The Definition of a Prophet:
Before addressing the question, it is essential to define “prophethood” so we can outline the methods of proving it.
A prophet is “a human being who conveys information from God (the Exalted) without the mediation of another human being”. [1] Accordingly, in this discussion, we aim to identify the means to prove the truth of a person's claim of connection to God (the Exalted), in such a way that this person acts as a transmitter of God’s words and His intent to us.
With this understanding, we state: there are two primary methods to prove prophethood:
The First Method – The Evidence of Miracles
The concept of the evidence of miracles is based on a person claiming prophethood and connection to God (the Exalted), coupled with the assertion that God will affirm this claim by performing an extraordinary act, namely, a miracle. When this extraordinary act occurs by God’s will, it serves as a confirmation of the prophet’s claim and provides certain proof of their prophethood.
A common example: Suppose someone claims to be an envoy of a ruler. This person must present evidence to support their claim. If they state that the ruler will confirm their claim by performing an extraordinary action—such as raising their hand for three minutes while seated on their throne, contrary to their usual behavior of not keeping their hand raised for long—and then we observe the ruler doing exactly that after the person’'s claim, this act would validate the claimant’s words.
This is a summary of the concept. As for the details, the evidence of miracles consists of several components:
The First Component – The Claim of Prophethood:
There must be a claim from a person that they are a prophet connected to God (the Exalted). This is exemplified in God’s words: {Say, [O Muḥammad], “O mankind, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you all, [from Him] to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth.”} [Sūrat al-Aʿrāf: 158], and His words: {And [mention] when Jesus, the son of Mary, said, “O Children of Israel, indeed I am the Messenger of Allah to you.”} [Sūrat al-Ṣaff: 6]
The Second Component – The Association with a Claim of an Extraordinary Act:
This involves the claim of prophethood being accompanied by a declaration that God (the Exalted) will affirm the claim through an extraordinary act contrary to His habit. [2] By “God’s habit,” what is meant is the established pattern arising from the repetition of His actions or the natural laws He has set in place. The breaking of this habit occurs when God performs something contrary to these well-known patterns, such as a staff turning into a serpent or the sea parting.
However, if the event aligns with His usual habit or the natural laws of the universe—such as predicting that the sun will rise tomorrow—this does not constitute breaking the habit, as is evident. Such extraordinary acts are what we term miracles.
The Third Component – Signification of Affirmation via the Extraordinary Act
The breaking of the natural habit, when accompanied by the claim of prophethood, serves as definitive evidence affirming the truth of the claim. In essence, the extraordinary act in this context is equivalent to God (the Exalted) declaring: “This prophet is truthful.”
This concept is illustrated in the earlier example of the ruler. When the ruler raised his hand, it signified the truthfulness of the claimant. Otherwise, why would the ruler break his usual habit immediately following that person’s claim? The extraordinary act thus serves as a clear affirmation of the prophet’s veracity.
The Fourth Component – The Rational Abhorrence (Qubḥ) of Affirming a Liar
The primary indication of an extraordinary act is affirmation. However, affirmation can theoretically apply to both a truthful and a false claimant. For instance, a person making a false claim could be affirmed by the ruler for some ulterior motive.
To ensure the claim's truthfulness and that the affirmation aligns with reality, we must refer to rational axioms, which unequivocally establish the rational abhorrence (qubḥ) of affirming a liar. This conclusion is self-evident upon reflection.
By combining this rational principle with the established belief in God’s justice, which holds that God does not commit abhorrent acts, we deduce that any affirmation from God (the Exalted)—through a miracle—is necessarily in favor of a truthful claimant. This is because affirming a liar is abhorrent, and God (the Exalted) is far above engaging in abhorrent acts.
Conclusion:
If a prophet claims prophethood and asserts that God will affirm this claim through an extraordinary act—such as parting the sea or presenting something that all experts in the relevant field are incapable of producing, like the unmatched eloquence of the Qurʾān—and then this extraordinary act occurs by God’s will following the prophet’s claim, it constitutes a clear affirmation of the prophet. This confirms the truth of their claim, necessitating belief in and adherence to what is revealed to them.
The Second Method – The Proof of Moral Integrity
If you were to accompany someone over an extended period and observe nothing but commendable character and virtuous conduct—never witnessing them lie, steal, betray, or engage in any similar misconduct—you would inevitably develop certainty regarding their moral integrity and uprightness.
If this person were then to relay to you an extraordinary claim, repeatedly asserting it on multiple occasions, you would naturally be inclined to believe them. Your familiarity with their impeccable character across various facets of life would instill confidence that they would not lie in such a matter.
This reasoning can be applied to a prophet’s claim of prophethood through the following considerations:
The First: Examining the Moral State of the Prophet
The moral state of a prophet is examined by accumulating evidence of their commendable traits and virtues. These pieces of evidence collectively establish, with a high degree of certainty through probabilistic reasoning, that the prophet possesses a deep-seated moral disposition and a consistent psychological state of adhering to sound practical judgment and noble ethics.
The evidence we seek is not confined to a specific virtue, such as honesty, or a particular period. Rather, the moral integrity under investigation is general uprightness, extending across various traits and times. This is discerned through an aggregate view of the person’s attributes. In practical reality, this is evident: someone who exhibits excellent moral character across multiple facets naturally avoids lying.
Consequently, if such an individual were to convey information—especially if it pertains to something of great significance and the claim is reiterated—it would be inconceivable for them to be lying in that matter.
The Second: Applying this to the Claim of Prophethood
Building on the previous point, if a man—whose moral integrity has been firmly established—were to claim that he is a prophet sent by God, my knowledge of his character would naturally lead me to believe him. This is especially true given the gravity and significance of the claim, coupled with its repeated assertion on multiple occasions. Such a serious matter cannot plausibly be fabricated by a person of such high moral standing.
Third: Eliminating the Possibility of Error
What has been established thus far demonstrates that the prophet is not lying. However, it remains necessary to ensure that what the prophet conveys is accurate and free from error. One might argue that the prophet is truthful but may have interpreted something as certain or imagined something and mistakenly believed it to align with reality, then relayed it to people with good intentions.
This possibility can be dismissed as follows:
Refuting the Possibility of Personal Interpretation (Ijtihād):
The claim of prophethood pertains to sensory experiences, as the prophet reports matters involving direct perception, such as witnessing the angel, hearing divine speech, and receiving revelation. These experiences are not based on personal reasoning or interpretation but on what the prophet has directly observed and encountered. Therefore, the possibility of error due to flawed reasoning does not apply in this context.
There is a clear distinction between someone saying, “I saw with my own eyes that Zayd is coming,” and someone stating, “Based on the conclusive evidence I have, Zayd has arrived.” The former is rooted in direct sensory experience, leaving no room for interpretative error, unlike the latter, which relies on deduction and is subject to potential mistakes.
If we were to assume that the prophet was mistaken or deluded in what he perceived, this would imply that he was consistently mistaken in everything he conveyed on behalf of God. Such a delusion would need to have arisen either by coincidence or as a result of a psychological disorder. However, this assumption can be invalidated by considering several points.
First, the prophet’s personality was remarkably balanced across moral, social, and political dimensions. There were no indications of any psychological disorder or instability in his behavior. His effective management of societal and state affairs further underscores that he was not living with a psychological or cognitive disorder.
Second, the sheer volume of what the prophet attributed to God, along with the rationality, morality, and unparalleled excellence of his teachings throughout his period of prophethood, contradicts the notion of delusion or mental illness. Such a condition would not produce a consistent body of teachings so exceptional and without precedent.
Third, the clarity with which the prophet conveyed his message demonstrates an absence of hesitation or doubt in what he attributed to God. This confidence is incompatible with someone who is mistaken or deluded.
Fourth, the teachings he attributed to God were consistently aligned with contemporary events and the questions posed to him. Such congruence could not reasonably stem from delusion or psychological disorder.
Considering all these points together, the truth of the prophet’s claim to prophethood becomes evident, and All-Praise is due to God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] al-ʿAllāma Al-Ḥillī, Manāhij al-Yaqīn, p. 263. This definition suffices for the purposes of this discussion, as we are not delving into the precise differentiation between the terms prophet (nabī) and messenger (rasūl) or muḥaddath according to Islamic terminology.
[2] Note: This association can either occur explicitly, such as when the prophet states to his people, “The evidence of my truthfulness is that God will perform such-and-such extraordinary act to affirm me,” as was the case with the Qurʾān; or it can occur externally, where an extraordinary act happens in a manner that contextual evidence indicates it is a confirmation of the prophet’s claim, such as when a miracle is performed at the hands of the claimant, or when miracles associated with him occur repeatedly, and so on.
