—for Luqman lived in the time of David. Now, if this is what those investigators, the theologians and the philosophers, maintain, then a mere rupture of the natural order, in their judgement, does not in itself entail prophethood so as to serve as an independent proof; it must be accompanied by the Prophet’s public challenge and by the absence of any matching counter-performance.

Accordingly, when a group among them—such as Abu al-Hasan and his followers—differed over the question, “May an extraordinary act (khāriq) occur at the hands of a liar?”, one opinion was: “No, it may not, because it is the emblem of prophethood; therefore its signification cannot be severed from it, just like any other proof.” A second opinion held: “It is conceivable, yet Allah does not in fact bring it about.”

Then it was argued: “Allowing it would amount to His being unable to verify the Messenger, for, according to them, the only path to verification is the miracle.” Others replied: “On the contrary, it is within His power and possible, but we know with certainty that He does not do it—just as there are many things that are possible in the normal course of events, yet we know Allah does not do them.” And all who tried to combine the two statements said: “The totality of what points to prophethood—namely a supernatural act that remains unchallenged—can never belong to anyone but a prophet, unlike the broader category of extraordinary events.”

It was therefore said to him: “This impossibility is either customary, or it is because it would entail Allah’s inability to confirm the Prophet—and that is impossible. Thus, if it is impossible because it entails such inability—and that is indeed impossible—then it is impossible on account of entailing something impossible; and whenever the escape…"