Inasmuch as it has been shown that neither class of miracles can be wrought by an impostor, we must now distinguish more clearly between them. _Mu`jizát_ involve publicity and _karámát_ secrecy, because the result of the former is to affect others, while the latter are peculiar to the person by whom they are performed. Again, the doer of _mu`jizát_ is quite sure that he has wrought an extraordinary miracle, whereas the doer of _karámát_ cannot be sure whether he has really wrought a miracle or whether he is insensibly deceived (_istidráj_). He who performs _mu`jizát_ has authority over the law, and in arranging it he denies or affirms, according as God commands him, that he is insensibly deceived.[121] On the other hand, he who performs _karámát_ has no choice but to resign himself (to God’s will) and to accept the ordinances that are laid upon him, because the _karámát_ of a saint are never in any way incompatible with the law laid down by a prophet. It may be said: “If evidentiary miracles are the proof of a prophet’s veracity, and if nevertheless you assert that miracles of the same kind may be performed by one who is not a prophet, then they become ordinary events (_mu`tád_): therefore your proof of the reality of _mu`jizát_ annuls your argument establishing the reality of _karámát_.” I reply: “This is not the case. The _karámat_ of a saint is identical with, and displays the same evidence as, the _mu`jizat_ of a prophet: the quality of _i`jáz_ (inimitability) exhibited in the one instance does not impair the same quality in the other instance.” When the infidels put Khubayb on the gallows at Mecca, the Apostle, who was then seated in the mosque at Medína, saw him and told the Companions what was being done to him. God also lifted the veil from the eyes of Khubayb, so that he saw the Apostle and cried, “Peace be with thee!” and God caused the Apostle to hear his salutation, and caused Khubayb to hear the Apostle’s answer. Now, the fact that the Apostle at Medína saw Khubayb at Mecca was an evidentiary miracle, and the fact that Khubayb at Mecca saw the Apostle at Medína was likewise an extraordinary act. Accordingly there is no difference between absence in time and absence in space; for Khubayb’s miracle (_karámat_) was wrought when he was absent from the Apostle in space, and the miracles of later days were wrought by those who were absent from the Apostle in time. This is a clear distinction and a manifest proof that _karámát_ cannot possibly be in contradiction with _i`jáz_ (miracles performed by a prophet). _Karámát_ are not established unless they bear testimony to the truth of one who has performed a _mu`jizat_, and they are not vouchsafed except to a pious believer who bears such testimony. _Karámát_ of Moslems are an extraordinary miracle (_mu`jizat_) of the Apostle, for as his law is permanent so must his proof (_ḥujjat_) also be permanent. The saints are witnesses to the