Mubin left the same links on my post about Luxenberg as well.
One of the problems with comments is that they sometimes come in old posts, and I don't necessarily notice them.
That's why I have put a recent comments list on my blog's main page.
I've always been sympathetic to studies of Syriac influence in the Qur'an and other early Islamic literature. My own studies of early Islam started out with that angle. But I quickly found out that I wasn't going to get anywhere.
The reason is simply that I don't know when or where most Islamic literature came from. I personally think that the Dome of the Rock is sufficient witness for a pre-Marwanid date for suras 3 and 4, and that Sebeos provides that service for sura 5, but even this (conservative, grudging, and still hazy) opinion is still disputed by Nevo & Koren, let alone Wansbrough, Cook et al. And then we get to the hadith and the current sparring between Motzki and the Schachtian school.
I suspect the real work is going to be in the hadith for the next few years; if Motzki is right that we now have a non-Islamic means of verifying a hadith's authenticity.
But the study of Syriac loan words are not going to help until much more work is done, to sort out the literature via other means.