 Prophecy is a good example of how Ibn Rushd distinguishes himself both from the theologians and from previous philosophical approaches (Taylor 2018). The trustworthiness of prophecy is foundational to Islam: “the sending forth of prophets is based on the fact that revelation comes down to them from heaven, and on this our religion is based” (Kashf 4.58 {142}). The Ashʿarites had relied primarily on miracles to establish the veracity of the Prophet Muhammed. Ibn Rushd evaluates this approach from his Aristotelian background. His first step is to situate the miraculous (muʿjiz) as a tool of persuasion belonging to the art of rhetoric, standing to the prophetic claim as an extrinsic argument (Ben Ahmed 2012). Analogously, when I swear that something is true, the oath I advance has no intrinsic connection to what is claimed as being true. The Ashʿarites conceive of the relation between being prophetic and a miracle as that of a quality to its act. The miracle must be, in principle, an act that is generated from that quality, just as the act of healing the sick emanates from the quality of being a physician (Kashf 5.95–6 {177}). Accordingly, the proof that I am a prophet is that I can produce an extra-ordinary act, such as walking on water, turning a stick into a snake, or splitting the moon. Ibn Rushd responds by identifying a miracle as merely “an external sign” of prophecy. The act that more closely demonstrates prophecy is to establish a law that is useful for people. Thus it is the Qurʾān that proves Muhammad’s veracity: “Because of the universality of the teaching of the Precious Book and the universality of the laws contained in it—by which I mean their liability to promote the happiness of all mankind—this religion is common to all mankind” (Kashf 5.103 {184}). A miracle alone, in contrast, is at best complementary, and an argument from miracles is merely persuasive or rhetorical. (See further Arfa Mensia 1999, Ben Ahmed 2012).