doubt (1). If it were permissible to impugn that which is supported by stronger evidence and against which the grounds for doubt are further removed from the truth, then there would be even more reason to impugn that which is lesser. Conversely, if impugning Christ is invalid, then impugning Muhammad is even more certainly invalid. For if a stronger objection proves invalid, a weaker one is even more surely invalid; and if a proof is established despite another being stronger than it, then the stronger proof is all the more firmly established.

(2 For this reason, many Muslim debates with Christians proceeded along these lines, as in the well-known account of Judge Abū Bakr ibn al-Tayyib 2) (2), when the Muslims sent him to the Christian king in Constantinople. The Muslims held him in high esteem, and the Christians recognized (3) his stature. They feared that, upon entering, he would not prostrate himself before the king, so they made him enter through a low doorway in order to force him to stoop. He perceived their scheme and entered backward (4), presenting his backside to them, thus doing the very opposite of what they intended.

After he had taken his seat and they had spoken with him, one of them sought to impugn the Muslims and asked him, “What was said about Aisha, the wife of your Prophet?” He meant to bring up the slanderous allegation that [whoever among] the Rāfidis voices it also makes (5).

The judge replied, “Two women were impugned and falsely accused of adultery (6): Mary and Aisha. Mary came carrying a child despite having no husband, whereas Aisha bore no child despite the fact (7) that she had a husband.” The Christians were left dumbfounded.