(71) Nor is the law itself reasonable on its own part . Both because it contains shameful and shameful words, especially pertaining to carnality; for in many places it uses the most shameful word " futuo , futis" ^[1] , which no other law does. Which word is rarely used even by poets who have treated shameful and carnal matters ; nor do I recall finding among poets anything except that Oratius shamelessly says: "Nor metuo dum futuo" ^[2] . Also because, as he himself expressly says, "There is no man in the world who understands the Koran" ^[3] . And how did God command that it be observed, if he did not give it to be understood? ^[4]

(80) It is not reasonable from the point of view of the evidence it contains. For it says in many places that God commanded the angels to adore Adam; and those who would not became demons, those who adored remained angels. And how could God have commanded idolatry, and given to others the honor which is due to God alone?

(85) It is also not reasonable on the part of the documents ^[5] . For that which is most and only necessary in that law, as they say, is that they pronounce " There is no God but God and Muhammad is the messenger of God" ^[6] ; they also add that "God is great" [cf. Ps . 95,4]. But what announcement is this? For no one using reason says that God is small. Furthermore, this "There is no God but God" is true per se, and is contradicted by no one, whether there is one God or even if there were many gods. Such a replication is also most true of all, because "there is no angel but an angel", "there is no man but a man", "there is no donkey but a donkey" because an ox and a dog are not donkeys. But this "and Muhammad is the messenger of God" is very doubtful. What then is the reason for the conjunction of one proposition known per se and another unknown per se? ^[7] Or what virtue or utility is there in confessing this, that whoever confesses this is necessarily saved?

(98) Furthermore, Muhammad says in the aforementioned law that all men were one and one sect and one rite, but God diversified them | 197r | by sending diverse prophets. But this does not seem to imply that God, who is most one and most loves the unity and salvation of man, had not diversified them through such diverse sects and errors and perditions; but this was done by the envy of the devil and the malice of men, by God's permission, however, so that because they did not want to believe the truth, He would allow them to be subject to diverse errors.

(105) Furthermore, Mohammed commands in the aforementioned law, as if from the mouth of God, that unbelievers, that is, those who are not Muslims, should be killed; although he nevertheless says of them that they can never be guided except by God, and that God does not guide them. But it is inappropriate that they should be killed because they can in no way do otherwise; since even if they could do otherwise, they should not be forced, because “God does not like forced servitude” ^[8] . But this, namely that they should be killed unless they believe or are somehow compelled to believe, even Mohammed himself, who is precipitous, judges to be unreasonable and inappropriate. For he says in the chapter on Jonah : “If God had willed, all who are on earth would have believed. And do you compel men to believe? And no one can be faithful unless God grants it to him.”

But we will continue more fully on this below in the tenth chapter.

(116) The law itself is also unreasonable about those things about which it treats . For it makes a special chapter about the Ant , and another chapter about the Spider , and another about Smoke . But why would God have commanded such things to men about the Ant and the Smoke?

(119) He also says that God will not forever spare a Saracen who shows his back to the enemy, etc. But what is the sin of a man fleeing in war if he sees himself in danger? But Maccometto wanted to make them warlike and daring ^[9] .

(123) Furthermore, the law itself is unreasonable about the lotion it commands. For it prescribes that when they wish to pray, they should wash their hands and face and neck and groin and soles of their feet and arms up to the elbow. But if they cannot find water, they should dip their hands in dust and then, rubbing their dusty hands over their faces, they should powder their faces well ^[10] . And indeed, lotion is reasonable, and it would be more reasonable that the heart be washed according to Jeremiah 4:11, “Wash your heart from evil.” But what reason can there be for powdering the face? Rather than lotion being reasonable, powdering and embalming are so much more inappropriate and unreasonable.

(132) But the law itself seems most unreasonable regarding the way of repudiating a wife. For a Saracen can repudiate and reconcile his wife as often as he pleases or displeases. However, after the third repudiation he cannot reconcile her, | 197v | unless another person knows her carnally without her menses; and if he has also known her with her penis not well erect, it is further necessary that he know her with her member well moistened ^[11] . Hence when they wish to effect such a reconciliation, they give a price to a blind man or some other cheap person to know the woman, and afterwards to testify publicly and say that he wishes to repudiate her; and if he does so, the first can reconcile her to himself. Sometimes, however, the latter are only pleased with themselves, because they say that they do not wish to be separated, and then the first, having lost the price and the wife, is frustrated in his hopes. Oh law, not to be attributed so much to men as to beasts who lack reason, and not to God, who disposes of all things rationally ^[12] .

(145) But the law itself is most unreasonable in terms of the end and reward it promises. For it says throughout the Quran that the happiness of the Muslims will be to have well-watered fields, many wives and concubines, modest and beautiful girls, purple clothes, gold and silver cups running around the tables, and the best food. These are listed in particular in the chapter Elrahhman , which is interpreted as "the Merciful".

(150) In thebook De Doctrina Mahometi , which is of great authority, he explains the order of the meals, and says that the first dish that will be set out there will be the liver of the white fish , a highly delicious food, and afterwards the fruits of the trees will follow . ^[13] And later, in the same chapter, when they complained to him if they would indulge in luxury, he replied that there would be no happiness if some pleasure were lacking there, indeed all would be in vain unless the pleasure of luxury also followed . ^[14]

(158) But the whole intention of the Koran, and of the whole sect of the Saracens, is that happiness consists chiefly in the act of gluttony and luxury; and this he does not say as if by simile or example, as also in Holy Scripture mention is made of food and table in the blessed life. For of true happiness, as of the vision of God and the perfection of the soul, Mohammed makes no mention at all ^[15] , because he neither desired nor apprehended it; for he promised only that which he desired.

(165) For in this he most openly shows himself to be contrary to Christ and to all the prophets, all the philosophers and all those who use reason, who all agree in common | 198r | that the ultimate happiness of man is in the knowledge of God, according to that which is said in John : «This is eternal life, that they may know thee only true God» ^[16] etc. And Aristotle says in X Ethics and in XII Metaphysics that the life which is according to the intellect is the best ^[17] . Therefore a gluttonous and luxurious life is the worst because it hinders the good of the intellect.