Now that is a denial like the Zios do. I thought you were a Christian.
You act like "Abu Jahil" who was a close relative of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and always asking for signs of truth even after seeing with his own times. It happened countless times until he met his end was among the people whom got wrath of God.
No need to waste my time on you.
End of discussion.
Let me quote Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos
c. "So your law cannot properly be called a "Law" any more, nor ranged with those which are established by a number of legislators. And that because the most significant articles of this new Law are older even than the legislation of Moses. Because they have an ancient origin, and it is not Mahomet who instituted them. Indeed, to demolish the making of idols, to flee polytheism, to believe in only one creator God, to receive circumcision as a sign of faith, and other similar points, Abraham established these without writing. Moses then put them in writing and promulgated them, adding to it what God, in his discussions with him, had ordered. So this more recent Law, coming later than the old one, borrowed it - this is obvious - its basis and its principles; and certainly not the older from it. How indeed the could the older one be derived from the more recent? However so much does such a condition give pre-eminence, that there is no need of a discourse to show it.
And what need I say about the basis and the principles, when what appears most perfect of all and, we might say, all of what your Law seems to consist is obviously taken from the old Law? So there is nothing new there, but the same things have been said again; or rather they have been impudently plundered. For show me anything that Mohammed instituted new: you will only find what is bad or inhuman, such as when he orders in decreeing that the belief that he preached should be advanced by the sword.
3.a. "But it is necessary, I think, to explain this point more clearly. Men on earth must experience one of three things [according to Mohammed]:
-- they must place themselves under this law
-- or pay tribute and, more, be reduced into slavery
-- or, in the absence of either, be struck without hesitation with iron.
b.
"But this is extremely absurd! Why? Because God is not pleased with blood, and to act unreasonably is foreign to God. What you say thus has stepped over the border of insanity, or almost so.
Firstly indeed, is it not very absurd to pay money and to thus buy the opportunity to lead an impious life and one contrary to the Law?
c.
"Next, faith is a fruit of the heart, not of the body. So he who intends to bring somebody to faith needs skilful language and correct thinking, not violence or threats, nor some instrument of wounding or intimidation. Because just as, when it is necessary to compel a non-reasonable nature, one would not have recourse to persuasion, in the same way to persuade a reasonable soul, one does not need to resort to force, or a whip, or any other threat of death.
d. "No one can ever claim that, if he uses violence, it is in spite of himself, because it is an order from God. Because if it was good to attack with the sword those which are complete unbelievers and that this was a law of God given from heaven -- as Mohammed claims -- it would undoubtedly be necessary to kill all those who would not embrace this Law and this preaching. He is indeed quite impious to buy piety with money. Do you think differently about this? I do not think so. How would you do it? However if that is not good, to kill is yet much worse.
e. "However if it is found that Mohammed added something to the Law of Moses, at once you call that the Law. And you are not satisfied that we allow you to talk like that, but you require that we prefer this Law to those which preceded it. In virtue of what? -- and something which it is not right even to call the Law!
f. "In fact the very thing which makes us consider it as Law, is the same thing which places this kind of Law on the opposite side (from the real law). One of the properties of the Law is that it can lay down new regulations which are agreeable to God. Yours boasts that it has
borrowed regulations. If we pruned out the older articles from it, it would be just like the jay in the fable: He borrowed feathers of every kind, then they were removed from him, and there he was, once again just a jay.
g. "If so, everyone will consider your Law — we'll call it the Law, in the meantime, to make you happy — inferior to that of the Jews. And if it is inferior to that, it is far more so to the Law of Christ, which, with your consent and the consent of all, superabundantly prevails over that of the Jews."
