Theological Instructions

LESSON TWENTY-EIGHT: RESPONSES TO CERTAIN DOUBTS

Responses to certain doubts

With respect to ‘Miracles’, some doubts have been raised. The following presents the doubts and their relevant explanations:

Do miracles contradict causality?

Every physical phenomenon has a specific cause, which can be recognised through experimentation. However, if due to the deficiencies of laboratory equipment the cause of a phenomenon is not recognised, it cannot be considered as evidence for rejecting causality. Therefore, extraordinary acts can be justified, by saying that their causes have not yet been recognised and that the only extraordinary thing about them is that while being unknown to ordinary people, their causes have been discovered by their performers. Thus, denying experimentally recognisable causes is contradictory to the principle of causality and is unacceptable.

The response to this doubt is that the principle of causality is nothing more than the proof, that any dependent or resulting phenomenon has a cause; however, the realisation of that cause through scientific experiments is by no means a requisite for such a principle and there is no reason why it should be so. The reason is that the scope of scientific experimentation is limited to natural phenomena, and it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of metaphysical phenomena or their effects through laboratory tests.

Moreover, it is incorrect to interpret miracles in terms of being aware of the unknown causes, because if this awareness is gained through the usual factors, there would be no difference between an extraordinary phenomenon and other usual phenomena, and it could not be considered extraordinary. However, if such awareness is reached unusually, the act will be extraordinary, and should it be in accordance with God’s specific permission and the evidence of true prophecy, it would be considered as a miracle (scientific miracle). In this way Jesus’s (a) knowledge about people’s food and property is known as one of his miracles (Āl-‘Imrān:

49). Miracles are not only limited to the scientific; there are other types as well, which cannot be denied. Finally, the question remains as to what the difference is between miracles and other types of extraordinary acts with reference to the principle of causality?

Do extraordinary acts indicate changes in Divine customs?

Divine custom has dictated that every phenomenon follows a specific cause and according to the verses of the Holy Qur’an, there will be no change in this way (refer to al-Isrā’:77, al-Ahzāb:62, Fātir:43, Fateh:23). Therefore, extraordinary acts, which are the proof for such changes in these customs, are rejected by these verses.

This doubt is like the previous one; the difference is that in the former, the intellect was used for reasoning and in the latter the verses of the Holy Qur’an. The response is that it is not reasonable to limit unchangeable

Divine customs to merely include usual causes for all phenomena. It is like saying that there is an unchangeable Divine law and that fire is the only cause for heat! Such claims can be challenged by saying that different causes for various phenomena, and the replacement of the usual causes by unusual ones, have always existed in the world and should consequently be described as a Divine custom. Therefore, restricting the causes of events to usual ones is considered a change in Divine customs and those verses of the Holy Qur’an are (in fact) denying it.

Thus, interpreting the verses, which deny changes in Divine customs in a way that they show the replacement of usual causes by unusual ones, is impossible and it is unreasonable to describe that interpretation as a Divine custom. Moreover, the great number of verses, which indicate the occurrence of miracles and extraordinary acts, can be strong reasons for falsifying such an interpretation. The correct interpretation for such verses should be searched for in the books of commentary; however, I will briefly explain that such Holy verses deny the independence of the events from their causes, rather than the plurality of causes or the replacement of a usual cause by an unusual one. It is nonetheless; probably right to claim that the majority of such verses are related to the effect of unusual causes.

Why did the Prophet of Islam (s) refuse to present miracles to the public?

It is stated in the Holy Qur’an that people frequently asked the Prophet (s) to present to them some miracles, but he refused (refer to al-An’ām:37,109, Yūnus:20, al- Ra’d:7, al-Anbiyā’:5). If providing miracles is a way of proving prophecy, why did the Prophet (s) not use this means?

The response is that such verses are related to the requests after the Prophet (s) had proved his prophecy in three ways: clues to his honesty, predictions made by the previous prophets, and miracles. Such requests were rooted in obstinacy and enmity and were due to reasons other than finding the truth (refer to al-An’ām:35,124, Tāha:33, al-Ssaffāt:14, al-Qamar:2, al-Shu’arā’:3-4,197, al-Isrā’:59, al-Rūm:58).

Therefore, God’s Wisdom didn’t necessitate responding to them.

To provide further explanation, it should be stated that the reason for presenting miracles, which have been exceptional to the rules governing the universe, have sometimes provided responses to the people’s requests (e.g. Sāleh’s (a) camel), and were at other times incidental (e.g. Jesus’ (a) miracles), were to introduce God’s prophets and provide the people with the means for such an introduction. However, miracles were not employed to force the people to accept the prophets’ invitations, neither were they used for people to compulsory submit to them. Furthermore, miracles were not a means to entertain the people by violating the rules of causality for usual events. Such an objective does not necessitate responding to all the requests.

In some cases responding to certain requests would be unwise and contradict the ultimate aim of the miracle. For example, there were requests, which would restrict the people’s choices and enforce them to accept the prophets’ invitations, or cases where the requests were due to enmity and obstinacy. Moreover, if all the requests received a positive response,

triteness would occur and people would see miracles as entertainment, and they would gather around the Prophet (s) for their personal benefit.

In addition, testing people for their faith and providing them with the freedom in decision making would be impossible and they would accept the obedience of the Prophets aversely or forcefully. In both cases such an acceptance would be against both wisdom and the real aims of the miracle. However, in other cases where Divine wisdom necessitated, the Prophet (s) would accept such requests. There are many miracles, which have been attributed to the Prophet of Islam (s); and most have been verified through successive traditions, however his ultimate miracle is the eternal miracle of the Holy Qur’an. More explanation will be provided about the Holy Qur’an in its due place.

Can miracles be accepted as intellectual or convincing evidence?

Since miracles are performed according to God’s specific permission, they can indicate a particular relationship between Almighty God and the performer of the miracle, who has been provided with such permission. In other words, God has fulfilled His own Will through the performer of the miracle. However, the intellectual requisite for such a relationship is not the existence of another relationship - the type of sending and receiving of revelation-between Almighty God and the performer of the miracle. Therefore, miracles cannot be considered as intellectual evidence for the honesty of the prophets in their claims. However, they can in the best condition, be considered as speculative or convincing evidence.

The response is, that extraordinary acts - even Divine ones - are not by themselves the evidence for a relationship to revelation and, due to the same reason, the generosity of God’s saints cannot be considered as the proof for their prophecy.

However, the subject of our discussion is a person who has claimed to be the Prophet of God, by using miracles as the proof for his honesty. If such a person had falsely claimed to be a Prophet, and thereby committed one of the greatest and most disgraceful sins causing the most evil corruption of this world and the Hereafter, - he would never deserve such a relationship with Almighty God, and Divine wisdom would never provide him with the miracles to deceive His servants.

In conclusion, our intellect clearly realises that having a specific relationship with Almighty God and being equipped with the ability to perform miracles, is only deserved by those who do not betray their Lord and do not mislead His servants to eternal misfortune.

Therefore, miracles can be considered intellectual evidence for the true claim of prophecy.

Questions

  1. What is the content of the principle of causality?

  2. Why does the acceptance of causality not contradict the acceptance of miracles?

  3. Why is it incorrect to interpret miracles in terms of the awareness of unknown causes?

  4. Is the acceptance of miracles in contrast to the unchangeable divine customs?

Why?

  1. Did the prophets (a) provide miracles incidentally or in response to the people’s requests?

  2. Why didn’t the Prophet of Islam (s) respond positively to all the requests to present miracles?

  3. Explain how miracles are not merely the speculative or convincing evidence for the true claim of prophecy, but how they are considered as the intellectual proof for such a claim.