M6:4347 — معجزه هم‌چون گواه آمد زکی / بهر صدق مدعی در بی‌شکی

Translation: The miracle came, like a pure witness, For the truth of the claimant, beyond all doubt.

Meaning: This verse articulates that prophets' miracles function as pure, unimpeachable testimonies, serving to establish the veracity of their claims without leaving any room for uncertainty.

In this verse, Mowlana casts the miracle as a gavāh-i zakī (pure witness); an unblemished testimony sent to establish the sidq-i muddaʿī (truth of the claimant), meaning the veracity of the prophets' assertions. This statement continues the theme of luṭf-i khafī (subtle divine grace) previously discussed—how God extracts good from adversity and apparent evil. Indeed, the deniers' rejection and accusations against the prophets, and even their intent to idh-lāl-i thiqāt (humiliate the trustworthy servants of God), inadvertently pave the way for the dhuhūr-i muʿjizāt (manifestation of miracles). This reflects the concept of faskh-i ʿazāʾim va naqḍ-i himam (the annulling of resolves and nullifying of intentions), as articulated by Imam Ali, meaning human intentions often bear fruit in ways unforeseen by their initiators.

I liken this to judicial proceedings where khaṣm-i munkir (the denying adversary) compels the judge to taqāḍā-yi gavāh (demand witnesses). Miracles, then, are like these pure (zakī) witnesses, sent by the Divine Judge in response to the deniers' rejections, to confirm the prophets' claims. The term zakī here implies muʿaddal va muzakkā—witnesses who are certified by a legitimate authority as righteous and trustworthy.

However, a crucial distinction must be introduced here. While Mowlana elsewhere states that muʿjizāt az bahr-i qahr-i dushman ast (miracles are for subduing the enemy)—a perfectly valid assertion—when he posits the miracle's role as bahr-i sidq-i muddaʿī (for the truth of the claimant), one must pause. The great Ghazali, whose works Mowlana himself studied, explicitly stated in his Al-Munqidh min al-Ḍalāl that a miracle nemītavānad dalīl-i ṣidq bāshad (cannot be proof of truth). If someone transforms a staff into a dragon and then claims that the number three is greater than ten, the miracle itself does not logically validate the latter assertion. A miracle demonstrates awe-inspiring power but does not necessarily confirm the logical veracity of a statement. Therefore, as an analyst, while miracles undoubtedly arise from subtle divine grace to showcase God's power in response to denial, their direct link to proving the 'truth' of a claim warrants philosophical consideration, a point Ghazali had meticulously explored. Mowlana, as a mystic, often prioritizes the existential and forceful impact of a miracle over its logical argumentative power, but this distinction should not be overlooked.

Key takeaways

• Miracles serve as pure witnesses, confirming the truthfulness of prophets' claims.
• This verse illustrates another aspect of luṭf-i khafī (subtle grace): how divine miracles emerge from denial and opposition.
• The concept of a zakī witness alludes to the muʿaddal va muzakkā (just and purified) witnesses in Islamic jurisprudence.
• For Mowlana, a miracle is primarily a forceful sign to subdue enemies and a divine response to denial, rather than a purely logical proof.
• Philosophically, as Ghazali pointed out, while a miracle demonstrates power, it does not inherently prove the logical truth of a proposition.