M6:4346 — خصم منکر تا نشد مصداق‌خواه / کی کند قاضی تقاضای گواه

Translation: Until the denying adversary demanded proof, how would the judge ask for witnesses? Meaning: This verse asserts that irrefutable proofs and miracles manifest in response to the denial and demand for evidence from adversaries, rather than appearing spontaneously.

This verse emerges from Mowlana's larger discussion on God's 'subtle grace' (لطف خفی), where he speaks of the hidden divine wisdom in transforming error into guidance, and sin into forgiveness. Here, Mowlana employs a legal analogy to explain the wisdom behind the appearance of prophets' miracles. He posits that a miracle is akin to a witness that a judge demands only after the defendant's denial. That is to say, as long as the denying adversary does not accept the prophet's truth and does not seek an 'instance' or empirical proof, there is no need for a witness (miracle) to appear. The miracle, then, is a tool for confronting denial and ignorance.

Based on Mowlana's perspective, I hold that prophets' miracles were not primarily intended to prove the 'truthfulness' (صدق) of their claims, but rather served to 'overpower enemies' (قهر دشمنان) and silence deniers. The function of a miracle was to impose silence in the face of stubbornness and obstinacy, not to present a philosophical argument for the claim of prophethood. Prophets initially attracted people with their captivating and innate words, and the miracle was a reaction to the hostility and doubt-sowing of their adversaries.

Mowlana, in this very context, describes the witness as 'pure' (zaki), which in jurisprudence refers to a 'purified' (muzakkā) and 'just' (ʿādil) witness; meaning, the witness must be pure and trustworthy. Miracles, in this sense, are also 'pure witnesses' beyond doubt that affirm the claimant's truthfulness.

However, it is crucial to recall a point that Imam Mohammad Ghazali made in al-Munqidh min al-Ḍalāl, a point with which I resonate: a miracle cannot be proof of a claimant's truthfulness if that claimant utters something contrary to reason and self-evident truths. That is, if someone performs a grand miracle but then claims an impossibility (for instance, that 'the number three is greater than ten'), that miracle cannot serve as proof for such an illogical claim. Thus, although Mowlana in this verse considers miracles as witnesses to truth, this testimony does not imply invalidating rational principles. In Mowlana's intellectual framework, miracles are manifestations of God's infinite power that appear for specific educational and social purposes – namely, to silence enemies and to clear the path for sincere seekers of faith.

Key takeaways

• Miracles are a divine response to denial and the demand for proof from adversaries.
• The primary function of a miracle is to silence enemies and overcome obstinacy, not necessarily to offer philosophical proof of a prophet's truth.
• Mowlana likens miracles to 'pure' (zaki) and just witnesses appearing in the court of existence.
• Although miracles attest to truth, this testimony does not negate the principles of reason or self-evident truths (as Ghazali also pointed out).
• This verse is part of Mowlana's broader discourse on God's 'subtle grace' (luṭf-i khafī), illustrating how hidden wisdom can emerge from apparent adversity.