Section: Refutation of their claim that Allah’s justice would forbid holding them accountable for following a man who never reached them

As for their statement, “We know that Allah is just, and it is not in keeping with His justice to demand of a nation on the Day of Resurrection that they follow a man who never came to them, from whom they received neither a book in their own language nor any emissary sent on his behalf,” the reply may be given from several angles.

First: The author of this very treatise—and anyone who understands Arabic—has no grounds for making such a claim. They themselves comprehend this book in Arabic, have read it, and have debated its contents. If, in addition, they understand other languages, the evidence against them is all the stronger, for they are able to grasp what is said in Arabic and then convey it to their own people in another tongue.

Second: Just as they understand what is written in their Roman, Syriac, Coptic, and other books and translate those works into Arabic for the Arab Christians, so too—if the argument is deemed binding upon the Arab Christians when presented in the Roman language—it is even more fitting that it be binding upon the Romans when presented in Arabic. Arabic, after all, is more widespread in the world than the Roman tongue, its speakers after the rise of Islam outnumber those of any other language, and it excels in clarity of expression and completeness of meaning.