Splitting of the Moon: A Miracle of Islam

Introduction

Proof vs. Belief Miracles

A miracle is something that breaks the laws of nature sent by God to support a prophet’s claim to have divine support and revelation.

Miracles, in terms of their use, can be divided into two types:

1. Proof Miracles: Those miracles that are being used as proof for a prophet or religion.
2. Belief Miracles: Those miracles that are beliefs of a religion but not being used as proof for that religion.

Proof Miracles include when a Muslim tries to use the Quran’s miraculous nature to argue that Islam is true.

The condition when using proof miracles is that the premises cannot assume the religion true a priori. Otherwise, the argument would be circular.

So, if the miracle of the Quran is being used to prove Islam true, one of the premises of the argument cannot be that the Quran is true or Islam is true. Rather, these must be conclusions of any argument. For example, a person may argue that “The Quran issued this challenge and no one met the challenge and that is a miracle for this reason,” but cannot argue that, “The Quran says it is miraculous and from God, hence Islam is true.”

However, note that using the Quran’s content as part of the premises is not necessarily circular, as long as the truth of that content is proven in a way other than assuming Islam is true. So, we can use verses in the Quran that issue the challenge to bring something like the Quran as evidence the Quran issued this challenge, because this does not assume the Quran is true; it only assumes the Quran is authentic to the time of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), and this can be proven externally through historical evidence and mass-transmission of the Quran from that time.

Belief Miracles are those events people believe in as a consequence of their belief in a religion, not claiming they can necessarily be proven independently.

For example, Muslims believe Allah turned Moses (AS)’s staff into a snake and split the sea for him. It was a proof miracle for people at the time. However, we today believe it because we believe in Islam and because the Quran says it happened. We don’t claim these events can be proven independently right now.

So, these miracles are not being used as evidence for Islam. Rather, Islam is being used as evidence for these miracles.

The purpose of this article is to view the splitting of the moon as a proof miracle, not as a belief miracle.

Observed vs. Rational Miracles

Miracles can be broadly divided into two types in terms of their nature:

1. Observed Miracles: Those miracles that are directly seen or heard or felt without needing much comprehension or thought to realize they are miraculous.
2. Rational Miracles: Those miracles that are not directly observed but are known to be miraculous through comprehension and thought.

Observed miracles include Moses’s staff turning into a snake or his staff splitting the sea or Jesus (AS) healing the blind or raising the dead. When people at the time saw that miracle in front of them, they were observed miracles.

Rational miracles include the Quran in our view which is miraculous not in a directly observable way but in a way that requires thought and contemplation. You need to reason your way into the conclusion by observing other facts like the Quran challenged the Arabs to make something like it but none of them were able to do so.

All observed miracles become rational miracles for the generations after the first witnesses of the miracle. That is because the second generation cannot observe the miracle that happened many years ago, but they have to rely on the testimony of people who saw the miracle. The testimony can be widespread and clear enough to prove the miracle did happen, but that still requires thought and contemplation, hence the miracle is rational for them.

For example, the generation that was born after the Israelites escaped Egypt did not see the sea splitting. But, they would know for sure it did split because they had access to their parents and everyone older than them who witnessed the sea splitting.

Similarly, the generation after would also have access to testimony about testimony that was widespread enough to give certainty.

Purpose of Miracles

The purpose of miracles is usually understood to be proving the truth of a prophet so that people do not have any reasonable excuse to reject him.

However, the specific purpose differs according to the level of clarity a miracle has. They can be divided into three levels:

1. Absolutely Forcing Miracles
2. Punishment-Necessitating Miracles
3. Sufficient Reason Miracles

Absolutely Forcing Miracles are those that completely force any sane person to believe without any room for argument or doubt. It is not possible to reject these miracles except due to insanity.

This refers to those miraculous events that are observable, close, and continuous. For example, when the Day of Judgement happens and people are resurrected, no one will be able to deny what is happening in front of them.

Or, for example, if Allah constantly sent visible angels to earth, that would be absolutely forcing.

Allah never sends absolutely forcing miracles to prove a prophet. These events or miracles only happen at a person’s death or on the Day of Judgement. As a result, belief after absolutely forcing miracles does not benefit anyone. It is too late to believe at that point.

Allah says in the Quran ⟪Do they [then] wait for anything except that the angels should come to them or your Lord should come or that there come some of the signs of your Lord? The Day that some of the signs of your Lord will come no soul will benefit from its faith as long as it had not believed before or had earned through its faith some good. Say, “Wait. Indeed, we [also] are waiting.”⟫ (6:158)

Punishment-Necessitating Miracles are those clearly observable miracles that a prophet receives to prove his prophethood beyond reasonable doubt. Stubborn people can give excuses to reject it, like calling it magic, but they establish enough clear evidence in the eyes of justice that those people deserve punishment in their lifetime for their disbelief.

Punishment-Necessitating miracles are usually observed rather than rational. But, unlike absolutely forcing miracles, they are usually singular events rather than a continuous experience.

That is why when a prophet brings a clear miracle of this kind, the people who reject him are destroyed by God with divine punishment in their lifetimes.

Allah says in the Quran ⟪And nothing has prevented Us from sending signs except that the former peoples denied them. And We gave Thamud the she-camel as a visible sign, but they wronged her. And We send not the signs except as a warning (of a coming punishment).⟫ (17:59)

Allah only sends these miracles to the direct contemporaries of the prophets. He usually does not send these types of miracles to people who did not meet a prophet.

Sufficient Reason Miracles are those that provide enough evidence for the truth of a prophet or religion such that the person who rejects and passes away after rejection is liable for punishment in Hell for his rejection.

In contrast to punishment-necessitating miracles, sufficient reason miracles are rational rather than observed.

Because they are rational, the disbelievers in these miracles are given time until they die to accept the religion of God. They are not divinely punished for rejection in their lifetime.

This is the type of miracle everyone today after the age of prophets has access to. We do not have observed miracles, but we have enough rational miracles to prove the truth of Islam and make a person who rejects Islam until he passes away liable to punishment on the Day of Judgement.

Why does Allah not send miracles today?

Allah does not send observed miracles today because observed miracles generally necessitate punishment in the world. However, Allah did not wish to do that except for people in the time of the prophets.

As a result, the miracles we have access to are rational miracles, those miracles that require thought and contemplation. Those miracles include the miracle of the Quran and, the focus of this article, the miracle of the moon splitting.

These are miracles that establish sufficient reason for a sincere seeker of truth to accept Islam, but do not compel belief or necessitate rejection would deserve punishment in the short-term. However, rejection of Islam would entail punishment on the Day of Judgement with the existence of these miracles.

Miracle of the Moon Splitting

Muhammad (SAW), at the age of 40, claimed to receive revelation from God and invited his people, the people of Makkah, to the religion of Islam. He called them to abandon polytheism, believe in one God, and to follow the revelation given to him. They rejected his message and called him a liar and madman.

He persisted in preaching this message and a trickling number of people started accepting his religion.

In this context, the people of Makkah used to ask Muhammad (SAW) to show them miracles.

One night, the Muhammad (SAW) told them he would show them a miracle, took them near the valley of Mina, and pointed at the moon and said, “Bear witness!”

In front of them, the moon split into two pieces. They all saw it. Then, it was brought back together.

However, most disbelievers doubled down on their rejection and accused Muhammad (SAW) of creating an illusion or bewitching them in some way.

How can we know the moon split today?

The miracle of the moon splitting was an observed miracle for the people of Makkah at the time. Allah punished them for their rejection by divinely helping the Muslims in the Battle of Badr which led to the death of most of their major leaders.

As for today, the miracle of the moon splitting can only be a rational miracle for us because we did not directly see it. So, the question becomes: How can we know the moon actually split for the Prophet Muhammad (SAW)?

The main way an event like this from history can be proven is testimony. We will discuss in this article two sources of testimony that proves the moon split: 1) The Quran itself, and 2) reports from eyewitnesses and people around them. These sources, we will show, are sufficient evidence to prove that the moon did split.

We will also discuss some common objections given to reject the moon splitting, like the lack of scientific evidence or the lack of testimony from other nations. In this regard, it is important to understand that the claim is not that God showed the moon splitting intentionally to the whole world or kept the moon imperfectly split after the miracle. Rather, God showed this miracle to the Arabs of the time and returned the moon to its previous state. We will discuss all this when discussing the common objections.

Testimony From the Quran

The Quran was the revelation that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) claimed came from God. He recited its verses publicly whenever he received them, and Muslims have recited Quran in their daily prayers from the time of the Prophet (SAW) till now.

How the Quran can be used as a witness when it would ostensibly be biased in favor of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) will be discussed in the next section.

We will discuss why the Quran’s testimony matters, how we know the Quran is authentic to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), and other objections to the Quran’s testimony.

The Quran’s Testimony That the Moon Split

The Quran says: ⟪The Hour has come near and the moon has split. If they see a sign, they turn away and say, “Passing magic.” They denied and followed their desires, but every matter will be settled.⟫ (54:1-3)

The Quran claims three things in these verses:

1. The moon split as a sign for the disbelievers.
2. They called it magic
3. They continued to deny the Prophet (SAW)

This is similar to what other sources say about this miracle. The people of Makkah insisted the Prophet (SAW) show them a miracle, so the Prophet (SAW) showed them the splitting of the moon. However, they denied it by calling it magic.

Why does the Quran’s testimony matter?

Someone might say: Why should we trust the Quran’s claim about the moon splitting? Isn’t the Quran biased?

The Quran’s claim is strong evidence the moon actually split because of the principle of preposterous claim.

The principle concludes the truth of a claim based on the following premises:

• A person who professes prophethood makes an extraordinary claim in public
• The claim is easily falsifiable by the public: they can know whether it is true or false easily.
• The disbelieving public is concerned about that person and has incentive to discredit him
• Despite making the claim, the person does not lose credibility and followers.
• No one credible we know testifies against the claim.
• Optional: His followers increase since he made the claim.
• Optional: Some people testify in favor of the claim.

When these premises are true, the claim is proven true.

Let us go through the premises as they apply to the splitting of the moon:

• A person who professes prophethood makes an extraordinary claim in public.
  • The Quran was a publicly recited text, and the above verses clearly claim the moon split as a sign for the disbelievers.
  • In fact, it is reported that the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) used to recite Surah Qamr in the most public prayers of the year: the Eid prayers. (Sahih Muslim)
• The claim is easily falsifiable by the public: they could know whether it is true or false easily.
  • The disbelievers of Makkah were the purported witnesses of the moon splitting.
  • If they had not actually ever seen the moon split or called it magic, the Quran would have been claiming something obviously false
• The disbelieving public is concerned about that person and has incentive to discredit him
  • The disbelievers of Makkah were obviously concerned about the Prophet (SAW): The very fact they demanded miracles from him and punished his followers and later fought wars against him is enough to show that.
• Despite making the claim, the person does not lose credibility and followers.
  • Islam still exists today. If the Prophet (SAW) was proven a blatant liar because of these verses, Islam would never have survived or spread from that early stage.
• No one credible we know testifies against the claim.
• Optional: His followers increase since he made the claim.
  • Some books report that Muhammad (SAW)’s followers increased after the event. Regardless of how authentic that is, his followers definitely increased in the long-term despite making this claim.
• Optional: Some people testify in favor of the claim.
  • There are many reports from contemporaries of the Prophet (SAW) about the splitting of the moon which we will analyze in more detail in a later section.

When these premises are shown be true, it is impossible to deny that the people of Makkah actually saw the moon split as mentioned in the Quran.

In the same line of thought, no sane or rational person would come up with a blatantly false claim while wishing to be viewed as a prophet. There is no doubt, whatever you think about Muhammad (SAW)’s prophethood, he was sane and rational.

Objections to Authenticity

Some people realized that this verse entails that a miracle truly did happen as explained above. However, in order to reject the miracle anyway, they tried to deny the authenticity of these verses of the Quran. They argued it is possible these verses were interpolated later into the Quranic text, thus we cannot prove the Prophet (SAW) actually made this claim publicly, thus collapsing the argument from preposterous claim.

Muslims believe the Quran was memorized by several companions of the Prophet (SAW) before he passed away. Then, it was collected by Abu Bakr, the first Caliph after the Prophet, then by Uthman ibn Affan, the third Caliph. It was memorized and written down by a large number of companions such that it would not be possible for any one person to interpolate verses into it. This practice of memorizing the Quran persists till today.

Secular academics broadly fall into two camps with regard to the compilation of the Quran: 1) It was compiled in the time of Uthman ibn Affan (RA), like the traditional Islamic view, or 2) It was compiled a few decades later in the reign of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan.

The first is the majority view among academics and there is both manuscript and oral evidence to prove this view.

As for the manuscript evidence, there are no fully intact copies of Uthman (RA)’s compilation, but there are full copies of the Quran within a century of him and partial copies of the Quran that can be dated to his reign (or arguably earlier). This provides strong reason to believe the Quran was indeed compiled in his reign.

As for the oral evidence, there is a remarkable amount of uniformity among the reciters of the Quran within a generation or two of Uthman (RA), indicating that they were following a common written source.

There are many more specific arguments in support of this view which Nicolai Sinai listed in his paper “When did the consonantal skeleton of the Quran reach closure? Part II”

Some academics have also argued that there is evidence to push back the date of compilation to Abu Bakr (RA), also as noted in Islamic sources. (See The Integrity of the Quran by Seyfeddin Kara)

The second view is a minority view among more skeptical academics who appeal to smaller pieces of evidence. Nicolai Sinai wrote an article responding to the evidence used in favor of this view.

Note that none of these views claim the Quran was composed at that time. They agree there was preexisting text which was compiled and perhaps, according to them, edited.

All that being said, whichever position is adopted, it is difficult if even possible to argue these verses do not trace back to the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

That is because of two reasons:

1. In both scenarios, there were still companions of the Prophet (SAW) alive when the Quran was compiled and there were definitely senior students of companions alive at the time. An interpolation of this kind about a claimed observed event would not go unnoticed and without disapproval.
2. These verses prominently begin the Surah to the point the Surah was later named Surah Qamar (Chapter of the Moon). It is one thing to postulate a verse in the middle of a Surah was interpolated and quite another to theorize the very beginning of a Surah was interpolated without any notice and reported complaint by anyone.

As such, in both Muslim history and modern academic history, it is untenable to claim these verses that testify to the splitting of the moon were interpolated after the time of Uthman (RA).

When this is the case, it is not possible to deny that the verses also trace back to the Prophet (SAW) because it would not be possible for the council appointed by Uthman (RA) to interpolate a claimed miracle into the Quran while many witnesses would have been alive at the time. In fact, Uthman (RA) himself would have been with the Prophet (SAW) when the moon split!

The argument from preposterous claim also applies here. The fact that none of the witnesses alive at the time or their students clearly rejected the claim and accused Uthman and his council of tampering with the Quran proves they did not interpolate those verses.

In fact, even people who were reportedly not involved with Uthman (RA)’s compilation of the Quran and were allegedly discontent with it, like Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, did not use this as evidence or argument against Uthman (RA).

On the contrary, as we will see, we have strong reason to believe Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, who was independent of Uthman (RA)’s compilation and memorized the Quran directly from the Prophet (SAW), actually gave eyewitness testimony affirming the moon split.

As a result, it is impossible to reject the testimony of the Quran on the ground of inauthenticity.

Objections to Interpretation

Many people realize that it is not possible to reject the authenticity of these verses in the Quran. So, instead, they try to argue that the verses do not actually testify to any miracle at all. They claim the verses were referring to something else. There are two famous arguments in this regard:

1. The verse refers to a future event, not a past miracle
2. The verse refers to the moon undergoing an eclipse, not the moon splitting

We will analyze each interpretations one by one.

Can it refer to a future event?

Some people say: The Quran often uses the mādhi (past) tense to refer to events on the Day of Judgement. This verse is no different. The Quran is referring to the moon splitting on the Day of Judgement.

First of all, the Quran does use the mādhi (past) tense to refer to the Day of Judgement in several verses. There are too many examples of this to quote. One example is ⟪وَنُفِخَ فِي الصُّورِ فَإِذَا هُمْ مِنَ الْأَجْدَاثِ إِلَى رَبِّهِمْ يَنْسِلُونَ⟫ (36:51) The verse means ⟪And the horn will be blown, then they will be walking from their graves to their Lord.⟫ However, the word used for ⟪will be blown⟫ is نُفِخَ in the mādhi tense.

This is a linguistic feature in Arabic to indicate the sureness of an event.

However, the future nature of the verses are always clear from the content or context. It is obvious to the audience that the horn of the Day of Judgement will be blown in the future.

In this case, there is no clear indication of the verses being in the past tense.

Secondly, the first part of the verse ⟪The hour has come near⟫ is clearly past tense, so it follows the second part ⟪and the moon has split⟫ is also past tense.

The Quran mentions the Hour being near in many verses, including ⟪The time of account has come near but people are heedless and turning away.⟫ (21:1) and ⟪And the command for the Hour is not but as a glance of the eye or even nearer.⟫ (16:77)

It is reported that the Prophet (SAW) said, “I and the Hour was sent like this” and he showed two fingers next to each other. (Sahih Bukhari)

We can conclude then that the first part of this verse is in the past tense: “The hour has already come near,” since that is the general message of the Quran.

When this is the case, it is extremely farfetched to claim the second part of the verse is about the future.

Thirdly, the Quran clearly refers to a miracle seen by the people of the time since the next verse says ⟪When they see a sign, they turn away and say, “Passing magic.”⟫ (54:2)

The Quran mentions the disbelievers calling the Quran magic in other places, but this verse specifically refers to a “seen” miracle and cannot refer to the Quran itself. It can only refer to the splitting of the moon.

This verse also cannot refer to natural observable signs in the universe, like the sun and the moon, because it quotes the disbelievers calling the sign magic. This cannot refer to natural signs.

So, the verse is referring to a seen unnatural miracle: the splitting of the moon.

Can it refer to an eclipse?

Some people realized it is difficult to deny the Quran is referring to a seen miracle, so they argued: The verses may refer to a lunar eclipse that happened in the time of the Prophet (SAW).

This view is farfetched for several reasons.

Firstly, the verse uses the word انْشَقَّ which comes from the root meaning of splitting.

This is how the word is used in the Quran in other places. Allah says ⟪The heavens almost rupture from it and the earth almost splits open and the mountains almost collapse in devastation, when you claim for Allah a son.⟫ (19:90-91) The context makes clear the word means splitting here.

This is how the word is used in contemporary Arabic poetry as well. Ubaid ibn Abras said, describing his horse:

يَنشَقُّ عَن وَجْهِهَا السَّبِيبُ

Strands of hair splitting away from his face.

All of this being in mind, it is farfetched to claim the verse means anything other than the moon actually splitting.

Secondly, lunar eclipses are not uncommon and the Arabs would have certainly known of them from before the Prophet (SAW). So, there is no reason they would have rejected them or called them magic.

In fact, these verses clearly link the rejection of the miracle to a rejection of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). If it was only a rejection of a normal lunar eclipse, it would have no bearing on the Prophet (SAW) himself. But, the Quran says ⟪If they see a sign, they turn away and say, “Passing magic.”⟫ which refers to this being a sign for the Prophet (SAW) that was rejected. It is a common motif in the Quran that the disbelievers call the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) a magician or what he brings magic.

Some people tried to argue that the Quran is merely criticizing the Arabs for superstitions about the lunar eclipse, but this does not fit the words of the verse, calling it a sign and referring to “turning away” and “rejection.”

Thirdly, the Quran does speak about a lunar eclipse in another place of the Quran ⟪When vision is dazzled and the moon eclipses⟫ (75:7-8) and uses the word خَسَفَ to refer to an eclipse rather than انْشَقَّ.

All of these reasons combined make it untenable to argue these verses refer to an eclipse or anything other than the moon splitting.

Some people argued: There is a narration from an early scholar Ikrimah (a student of Ibn Abbas who was a companion of the Prophet) that he explained the verse as, “كَسَفَ الْقَمَرُ عَلَى عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ,” which they translated as, “The moon eclipsed in the time of the Prophet (SAW).” (Note that later sources like Tabarani raise this narration from Ikrimah to Ibn Abbas, but that is a clear mistake.)

This narration is reported by Ibn Juraij from Amr ibn Dinar from Ikrimah.

It is poor evidence for several reasons.

Firstly, Sufyan ibn Uyainah narrated this hadith from Amr ibn Dinar from Ikrimah with the standard phrase انْشَقَّ (the moon split), matching the Quran. Ibn Uyainah was among the most reliable students of Amr ibn Dinar, equal to if not better than Ibn Juraij.

The following is a summarized illustration of the chains:

Secondly, Ikrimah allegedly uses the word “كَسَفَ” which can also mean “broke apart.”

This is how the root is used in the Quran. The Quran quotes disbelievers saying to their prophets ⟪So, bring down for us a fragment (كِسَفًا) from the sky if you are truthful.⟫ (26:187)

So, the narration may as well be translated as Ikrimah saying, “The moon was broken apart in the time of the Prophet (SAW), so they said, ‘The moon has been bewitched.’ So, the verses ⟪The hour has come near and the moon has split⟫ until ⟪Passing magic⟫ were revealed.” (Musannaf Abd al-Razzaq)

Thirdly, it is possible Ibn Juraij conflated the wording of this narration with another narration. Ibn Juraij also narrated a hadith which says, “The sun eclipsed in the time of the Prophet (SAW)” using the word كَسَفَ. (Sahih Muslim)

Several early linguists argued that the proper word to refer to a lunar eclipse is خَسَفَ, not كَسَفَ, attributing the latter to a mistake by the masses. (See Ibn Dareed d. 321 and Abu Sahl d. 433) Others accepted that كَسَفَ can be used for a lunar eclipse but said خَسَفَ is unique to a lunar eclipse and thus cannot even refer to a solar eclipse. (See Nawadir by أبو مسحل d. 230) Either way, there seems to be more relation between the word كَسَفَ and a solar eclipse. This is strengthened by the fact that, as far as I could find, we only have evidence of كَسَفَ being used for the sun in early Arabic poetry.

This supports the idea that this narrations may have been conflated by Ibn Juraij with the narration about a solar eclipse due to the similarity in wording “in the time of the Prophet (SAW)” and that is why he used the word كَسَفَ in this narration.

When Ibn Uyainah’s version is confirmed by the clear words of the verse, the context, and the testimony of other narrators and witnesses as we shall see, the case is even stronger that this is how we should understand the narration of Ikrimah.

Conclusion From the Quran

In conclusion, the Quran’s testimony about the splitting of the moon is authentic and correct in interpretation. We have also seen why the Quran’s testimony matters as extremely strong evidence that the moon actually split.

When this is the case, the Quran itself is sufficient evidence for us to accept that the moon split. When we know the moon split for the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), there can be no doubt left in the fact that Islam is true.

However, we do not only need to rely on the Quran. There are also plenty of reports from contemporaries of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) that the moon split, and that is what we will discuss in the next section.

Testimony From Reports

Authenticity of Reports

Muslim scholars collected many reports (called ‘hadith’) about the life and times of Muhammad (SAW) by recording not just information about his life but the exact narrators who transmitted that information back to the companions of Muhammad (SAW).

For example, Shu’bah narrated from Qatadah that he narrated from Anas ibn Malik (one of the Prophet’s companions) from the Prophet (SAW) that, “None of you believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.”

Many students of Shu’bah reported this hadith, and those reports were recorded in the hadith collections.

Consider the following chains:

With this methodology, every claim was recorded along with the people who transmitted it. Then, if the people who transmitted the claim were known to be honest, pious, and reliable, the report was considered authentic and accurate.

In addition to this, Muslim scholars compared the transmission of different narrators to confirm or disprove a report.

For example, Husain and Hammam narrated the same hadith from Qatadah from Anas ibn Malik. So, Shu’bah was corroborated in his report.

Using this way of comparison, scholars were also able to establish the reliability and strength of different narrators. Since Shu’bah’s transmissions tended to closely match his peers, they realized he was an extremely accurate narrator. Thus, they could trust his narrations even when he was not directly corroborated.

That is a brief summary of how Muslim scholars verify hadith reports.

As for non-Muslim academics, they have varying views on hadith. The vast majority accepts the attribution of reports to some figures who have too many attributions to them to deny.

Denying, for example, that Shu’bah actually did narrate the above hadith is extremely irrational considering how many students of Shu’bah narrated the hadith from him.

However, after this basic acceptance (that Shu’bah did narrate the hadith), some are extremely skeptical and reject everything else. Meaning, they would say we cannot claim Qatadah or Anas ibn Malik narrated the hadith. They would say it is likely Shu’bah or his peers made up the hadith.

Others (nowadays more dominant) are a bit more accepting of the accuracy of some reports, using a method called Isnad-cum-matn Analysis (ICMA).

ICMA posits that it is possible to attribute a report to a figure if there are enough chains and corresponding matns (information in the hadith) that indicate the attribution of the hadith to a figure.

So, since Husain, Hammam, and Shu’bah all narrate the hadith from Qatadah with similar but distinct wordings, proponents of ICMA would argue it is likely the hadith does come from Qatadah.

Then, we could argue the hadith also comes from Anas ibn Malik because we have strong reason to suspect Qatadah was accurate in his narrations from Anas ibn Malik for a variety of reasons. I wrote an article demonstrating how the hadith scholars verified the reliability of a contemporary of Qatadah, Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri. This is not the place to delve into that in detail.

Some proponents of ICMA might follow this argument and agree with the conclusion, and some might refuse.

All that being said, the purpose is not to support ICMA, so this article will go through the chains and show how they lead to the conclusion that the moon split without following the exact ICMA method. However, the purpose is also not to use one chain of narrators to prove the splitting of the moon but to show that the mass of narrations is untenable to reject.

The following sections will have some brief analysis that can be skipped by a reader who only wants to view the illustrated chains.

Report of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud

Abdullah ibn Mas’ud (d. 32) was an early convert to Islam in Makkah, and thus, a direct witness to the splitting of the moon.

There are two significant reports from Abdullah ibn Mas’ud about it:

Abu Ma’mar narratad from Ibn Mas’ud, “While we were with the Prophet (SAW), the moon split, and he said, ‘Bear witness!'” This was at Mina, and the moon split into two halves.

Abu al-Dhuha narrated from Masruq from Ibn Mas’ud as part of a longer hadith, “Five have already passed: 1) The Splitting of the Moon, 2) Rome’s Victory, 3) The Day of Smoke, 4) The Day of Badr, and 5) The Lizam.” We will not delve into the other miracles that are also mentioned here.

Transmission of Abu Ma’mar

The hadith of Abu Ma’mar is narrated by two routes:

Mujahid and Ibrahim were contemporaries, Mujahid from Makkah and Ibrahim from Kufa. Ibn Abi Najeeh and A’mash were likewise contemporaries, one from Makkah and the other from Kufa. So, this hadith was circulated early on in both Makkah and Kufa.

Simak (d. 123) also narrated this hadith from Ibrahim al-Nakha’i albeit replacing Abu Ma’mar with “Alqamah or Aswad.” Simak was known for having a weaker memory than A’mash and his phrasing expresses doubt, so it is a fair conclusion to say he actually heard the hadith from Ibrahim as being from Abu Ma’mar in reality but mistook the source. His narration, thus, provides further support for A’mash. If he actually received it from Alqamah and Aswad, that makes the hadith even stronger since they were Ibn Mas’ud’s main students.

Considering both Ibrahim al-Nakha’i and Mujahid were reliable contemporaries from different cities, it is difficult to deny this hadith traces back to Abu Ma’mar.

As for Abu Ma’mar himself, he was a student of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud well-liked by the scholars of hadith. Ibn Maeen said he was reliable. Mujahid reportedly said, “He was the tenth of the ten students of Ibn Mas’ud.” There is no known criticism of him. (Tahzeeb ul-Kamal)

However, we do not have to rely on Abu Ma’mar alone for this transmission, as we also have the second transmission.

Transmission of Abu al-Dhuha

The hadith of Abu al-Dhuha Muslim ibn Subaih was transmitted by several narrators:

It is part of a longer story Ibn Mas’ud tells about when the Prophet (SAW) prayed for there to be drought against Quraish.

A’mash was the most prominent and reliable narrator of the hadith. However, it was narrated by Fitr and Mughirah as well from Abu al-Dhuha who together provide very strong support to A’mash.

Mansur ibn al-Mu’tamir, an extremely reliable contemporary of A’mash, narrated the gist of the hadith from Abu al-Dhuha except he did not mention the part about the moon splitting. This is not necessarily surprising since it is part of a longer hadith. It does not problematize the authenticity of the part about the moon splitting because A’mash was quite reliable himself and there is enough support for him from Fitr and Mughirah to confirm Abu al-Dhuha did narrate that part of the hadith.

As a result, we can be confident Abu al-Dhuha actually narrated this hadith from Masruq from Abdullah ibn Mas’ud.

As for Abu al-Dhuha himself, he was a pious and reliable narrator of hadith according to the hadith scholars. Ibn Maeen and Abu Zur’ah called him reliable. His contemporaries also respected him. Sha’bi (one of the famous scholars of that generation) used to have Abu al-Dhuha sit next to him, and whenever something came up, he would ask Abu al-Dhuha, “What do you think?” (Tahzeeb ul-Kamal)

As for Masruq, he was one of the major students of Ibn Mas’ud. Ibrahim al-Nakha’i said, “The students of Ibn Mas’ud who taught people Quran and Sunnah were six,” and mentioned Masruq as the fourth name. Ibn Maeen was asked about Masruq and said, “He was reliable. You don’t ask about someone like that (i.e. because of how obvious it is).” The reports about Masruq’s piety, knowledge, and reliability are too many to mention here. (Tahzeeb ul-Kamal)

This transmission of the hadith from Ibn Mas’ud is thus quite reliable.

Conclusion

Each of the transmissions from Ibn Mas’ud is reliable, but when the two are combined, it leaves little doubt that Ibn Mas’ud actually said this.

I did not even mention here the weak or disconnected transmissions from Ibn Mas’ud not wanting to lengthen this article. For example, Muhammad ibn Sirin (d. 110) said, “I have been informed that Ibn Masud used to say the moon has already split.”

When all of those are combined, we can be confident Ibn Mas’ud was an eyewitness who testified that the moon split in the time of the Prophet (SAW).

Report of Ibn Umar

Abdullah ibn Umar ibn al-Khattab (d. 73) became Muslim in Makkah when he was young, so it is likely he also saw the splitting of the moon. If he did not see it directly himself, he was in Makkah when the people of Makkah generally saw it.

Ibn Umar (RA) said, “The moon split in the time of the Prophet (SAW), and he said, ‘Bear witness!'”

The hadith was narrated by Shu’bah as shown in the summarized illustration:

Shu’bah was a major authority of hadith in his generation and a known student of A’mash. He was called ‘the father of hadith sciences’, and he systematized the idea of verifying narrators and chains in his milieu.

A’mash was a famous Kufan authority of hadith. Shu’bah used to call A’mash “Mushaf” (Manuscript or Book) due to the strength of his memory, and Muhammad ibn Abdullah ibn Ammar al-Mowsili said, “None of the narrators of hadith were more reliable than A’mash except Mansur.” (Tahzeeb ul-Kamal)

Mujahid was a famous scholar of Makkah who met several companions including Ibn Abbas, Ibn Umar, and Aisha (RA).

As a result, this hadith reaches a high standard of authenticity, especially when combined with the other narrations. Ibn Umar (RA), even if possibly not a direct witness, was very close to the event and definitely knew and met people who did directly witness it right after they witnessed it, since his father Umar ibn al-Khattab was a senior, close companion of the Prophet (SAW).

Report of Anas ibn Malik

Anas ibn Malik (d. 93) was a young boy whose mother sent him to closely serve the Prophet (SAW) when he came to Madinah. So, he was not in Makkah when the moon was split.

However, he accompanied the Prophet (SAW) and his companions closely, so he definitely knew many actual eyewitnesses to the event. As a result, his narration is strong evidence, even if he was not a direct eyewitness himself.

Anas ibn Malik (RA) said, “The people of Makkah asked to see a miracle, so he showed them the splitting of the moon.” Some reports add that he showed them the splitting of the moon twice.

This hadith was narrated by Qatadah with the following chain:

Qatadah was a known, reliable student of Anas ibn Malik. Abu Hatim said, “The strongest student of Anas was Zuhri, then Qatadah.” (Tahzeeb ul-Kamal)

The only complaint people had about Qatadah was that he did tadlees (skipped his sources) sometimes, however, Shu’bah (one person who narrated this hadith from Qatadah) said, “I used to watch Qatadah’s lips carefully. If he said, ‘XYZ narrated to me’, I would write it down. If he did not say that, I did not write it down.” Yahya al-Qattan said, “Any narration Shu’bah narrates from someone, you don’t need to worry whether that person heard directly from his teacher or not. Shu’bah has done the job of verifying for you.” (Mu’jam al-Mudalliseen)

So, we can say quite confidently that Anas ibn Malik said the moon split in the time of the Prophet (SAW) for the people of Makkah.

When this is combined with the hadith of Ibn Mas’ud and Ibn Umar, it is extremely strong evidence.

Report of Abdullah ibn Abbas

Abdullah ibn Abbas (d. 68) was the Prophet (SAW)’s cousin and only 3 years old when the Prophet migrated from Makkah to Madinah. So, like Anas ibn Malik, he also did not directly witness the splitting of the moon.

However, he grew up in the city of Makkah then Madinah where he had close contact with people who did directly witness the splitting of the moon. So, his testimony is strong evidence.

Ibn Abbas (RA) said, “The moon was split in the time of the Prophet (SAW).”

Bakr ibn Mudhar narrated the hadith with the illustrated chain:

In one report, it is mentioned Ibn Lahee’ah corroborated Bakr ibn Mudhar from Ja’far ibn Rabee’ah.

All of these narrators were known and reliable. Bakr and Ja’far were Egyptian scholars. Irak ibn Malik was Madani, and Ubaidullah and Ibn Abbas were Makkan.

There are other less reliable chains of this hadith to Ibn Abbas.

For example, Dawud ibn Abi Hind (d. 140) narrated it from Ali ibn Abi Talhah (d. 143) from Ibn Abbas. Although all the narrators are reliable, Ali ibn Abi Talhah did not directly meet Ibn Abbas. He learned from close students of Ibn Abbas. So, this chain is disconnected.

However, as a combination, we can reasonably confirm that Ibn Abbas spoke about the moon being split in the time of the Prophet (SAW).

When this report of Ibn Abbas is combined with the reports of Ibn Mas’ud, Ibn Umar, and Anas ibn Malik, there is no room for doubt that the Prophet (SAW) actually split the moon for the people of Makkah.

Report of Huzaifah ibn al-Yaman

Huzaifah ibn al-Yaman was a close confidante of the Prophet (SAW). He mainly lived in Madinah but used to visit Makkah while the Prophet (SAW) was there. He was probably not a direct witness of the moon splitting, but knew the Prophet (SAW) and his companions from Makkah very well and likely saw the people’s reaction to the moon splitting.

One day, Huzaifah gave the Friday sermon where he quoted the verses ⟪The hour has come near, and the moon has split⟫ and said, “The hour has already come near, and the moon has already split.”

This was narrated by Ata ibn al-Saa’ib with the illustrated chain:

Ata ibn al-Saa’ib was considered honest in hadith, but he was criticized for becoming weak in his memory later in life. However, Imam Ahmad said, “If someone who heard from Ata early narrates a hadith from him, it is Sahih. Sufyan and Shu’bah heard from him early.” (Tahzeeb ul-Kamal) This hadith was narrated by Shu’bah and Sufyan in addition to many others.

Abdullah ibn Habeeb was a known scholar of Kufa. He was famous for teaching Quran, but also narrated hadith from several companions.

Report of Jubair ibn Mut’im

Jubair ibn Mut’im was a contemporary of the Prophet (SAW) in Makkah. He did not accept Islam until after the Prophet (SAW) had already left Makkah for Madinah. So, he would have been a direct eyewitness to either the moon splitting or the reaction of people when the moon split.

Jubair ibn Mut’im (RA) said, “The moon split in the time of the Prophet (SAW), one half over this mountain and another half over this mountain.”

This was narrated by Husain ibn Abd al-Rahman with the illustrated chain:

Husain ibn Abd al-Rahman narrated this from Jubair ibn Muhammad ibn Jubair from (his father) Muhammad from (his father) Jubair ibn Mut’im. Some narrators omit Jubair ibn Muhammad from the chain.

Husain ibn Abd al-Rahman was known to be reliable in hadith but was criticized for weaker memory later in life. However, this hadith was narrated by several people from him.

Jubair ibn Muhammad ibn Jubair was not well-known, but he narrated this hadith from his father, so it is most likely accurate. Muhammad ibn Jubair was considered reliable by the scholars of hadith, and he too narrated this hadith from his father.

This chain is not as reliable as the others, but it is important corroborating information. When combined with the reports of Ibn Mas’ud, Ibn Umar, Anas ibn Malik, Ibn Abbas, and Huzaifah, we can have no doubt in the splitting of the moon.

Are the companions a biased source?

Someone might say: Even if we grant the companions claimed the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) split the moon, they were Muslim companions of his. They would be biased in his favor. So, how can that be reason to believe their claim?

Although the companions were Muslim and loved the Prophet Muhammad (SAW), that does not entail they would make up this event for several reasons.

Firstly and most importantly, if a person of sound mind were planning to fabricate something, he would only fabricate something that had plausible deniability. He might say, “The Prophet (SAW) said XYZ.” If someone contradicts him and says, “I never heard that from the Prophet,” he can just respond, “He said it to me personally.” It would be irrational and foolish to fabricate something obviously and blatantly false that could be verified by talking to any companion or senior student of a companion.

In fact, there would be an extremely strong incentive not to fabricate such a thing because of the fear of being accused of lying.

Secondly, the companions were known to disagree with each other and contradict each other in many issues ranging from rituals to law. There was no united confederation of companions to agree on a story about the Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

If one were to fabricate a story like this, there is no reason others would not immediately accuse him of lying for that.

Thirdly, the companions were known to be sincere in their belief in Islam. This is demonstrated by the widely reported description of their piety and prayer in public and in private. If they were not sincere, they would not have done that.

Why isn’t the report more widely transmitted?

Some people say: If the moon had actually split, it would be widespread knowledge among the Muslims. It would not be limited to a few reports. The fact that there are not many more reports on this topic is evidence the moon did not actually split. In fact, even the Seerah of Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham don’t mention this incident. How could it have been famous then?

The answer to this objection is that this is a serious misunderstanding of how reports work. The existence of a reliable report about an incident does not mean that was the only source of the knowledge of that incident. Rather, the report is just the knowledge that was passed down with a proper chain of narration.

There is no doubt that the splitting of the moon was well-known in Kufa, Basra, Makkah, and other Muslim cities. That is what it means when we have a report from those cities about the splitting. For example, we have a report from Qatadah from Anas in the city of Basrah. But, we also know Ibn Sireen (also from Basra) narrated (without chain) from Ibn Masud that the moon split! In addition to that, there were no doubt many Basran scholars who knew and mentioned the splitting of the moon. The report of Qatadah is however the only one with a proper chain.

As a result, our analysis of these reports is only an attempt to analyze the most rigorous sources, not a claim that these are the only sources that exist.

When we analyzed these reports, we saw that the reports were early and numerous enough that the knowledge must have come from the companions of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). In fact, the moon splitting is perhaps one of the more well-attested facts about the Prophet Muhammad (SAW)’s time in Makkah from the perspective of proper reports.

As for the absence of the splitting of the moon in some Seerah sources like Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham, that can be explained by the absence of this narration in Madinah. Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham, whose work is a derivative of Ibn Ishaq’s, relied primarily on Madinan sources for the Seerah. But, the absence of the report in Madinah cannot be used as evidence to doubt it when the report was known in the other major cities. Madinah did not encompass all of Muslim knowledge.

Someone might argue: How can such important information not be passed down in Madinah?

Firstly, the absence of a report among the major scholars of Madinah is not the same as complete ignorance of the incident. Perhaps, it was just not passed down by major scholars.

Secondly, it is a projection of our mindset onto the early Muslims of Madinah to claim the splitting of the moon was particularly important. The people of Madinah recorded other miracles of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in Makkah, like the Isra and Miraj (the night journey of the Prophet from Makkah to Jerusalem then to the heavens).

However, it is not necessary the early Muslims of Madinah were in search of “proofs” or “miracles” of Islam. So, just being a miracle would not necessarily have made an event interesting to them, like it does to us. Unlike Isra and Miraj (in which the prayer was obligated), the splitting of the moon had no special consequence to daily Muslim life. So, it may very well have not been deemed important enough for it to be transmitted or at least not accorded as much importance as we give it today.

Thirdly, there was much information about the Prophet Muhammad (SAW)’s life that was remembered and recorded in one place and not another. That’s the nature of how history and reports get remembered. There is no logic or rationality in rejecting the narration of several cities because of the lack of remembrance in one.

Conclusion From Reports

There are two levels of arguments to make from the aforementioned reports.

Firstly, the report of the moon splitting is attributed to at least 6 companions, most strongly to the eyewitness Abdullah ibn Mas’ud. When all the reports are combined together even with the possibility of weakness in some of the reports, it is impossible to argue the moon did not split. The reports are too widespread and reported from different localities (Kufa, Basra, Makkah, and Egypt) to all have been fabricated.

Secondly, if we adopted the most skeptical position (which is, to be clear, unjustified) and only accepted the attribution of reports to those who had too many students narrate it from them, that still means the report of the moon splitting in the lifetime of the Prophet (SAW) was well-known within a century of the Prophet (SAW)’s death.

The earliest narrator with multiple chains to him in the hadith analyzed above would be Abu Ma’mar (d. 62). After him, the earliest narrators with multiple chains to them are Ibrahim al-Nakha’i (d. 96), Abu al-Dhuha (d. 100) and Qatadah (d. 117). Then, close after them are narrators like Ata ibn al-Saa’ib (d. 136) and Husain ibn Abd al-Rahman (d. 139). Then, close after them are narrators like Shu’bah (d. 160) and Bakr ibn Mudhar (d. 174).

The idea that the Prophet (SAW) split the moon for the disbelievers in Makkah was well-known within a generation of the Prophet (SAW)’s death in various cities. The only viable explanation for this phenomenon is that this knowledge was passed down from a common source, the generation before them, the companions of the Prophet (SAW) and witnesses to the event.

As such, the reports strongly lead us to conclude the moon did actually split in the time of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW). When this is combined with the testimony of the Quran, the evidence becomes conclusive and leaves no reasonable room for doubt.

Other Objections

When many people despair of responding to the positive evidence of the moon splitting, they object to the splitting of the moon in various ways.

Why do objections exist?

Before dealing with those objections, we should answer the perennial question: Why does God allow the existence of objections in the first place? Why is the evidence not clear enough to bar the existence of objections?

The answer is in the classification of miracles we discussed in the first section of this article.

God does not intend to send absolutely forcing miracles to prove his prophets. In fact, there would be no point to absolutely forcing miracles since they force every sane human into believing. What would be the value in that?

The purpose of this world is to divide the sincere from the insincere. As such, God sends miracles that allow people the possibility of making excuses to reject the miracles. In fact, as the Quran itself attests, the very eyewitnesses to the moon splitting rejected it by calling it magic or an illusion. The Torah records how the Pharaoh and the Egyptians denied the staff turning into a snake in front of their eyes by calling it magic. If they could find a way to unreasonably reject an observed miracle, of course people today can find ways to unreasonably reject rational miracles.

The rational miracles proving Islam make it unreasonable and unjustified to reject Islam until you die. They do not force every sane person to accept, but they do make those who reject liable for punishment on the Day of Judgement.

A related question I have written on before: Why do people disbelieve in Islam if it is the truth?

Why didn’t other nations see the splitting of the moon?

Some people object to the splitting of the moon by arguing that we would have records from every nation in the world if the moon truly did split.

As we mentioned before, the splitting of the moon was a miracle given to the people of Makkah specifically, not to the whole world.

There are many reasons not everyone would notice or record the splitting of the moon if it even happened.

Firstly, the moon split at night which is the time most people would be asleep, especially in Asia, Africa, and most of Europe.

Secondly, the moon only split as far as we know for a few minutes. It did not stay split for hours. Even if some people were awake at the time, only a few of them would be looking at the sky at that time.

Thirdly, weather and other factors can block people’s view of the moon. Allah may even have done that intentionally to prevent people other than the Makkans from seeing it.

Fourthly, not all parts of the world can see the moon at the same time. Many lands would have been simply covered from the moon.

Fifthly, even of those people who were awake at the time and were coincidentally looking at the moon at the time during clear weather, very few would have access to record-keeping tools or to anyone who had access to those, if that person would even believe their testimony in the first place.

Sixthly, of those who were awake at the time and had the ability to record events, only a few would believe their eyes, especially with no prophet to explicitly tell them he was going to split the moon. After the moon was brought back to its normal state, most would assume they were tricked by the light or were dreaming or sleepy. Pen and paper was not cheap at the time such that it would be wasted on people’s dreams.

Seventhly, of those who were awake, saw it, and recorded the event, hardly any of those records would survive until the modern day. Documents from that era only survive rarely. The vast majority are lost to time.

Considering all these factors, it is entirely expected that we do not have record of the splitting of the moon from other nations. In fact, the splitting of the moon was only noteworthy enough to have been witnessed and recorded by Muslims because the Prophet (SAW) specifically pointed it out to the people of Makkah. Otherwise, we do not have reports or even claims by Muslims that anyone else, like the people of Madinah or other cities, saw the splitting of the moon (which is what we may expect if the reports were fabrications).

To bolster the fact that an event like this would be unlikely to be recorded, consider an example mentioned in this thread.

There was a supernova that appeared in the sky in 1054, and according to astronomical calculations it stayed visible at night for almost a year and was visible even in the day for around 23 days. (See SN 1054) However, there are only a handful of confirmed historical sources that mention this supernova, less than 10, from China, Japan, and Muslims. There are some plausible but not confirmed European and Native American sources as well. In fact, the lack of European sources puzzles many scholars.

When this is the case with a supernova that was visible in the day for two weeks and for many months in the night sky, what sources should we expect for the moon splitting for a few minutes one night? The reality is historical records are not as encompassing as many imagine them to be.

This may raise the question: Why did Allah not make the splitting of the moon so prominent as to be recorded in every nation, thus confirming the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was true for sure?

There are many possible reasons for this.

One reason is Allah had no reason to send an observed miracle to people who did not have access to the prophet that miracle was sent for in the first place. Rather than guiding people, that would only confuse them, and liars and charlatans might in fact use the moon splitting for their own false purposes.

Secondly, if the moon splitting was an event recorded everywhere, there would be much doubt cast onto the Prophet Muhammad (SAW)’s centrality in the event. Disbelievers and skeptics would have much more room to say, “The moon simply appeared to split for the whole world, whatever astronomical phenomenon caused that, and we have no reason to believe it split for the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) specifically. After all, many charlatans claimed the moon split for them.”

However, in the way it is now, the moon splitting is recorded with more than sufficient evidence but makes clear that it only happened for the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) as a miracle. He did not attempt to coopt a general astronomical event that happened.

Why don’t we see evidence for it today?

Some people argue against the moon splitting by asking: Why don’t we see evidence of the moon having been split? Why are there no cracks or fault lines to prove it?

This is the most spurious of the objections mentioned in this article. God is not limited in his ability that He would join the moon together in an imperfect way that leaves cracks or fault lines. God split the moon, and He put it back as it was with no damage or scars.

Conclusion

In this article, we have analyzed the evidence for the moon splitting in the Quran and in testimonial accounts and shown that the evidence is strong enough to compel sincere and rational people into accepting that the moon did split and Muhammad (SAW) was a true prophet of God.

⟪Whoever is guided is only guided for himself. And whoever errs only errs against himself. And no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. And never would We punish until We sent a messenger.⟫ (Quran 17:15)