﷽ 

The deniers of prophethood argue: “we grant the reliability of mass transmitted reports, but we make exception for reported miracles. This is because a miracle is a negation of nomic necessity, whereas it is only nomically necessary for the mass transmitted report to be accurate.

Given the above, at best, the probability of the miracle’s occurrence, is equal to the probability of the mass transmitted report’s fabrication^[1]. So why should we prefer one over the other?”

We say: the response is two-fold:

First: this objection is inconsequential for establishing the prophethood of the one who the mass transmitted report concerns.

Second: this objection is based on a misunderstanding of our claim, when we say: it is nomically necessary for a mass transmitted report to be truthful.

On the Inconsequentiality of the Objection

Given a mass transmitted report, testifying that a claimant to prophethood was supported by a miracle, either:

• • The report is truthful.
  • The report is not truthful.

If the mass transmitted report is truthful, then the reported miracle occurred. Thus, a claimant to prophethood was supported by a negation of nomic necessity. And a claimant to prophethood, who is supported by a negation of nomic necessity, is a true prophet^[2].

If the mass transmitted report is not truthful, then nomic necessity was still negated. This is because it is nomically necessary for the mass transmitted report to be truthful. But in this case, we have supposed that it was not truthful. And a claimant to prophethood, who is supported by a negation of nomic necessity, is a true prophet^[3].

In either case, nomic necessity is negated in support of the claimant, and so their prophethood established.

Clarifying the Nomic Necessity of a Mass Transmitted Report’s Truth

When we say: “it is nomically necessary for a mass transmitted report to be truthful” we do not mean that there is an extremely high, yet non-certain chance, that what is reported is true. Rather, we mean: when you acquire awareness of a mass transmitted report, normalcy entails, that this be followed by knowledge of the truth of what is mass transmitted^[4].

To elaborate: when Allah ﷻ creates in His slave hearing of a report satisfying certain conditions, Allah ﷻ then creates in this slave knowledge of the truth of what is reported^[5].

With this understanding, the fallaciousness of the opponent’s objection becomes clear: when Allah ﷻ creates in you awareness of the report, followed by knowledge of what is reported, you come to know that the report is truthful by virtue of this created knowledge. This non-inferential knowledge is certain, not probabilistic, so it is meaningless to doubt the report’s truth after acquiring it.

 

---

[1] Another opponent might claim that the probability of the report’s accuracy, is actually lower than the probability of the miracle’s occurrence. He may do so by arguing that it is possible for the narrators to lie, or fall into delusions, amongst other things.

Such an opponent either does not accept mass transmission as a way of knowledge to begin with, and needs to be answered on this basis before delving into this specific issue concerning mass transmitted miracles; or he has fallen into the same misunderstanding described in the last section of this article.

[2] Prophets and Miracles.

[3] This is comparable to the one who witnesses a miracle in person, and then argues: “it is only nomically necessary for my senses to be accurate. So there is no reason to prefer belief in this miracle’s occurrence, over belief in my experiencing a hallucination”.

This opponent can similarly be told: either your senses were accurate, or not. If they were accurate, then the witnessed miracle occurred. If they were not accurate, then nomic necessity was negated when a hallucination of the miracle’s occurrence was created for you. Either way, nomic necessity is negated, and prophethood is established for the one who the witnessed miracle supports.

And in general, many doubts against mass transmission as a way of knowledge, can be alleviated by drawing similar comparisons to sense perception.

[4] Like when we say: “it is nomically necessary for cotton to burn upon contact with fire”. This is a comment on the state of the world, where one event is normally followed by the other.

[5] To be clear, knowledge of the reliability of mass transmitted reports, is not dependent on knowledge that Allah ﷻ is the only creator. It is only dependent on realizing that hearing such reports, is normally followed by non-inferential knowledge on what is reported. The question about the cause of this knowledge’s occurrence, is a separate issue.