I'm simply suspicious about the sudden appearance of this “high definition” image. It could be that WND had access to it, and chose to ignore it because it didn't fit their story.
But there are other possibilities. Perhaps the WH provided the photo to “urban myths” in order to discredit the story. The story in urban myths didn't say where or from whom the photo was obtained. Color me suspicious on that account. Also, who is this person at “urban myths” to pronounce what may, or may not be an example of a highly stylized and abstract example of Arabic?
What many are choosing to ignore is the vast tradition in Islam of highly abstract renditions of written Arabic, many examples of which I've linked in earlier posts, because Islam forbids the depiction of images of the “real” world. Design and calligraphy comprise almost all of Islamic art, and words can take on highly abstract forms with many, many variations. Written Arabic adopts itself to to this kind of abstraction.
It's certainly possible that Corsi has duped me, and others, again. It's also possible that his charges are substantially correct. I want to see how WND responds to this high res photo, and if other experts corroborate or shoot down the “squiggle” as Arabic.
I can only say that to my very much non-expert eyes, the lower “squiggle” in particular could be a stylized “Allah.” The drops and loops all correspond to the examples I've linked.
Why do you need an expert? You've seen the caligraphy, and you've seen the high-res picture. Can't you tell for yourself that the upper half of the ring is simply scraped up, and the squiggles only marginally match the caligraphy as posted?
Here is the best way for you to play detective. Forget the caligraphy. Get the hi-res picture of the ring, and print it out. Then take a pencil, and some transparent paper, and sketch for yourself what lines YOU think you see. When done, compare it to the caligraphy.
You don't need to be an expert of arabic, you simply need to know how to trace.