Ga mafi yawan mutanen da suka yi imani cewa Allah ne Mahalicci na duniya kuma Yana ci gaba da zama mai aiki da nufinSa a cikin duniya, iya Allah na aikata mu'jizai, ko kuma ba wa wasu damar aikata su, abu ne mai sauƙin karɓa. Domin idan Allah ne ya halicci dokokin halitta, to a hankali ya biyo baya cewa ba a daure Shi da tsarin da Ya tsara ba, Yana iya kuma haifar da abubuwan da ke faruwa a waje da wannan tsarin. Mu'jizai kawai matsala ce ga masu kafirci (waɗanda ba su yi imani da wani Allah ba) da kuma masu imani da deism (waɗanda ke tabbatar da Allah wanda ba ya shiga cikin al'amuran duniya), waɗanda dukansu za su iya samun sabon ra'ayi idan suka san hujjar wanzuwar Allah a cikin Alƙur'ani da Sunnah.348

For the majority of people who believe that God is the Creator of the universe and remains a willful agent in the world, God’s ability to perform miracles—or to enable others to perform them—is easy to accept. After all, if God created the laws of nature, it logically follows that He is not bound by the system He designed but can also bring about occurrences outside of that system. Miracles are only problematic for atheists (who believe in no God) and deists (who posit a non-intervening God), both of whom may find it refreshing to familiarize themselves with the case for Allah’s existence in the Qur’an and Sunnah.348

Duk da cewa imani da mu'jizoji ya kasance ruwan dare a al'ummomin Kiristanci, sauyawa zuwa zamani ya nuna karkata zuwa ga tsattsauran shakka. Masana falsafar injiniya na tunanin Haskakawa sun zana hoton "yanayi wanda babu sihiri a cikinsa" a matsayin tsararren tsari a rufe, suna bayyana dokokin halitta a matsayin wadanda ba su da alaka da Allah.349

While belief in miracles was standard in Christian societies, the transition to modernity signaled a shift toward a more skeptical stance. The mechanical naturalists of Enlightenment thought painted a “disenchanted” view of nature as a closed system, describing natural laws as disconnected from God.349

A ƙarshe, sun nuna matuƙar ƙyama ga duk wata magana ta sa hannun mu'ujiza. Ra'ayin mu'ujizai an fi ƙin yarda da shi saboda "ba na kimiyya" ba ne. Watakila manyan masu wannan ra'ayi su ne masanin falsafa ɗan ƙasar Holland Baruch Spinoza (d. 1677) da masanin ilimin gwaji ɗan Scotland David Hume (d. 1776). Dukansu sun yi amfani da hujjoji iri-iri don ƙin yarda cewa mu'ujizai na yiwuwa, amma duk waɗannan hujjoji suna da kuskuren gaskiya, rashin daidaiton tunani, ko rashin dacewa da mu'ujizan Annabi Muhammadﷺ. A cikin littafinsa Theological-Political Treatise, Spinoza ya yi jayayya cewa imani da mu'ujizai ragowar tunanin zamanin da ba a ci gaba ba ne, rashin iyawarsa na fassara abubuwan halitta, ba kuma ma'anar da aka nufa a bayan ayoyin Attaura ba. Ƙyamarsa ga mu'ujizai abu ne da ake tsammani, domin ana ganin ra'ayin "sa hannun ikon fiye da na halitta" ya saɓa da tunanin falsafa na hankali wanda ya mamaye zamaninsa kuma nan da nan ya haifar da Haskakawar Turai. Duk da haka, himmar Spinoza marar iyaka ta musanta yiwuwar mu'ujizai kanta ta saɓa wa basirarsa da aka sani. Misali, yana ƙoƙarin bayyana kowane labari a bayyane na mu'ujiza a cikin Littafi Mai Tsarki a matsayin ba ainihin mu'ujiza ba. Ya ma yi iƙirarin cewa kowace mu'ujiza da ake zato za a iya ganin ta a matsayin abin halitta da aka fahimta ba daidai ba.

Ultimately, they had a profound aversion to any suggestion of miraculous intervention. The notion of miracles was commonly rejected because they were “unscientific.” Perhaps the most notable vanguards of this view were the Dutch rationalist Baruch Spinoza (d. 1677) and the Scottish empiricist David Hume (d. 1776). Both used various arguments to reject the possibility of miracles, all of which suffer from either factual errors, logical inconsistency, or irrelevance to the miracles of the Prophet Muhammad .صلى الله عليه وسلم In his Theological-Political Treatise, Spinoza argued that belief in miracles was but a remnant of the naive premodern mind, its inability to interpret natural phenomena, and not the intended meaning behind passages in the Torah. His contempt for miracles is expected, as the idea of “supernatural intervention” was perceived to be at odds with the philosophical outlook of rationalism that dominated his era and soon produced the European Enlightenment. However, Spinoza’s unbridled zeal to disprove the very possibility of miracles is contrary to his usual astuteness. For instance, he attempts to explain away every explicit biblical account of miracles as not actually miraculous. He even claimed that every supposed miracle can be seen as a misunderstood natural phenomenon.

Duk da cewa jahilci da camfi sun sa wasu mutane su yi gaggawar ɗaukar wasu al'amura a matsayin mu'jizozi, wace hujja ta kimiyya ce ke nuna cewa sanduna na iya juyewa zuwa macizai, cewa mutanen da aka haife su makafi za a iya mayar musu da gani, ko kuma cewa wata zai iya rabuwa gida biyu sannan ya dawo yadda yake? A cewar Spinoza, tun da iliminmu game da dabi'a bai cika ba, babu hanyar tabbatar da cewa wani lamari mu'jiza ne, domin yana iya samun bayani na dabi'a da ba a gano ba tukuna. Spinoza ya zaci cewa abubuwan da ba a iya bayyana su ba suna buƙatar kawai mu sake rubuta fahimtarmu game da dokokin dabi'a. Sai dai falsafar kimiyya ta zamani tana ganin hujjar Spinoza a matsayin kuskure; ba a sake rubuta muhimman dokokin dabi'a idan mu'jiza ta faru ba. Tsuntsu da aka mayar da shi rayayye ta hanyar mu'jiza daga gawar da aka wargaza ba ya buƙatar mu sake duba iliminmu game da ruɓewar gawarwaki ta dabi'a.

While ignorance and superstition have certainly driven some people to prematurely classify some events as miracles, what scientific evidence suggests that staffs can be transformed into snakes, people blind from birth can have their sight restored, or that the moon can be split and restored? According to Spinoza, since our knowledge of nature is incomplete, there is no way to assert that a particular event is miraculous since it may have a yet-undiscovered natural explanation. Spinoza presumed that inexplicable occurrences should simply require us to rewrite our understanding of the laws of nature. However, modern philosophy of science considers Spinoza’s argument fallacious; the fundamental laws of nature are not rewritten when miracles occur. A bird being miraculously resurrected from a disassembled carcass350 does not require us to revise our knowledge of the natural decay of corpses.

Baya ga wannan ƙin yarda ta fuskar ilimin sanin abubuwa (epistemological) game da mu'ujizai, wani ƙin yarda da Spinoza ya gabatar shi ne wanda ke da alaƙa da tauhidi da falsafar wanzuwa (quasi-theological cum ontological).

Aside from this epistemological objection to miracles, another objection Spinoza raised was quasi-theological cum ontological:

"Idan wani ya tabbatar da cewa Allah yana aiki sabanin dokokin halitta, to, ta wannan hanyar kanta, dole ne ya tabbatar da cewa Allah ya yi aiki sabanin ɗabi'arSa."351 Amma wannan hujja tana dogara gaba ɗaya ne a kan karɓar ra'ayin Spinoza mai talauci game da Allah. Spinoza ya ɗauki Allah a matsayin ba komai ba ne face halitta kanta (ra'ayin da yake takaita Mai Girma har mutane da yawa sun yi imani cewa imanin Spinoza ba shi da bambanci da rashin imani). Bisa wannan ra'ayi, tabbas abu ne abin dariya ga halitta ta saɓa wa kanta. Amma idan Allah shi ne Maɗaukakin Mai mulkin dukan abin da ke wanzuwa, wanda ya ce "Kasance" sai abu ya kasance, to babu wata hujja ta hankali da za ta hana Allah shiga cikin halittarSa da kuma iyakance iyakar wasu daga cikin dokokin halitta da Ya tsara.

“If anyone asserted that God acts in contravention to the laws of nature, he, ipso facto, would be compelled to assert that God acted against His own nature.”351 But this argument is entirely contingent upon accepting Spinoza’s impoverished conception of God. Spinoza considered God as nothing other than nature itself (a view that limits the Divine so severely that many are convinced that Spinoza’s beliefs are essentially no different from atheism). On such a view, certainly it would seem absurd for nature to contradict itself. But when God is the Supreme Master of all in existence, who says “Be” and something comes into existence, then there is no rational objection to God intervening in His creation and delimiting the scope of some of the natural laws that He has ordained.

Abin sha'awa ne cewa Spinoza ma ya tabbatar da cewa idan mu'ujizai gaskiya ne, za su nuna cewa Allah ya halicci duniya mara kyau wadda dole ne Ya ci gaba da gyaranta. Wannan ba kawai yana sabawa ra'ayinsa cewa mu'ujizai ya kamata su sa mu sake duba fahimtarmu game da dokokin halitta ba, har ma yana zama hujja ta 'yar tsana, inda ake kore ra'ayin da babu wanda ke riƙewa. Masu imani ba sa cewa manufar mu'ujizai ita ce gyara duniya mara kyau.

It is interesting that Spinoza also asserted that if miracles were true, they would imply that God created a flawed world that He had to keep repairing. Not only does this contradict his view that miracles should make us revise our understanding of natural laws, but it also constitutes a strawman argument whereby a position no one actually holds is refuted. Believers do not claim that the purpose of miracles is to fix a flawed world.

A'a, suna imani da cewa Wanda ya halicci wannan duniya da dokokin da ke tafiyar da ita, shi ma yana iya dakatar da su.

Rather, they believe that the One who created this world and the laws that govern it can also suspend them.

Rauni ta Spinoza a bayyane take. Sai bayan da Hume ya buga Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding ne muhawara game da yiwuwar mu'jizozi ta fuskar hankali da kimiyya ta yi zafi. Ba wai hujjojin Hume kadai sun fi inganci ba, har ma akidun zamanin Haske irin su shakka da naturalism sun taimaka wa karbar ra'ayoyinsa sosai. Hume ya yi ikirarin cewa, saboda shaidar ci gaba da ke nuna daidaiton dabi'a, dole ne mu ki amincewa ko da shaidar da ta fi karfi game da wani lamari na allahntaka na wani dan lokaci, domin ta hanyar ma'anarta, zai saba wa dokokin dabi'a da aka tabbatar.

The weakness of Spinoza’s critique was evident. It was only after Hume published his Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding that debates surrounding the logical and scientific possibility of miracles intensified. Not only were Hume’s arguments more refined, but prevailing paradigms of the Enlightenment era such as skepticism and naturalism were conducive to a wider embrace of his views. Hume alleged that we are forced by continuous evidence of nature’s uniformity to dismiss even the strongest testimony of any momentary supernatural event, since it would, by definition, violate the proven laws of nature.

Ya ƙara tabbatar da haka da rashin wata shaida ta tarihi ga kowane mu'jiza guda ɗaya, da kuma yawan masu bi waɗanda ke da'awar su don goyon bayan koyarwarsu masu karo da juna. Yadda tsarin musamman na Musulunci wajen isar da ilimi ya cika ka'idar shaidar tarihi za a tattauna nan ba da jimawa ba, amma kasancewar addinai daban-daban suna ba da labarai daban-daban ba ya halatta a yi watsi da su duka. Yin hakan zai sa nazarin tarihi kansa ya zama mara amfani, tun da tace rahotanni masu karo da juna da auna su da juna shi ne hanyar kowane masanin tarihi. Ko Hume da kansa ya bi wannan ka'ida lokacin da ya ɗauki shaidar da yanayi ke bayarwa a kowane lokaci ta fi ƙarfi fiye da labaran mutum-mutum na mu'jizozi. Dangane da hujjar Hume cewa ilimin kimiyya na gwaji ya fi shaidar tarihi, wannan ya samo asali ne daga tsarin falsafarsa wanda a zahiri ya kasance irin na mai shakkar Allah ko wanda ba ya yarda da Allah. Masu imani kuwa, suna ganin mu'jizozi a matsayin abu ɗaya da al'amuran halitta, domin dukkansu suna samuwa ne daga Allah. Kamar yadda duniya ta fara da umarnin Allah, dokokinta kuma suna tafiya bisa tsarin da Allah ya shirya, haka nan mu'jizozi na iya faruwa a cikinta sakamakon nufin Allah. Gaskiyar mu'jizozi a ƙarshe tsawaita ce ta gaskiyar Allah; kamar yadda Allah ya nuna kasancewarsa da girmansa ta hanyar kyawawan dokokin halitta, haka kuma ya nuna ikonsa mai iya komai da amincin manzanninsa ta hanyar karya waɗannan dokoki lokaci-lokaci ta hanyoyi masu ban mamaki. A ƙarshe, "dokokin halitta" bayanin yadda duniya take a yadda muke fuskanta ne kawai, ba tilasta yadda dole ne ta yi aiki ba. Saboda haka mu'jizozi na iya zama kawai keɓancewa daga tsarin halitta da aka saba, suna sabawa da shi amma ba sa karo da shi ba. Wannan zai kuɓutar da mu daga zaton Hume na cewa ba za a iya sasantawa ba, kuma zai mayar da binciken mu daga yuwuwar ma'ana zuwa takardun tarihi na mu'jizozi.352

He further justified this by the lack of historical evidence for any one miracle, and by the multitude of the faithful who claim them in support of their conflicting doctrines. How Islam’s unique mechanism of knowledge transmission satisfies the criterion of historical evidence will be discussed shortly, but the fact that different religions offer different accounts does not justify dismissing them all. Doing so would render the very study of history useless, since sifting through conflicting reports and weighing them against one another is every historian’s methodology. Even Hume himself followed this protocol when he considered nature’s ongoing testimony stronger than individual accounts of miracles. As for Hume’s argument for the superiority of empirical science over historical testimony, this stems from his philosophical framework which was effectively that of an agnostic or atheist. Theists, on the other hand, perceive miracles as identical to natural phenomena, in that both originate with God. Just as the universe began by the command of God, and its laws run as ordered by God, miracles can sometimes occur in it by the will of God. The reality of miracles is ultimately an extension of the divine reality; just as God evidenced His existence and magnificence through the brilliant laws of nature, He evidenced His omnipotence and the integrity of His messengers through occasionally breaching these same laws in mind-boggling ways. Finally, the “laws of nature” are a mere description of the world as we experience it, not a necessary prescription for how it must function. Miracles can, therefore, simply be exceptions to the predominant natural order, contrary to it but not contradictory. That would deliver us from Hume’s presumption of irreconcilability and shift our investigation from the logical possibility to the historical documentation of miracles.352