says that there is no means other than that must provide evidence for his claim, (1) for one who negates must offer evidence just as one who affirms must offer evidence. (2) Yet he has cited no evidence for this negation.

Third, it may be said: We do not concede that a miracle’s indication of truthfulness depends upon its being impossible for Him to do what has been mentioned. Rather, a miracle’s (3) indication of truthfulness is immediate and requires no deliberation. The conjunction of a miracle (4) with a claim to prophethood necessarily produces knowledge that Allah manifested it to attest to the claimant’s truthfulness. This is like someone saying to a king, “If you have sent me to these people, then break with your customary practice by standing up and sitting down three times.” If the king did so, it would necessarily be known that he had done so to attest to that person’s truthfulness.

Fourth, there is the argument of those who say (5): If a miracle (6) did not indicate truthfulness, it would follow that the Creator was incapable of attesting to the truthfulness of His Messenger. Incapacity is impossible for Him, because there is no means of such attestation except through a miracle. This is the approach of many followers of al-Ashʿarī and those who agree with them, including Judge Abū Bakr, Judge Abū Yaʿlā, and others. The preceding approach is likewise adopted by many of them; it is the approach of Abū al-Maʿālī and his followers. Both are approaches of al-Ashʿarī. (7) Accordingly, there are two positions on whether manifesting a miracle (8) at the hands of a liar who claims prophethood is possible and within His power.

Fifth, it may be said: His assertion that this depends upon the premise that everyone whom