Na mo''jizalarning mantiqiy imkoniyati, na ularning sodir bo''lganligi haqidagi tarixiy da''volar, mo''jizalar yuz berganligining isboti bo''la olmaydi. Buning uchun kuchli dalillar bo''lishi kerak va hech bir aqlli inson mo''jizalar haqidagi hikoyalarni tekshirmasdan qabul qilmasligi lozim. Ko''pincha aytilganidek, "g''ayrioddiy da''volar g''ayrioddiy dalillarni talab qiladi". Shu bilan birga, biz haqiqatan ham dalillarga — garchi ular g''ayrioddiy bo''lsa ham — ochiqmizmi yoki o''z oldindan qabul qilingan qarashlarimizga ko''r-ko''rona sodiqmizmi, buni farqlashimiz kerak.

Neither the logical possibility of an omnipotent God performing miracles, nor historical claims of their incidence, constitutes proof that miracles took place. There must be compelling evidence, and no sensible person should accept accounts of miracles without scrutiny. As is often said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” However, we must discern whether we are genuinely open to evidence—albeit extraordinary—or blindly committed to our presuppositions.

Izchillik sinovdan o'tkazish uchun ajoyib mezon; biz hayot va imon haqidagi shunga o'xshash e'tiqodlarimizning barchasi bir xil qat'iy talablarga javob beradimi yoki bu yerda muayyan tarafkashlik yoki haddan tashqari shubhachilik tufayli qo'sh standart paydo bo'lganmi? Bugungi kunda ko'pchilik o'zlari Yum izdoshlari ekanini bilmaydi: hech qanday tarixiy dalil mo''jizalarni isbotlay olmaydi, deb hisoblovchi va faqat shaxsan boshdan kechirilgan narsagina isbotlanishi mumkin, deb ishonuvchi dogmatik naturalistlar. Izchillik shuni tan olishni talab qiladiki, hech kim faqat o'zi boshdan kechirgan narsani dalil sifatida qabul qilmaydi. Bunday pozitsiya biz o'zimiz xaritaga tushirmagan har bir xaritani va o'zimiz shaxsan isbotlamagan har bir ilmiy haqiqatni rad etishni anglatadi.

Consistency is an excellent litmus test; do we question whether all similar convictions we hold about life and faith meet the same stringent criteria, or has a double standard snuck in here due to prejudice or extreme skepticism? Many people today may not realize that they are actually Humeans: dogmatic naturalists who believe no amount of historical evidence for miracles can ever suffice, and that nothing at all is provable except that which we personally experience. Consistency necessitates acknowledging that nobody actually only accepts what they have experienced themselves as evidence. Such a position would entail denying every map we have not charted ourselves and every scientific fact we have not personally established.

Oqilona va muvozanatli odamlar guvohlikni, uning tasdiqlanishi bilan birga, biror faktning yoki voqeaning aniq yoki ehtimol haqiqat ekanligini ko'rsatuvchi dalil sifatida qabul qiladilar.

Rational and balanced people accept that testimony, its and its corroboration, are acceptable as evidence that a fact or event is certainly true or likely true.

Hadis ilmi islom ilmiy an'anasida yordamchi fan bo'lib, Payg'ambar Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم haqidagi rivoyatlarni tekshirishga qaratilgan va shu sababli mo''jizalar masalasini muhokama qilishda markaziy o'rin tutadi. Bu noyob va murakkab jarayon bo'lib, har bir rivoyatning naql zanjirini shubhasiz isbotlash uchun ettita yordamchi fanning o'zaro bog'liqligiga asoslanadi. Oxir-oqibat, naql qilingan rivoyatlarning juda kichik qismi qat'iy jarayondan o'tib, "sahih" deb tasniflanadi, lekin hadis olimlari shu bilan cheklanib qolmadilar. Sahih rivoyatlar yana mutavotir (ko'p sonli va bir-biriga mos) yoki ahad (yakka) turlarga bo'lindi. Mutavotir rivoyatlar har bir naql bosqichida ko'p sonli rivoyatchilar tomonidan naql qilinganlari bo'lib, ularning hammasi xato qilgan yoki soxta narsani o'ylab topishgan deb tasavvur qilib bo'lmaydi. Ahad rivoyatlar esa – sahih bo'lganda – ishonchli tarzda naql qilingan, lekin mutavotir mezonlariga javob bermaydigan rivoyatlardir; shu sababli ko'pchilik hadis olimlari ularda aniqlik emas, balki ehtimollikning ustunligi bor deb hisoblaydilar. Shunga qaramay, aksariyat olimlar ahad rivoyatlarni rad etishdan ko'ra qabul qilishga loyiq deb biladilar, chunki ularning naql zanjirlari ishonchli va aqlli odamlar aniqlik bo'lmaganda ham ehtimollikka ko'ra ish tutadilar.

The discipline of Hadith is an instrumental science in the Islamic intellectual tradition, invested in verifying reports about the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم, and hence central to any discussion of miracles. It is a unique and sophisticated process involving the interplay of seven sub-disciplines, all engineered to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the transmission chain for each narration. Ultimately, a tiny fraction of these transmitted narrations survives the rigorous process to be classified as “authentic,” but Hadith scholars did not stop there. Authentic narrations were further categorized as mutawātir (abundantly concurring) or āḥād (solitary). Mutawātir reports are those narrated by many narrators in each layer of their transmission, making it inconceivable that they were all mistaken or had all colluded on a forgery. Āḥād reports—when authentic—are those transmitted reliably but without meeting the criteria of mutawātir, hence most Hadith scholars believe they involve preponderance (greater likelihood) as opposed to certain knowledge. However, this majority simultaneously deems āḥād reports worthier of being accepted than discarded, due to the reliability of their chains of transmission and the fact that all sensible people act on greater likelihood in the absence of certainty.

Payg'ambar Muhammad ﷺ qo'lida sodir bo'lgan mo''jizalar mutawātir tushuncha bo'lib, ma'nosi shuki, xabarlarning ko'pligi tufayli ular prinsipial jihatdan shubhasizdir, garchi ayrim alohida rivoyatlar mustaqil ravishda mutawātir bo'lmasa ham. Birinchi jahon urushining yuz berishi mutawātir tushunchaga oddiy misoldir; uning haqida ko'p sonli guvohliklarning mavjudligi shuni anglatadiki, uning sodir bo'lganligini tasdiqlovchi har bir xabarning tekshirilishi ahamiyatsizdir. Mutawātir tushunchani rad etish, mayya, inka yoki astek sivilizatsiyalarining mavjud bo'lganini, to odamlar vaqt mashinasini ixtiro qilib, o'zlari o'tmishga sayohat qilmaguncha tasdiqlashdan bosh tortish bilan teng bo'lardi. Shunga qadar bu odam bu sivilizatsiyalar haqidagi barcha xabarlar tarixdan tashqari ko'ngilsiz fitna ekanligi ehtimolini qabul qilishga tayyor bo'lardi, xuddi bugungi kunda Yassi Yer jamiyati targ'ib qilayotgan fikrga o'xshab.

Miracles occurring at the hands of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is a mutawātir concept, meaning the sheer multitude of reports make it uncontestable in principle, even if some specific accounts are not independently mutawātir. The occurrence of World War I is a simple example of a mutawātir concept; the concurrence of abundant testimony about it renders it inconsequential whether any particular report of it having taken place is verifiable. Rejecting a mutawātir concept would be tantamount to someone refusing to confirm that Mayan, Inca, or Aztec civilizations existed until humans invent a time machine and travel back in time themselves. Until then, this person would be willing to entertain the possibility of all reports of these civilizations being a transhistorical conspiracy—similar to what the Flat Earth Society champions today.

Shunga ko'ra, Islom biror so'zni yoki harakatni (masalan, mo''jizani) biror kishiga nisbat berishdan oldin, uning ishonchli rivoyat zanjirini ko'rsatishni talab qiladi.

Islam therefore requires a demonstrable chain of transmission before attributing a statement or action (like a miracle)

...to its Prophet ﷺ, unlike the many other accounts of miracles in other traditions which lack a chain of transmission and are only predicated on faith. Muslim theologians often highlight this important distinction, and how it compels every honest person to not differentiate between the miracles of Prophet Moses and Jesus because of their comparable historicity (none solidly traceable to eyewitnesses), and first accept the miracles of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ since their historicity is far stronger. Ibn al-Qayyim says in Ighāthat al-Lahfān, If this [inconsistency] was the case with the miracles of these two messengers, alongside how long ago that was, and how fragmented their nations became in the world, and the eventual disappearance of their miracles, then what should be assumed regarding the prophethood of Muhammad ﷺ and his miracles and signs when they were more recent, exceeded one thousand in number, were transmitted by the most pure and honorable individuals ever, and when this transmission was conveyed by tawātur (abundant concurrence) one century after another?353

to its Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم, unlike the many other accounts of miracles in other traditions which lack a chain of transmission and are only predicated on faith. Muslim theologians often highlight this important distinction, and how it compels every honest person to not differentiate between the miracles of Prophet Moses and Jesus  because of their comparable historicity (none solidly traceable to eyewitnesses), and first accept the miracles of Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم since their historicity is far stronger. Ibn al-Qayyim says in Ighāthat al-Lahfān, If this [inconsistency] was the case with the miracles of these two messengers, alongside how long ago that was, and how fragmented their nations became in the world, and the eventual disappearance of their miracles, then what should be assumed regarding the prophethood of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم and his miracles and signs when they were more recent, exceeded one thousand in number, were transmitted by the most pure and honorable individuals ever, and when this transmission was conveyed by tawātur (abundant concurrence) one century after another?353

Muhammad ﷺ ham oldingi payg'ambarlarning mo'jizalarini tasdiqlashda eng nufuzli guvoh bo'lishi va ular atrofidagi bahs-munozaralarga chek qo'yishga eng munosib zot bo'lishi mumkin edi.

Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم would additionally be the most authoritative confirmer of the miracles of the previous prophets and the most qualified to put an end to the controversies surrounding them.