“the Son” and “the Holy Spirit,” and still another portion is lifted from the language of the idolatrous philosophers who deny the attributes, as in their dictum: “jawharun lā taqūmu bihi al-ṣifāt (a substance to which no attributes attach).”

What makes this even clearer is that most Christian scholars—let alone the ordinary believers—do not know which rulings of the Torah Christ abrogated and which he confirmed, despite their agreement that he neither annulled the Law wholesale nor ratified it wholesale. Rather, he told them that he had come to complete it, not to abolish it, and he made lawful some of what it had forbidden, such as working on the Sabbath.

It is obvious that the purpose of the messengers is that they be believed in what they report and obeyed in what they command. If, then, the majority of Christians cannot distinguish what he actually enjoined upon them from what he did not enjoin, nor what he forbade them from what he did not forbid—while admitting that he upheld much, indeed most, of the Mosaic Law, and that he permitted some of it, thereby abrogating and lifting it, yet they cannot tell one from the other—they have no real knowledge of what Christ brought, nor of what God commanded them through Moses and the other Prophets. They are not allowed to act on everything in the Torah, for Christ abrogated part of it, as they themselves concede and as the Muslims agree.

Nor may they discard the entire Law; rather, they are obliged to observe whatever Christ did not abrogate, while most of them do not know what he abrogated from what