Talk:Splitting of the Moon

message: Did this really happen ? Any chinese , byzantine , indian records of the event other than the hadith ? 132.170.5.91 05:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have heard something to that effect, but i have not investigated it. --Striver 16:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It was day in those places, but there is evidence from India  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.97.155.8 (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Do you mean did the moon really split? Are you an idiot? 109.186.77.177 (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, no it was not. You know the earth is a sphere and day and night are created by the sun shining on one part of the sphere and not on the other. Get out a map of the world and convince yourself that day in Byzantine AND China implies day in Arabia. Secondly, since the moon in this particular case was observed above mount Nur(East of mekka?). In principle it could be the case that people in Byzantine could not see the moon because it was below their horizon. And people in China could not see it because they already had morning and the sun was overshining the moon. However, you would have a crescent moon and no fullmoon then.
141.5.26.41 (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Older

message: One of the GA criteria is "It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images". There are no images. Can a suitable picture of the event or at least the Prophet be included.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Redtigerxyz, I know that a nineteenth century miniature painted at the Rajput (Hindu) court of Kotah shows the splitting of the moon with all its details. But I don't know how to get a photo of it(do you know?). I'll try to add the information you requested as soon as possible. --Aminz (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Search the net if you can find a free pic??--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Redtigerxyz, I searched a lot for a relevant pic but couldn't find any. The GA criteria says the pictures should be added when it is possible to find them. I don't think it is possible to do that in this case. --Aminz (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

text: After the recent changes to the lead, I think the article now summarizes all the viewpoints more vividly. --Aminz (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Redtigerxyz, per discussion below, the comment below has been satisfactorily answered I think. Cheers, --Aminz 01:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: It's apparent that there are at least two divergent views of what the Splitting of the Moon means. However this article presents many historical viewpoints without summarizing in any way intelligible to a non-Muslim, nor, possibly, in a way which presents the division in Muslim opinion clearly.
It seems that in an effort to be politically correct and uncontroversial, the article lacks substance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.67.7 (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback. I have now summarized the notable viewpoints in the lead.  where the divisions are clearly specified. --Aminz (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is improved over the previous draft. It's relatively easy now for someone who's not familiar with the issues to understand. Moreover, it presents major and minor opinions in a way that's very nicely balanced.
24.6.67.7 (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks 24.6.67.7. --Aminz 01:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What point might this article be making?

message: Aminz... considering that there is quite a substantial backlog on WP:GAN, i am happy to review this article if you're okay with that (perhaps WP:ISLAM could have a reviewing department in the future? i don't know). i would say that a few improvements are needed here and there  but i hope to elaborate in greater detail soon. ITAQALLAH 13:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much Itaqallah. Much appreciate it. I am looking forward your comments. --Aminz 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments 

message: did a quick artwork on a Graphics software, tried to make it as factually correct as possible based on Sahih Bukhari ~atif Talk 05:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is wonderful!!!! Is this your work?? --Aminz (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

text: So exciting! Thanks very much Atif!!!! I hope the original background image was not copyrighted :P --Aminz (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  the background image (original) is a small part of the image from the site and changed a lot, should it be an issue? ~atif Talk 06:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be okay to me. Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  added moon splitting image 

message: Not that I believe that NASA found evidence that the Moon split, which is claimed by some muslims, but this belief is out there so needs to be documented, if only so that a chance to question it can be given, hence my inclusion of a quote refuting it with scientific reasons. (Note I did think about mentioning poor Neil, but my understanding of mainstream Islamic beliefs on that matter referred to something else, so I thought a mention of him might be a bit too off topic and so omitted it. --Stickings90 (talk) - 13:56 03-06-2008  —Preceding comment was added at 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a scientific encyclopedia. Unless this is sourced to reputable published reliable sources, it can not be added to the article. --Be happy!! (talk) 19:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: You can add mostly anything for which you can find a good reference for. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I don't think there's a reliable source that presents this as evidence for the moon having been split. Replicating this theory in this article is misleading. I'll remove it and see if it attracts any editors. - JRheic (talk) 23:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added section about alleged NASA evidence 

message: There is no evidence that the Moon split and certainly no evidence that anything “big” happened to the Moon as recently as 1400 years ago.
The straight rills are nothing more than fault lines, like those from earthquake zones (such as the San Andreas in California) or a rift (as the East Africa Rift Valley).
Clear Skies
Jamie
Dr Jamie Love http://www.synapses.co.uk/merlin/index.html
----
----
I’ve never heard of the “Moon breaking in two” story. It sounds very unlikely. I’m no expert on the Moon. I just like to take photos of it. The fault line I mentioned on my Moon photo page is just a crack
on the surface of the Moon. There are many cracks/faults on the Moon’s crust just like there are many cracks/faults on the Earth’s crust.
This is not proof that the moon split in two. It’s like saying that a split in the skin of an apple means the apple split in two. I would agree with you that if the Moon broke into two parts 1400 years ago,
there would be an historical record in many different cultures around the globe.
I hope this helps. You may post my reply.
Best regards,
John French
Abrams Planetarium.
:Yes we need to post some opposition on the article and ofcourse it never happened. But I'm glad the article is here so everyone can see it. We can only post stuff from 'notable' people though, not just anyone. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experts responses  

message: Um, shouldn't we include a section on whether the moon has actually been split in its history or not? It seems important to clarify that in an article called "splitting of the moon".   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.208.39 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know there was any research out there disproving it, I would like to see it. In relation to this article this isn't a criticism of or critique so it wouldn't have a place here. Iβn Mᾱsῡɖ τᾱℓк 09:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

text: As far as I can see, the original question has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. It's the fairly sensible suggestion that an article with title "Splitting of the moon" should discuss anything to do with the moon ever having been fragmented (e.g. there were theories that the moon accreted from different parts about 4 billion years ago, though nowadays the idea that it was knocked off the earth is more popular). 4 billion years ago is a bit too early to support anything theological. "Splitting of the moon in Islam" would not need such content. I don't have any strong opinion, but wouldn't object to a short disambiguating paragraph at the beginning on theories of formation of the moon, unconnected with religion. Maybe a hatnote - in fact, I've now added one. Pol098 (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the subject of this article is the common name for a point of Islamic theology, there is no need to disambiguate the title. I don't think there is any confusion in searches that would warrant a hatnote either, but it does no harm. Also, the article does describe the scientific view. Perhaps a "see also" hatnote would be better off in that section about the hoax, rather than at the top of the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't in any way about the hoax, it's for people who come to the article from a search. A hatnote at the top is better, as "the splitting of the moon" can well sound like a scientific article. The point is that with a title like "Splitting of the moon", people searching for information on astronomy and the like may come across this article, which has an ambiguous title; the purpose of a hatnote is to give quick (hence hat) information that the article might not be what is wanted, with no need to wade through text of no interest to the seeker. I have used the wording "This article is about an Islamic theological issue. For theories of formation of the moon which involve fragments, see Origin of the Moon#Accretion", which seems about OK. As an analogy, the article Quantum Leap, which is about a fictional television series, has a hatnote pointing to the physical phenomenon (Atomic electron transition).Alternatively this article could be renamed to something like "The splitting of the moon in Islamic theology", with a disambiguation page "Splitting of the moon" pointing to the renamed article and Origin of the Moon#Accretion.Pol098 (talk) 09:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the fact that nearly all Google hits for the phrase "splitting of the moon" relate to Islam in some way, I suspect that the probability is nearly 100% that any search on Wikipedia for that phrase is intended in a theological context, not a scientific one. That's why I believe the hatnote is unnecessary, although I do not object to it because it does no harm. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Actual splitting of the moon

message: on the modern claims of evidence section the information written is not enough to get a full picture on the lunar rilles, for the information present gives the impression that all the rilles on the moon and similar to Rima Ariadaeus, but the fact is there are other rilles (rifts) that still is a scientific mystery... 
visit (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/ch6.2.htm). you will find on this page under the picture number ([190] FIGURE 198) information about sinuous rilles, among the information is: The origin of lunar sinuous rilles remains controversial.
under the picture ([195] FIGURE 204) which talks about hadley rille you will find: The rille is 1.5 km wide and over 300 m deep. It is thought to be a giant conduit that carried lava from an eruptive vent far south of this scene. Topographic information obtained from the Apollo 15 photographs supports this possibility; however, many puzzles about the rille remain.
and you can add photoes of the hadley rille to give readers a more complete picture of what this subject really is.
on another page (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/ch6.1.htm) you find under picture ([186] FIGURE 193) second paragraph: The processes by which lunar rilles form are open to controversy. Their sinuosities lack the characteristics of meanders in most terrestrial streams.
on the same page under picture ([187] FIGURE 194): The sinuous rilles here are part of a network controlled to some degree by fractures...(jump one sentence)..... Fracturing alone, however, cannot explain the origin of the rilles...(jump one sentence)...In addition, a terrace occurs at C, suggesting two cycles of rille formation. The larger rille is nearly obliterated at its juncture with rille A, suggesting that formation of A may have been slightly later, and that some sort of fluid erosion and overbank flooding may have been involved.
on the first page (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/ch6.2.htm) under ([192] FIGURE 200) in the middle of the long paragraph:  The rilles exhibit a marked branching or dendritic network pattern./ on the same picture (FIGURE 201) the last sentence in the paragraph: Tectonic displacements (faults) offset the lava surfaces and cut across the lava channels; they are, therefore, considered to be younger than the lava channels.
on the same page under picture ([193] FIGURE 202) slightly after the middle of the paragraph: and Hadley Rille, sharply etched in the mare surface, is thought to be one of the youngest rilles on the Moon.
and on the third page (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-362/ch6.3.htm)  ([207] FIGURE 217) the end of the first paragraph: The faulting must be relatively young because so few craters appear to be younger than the faults, and because the edges of the trough appear to be crisp and little affected by slumping and other mass wasting. (this is about the same rift that is now present on the page on wikipedia, and the purpose of this text is to show that these rifts and rilles are described as (young) which could mean that they formed at the same time)
you can order this information anyway you find appropriate.
i also request more information to be added to the main section (The Qur'an and Islamic tradition) to give the reader a better picture on what dependable and classical muslim scholars think about this phenomena since they oppose philosophers who say that the meaning of the verse is metaphorical, and most of scholars also oppose a few who said that the splitting will happen at judgement day. and i have a few propositions.
says abu ishaq al zajjaj [died 311 hijri] in his book (ma'ani al quran/meanings of the quran) commenting on (surat al qamar/surat the moon): interpreters have agreed, and the trusted men of knowledge reported us, that the moon had split on the prophet's (peace be upon him) time. and some people, who deviated from what's right and opposed what men of knowledge had agreed upon, alleged that the moon will split on judgement day, and the matter is clear as in the text and the agreement (of the men of knowledge/scholars), for god says: (and if they see a sign they say this is transient magic). so how can this be on judgement day. [the book is in arabic and this is my translation so i dont know how you can verify this unless you can speak arabic :)]
says ibn hajr al-asqalani in (fat'h al bari explaining sahih al-bukhari) in the book number 63: (virtues of the ansar(the supporters))/ chapter number 36: the splitting of the moon. ibn hajr reports the hadiths (narrations) that the bukhari had narrated with predication to the sahaba (companions) who tell the story of the splitting of the moon. then ibn hajr started explaining the narrations, and just before the middle of the explanations he says: what most narrations indicate is that the splitting was near moon-set, and supports this that they mentioned the viewing (of the moon) to the side of the mountain. and it's also likely that the splitting took place when the moon first rose. 
(ibn hajr's explanation means that the moon was in angle not in the middle of the sky but near the horizon, which explains why it's not reported by others, and why only the pagans of mecca saw it, who actually asked for the sign).
and something else is that if the splitting of the moon happened as a miracle for the prophet mohammad, it's not necessary for scientific evidences to be found, it could be found but it's not necessary, because muslims believe that god can do anything, and he can split the moon and then order it to return to what it was before without any impact. and this is what a muslim scholar said as in the tabari's [died 310 hijri] book (tafseer al tabari that is called: jami' al byan 'an ta'weel ay al-quran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tafsir_al-Tabari): in explaining (surat al qamar/surat the moon) he narrates many narrations, among them he mentions with predication to the scholar called qatada [died 118 hijri] (http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%82%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%AF%D8%A9_%D8%A8%D9%86_%D8%AF%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%A9) qatada says explaining the verse (the day of judgement drew near, and the moon was split) he says: Allah (god) does with his creations whatever he wants.
this means that it's possible that Allah (god) ordered that the moon will be split and then returned to it's old state without any impact. because if there is still evidence of the splitting, it means that everyone who sees it and doesn't believe will be doomed in this life. and what supports this is what god said is (surat al isra'/surat of the night journey 17) verse 59: And nothing could have hindered Us that We should send signs except that the ancients rejected them.
scholars explain this verse as in (tafseer al tabari), al hasan al basri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_of_Basra) says: it's a mercy for this nation , for if we send a sign and they deny it, you will face what the ancients faced. this is what al hasan said.
this means that if god sends a huge sign and people see it and they don't believe, a calamity will happen to them and they will be doomed. this is why the sign of the splitting of the moon was only to a few certain people in mecca who actually asked for it, and they denied it just as the verse in (surat al qamar/moon) 54-2: And if they see a miracle they turn aside and say: Transient magic. 
and god says in (surat al-dukhan/the smoke) 44-16: One day We shall seize you with a mighty onslaught: We will indeed (then) exact Retribution!
in tafseer al tabari he narrates that many scholars like obai ibn ka'b and ibn masud and ibn abbas and mojahid and abu al-'alya all say that this verse refers to the battle of badr (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr) where meccans faced a big loss, and this is also because they refused the prophet and denied the signs.
this is what muslims believe as i had given you the references at how scholars understood the verses of the quran.
so in the end, signs on the moon may be related or may be not, and if not related it doesn't mean that muslims then will unbelieve the splitting, but they believe that Allah (god) can do whatever he will just like qatadah said as i wrote above: Allah (god) does with his creations whatever he wants.
and i apologize that this request is a bit long, and i thank all your efforts, and may you be blessed
AliSartawi (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: I can't tell what the actual edit request is here.  I suggest waiting until you are autoconfirmed (4 days, 10 edits), and then you can edit the article yourself.  RudolfRed (talk) 01:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 21 August 2012 

message: In the Modern Hoax section, it says: "NASA scientists have stated that no evidence exists that Moon was split into two or more parts any time in the past."
The above is missing the word "the" between "no evidence exists that" and "Moon". I would edit it myself, but the page is currently protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venryx (talk • contribs) 
:Good catch. Fixed. And you should be able to edit semi-protected articles like this if you have 5 more edits including talk page participation. You're halfway there. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small Typo 

message: If anybody can be bothered to spend the time and money, the television program that Zaghlul El Naggar says that David Musa Pidcock saw, and told him that it gave scientific backing for the moon splitting, was probably one of James Burke's ten 1978 Connections programmes; what the programme actually said could be checked (there's also a book). Maybe Pidcock genuinely saw and misunderstood something, maybe it's all made up; I can't believe that the programme was quoted accurately (as worded in the book and quoted in WP article). The programmes are available for US$100] - they're interesting regardless of this issue, I don't know how dated they'd be found to be. Pol098 (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax: further investigation 

message: Can't find any "edit"s; so can somebody please add the transcription to the XXXXXX below, in the frist sentence:
"The splitting of the moon (Arabic: XXXXXX انشقاق القمر‎) was a miracle
The transcription of the Arabic letters is "shaqul qamar".
Thank you  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.252.167.2 (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic transcription 

message: This article should be entirely rewritten. When the Qu'ran was written, the language used was basing itself on objects and principles which will always be there to make its point. Technological objects relies on concepts and precepts which are constructs and will therefor change. If I write a book about current computers with specific words like the name of each CPUs, in a thousand of years from now, those at the other end won't understand anything unless they start reading about our own history. Religious books rely an constants which do not depend on technology, this ensure their survival in the future. The moon is always in any writtings, European or Islamic, being attributed to the mother (this was why they identified a celestral object which outlive human inventions as the intemporal mother), female principale and the Sun, father and the male principle. Splitting the moon refers more to the punishment against the motherly figure 9emotions) which in Abrahamic religion is associated with original sin and the reason why men are mere mortals. This is the reason why Muslims and Jews circumcise their boys, the forskin represents the female side, the emotions, which being tainted should be removed (basically means, don't follow your emotions). The message of the prophet was that men should have a new image of the mother, which means pure emotions which do not dupe you, emotions we could count on. This is why when the prophet refers to heaven, he mentions that men will return to their uncircumcised stage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yahya Talatin (talk • contribs) 21:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Assumptions

message: Kind request to add PEACE BE UPON HIM when the name of prophet Muhammad (PBUH) has been taken.
122.167.71.157 (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2015 

message: "...was a miracle attributed..."
Is this an encyclopedia or a fairy tale book talking about Santa Claus?
I think this is not a very rational start for an article that's listed as a good article.
It should be something along the line "...is an alleged miracle attributed..." instead.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.110.99.115 (talk) 21:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:NPOVN#POV use of the word 'miracle'?. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence of the article 

message: I would like to point out the following troublesome section under Other Perspectives:
"Some Muslim scholars argue that an astronomical event must have happened at that time, which made it appear as if the Moon had been split in two, because the phenomenon was seen at least in India as well".
The reference in to question is to a legendary account of the king Chakrawati Farmas (Cheraman Perumal in other versions) converting to Islam after indicating he witnessed the miracle. There is no strong evidence for the historicity of this story, and it was likely composed long after Muhammad's death.https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Witnessing_the_Moon_Splitting_Miracle
I would argue that the relevant section in this article be changed so as to not suggest the moon splitting was truly witnessed in India, but rather that a legendary account from traditions in the Kerala area suggest as such.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.245.122 (talk) 11:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: WIkiIslam is not a reliablesource itself. Probably the aledged witness was introduced later to Islam, just like some great Turkic warriors had been reinterpretated as Ghazi-warriors after Turks converted to Islam. This happened often and Islam reached India early.  I suspect some biases within this article anyway. But we would need a reliable source. Maybe WikiIslam does provide them.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we assume Arab News, News 18, TwoCircles.net, as Reliable source? Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The Arab News piece is an editorial that presents religious belief as fact. The Hindi News 18 source talks of "stories" not facts. TwoCircles doesn't even mention the moon. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

text: @Anachronist Thanking You Wholeheartedly! —Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legend of Indian king witnessing the moon splitting 

message: Hello,
Sure this article meets the GA-Criteria? It seems it was done 2007 (like many Islam-related articles often with poor or even false informations, seems to be like, in the years 2000-2010 it was easy to get Islam-ardctiles rated GA or there was not much information about Islam available). I mean this article cites claims such as "After Apollo mission photographs were published of Rima Ariadaeus, the 300 km-long rift line on the surface of the Moon,". Yes, it happened, but relating this to Islam or talking about dicussions on the internet seems to be syncretizing different material, leading to a discussion about with arguments and counter-arguments, which are cited. But not the arguments put forward alone should be cited, but also the discussion itself should be supported by scholars, who identified this internet disuccsion as notable. There is already material regarding "Islam on the internet" , which should be used for such phenomena. Also the headers of the sections puzzle me. What does "other" mean on contrast to "The Quran and Islamic tradition". Are they against the Quran? Are they in odd with Islamic traditions? Some paragraphs can be read and cite only one source. I am uncertain, if there might be any biases. I do not want to withdraw GA-imediately but there might be some objections notworthy and maybe they can be corrected.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA? 

message: Please remove the illustration. Because such pictures for Prophet is not supposed to be there. Kindly remove it or atleast flashout the faces Thank you. MFarooqi (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Also,  You are incorrect; there is no prohibition about displaying an image of the Prophet as long as his face is not shown, and in the image his face is veiled. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2020 

message: Hi,
Greetings, Requesting you to have a look at 
* Superstitions in Muslim societies and also Talk:Superstitions in Muslim societies
Requesting article expansion help, if above topics interest you.
Thanks and regards
Bookku (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting help in article expansion  

message: The picture provided is representing prophet mohammed (PBUH) which is not permissible in islam under any circumstance, many muslims will find it offending 5.0.6.60 (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Vpab15 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

text: Which facts? AstroLynx (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The image shows Muhammad with his face veiled, which is permissible to view by all Muslims. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial Picture 

message: This seems a little undue for the lead. I can't find any other religious myth or legend that has a similar rebuttal in its lead on Wikipedia (e.g. Wedding at Cana (Jesus turning water into wine) or the burning bush). I think this should be included in the NASA photo controversy section, just not the lead.
I have removed this from the lead per WP:ONUS but would value other perspectives on this. Gingermead (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the removal. A miracle by definition won't have any scientific evidence. No need to have that in the lede. Vpab15 (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  
Do we really need the NASA rebuttal in the lead?
 

message: @Wiki N Islam The source you provided does not mention that King Bhoja witnessed the splitting of the moon, but only states:
Additionally, on the same page, in footnote number 3, the source says:
So, clearly, the text you included misrepresents the source and is undue.
Furthermore, it is also discussed more extensively in this source  that the story of Shakarwatī Farmad, which name is the Arabic rendering of the Sanskritic royal title "Chakravarti Cheraman Perumal," is fictitious.
 Kaalakaa (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding King Bhoja 

message: In the first paragraph where it is mentioned that the splitting of the moon is a miracle in Muslim ‘tradition’, I feel that the word should rather be ‘belief’, ‘faith’, or something along that line, as Islam itself is a faith and really not a tradition. Tradition tends to have a cultural connotation, which Islam is not. Thank you. 142.113.111.82 (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: ayakanaa ( t · c ) 03:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2023 

message: @Anachronist Thanks for your attempt at copyediting, but it wasn't NASA that named the photo "the moon's crack line," but the ones who made the claim that the moon had once been split. And the source you restored doesn't mention the claim at all. It is the AFP Fact Check source that mention it, which in your latest revision is number [23] at the end of the paragraph.  — Kaalakaa (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moon's crack line 

message: This is an extraordinary claim and therefore requires a section which lists out the current research/alternative scientific viewpoints about the claim. 93.140.130.27 (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a section about the NASA photograph quoting a scientist saying "No current scientific evidence reports that the Moon was split into two". I don't think more scientific viewpoings are needed. After all, a miracle cannot be explained scientifically by definition. Vpab15 (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section about scientific evidence/research/viewpoints 

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Proposal for Article Revision: Splitting of the Moon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conclusion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Response to User:Vpab15