and we now state that it is impermissible for them to cite the words of any prophet or messenger as proof for the soundness of their religion. Those who invoke the statements of Moses, David, the Messiah, or others fall into one of three situations: either they have recognised these figures as prophets by means of some evidence—such as the signs and demonstrations called muʿjizāt (miracles); or they have accepted their prophethood without knowledge or proof; or they employ those statements only when disputing with Muslims, knowing that Muslims already acknowledge the prophethood of those men. In every case, their appeal to these prophets’ words is invalid.
As for the first possibility: whatever method establishes the prophethood of any one of those prophets—peace be upon them—establishes the prophethood of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, by the very same method and even more compellingly. Thus, if they refuse to affirm Muhammad’s prophethood, although every proof that attests to the missions of Moses, David, Jesus, and the rest likewise attests to his, they have undermined their own evidence, keeping the proof while denying its referent. Once a proof is nullified, its probative force expires, for it functions as evidence only when it necessarily entails the conclusion.
If a purported proof is accompanied by the conclusion at one time and absent from it at another, it clearly does not entail that conclusion and therefore cannot be considered evidence.
Accordingly, whoever takes miracles as proof of a prophet’s mission—defining a miracle as “an extraordinary act, presented as a challenge and immune to counteraction,” and similar descriptions—and then employs that definition to establish the prophethood of Moses, Jesus, or any other prophet, must be told: If this is indeed a proof, then it also proves the prophethood of Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him; and if it is not a proof, then it proves nothing about the prophethood of Moses