This is like a case in which a group of witnesses testify to the truth, the opponent endorses them and says, “All of these are upright, trustworthy witnesses.” Then another witness (1) comes forward with identical testimony, and the opponent declares, “This testimony is invalid—sheer fabrication without the slightest basis.” That is, without doubt, a rejection of the testimony of all the witnesses. His admission that their testimony is sound and true does not spare him from the charge of denying them when, at the same time (2), he claims that the one who related it is lying about what he testified to.

Just as, had Muhammad—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—not appeared, the prophethoods of those before him would have been nullified, so too (3), if he is not believed it becomes impossible to believe in any prophet who preceded him.

Third perspective: the signs and proofs that establish the soundness of his prophethood and his veracity are many, many times greater than the signs (4) granted to the messengers before him. There is no prophet who possessed a sign that compelled belief in him except that Muhammad—peace and blessings be upon him—possessed the same sign or one equal to it in evidentiary force. Even when the sign is of a different kind, the signs of his prophethood are grander, more magnificent, more dazzling, and more conclusive. Knowledge of their transmission is decisive, owing to the nearness of the time-span, the sheer number of transmitters, the diversity of their lands and centuries, and the impossibility of their conspiring to lie.

Knowledge of the signs of his prophethood is therefore like knowledge of his very existence, his emergence, and his city. Contesting any of this is impossible; whoever does so displays the height of brazenness and blatant denial—like someone who rejects the existence of a country that people constantly behold simply because he himself has not seen it (6).