(172) But because the Muslims themselves do not accept the authority of sacred Scripture or even of the philosophers for the reasons given above in the first chapter, we must resort to reason, which they - although irrational - cannot completely deny ^[1] . Therefore, let reason be the authority, without which authority is of no avail. And it must be shown that neither in the act of greed nor in the act of luxury will the happiness of men be ^[2] , nor will these also be there .

(179) For it is clear that we take food for this purpose, that the corruption which might occur from the consumption of natural moisture may be avoided, and also for growth. But these two will not be there; for all will rise again in due quantity, and they will no longer be able to die or fail in any way ^[3] . For, as Mohammed says in his Doctrine , after all have died, God will kill death, and afterwards they will rise again immortally and whole ^[4] . Therefore the taking of food will not be necessary in any way; and in the same way neither will the use of venereal things, because it is not necessary even now except that what cannot be preserved in the species may be preserved.
Furthermore: men rising again will live forever; therefore if they always use food, their bodies will increase to infinity, or there will be wastes and other stenches so that only as much as is converted is resolved; both of which are inconvenient ^[5] .

(190) To this Muhammad responds in his book on his Doctrine, saying that there will not be a removal of dirt there, but a purification by sweat. And he gives the example of a child in the mother's womb, who, as he says, is nourished and does not work ^[6] . But his example and reasoning solve nothing, as is clear to the observer. For there are some things about the perfection of the imperfect which would be great imperfections in a perfect thing.

(196) Further. «If the use of sexual things will be there, unless it is in vain, it would follow that then there will also be the generation of men as now. Therefore there will be many men after the resurrection who did not exist before the resurrection. Therefore in vain is the resurrection of the dead postponed so that all at once | 198v | may receive life who have the same nature» ^[7] .

(201) Furthermore, if happiness lies in luxuriating and having many wives, those who will be born after the resurrection will not be able to be happy unless they take many wives. But they will be able to take neither miserable nor happy ones, therefore it will be necessary for them to wait until many others are born. And thus it will be necessary for many women to be born and few men, and thus in a short time there will be a kingdom of women.

(207) Furthermore. «If after the resurrection there will be a generation of men, then either those who will be generated will be corrupted again or they will be incorruptible and immortal. But if they will not be corruptible, incongruities will follow» ^[8] , both because there will be an infinite multiplication, and also because those whose generation will be similar will not have a similar term of generation; for men through generation which is from seed, now indeed attain corruptible life, but then immortal ^[9] .

(213) And furthermore, everything that can be generated <is> corruptible, since generation and corruption are contrary and about the same ^[10] . But if the men who will then be born will be corruptible and will die, if they do not rise again, it follows that their souls will forever remain separated from their bodies; which is inconvenient, since they are of the same species as the souls of men who rise again. But if they also rise again, their resurrection should also have been expected from others, so that at the same time all who share in nature may be conferred the benefit of resurrection.

(221) Moreover, Muhammad himself posits only one day of resurrection and one resurrection, namely, at the end of the world on the day of judgment . ^[11] But he makes no mention at all of their resurrection or generation. Furthermore, there does not seem to be any reason why some should expect to rise together if not all are expected.

(226) «But if anyone says that in those who rise again there will be the use of food and sexual intercourse, not for the sake of the preservation or increase of the body nor for the sake of the preservation of the species or the multiplication of men, but only for the sake of the pleasure which exists in those acts, so that some pleasure may not be lacking to men in the final reward» ^[12] - (as Muhammad expressly says in his book on his Doctrine ) ^[13] -, it is clear indeed that this is said inappropriately in many ways.

(233) «First of all, because the life of those who rise again will be more orderly than the present life. But in this | 199r | life it is disordered and vicious if someone uses food and sexual pleasures for the sole pleasure and not for the necessity of sustaining [ thus ] the body or procreating offspring. And this reasonably. For the pleasures that are in the aforementioned actions are not the ends of the actions but rather the reverse. For nature has ordered the pleasures in these acts so that animals may not, because of labor, desist from these acts necessary to nature; which would happen unless they were provoked by pleasure. Therefore, it is an improper and indecent order if these operations are performed for the sole pleasures. Therefore, this will in no way be the case in those who rise again, whose life is considered to be most orderly» ^[14] . Therefore, there will be no use of such actions in future happiness. Much less will there be future happiness in such people; otherwise, however, what would prevent brute animals from being happy, which they communicate with us in the aforementioned acts? ^[15]

(247) Furthermore, if in these acts the ultimate happiness of man will be, as Mohammed seems to expressly say, why then should we abstain from these and not rather indulge in luxury and eat day and night so that we may be happy here also? But among all men, even among the Saracens, it is considered more virtuous to abstain from these; and they also have contemplative and continent men whom they praise most ^[16] .

(253) But since perhaps it is foolishness to speak very rationally with a man who is completely devoid of reason, let us be permitted to act foolishly with them and say:

If man's ultimate happiness lies in these acts, what will the separated soul do before the resurrection, which can neither eat nor indulge in luxury? Nor can even angels ever be happy, because they are completely devoid of these.

(257) Furthermore, if the ultimate happiness of men lies in having many wives and an infinite number of concubines and young women, how can women ever be happy unless they have many husbands? But again, how can a man be happy whose wife has many other husbands? Therefore, either the woman will be happy and the men unhappy, or the man will be happy and the women and his young woman miserable. But how can he be happy whose entire family is miserable and unhappy? It is more reasonable, therefore, to say that all, both the men and their women, will be unhappy and miserable.

(266) These things said here, as if by way of digression , suffice to show that this law is irrational on the part of the end and the reward that it promises.

(268) It is also unreasonable on the part of many other things contained therein, as there | 199v | it is frequently suggested that God swears “by the faithful city” and that God swears “by the fig tree and the olive grove”, as is expressly stated in the chapter Eltym , which is interpreted “fig tree”. For men swear by something greater than themselves, as by God or by the saints. But God, because he has no greater by whom he can swear, is accustomed to swear by himself, as he himself said to Abraham, as is found in Gen . But that he swears “by the fig tree and the olive grove”, seems altogether frivolous and unreasonable ^[17] .

(276) Likewise, he forbids wine universally because drunkenness must be avoided, as he says in several places. But since wine is not in itself simply evil, it was sufficient to avoid drunkenness alone. But in this too he seems to have suspected all the Saracens that none of them could or would use wine temperately or soberly. Hence his prohibition necessarily compels him to say either that wine is universally evil or that the Saracens are generally intemperate.