they spoke to us face to face. Even if they were scholars among the people of the two Scriptures, their statements would not be accepted. How much less, then, when they are Sabians who distort religious teachings and speak about divine matters in ways contrary to what the messengers brought, peace be upon them? Their alterations and distortions far exceed those of the people of the two Scriptures. How, then, can an unsupported statement be accepted when it is not found in their books but is merely attributed to them in general terms?

The fourth point is that all rational people familiar with the discussions of Aristotle and his followers concerning divine matters know that they are among those with the least knowledge of such matters and the greatest confusion and error. His discussions and those of his followers concerning calculation, numbers, and similar mathematical subjects are like those of other people: mistakes in these subjects are few and rare. Their discussions of natural science fall below that standard: most are sound, but they contain falsehood. As for their discussions of divine matters, they are utterly confused, despite their scarcity. They are like the meat of an emaciated camel atop a rugged mountain: neither is the mountain easy enough to climb, nor is the meat fat enough to be worth carrying away.