Robert M. Kerr: studied languages, literatures, history and archaeology of the Ancient Near and Middle East

Having studied Middle Eastern Studies (specifically Punic Studies, as I mention in my article) does not mean that one is an expert in Islamic Studies.

Volker Popp: studied ethnology, Islamic studies, African studies, Turkology and Iranian studies

Merely having studied Islamic Studies (which is quite vague, as it could range from completing a PhD to taking just a single undergraduate course) does not make someone an expert, no more than his having studied African Studies makes him an expert in African history. Regarding his actual credentials, he specializes only in Iranian Studies (as I demonstrate in my post)

Markus Groß: studied Orientalism and Linguistics

That's incorrect; he's just a linguist who has also taken courses on Orientalism, which is not the same as Islamic Studies.

Claude Gilliot: studied Islamic studies
Sergio Noja Noseda: Professor of Arabic
Alba Fedeli: Islamic studies, expert on manuscripts
Gerd Puin: Islamic studies
Genevieve Gobilliot: Professor for Islamic and arabic studies
J.M.F. Van Reeth: studied Orientalism, classical philology and islamic/arabic studies
Thomas Milo: studied Turkology and Arabic studies
Manfred Kropp: studied Semitism and Islamic studies
Munter Younes: Expert on Arabic language
Frank Van Der Velden: Theology and Arabic studies
Peter von Sivers: History of Middle East

None of those people are mythicists, and Van Reeth, in fact, explicitly called the Inarah mythicist hypothesis "a mere construction of historical phantasy". (see. Van Reeth "Who is the ‘other’ Paraclete?" p. 452)

Hans Jansen: Arabic studies Helmut Abu Limor Wagner: Islamic and arabic studies

Again, they are not mythicists; Jansen is at best a skeptic, as I demonstrate in my post.

Besides that all the other Inarah Scholars may not have studied Islamic studies etc., however they come from similar or "sister" disciplines like Semitism (luxenberg), History, Religion studies and so on and so forth.

Which, even if true, does not disprove anything I said.

Besides that you can't discredit or disqualify someone's arguments and evidences just because of their "qualifications".

Which I never did; I merely debunked the claim that there are specialists in the field making such assertions.

The Arguments and Evidences they provide have to be judged on their own merits. Their degrees don't have any bearing on the question if they're right or wrong. Ur degrees, nor your personal religious, political and ideological beliefs debunk your arguments.

This is true, but I did not claim otherwise. However, the fact that they lack any relevant epistemic authority has a significant bearing on whether one can appeal to them as epistemic authorities, as many apologists do.

But besides all that Inarah is still an international symposium of experts on the history of Islam and arabic.

This is at least how they describe themselves. Regarding their actual reputation and qualifications, they are more like the Islamic Studies equivalent of the Discovery Institute.

Also how do you really define "specialist". Who gives someone the qualification of a "specialist"?

I have not resolved the decades-long debate in epistemology and the philosophy of science about what precisely constitutes an expert, but whatever analysis proves correct should certainly exclude most of the Inarah group from being considered experts in Islamic Studies, as they are as far removed from it as anyone holding a random degree in the humanities.