For this reason, even those who agree that the only admissible route is through miracles diverge over how such miracles establish the claim. One faction adopts a particular angle and rejects every other line of reasoning, while another does the opposite. Thus, when they argue, “Anything short of a breach of the natural order is not unique to a prophet, and therefore cannot prove his prophethood,” they are told:

“Proof is that which necessarily entails the conclusion; once the proof is realized, the conclusion must follow. The expression ‘breach of the natural order’ is, as noted earlier, too vague. In fact, God’s very act of informing the Prophet, choosing him for His message, and enabling him to receive revelation from the angel is itself an extraordinary event—one of the miracles with which God has rendered creation incapable of doing the like, and it is exclusive to the prophets. This quality is nobler and greater in rank than any other marvel. Whatever entails this extraordinary event must itself be extraordinary, and that is the true evidence: the establishment of the antecedent entails the establishment of the consequent, and the negation of the consequent entails the negation of the antecedent. What occurs habitually without prophethood can never serve as proof.

Conversely, whatever never occurs unless prophethood is present is, by definition, a proof. It is therefore clear that every sign that demonstrates the Messenger’s truthfulness and that breaks the ordinary course of nature is an ayah and a proof of his veracity, whereas any extraordinary event that does not entail prophethood is no proof at all. Indeed, a matter may be commonplace when no prophet is involved, yet when accompanied by prophethood it becomes a breach of the natural order