And their equality in its greatness is something that is impossible for humans to do in its kind or its quality.

The unified interpretation refutes a weakness represented by the distinction between a miracle that only God can perform and a miracle that people might imagine they can perform.

Knowledge of miracles: If faith in religion and acting upon it depends on a miracle, as it is a proof of its truthfulness, as has been explained, then how is knowledge of the miracle itself achieved? And what is the ruling on turning to it to obtain knowledge of it? Al-Mahdi answered that a person must look into the miracle to verify it and obtain knowledge of it, and that this looking is obligatory because faith depends on it, and faith is obligatory. And whatever the obligatory depends on is obligatory.

He raised an objection to the obligation of looking into the miracle to obtain knowledge of it, attributing it to the Mu'tazila, an objection based on their view of rational good and bad, showing what error results from not considering it. The text of this objection is as follows: "How is the truthfulness of the Messenger known? If you say by the appearance of the miracle." The objector said: "Is it obligatory to look into the miracle or not? If you say it is obligatory, he said: by reason." If you say by reason, then reason obligates nothing, as there is nothing in it except what has preceded of the conflict of possibilities and their permissibility. And if you say by transmission, he said: "Who brought the transmission?" Thus, they fall into a regress and impossibility, and they based this circularity on deception and nullification, so that many people went astray and believed that reason approves and disapproves.

Ibn Tumart responded to this objection by saying that the question in its origin is invalid, because it leads to doubt and indicates the invalidity of the Sharia and the obligation of worship. And the dispute is only in the manner of its presentation, otherwise, all agree that the miracle is an act of God. This is according to the author and all the Ash'aris, and the Mu'tazila only brought it up in their objection to show that accepting it leads to error, and thus its opposite, rational good, is proven, as indicated by al-Ghazali in his book.