# Talk:Splitting of the Moon

Dear Editors,
I would like to propose a revision to the "Splitting of the Moon" article. Below, I have identified specific parts of the current article that I believe do not represent a balanced perspective and have provided suggestions for revision.


### Identified Issues and Proposed Revisions
1. **Current Article Excerpt:**

  "According to a report from Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin, a lunar eclipse happened and the Quranic verse 54:1 was revealed: 'The Hour is at hand and the moon has been split.' This account is corroborated by scholarly research, ascertaining a lunar eclipse in the given timeframe."

  **Disagreement:**
  This statement implies a natural explanation (a lunar eclipse) for the event, which contradicts the traditional Islamic belief in the miraculous nature of the event.

  **Proposed Revision:**
  "According to a report from Ibn Abbas, Muhammad's cousin, the Quranic verse 54:1 was revealed: 'The Hour is at hand and the moon has been split.' This verse is interpreted by many Islamic scholars as referring to a literal miraculous event that took place during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ)."

  **References:**
  * [Quran Surah Al-Qamar (54:1-2)](https://quran.com/54/1-2)
  * [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Hadith 830](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3637)
  * [Sahih Muslim, Book 39, Hadith 6725](https://sunnah.com/muslim:2800a)
  * [Tafsir Ibn Kathir](https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/ibn-kathir/surah/54/1)

2. **Current Article Excerpt:**

  "Some post-Quranic scholars, aiming at attributing miracles to Muhammad, reinterpreted the verb inshaqqa in the verse from its original figurative meaning to a literal one. As a result, the event of Muhammad interpreting the natural phenomenon of a lunar eclipse was transformed into an extraordinary miracle of considerable magnitude—the splitting of the moon."

  **Disagreement:**
  This statement suggests that the literal interpretation of the event as a miracle was a later addition, which undermines the traditional Islamic belief.

  **Proposed Revision:**
  "Some scholars interpret the verb inshaqqa in the verse literally, supporting the view that the event of the moon splitting was a miraculous occurrence witnessed by the people of Mecca during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ)."

  **References:**
  * [Tafsir Ibn Kathir](https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/ibn-kathir/surah/54/1)
  * [Tafsir Al-Jalalayn](https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=54&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&LanguageId=2)
  * [Tafsir As-Sa'di](https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/sadi/surah/54/1)

3. **Current Article Excerpt:**

  "Western historians, such as A. J. Wensinck and Denis Gril, reject the historicity of the miracle, arguing that the Quran itself denies miracles, in the traditional sense, in connection with Muhammad."

  **Disagreement:**
  This statement represents a minority view and gives undue weight to skeptical perspectives, which may not align with the traditional Islamic viewpoint.

  **Proposed Revision:**
  "While some Western historians, such as A. J. Wensinck and Denis Gril, reject the historicity of the miracle, the traditional Islamic belief holds that the splitting of the moon was a miraculous event performed by the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ)."

  **References:**
  * [The Study Quran](https://www.amazon.com/Study-Quran-Translation-Commentary/dp/0061125865)
  * [Ash-Shifa by Qadi Iyad](https://www.alim.org/library/books/18)


### Conclusion
By incorporating these revisions, the article will better reflect the traditional Islamic belief in the splitting of the moon, supported by authentic sources and scholarly interpretations. This ensures that readers understand the topic comprehensively from both perspectives.
Sincerely,
~~~~ Habib Hineb (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

[Quran Surah Al-Qamar (54:1-2)](https://quran.com/54/1-2)
[Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Hadith 830](https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3637)
[Sahih Muslim, Book 39, Hadith 6725](https://sunnah.com/muslim:2800a)
[Tafsir Ibn Kathir](https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/ibn-kathir/surah/54/1)
[Tafsir Al-Jalalayn](https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=54&tAyahNo=1&tDisplay=yes&LanguageId=2)
[Tafsir As-Sa'di](https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/sadi/surah/54/1)


### Response to User:Vpab15
Thank you for your feedback. I have updated my proposal to address your concerns by identifying and quoting the parts of the article I disagree with. Please find the detailed points and references in the revised proposal above.

*It might help if you identify and quote the parts of the article that you disagree with, it is not clear from the long text you wrote. I do not disagree excessive scientific explanations do not belong in an article about a miracle, which is supernatural by definition. But I can't say I find that is the case at the moment. Vpab15 (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
@Vpab15: 
Hi,
I’m following up on my earlier proposal regarding the "Splitting of the Moon" article. It’s been a few months since my last update, and I was wondering if there are any further concerns or feedback? Please let me know if clarification is needed or if the changes can move forward.
Thanks!  
Habib Hineb (talk) 08:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

The above suggestions amount to WP:FALSEBALANCE. We don't give equal weight to religious beliefs regarding physical phenomena. Undue weight is not given to skeptical perspectives, rather, appropriate weight is given to skeptical perspectives. The scientific consensus is that this "miracle" never happened, and that is the view Wikipedia should present. See the WP:FRINGE policy for further guidance. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I had a few questions about this article. The article says that: 
"the splitting of the moon, which according to a report from Muhammad's cousin Ibn Abbas, was in fact a lunar eclipse"
The source quoted for the claim that Ibn Abbas made this statement was Jonathan E Brockopp's "The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad" pg. 47
And the closest thing I could find to this being Ibn Abbas' view is this statement:
For example, 'Abd al-Razzaq has recorded in his Musannaf a tradition traced back to 'Ikrima, the Medinan mawla (servant) of Ibn 'Abbās. 'Ikrima relates that once in Muhammad's time the moon was eclipsed (kasafa l-qamaru) and the people said, "A spell has been cast over the moon" (suhira l-qamar). Thereupon the Prophet recited the first verse of the moon passage: "The Hour is at hand and the moon has been split." (The Cambridge Companion to Muhammad Pg. 47)
This is not the view of Ibn Abbas, this is the view of Ikrima, a servant of Ibn Abbas, who was not an eyewitness. He was born 13 years after Muhammad's death. In fact, Ibn Abbas actually refutes this claim of the moon not actually splitting. As we see in Sahih Al Bukhari:
1. Narrated Ibn Abbas:
The moon was split into two parts during the lifetime of the Prophet. (Bukhari 3638)
2. Narrated Ibn Abbas:
During the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) the moon was split into two places. (Bukhari 3870)
3. Ibn 'Abbas reported that the moon was split up during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (may peace he upon him). (Muslim 2803)
So it's not correct to say that the view of the moon splitting being a lunar eclipse was held by Ibn Abbas. It was likely held by Ikrimah who is a subject of much dispute among scholars. Some scholars did accept him but some rebuked him too.
Also the claim that the view of the Moon splitting miracle, being a lunar eclipse was the original and authentic view is strange. There is very little evidence for this. In fact, we have a number of early Hadiths which support the Moon splitting miracles being literal. There are too many hadiths that mention the event so here are ten: Muslim 2803, Bukhari 3871, Bukhari 3683, Bukhari 3870, Nasa'i 962, Bukhari 4825, Muslim 2803, Bukhari 3636, Bukhari 3637, Tirmidhi 2182
As Imam Kathir describes in his Tafsir Ibn Kathir. The moon literally splitting was a miracle accepted by:
Imam Ahmed, Imam Bukhari, Imam Bayhaqi, Imam Kathir himself and so many others.
In Bidayah wa Nihayah, Imam Kathir's book. He lists off several other non Muslims who attested to the moon splitting too on page 356 (Page 356 in the original Arabic book).
This has been the accepted and authentic narrative for the longest time. And quoting some few narrators who suggested other views and using them as proof that the moon didn't split while ignoring the 1400 years of Consensus of Islamic scholarship who accepted the miracle seems strange.
And if the word انشق (Anshaq) for "split" is meant to be metaphorical for a lunar eclipse, how do we explain narrations like these: 
We were along with Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) at Mina, that moon was split up into two. One of its parts was behind the mountain and the other one was on this side of the mountain. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said to us: Bear witness to this. (Muslim 2800b)
The moon was split ( into two pieces ) while we were with the Prophet (ﷺ) in Mina. He said, "Be witnesses." Then a Piece of the moon went towards the mountain. (Sahih Bukhari 3869)
How can a piece of a lunar eclipse seperate from the rest and fly away? And why would the Meccans accuse Muhammad of magic if all they saw was a regular lunar eclipse? QcTheCat (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

What do you propose? There is no problem correcting the attribution, if that is all you are suggesting. There should be no problem including relevant Hadith citations as long as we are not engaging in interpretation; that should be up to scholarly sources. On the other hand, it is completely irrelevant who accepts the miracle as fact. Notable individuals throughout history thought the Earth was flat and the Sun orbits around it, but that doesn't bestow validity to a belief that is demonstrably scientifically false.
Please propose a revised passage with appropriate sources cited. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:49, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
What I propose is:
Firstly, The citation of Ibn Abbas should be changed to citation from "Ikrimah, a Medinan servant of Ibn Abbas"
And of course, from a secular perspective, a miracle would not be placed as fact. But the article talks about the "original interpretation" of a historical event. And I suggest that the article should not portray the event as "originally metaphorical" simply because of one source, unless there are more sources to support it. QcTheCat (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
How should they be attributed to? Feel free to suggest edits. Neutralhappy (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

"However, the disbelievers during Muhammad's time referred to this as "enchantment" (sihr), meaning that Muhammad was trying to beguile them into accepting the astronomical event as proof of his prophethood, as they also dismissed as sihr the verbal signs he recited to them" This is all opinion. The writer first assumed it was an astronomical event, then he connects this with "verbal signs". There is no connection with this and verbal signs, and your first assumption is just that. Then the writer says " Instead, they asked him to provide visual signs that defy the law of nature (miracles), such as causing a fountain to burst forth from the ground, creating a lush garden with flowing rivers amidst palm and grape trees, and building a golden house. Nevertheless, it is opined that Muhammad was able to perform such miraculous signs and thus provided them with various reasons." What? No one said they asked that in response. That's found in a different surah, so the framing of this passage is really weird. This to me is original research. They crafted a story from 2 verses from Surah Qamar and a few from another surah (might be Isra, but do not take my word for it). 129.12.158.49 (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Introduction
Change:
"The Splitting of the Moon (Arabic: انشقاق القمر, romanized: Anshiqāq al-Qamar) is a miracle in the Muslim faith attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad."
To:
"The Splitting of the Moon (Arabic: انشقاق القمر, romanized: Anshiqāq al-Qamar) is a belief in Muslim mythology attributed to the Islamic prophet Muhammad."
Reason: The term "miracle" assumes the event occurred, which is not supported by scientific evidence. Using "mythology" ensures neutrality and aligns with Wikipedia's NPOV policy.
Section Title
Change:
Title "Origin"
To:
"Origin of the belief"
Reason: This change clarifies that the section refers to the origin of a belief rather than an established historical event.
Lack of Evidence
Add the following sentence to the introduction:
"No scientific evidence supports the claim that the Moon has been physically split and rejoined, and there are no historical records from other civilizations or astronomical observations to corroborate this belief."
Reason: This provides necessary context and highlights the absence of evidence, ensuring readers are aware of the scientific perspective. OpenTruthBeacon (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I think we can take for granted that there will be no scientific evidence for a miracle, pretty much by definition. Not really sure the proposed changes are an improvement. Vpab15 (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Change 3 needs an explicit reference. Change 2 probably isn't a win. I would support change 1 or something like it. Izno (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
"Miracle in the Muslim faith" implies just that. It's part of the Muslim faith, nothing more Aston305 (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Please correct – it should be "Inshiqāq" not *Anshiqāq in the transliteration of the Arabic name for this situation. It's a verbal noun of group 7, so it starts with i-, cf: Arabic verbs 84.40.153.249 (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2025 (UTC)