha classical Arabic then the word clear here is needed

However if you are using the word ‘ajam alone with no mention of tongue, then you are more likely referring to different language

@05:54 Sharif state “what made people not one not two not three not ten, but a lot of people says that quran was originally not Arabic and there are a lot of forging words translated (sharif proceed to show video of an Islamic Scholar says “there is a lot of debate among Ulama from people of Tafsir and people of Ilm in case is there in Quran something line words that are not Arabic? ) but before I show you the forging words in Quran you must first understand how you read Quran correctly, and to know how to read Quran correctly you must return it to it’s first Raw image, you must return it to it’s origin, you remove all dots, you remove or Tashkil marking, you remove extra letters, because all of these were inserted later in duration for more than 100 years from Muhammad death when you do that you will notice that the quran started to look strange , you will notice all letters look close to each other to the point that among the 28 letters of Arabic only 6 letters you can distinguish from each other and the other 22 you can’t distinguish them(Sharif proceed to show slides of Arabic letters in comparison to none dotted letters we will ignore this first because we will address the main issue at hand) and so, what I’m trying to show you is that the chance that you make mistake and put dots in it’s raw image after more than 50 years from Muhammad death and it’s the year that it was said that quran started to get dots is a huge probability especially you are not putting dots in one letter or word or two words, you are putting dots in more than 77,000 word, of course they were more than 77,000 but quran had things removed from it on duration of 150 years from Muhammad death but this will be discussed at the end of the video ”

Now that was a lot, let us deconstruct it, among it how he strawmaned that Islamic scholar

“what made people not one not two not three not ten, but a lot of people says that quran was originally not Arabic”

No evidence was presented, I did, however, cite from Emran El-Badawi clear statement that Quran was indeed originally in Arabic, and I quote “The language to which Mingana is referring, of course, is Syriac. It is crucial to keep in mind that while much of its cultural and linguistic inspiration came from the Syriac—or more generally Aramaic—sphere, the Qur’ān is indeed an Arabic scripture which was conveyed through the person of Muhammad at a time when he was formulating the religion that would come to dominate almost the entire late antique Near East.”

Footnote already provided

“a lot of forging words translated (Sharif proceed to show video of an Islamic Scholar says “there is a lot of debate among Ulama from people of Tafsir and people of Ilm in the case is there in Quran something like words that are not Arabic? )”
You will note that I made above sentence in bold text, let us read it “is there in Quran something like words that are not Arabic?”

Notice the difference between this sentence, and the sentence Sharif want you to believe “the Quran in entirely not Arabic in origin”

The scholar is clearly discussing the idea of if there are words in Quran that are with non-Arabic roots, not if the Quran entirely not Arabic

Take for example, if I write 100 lines in English, 4 of those lines contain English words rooted from Arabic or other languages, does this mean the totality of my 10 lines English letter is not English in form? That is the definition of a nonsequitur fallacy

Continuing.

“but before I show you the forging words in Quran you must first understand how you read Quran correctly, and to know how to read Quran correctly you must return it to it’s first Raw image, you must return it to it’s origin, you remove all dots, you remove or Tashkil marking, you remove extra letters, because all of these were inserted later in duration for more than 100 years from Muhammad death”

Is that true? Did the dots were inserted or invented after Muhammad? Answer is no, and we do have archeological evidence of dots used in Arabic writings even pre Islamic

Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami writes in his groundbreaking book on Qur’anic collection

The book is available to download in website kalamullah.com

http://kalamullah.com/history-of-the-quranic-text.html

“The rasm ai-khat (lit: the drawing of the script)of the Qur'a Mushaf does not contain dots to differentiate such character as b (ب), t  (ت) and so on, and neither does it possess diacritical damma, and kasra. There is a good deal of evidence to show that the concept of skeletal dots was not new to the Arabs, being even familiar to them prior to Islam. These dots nevertheless absent from earliest Mushafs whatever the philosophy behind this may have been (see on page.95 of Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami book on wither or not it causes Divergences in readings of the Quran) I will introduce some examples to prove that early Arabic palaeography did indeed have dots to accompany the skeleton of the Characters

(Muhammad proceed to provide archeological findings with pictures in his book of early usage of Dots even in pre Islamic era, please go to his book to further read them as I can’t display them here, also read page.95 of his book where he discuss the effect of dots in Arabic formation).. Mu'awiya asked him to carry out some tarqish (ترقيش) on particular document..Mu'awiya added that he had done the same thing once for a document he had written on behalf of the prophet." [26]

As for Diacritical markings, it’s the proceeding chapter discussed.

interestingly, the oldest Quranic Manuscript found, the Birmingham Manuscript does show at several portions Dots placed on letters, the Birmingham Manuscript as accepted by majority of scholars dates back to 568 and 645 AD it’s accepted mostly that it’s 645 AD, 645 AD, if we put the date of the prophet Muhammad death since it’s at 632 AD, then the manuscript date to 12 years after the death of Muhammad (in contrast to Sharif Claim of 100 years after the death of Muhammad ﷺ )preserving the dots as we see it.

From the above image, we see several usages of Dots, from skeletal placements of words to endings of verses.

Chapter Three: The advent of an insane theory:

@08:38 Sharif state “ for example verse 146 in Sura An’am when it says { And to those who are Jews We prohibited every animal of uncloven hoof; and of the cattle and the sheep We prohibited to them their fat, except what adheres to their backs or the entrails or what is joined with bone. [By] that We repaid them for their injustice. And indeed, We are truthful.} what does Hawaia mean? Do you know what is Hawaia? You don’t know what is Hawaia (oh I do Sharif) come and let us return this word to it’s origin and filter it by the method we talked about and manipulate the dots on assumption that those who dotted the quran made mistake in a word here, we add a dot on ح  it will be Jawaia, this word Jawaia is a Syriac word, meaning stomach”

Astonishingly Sharif Cites Christoph Luxenberg the Syriac Aramaic reading of the quran, a failed rejected book even by orientalist.

Let us see reviews on his work

“Quite apart from the wayward philology and exegetical caprice exemplified above [see pp. 378, 379], the book makes no attempt to place its findings in any plausible historical context. Who were the Christian inhabitants of the pre-Islamic Mecca who used the alleged Qur’anic “aramaisch-arabische Mischsprache” [i.e., Aramaic-Arabic mixed language], and what exactly were their Syriac writings which are supposed to have produced the Arabic Qur’an. How does the theory account for the Jewish elements in Muslim scripture, and how did the early Islamic exegetes manage to achieve so thoroughly a misunderstanding -? [Something which Luxenberg claims on the p. 83 of his book] — of their holy book? Indeed, how did they come to have such a holy book — [meaning a book with such alleged “mixed-language”] — at all? One will readily concede that the text of the Qur’an is fraught with problems. It is difficult, however, to believe that many (or indeed any) of them have been solved by Mr. Luxenberg’s book”[27]

“Against this background the author embarks upon his own independent “Entschlusselung” of the Quranic text, Departing radically from most of the conventions of arabic scholarship, his methods consists of two general techniques, one graphic, the other linguistic, noting the fact that early arabic documents dispense with Diacricic points for consonants and marks for vowel, the Author feels liberty to alter Diacritics and Change Vowels at will”[28]

Simon goes so far and provide even more example of Luxenberg hideous atrocities including grammatical mistakes and false translations, please read the full review linked below

https://www.bismikaallahuma.org/wp-content/uploads/luxenberg_review.pdf

Even Abdullah Sameer an ex-muslim who shared his video so much pointed out one review.

“Luxenberg's meta-theory of Qur'ānic origins is not proved by the evidence he sets forth in this book. That certain of the Qur'ān's expressions and words (as well as broader ideas and themes) are of Christian origin is well founded, and should in general be sufficient to explain the data presented here without needing recourse to either of the two more radical theories he espouses, namely that the Qur’ān was in origin no more than a Christian lectionary, and that the language which it is written is an 'Aramaic-Arabic hybrid'. More must be offered to convince anybody as to the mechanisms by which such a strong cultural and linguistic contact could have occurred.”[29]

Even in wikipedia an unreliable source dispatches his claims “The conclusion of King's article summarizes the most prominent reviews of Luxenberg's work that have been published by other scholars”[30]

"The general thesis underlying his entire book thus is that the Quran is a corpus of translations and paraphrases of original Syriac texts recited in church services as elements of a lectionary." She considers it as "an extremely pretentious hypothesis which is unfortunately relying on rather modest foundations." Neuwirth points out that Luxenberg doesn't consider the previous work in Quran studies, but "limits himself to a very mechanistic, positivist linguistic method without caring for theoretical considerations developed in modern linguistics."[31]

"an extremely pretentious hypothesis”

Pretentious? That is some strong accusations against his work, apparently among majority of scholars Luxenberg work is a joke of fiction at best

But that doesn’t stop Christian missionaries and gullible atheists to cite his work without serious observation, that fact that he twist and manipulate arabic words (even Beyond dotting)

More even from reviews found in Wikipedia

“Blois (2003) is particularly scathing, describing the book as "not a work of scholarship but of dilettantism" and concluding that Luxenberg’s "grasp of Syriac is limited to knowledge of dictionaries and in his Arabic he makes mistakes that are typical for the Arabs of the Middle East."”

Dilettantism means a work of unprofessional unpari manner

“Saleh (2011) describes Luxenberg's method as "so idiosyncratic, so inconsistent, that it is simply impossible to keep his line of argument straight."[32]

“The first fundamental premise of his approach, that the Qur'ān is a Syriac text, is the easiest to refute on linguistic evidence. Nothing in the Qur'ān is Syriac, even the Syriac borrowed terms are Arabic, in so far as they now Arabized and used inside an Arabic linguistic medium. Luxenberg is pushing the etymological fallacy to its natural conclusion. The Qur'ān not only is borrowing words according to Luxenberg, it is speaking a gibberish language”[33]

The Etymological Fallacy and Quranic Studies: Muhammad, Paradise, and Late Antiquity by Walid Saleh further discuss and refute many of Luxenberg assertion, his article is downloadable in Wikipedia
Patricia Crone (one of Sharif sources on his video regarding Bukhari) slammed Luxenberg as “"open to so many scholarly objections" and "notably amateurism"”[34]

Read Brother Hamza tzortzis refutation to many of Luxenberg allegation at

http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/is-the-quran-a-manipulated-text-borrowed-from-syro-aramaic-christian-documents/

“It is strange that a book that boasts a title Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache (The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Qur'an - A Contribution to the Deciphering of Qur'anic Language) has a cover page that does not commensurate its title. One would expect that the author would have unearthed an important piece of evidence in the form of a manuscript, or an inscription to show the evidence of syro-aramäische reading of the Qur'an. Such an evidence on the cover page of the book would have befittingly matched the flowery title. However, to everyone's surprise, the title page is from a first century Qur'anic manuscript MS. Arabe 328a located at the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris”[35]

Since we mentioned Islamic – awareness they have done a grammatical breakdown marvel in destroying this alleged allegation, I highly recommend you read their article refuting Luxenberg

This started to sound more like a deranged polemicist writing book on the quran for the sake of refuting the religion when even his own pals of orientalists disown him, but monkey say monkey do, as Sharif just follow what Luxenberg say

As any serious researcher and thinker like myself I could easily just refuse and ignore every source he cites from this man regarding how Quran was falsely transmitted from Syriac, while it’s painful to go through an already refuted claim on it’s core which allows us to reject 45% of his video immediately since it’s based on it, I will indulge in a refutation only to serve as mouth seal for those of his gullible fans who will accuse me of “running away” .

So let’s being

Notice an occurrent theme here, Sharif doesn’t bother to show any Tafsir to this verse, if he did his claim fall apart, Tabari gives us the rotted for the word Hawaia, since Hawaia is plural

قال أبو جعفر : و " الحوايا " جمع ، واحدها " حاوياء " ، و " حاوية " ، و " حوية " ، وهي ما تحوى من البطن[36]

Translation:

Abu Ja’far said: and “Hawaia” is plural, singular is “Hawia’” and, “Hawia” and, “Hwia”, and it’s what is contain from stomach

According to Majmu’ Alma’ani

حَوايا البَطْن : أمعاؤُه[37]

Translation:

Hawaia stomach: insides

الحوايا ، وهي الأمعاء[38]

Translation:

Hawaia, and it’s the insentience.

If we need to understand each word in quran based on Sharif logic to the word that is as close to it as possible in aramic Syriac origin the book a comparative lexical study of quranic arabic by Martin R. Zammit does what is needed, so we will use it in comparison to each word that is as close to it’s meaning as possible, that is the proper way of critically examine quran, not the child play of twisting words to fit your agenda Luxenberg shtick

The book give no mention of the word Gawwaya, that Luxemburg what you to believe as mistranslation

The problem with Luxenberg pronunciation of the word Innards is that it’s false

Using both http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/search.php and

http://lishani.com/

To compare pronunciation and meaning of each word we can come at a conclusion, these two websites will be used from now on.
Jawayah in Syriac simply means (Inside) not (stomache)

The following is a reading from Sharif video:

Gwe to Gawaya and look for it’s meaning ܓܰܘܘܝܰ (gawwya) ܓܰܘܘܰܝܶ (gawwaye) ܓܘܰܝܶ (Gwaye) ܓܘܰܝܰ (Gwaya) ܓܘܰܝܶ (Gwaye)

So above are all examples provided but the video

Now when we go and compare each word to it’s meaning in lishani website, there is no meaning provided to each word, meaning Luxenberg just made up words in Syriac that didn’t exist.

Provided screenshot from Shrif video notice how he keeps on giving the same Syriac Photonic to each variation

There is no subtle difference between each of these in his book, that is deceptive at its best as showed above how with each variant pronunciation of Gawwaya the photonics and letters of Syriac change Let’s use the first one which is the most authentic one Gawaya but there is no meaning for this word [39]

There are only two names in Syriac that mentions Insides of human body and that is ܓܰܘܐ ، ܓܰܘ

First is pronounced Gaw, and other is Gawa[40] Note the website used has a glitch were) is representative of A

Far away from Sharif

Let’s ignore this embarrassment from sharif of blocking someone like me who never threaten him

Going back to the verse, it seems hawaia does have a meaning in Arabic and it does mean insides or more likely stomach

As provided by the dictionary Jami’ Al-Ma’ani

Then what does it actually means in Syriac?

Now one question might be asked, “then what is the proper name for insides or intestine in Syriac that is supposed to be in the verse?” you might find this surprising but it’s basically the same Arabic word for Belly or stomach

ܒܵܛܢܵܐ  (byTnya) meaning insides or ܣܛܘܝܡܟܝܐ (sTwܼymkܵya) meaning stomach

So much different for the alleged Gawwaya

This word  ܒܵܛܢܵܐ  (byTnya)  is the same exact arabic word (which some difference in spelling) بطن  (Batin) so if we want to place a more proper word of Syriac into the verse it will not be ܓܘܐ Since ܓܘܐ is a general word for Inside rather than a limited word to stomach or intestines

Already at the start and we have a fail

Continuing.

 @09:32 Sharif state “all Tafsiers of Quranic words that is written in thousands of Islamic books, these are nothing but attempts of imagination, they try to find a meaning that correlates with word context”
so much nonsense

Let see at the bottom of his video he stated the following

Translation:

Dictionaries were written at the start, especially to explain Quran, and it’s meaning are based on Tafsir scholars opinion.

let’s unpack it, Sharif state dictionaries where written at the start (what start? What date? What evidence do you have? Sharif cites no evidence at all) especially to explain quran (citation needed), and it’s meanings are based on Tafsir scholars opinion (citation needed)

The first ever dictionary that was written regarding Arabic language in history was Ma’jam Al-‘ain

Right in the 8^th century written by Khalil bin Ahmed Al-Farahidi

The first to write down Tafsir was Malik Bin Anas, and his work was not even a full Tafsir at all, but a group of collected explanations of quran, unfortunately, I can’t access it so far.

But let’s ignore this for now since it has no contribution to the topic

@09:41 “first from verse 24 sura Maryam (19) when it was talking about the pregnancy of Jesus it says {But he called her from below her, "Do not grieve; your Lord has provided beneath you a stream.} What does Sarya mean? Sarya originally means river, but here it’s not right for it to come with the meaning of river, so other people decided to make up meanings works with context, so he said Sary can mean could mean someone generous, someone, generous? You mean Isa (Jesus) this word, as usual, has no logical meaning, but it has a Syriac meaning, the word Sarya in Syriac means a legitimate son (then proceed to show a screenshot of Luxenberg insane explanation which we will refute) this word now has a logical meaning, the child says to his mother Maryam, don’t worry God has made what underneath you legitimate birth”

This has to be yet even worse attempt than the first one

There are 5 problems, yes 5 not 1 in this entire allegation

1-      The citation is out of context we need to read the previous verse to understand.

2-      “But he called her from below her, "Do not grieve; your Lord has provided beneath you a stream.” Below her will not make sense in light of pregnancy, a child is simply not below a mother, but inside her, so to make sense of the so-called claim of pregnancy the verse has to speak of what is inside Maryam to make sense with “legitimate son, or legitimate birth”

3-      The word Sarya as spelled by Luxenburg and Sharif in light of the word used ܫܪܐ this word is spelling Sharya not Sarya which in Arabic makes it شريا  rather than سريا

4-      Even If we accept the accept the word Sharya, it doesn’t mean legitimate at all

5-      The word legitimate son has a completely different word even closer to Arabic than Sarya

Let’s unpack this first

(1)   The citation is out of context

19:23
{ And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree. She said, "Oh, I wish I had died before this and was in oblivion, forgotten."}

So clearly 19:23-24 is talking about Mary shaking the palm tree for food

So 19:24 comes in and say
{But he called her from below her, "Do not grieve; your Lord has provided beneath you a stream.}

Let’s unpack it in general context, God says when she reached palm tree she started to be depressed and wished to be dead before then, so god made Jesus tell her (from inside her not below her) that don’t worry, god has provided under you a stream

Here the sentence makes perfect sense, she reached a tree, she was emotionally depressed, so god wanted to cheer her up by making a stream (of river) under her

(2)Let’s unpack this according to sharif logic

She reached a tree, she was emotionally depressed, so god made a legitimate son under her (not inside her).

Does this sentence make any sense?

(3)

Mistakingly spelling Sarya

In case you don’t know there is a variant of the Romanization of English words, according to a PDF cited by Wikipedia

Šīn (ܫܝܢ)              š (also sh)

Rēš* (ܪܝܫ)  r

Ālep̄ or ʾĀlap̄* (ܐܠܦ)     ʾ or nothing mater lectionis: ā

So let’s insert the word ܫܪܐ

(4)

Based on above academic Transliteration it will be spelled: Shrā

Ā means a long spelled A, rather than a short photonic a similar to how when spelling Abbas, simply because the last a takes more time to spell that first one we in transliteration distinguish it with a strike over it like Ā, the proper meaning or Sharia is Separation or divorce 
source:
Isho Bar Ali:The Syriac Arabic Glosses, Vol.2, P455.
Hassano Bar Bahlule: Lexicon Syriacum,Vol.2, P211

The proper word for Sarya is

ܣܪܝ

Or

ܣܪܝ ܐ

So what do ܣܪܝ ܐ means? It means fetid which means smelling extremely unpleasant.

This is even getting worse

So let us place it under the logic of Sharif

Jesus replies and says don’t worry god has made under you a bad smell?
I am sorry but it doesn’t matter how much you like sharif, this is indefensible at best, how does this logic work? Don’t worry god made under you an unpleasant smell?

The quran (astakhfir allah) has to be joking for this to make sense.

I simply used the same exact website that Sharif and his fans use to translate Syriac

http://www.syriacstudiesdic.com/words.php?searchbox=%DC%A3%DC%AA%DC%9D%DC%90+&option=1

Interestingly he cites give another meaning called Dishonored, which is complete contradiction to the meaning Sharif uses

Let’s leave all this embarrassment aside, I was actually at lost for words when I was examining it, I paused at how insane Sharif logic sound now

But going back to the proper word Sharya

The word used by sharif give us 10 meanings to this word

(to loosen, to dissolve, liquefy, to unload, to break, infringe, terminate, destroy, abolish, solve, to gratify, to open, to free, to remove, dismiss, repudiate, to pause, encamp, rest, to dwell, to break up (meeting))[41]

Put any of the above 10 meanings on the verse, does any of them make sense?

Never mind let us see what the proper word is for legitimate son

There is no actual word in Syriac for Legitimate son; however, there is the opposite, and illegitimate son ܒܝܪ ܙܝܢܝܘܝܬܝܝܐ

(5)

The proper Syriac word for legitimate son is ܒܰܪ ܚܝܠܝܠܝܐ (bar Hylylya) Ibn Halal

Notice how Hylylya is close to Halal (legitimate) in Arabic

Therefore, the proper word to place according to Luxenberg if done correctly is bar Hylylya ܒܰܪ ܚܝܠܝܠܝܐ not Sarya of Syriac meaning bad smell.

I am honestly now at lost for words; Sharif is By far worse than TMA

@10:37 Sharif Cites “ Sura Yusif verse 88 { So when they entered upon Joseph, they said, "O 'Azeez, adversity has touched us and our family, and we have come with goods poor in quality, but give us full measure and be charitable to us. Indeed, Allah rewards the charitable."} Muzja? What does Muzja mean? A word has no meaning in Arabic language (displaying several screenshots with no citation of tafsirs for the word) so some of them loved to explain it and said it could mean a bad fruit, but this is also a wrong meaning, what does it mean when they enter to the king they say we have a bad fruit so give us money, it has no meaning, so what we will do is we filter the word and bring it back to it’s raw origin and try and see maybe we will see a new word, it will be Marjiah, this word is a Syriac word, meaning freesh or wet fruit, here it made sense so they said O 'Azeez, adversity has touched us and our family, and we have come with goods that are fresh ”

Let’s refute this shall we?

The word given by sharif and Luxenberg is Marjiah

ܡܪܓܝܬܐ

This word is not Spelled as Marjiah, but Marjytā (even Luxenberg point this out)

If we apply this feminine word it will be spelled Marjyta rather than Marjya مرجيتة in contrast to مرجية already we have a false placement
Luxenberg gives the wordܪܓܝ as to moist or to refresh

However, is that true? Is ܪܓܝ means to moist or refresh and is ܡܪܓܝܬܐ feminine of moist?

The problem here is that the word ܪܓܝ does not mean moist or fresh, but caused moist

Now what about the feminine word ܡܪܓܝܬܐ feminine directive of ܪܓܝ problem is this does not mean moist in feminine

   ܛܠܘܼܠܵܢܵܐ : dewy , of or pertaing to dew, resembling or consisting in dew, moist with dew; feminine: ܛܠܘܼܠܵܢܬܵܐ ;[42] (Tlwܼylܵyntܵya )

 ܚܲܕ݇ܝܬܵܐ feminine of ܚܕ݇ܝܼܵܐ : new, recent, fresh ;[43] (Hܲyd݇yytܵya )

ܚܕܲܬܵܐ feminine of ܚܲܕ݇ܬ݂ܵܐ [44] (Hdܲytܵya)

Does Sharif Own Source confirm that ܡܪܓܝܬܐ means moist?

Looking at his own website ܡܪܓܝܬܐ doesn’t provide any meaning for it, so we can easily confirm it’s baseless[45]

Lexilogos provide the most comprehensive search for Syriac words out there

Now finally we have something feminine as clues to fruit as possible:

ܡܹܐܪܝܼܬܵܐ fresh grape juice, the must , the juice of the grape (or other fruit) before fermentation ;[46] (mܹyaryܼytܵya)

As you can see from above 4 possible words we have found, they are in no way close to Mazjiah at all

There is one problem here, Moist here is not feminine, it’s masculine.
the biggest problem is that even if we use Sharif own website,ܡܪܓܝܬܐ doesn’t yeal any result at all[47]

So we are left with no opinion other than to say he made up that meaning out of thin air

Let’s see the first one Rjyā the second is Rgeā provided by the website Sharif use

Moist simply means wetted and not dry, it does not mean automatically means fresh by any measure of imagination

A fruit that contains moist product doesn’t necessarily make it fresh, they could be crushed on shipment or could be infected with spores

So the proper word here is fresh, what does fresh means in Syriac

To give a more proper meaning to moist (since moist in general above can include moist skin) we need to limit it to what is regarded for a product ܛܝܪܘܝܢܝܐ Tyrwynya

@11:31 sharif says “if we wished to mention all Syriac words in quran we will never finish, there are special books written for this subject to debunk every word in quran that are Syriac, the names of all religious people are written in Syriac spelling”

Let’s see these books:

Arthur Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an

Virgins? What Virgins and other Essays by ibn warraq

(cites Arthur Jeffery previous book again)

Syro aramic readings of the quran by Luxnburg (we already refuted that)

Christmas in the Koran: Luxenberg, Syriac, and the Near Eastern and Judeo-Christian Background of Islam By Ibn Warraq

The Quran misinterpreted, mistranslated, and misread the aramic language of the quran by Gabrial Sawma

So what we have here are 4 books, Luxenberg was already reviewed

answering islam provided an article with a full list of words that Jeffry believes to be foreign in origins[48]

the problem here is that Sharif argues that the Quran was Syriac in origins, Arthur Jeffery at no point in his book (which I have) make any of this claim

“Centering on the pioneering work of Christoph Luxenberg, this anthology of scholarly yet accessible studies of the Koran makes a convincing case that Islam's holy book borrowed heavily from Christian texts in Syriac and other Near Eastern sources.”[49]

“Finally, Abu ‘Ubayd (d. 224/838 AH), argued that words of foreign origin are to be found in the Quran but they had been incorporated into Arabic well before the revelation of the Quran and are thus to be considered Arabic. Furthermore, the nature of the Arabic usage of such words is superior to their usage as found in other languages.”[50]

Further, Sharif will use these books and we will see ibn warraq main source for such gibberish

Since we already dismissed Luxenberg as a fraud, any work that centers itself on him is automatically rejected.

But there is one figure that Gabrial Sawma and Ibn Warraq Rely on other than Luxenberg , we will come across it and refute it for a Fraud that he is, possibly in part 2 of this article, ones that figure is down, all these books fall apart aswell.

End of Part-1

In conclusion, sharif used 4 sources regarding the alleged Arius proclamation of Jesus humanity and prophethood, we dispelled that using his own sources, then proceeded to make false unhistorical assumptions on the Quran, we refuted that aswell, and proceeded to cite a failed hypothesis regarding Syriac Origin of Quran, we refuted several words he cited (and will continue on the next part of the refutation but this article is already getting large enough)

So far so much embarrassment in first 11 minutes I can’t grasp how he got away with all this

In the meantime share this with everyone and expect a continued refutation.

---

[1] When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity During the Last Days of Rome by Richard E. Rubenstein page.57

[2] The Great Athanasius: An Introduction to His Life and Work By John R. Tyson page.102

[3] http://coptcatholic.net/p6658/

[4] http://www.alkalema.net/sharia/sharia14.htm

[5] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Elkesaites

[6] Introduction to the History of Christianity Tim Dowley page.187–188.

[7] http://www.josephzeitoun.com/2008/12/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%B5%D9%88%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B4%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A/

[8] http://ccdl.libraries.claremont.edu/cdm/ref/collection/cce/id/768

[9] The Qur'an and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions By Emran El-Badawi page.30

[10] The Qur'an and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions By Emran El-Badawi Page.33

[11] W. B. Lockwood, Vernacular Scriptures in Germany and the Low Countries before 1500, in The Cambridge History of the Bible, ed. G.W.H. Lampe,Cambridge University Press, 1969, p. 429.

[12] The Qur'an and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions By Emran El-Badawi page.11

[13] Ibid.13

[14] Ibid.37

[15] Volkssprache und Schriftsprache im alten Arabien, Karl Vollers page.185–195.

[16] Ibn Kathir

[17] Tafsir ibn Kathir

[18] Tafsir Tabari

[19] Tafsir Tabari

[20] Tafsir Ibn Kathir

[21] Jami’ Ahkam Al-quran Imam Qurtubi

[22] https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D8%A3%D9%8E%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%8E%D8%AF%D9%8E/?c=%D9%84%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D8%B1%D8%A8

[23] Majmu’ alfataw vol.12 page.page.261

[24] Tafsir Bagawi vol.5 page.44

[25] https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D8%B9%D8%AC%D9%85/

[26] Muhammad Mustafa Al-Azami, History of the Quranic Text from Revelation to Compellation, a comparative study with old and new testament, page.135-139

[27] Simon Hopkins. Jeruselem studies in arabic and islam page.380

[28] Ibid.377

[29] King, Daniel (2009). "A Christian Qur'ān? A Study in the Syriac background to the language of the Qur'ān as presented in the work of Christoph Luxenberg". Journal for Late Antique Religion and Culture. 3: 71

[30] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran#cite_note-11

[31] "Qur'an and History - A Disputed Relationship. Some Reflections on Qur'anic History and History in the Qur'an" Vol.5, Issue I, page.1-18

[32] Walid Saleh, The Etymological Fallacy and Quranic Studies: Muhammad, Paradise, and Late Antiquity in: The Qur’an in Context, ed. Angelika Neuwirth, Brill (2011).

[33] ibid

[34] What do we actually know about Mohammed? Patricia Crone.

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

[36] Tafsir Tabari vol.12 page.203

[37] https://www.almaany.com/ar/dict/ar-ar/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%8A%D8%A7/

[38] Al-Hashia dasuqi vol.2

[39] https://glosbe.com/syc/en/%DC%93%DC%B0%DC%98%DC%B0%DC%9D%DC%B0

[40] http://dukhrana.com/lexicon/search.php

[41] http://www.syriacstudiesdic.com/words.php?searchbox=%DC%AB%DC%AA%DC%90&option=1

[42] http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/sureth/dosearch.php

[43] ibid

[44] http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/sureth/dosearch.php?searchkey=21582&language=id

[45] http://www.syriacstudiesdic.com/words.php?searchbox=%DC%A1%DC%AA%DC%93%DC%9D%DC%AC%DC%90&option=1

[46] http://www.assyrianlanguages.org/sureth/dosearch.php?searchkey=6964&language=id

[47] http://www.syriacstudiesdic.com/words.php?searchbox=%DC%A1%DC%AA%DC%93%DC%9D%DC%AC%DC%90&option=1

[48] http://answering-islam.org/Books/Jeffery/Vocabulary/index.htm

[49] https://books.google.iq/books/about/Christmas_in_the_Koran.html?id=-wm9ngEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

[50] Encyclopedia of the Quran, vol 2, p.230