Talk:Splitting of the Moon

Older

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)

I have heard something to that effect, but i have not investigated it. --Striver 16:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

Do you mean did the moon really split? Are you an idiot? 109.186.77.177 (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Images

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)

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)

Search the net if you can find a free pic??--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Okay. I found a pic eventually. Hope it looks good. --Aminz (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No issues about img. But the comment below must be answered satisfactorily.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

The image of the Prophet shown here should be removed as there is no need of it. And why it is published here as it is not good to to publish portraits of the Prophet. Rehan382 (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

What point might this article be making?

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)

Thanks for the feedback. I have now summarized the notable viewpoints in the lead. [1] where the divisions are clearly specified. --Aminz (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Thanks 24.6.67.7. --Aminz 01:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

comments

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)

Thanks very much Itaqallah. Much appreciate it. I am looking forward your comments. --Aminz 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 9, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Needs a thorough copy-edit ensure clarity of expression (I would recommend inviting other editors to help in this regard). This especially applies to the lead. Specific examples of where the prose could be improved include: "... is a miracle attributed to have been performed by Muhammad in the Muslim tradition." → "is a miracle attributed to Muhammad in the Muslim tradition"; "According to Denis Gril, although according to the Qur'an, Muhammad did prophesied but he was not granted to perform miracles in their traditional sense" - the sentence is a bit difficult to understand; Some individuals like Rumi, Jami, etc. are not sufficiently introduced - a casual reader may not know who they are; "Western Academic view" → "Western academic view". It would also be nice to incorporate Arabic scripts and transliterations where relevant, such as providing the Arabic script of shaqq al-qamar in the opening parenthesis, or giving the Arabic rendering for the "occasion for revelation" (better described as the context of revelation) - asbāb an-nuzūl. Also, as said before, a general copyedit would be helpful for this article

2. Factually accurate?: Pass. Verified using reliable sources, no original research seems to be present.

3. Broad in coverage?: Not sure about this one. There is a wide presentation of views - but one thing strikes me as missing. It is alluded that the authenticity was accepted by most Muslim scholars. Then the prose covers the view of "dissent" commentaries. What is the view of the traditionists who assumedly accepted its authenticity and didn't provide alternative interpretations? How did they comment on this incident? Some coverage in that regard, from the likes of an-Nawawi, Ibn Hajr, Ibn Kathir or another prominent commentator may help in ensuring the presentation is broad and balanced. It might also help to clarify what kind of rationalists/philosphers are being referred to - as numerous kinds of groups existed with varying degrees of acceptance of Aristotelian dialectic discourse.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass. No problems here.

5. Article stability? Pass.

6. Images?: Pass. Given the nature of the topic, images may not be so freely available.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. ITAQALLAH 13:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Itaqallah very much for the review. I'll try to address the points you raised as soon as possible. Best, --Aminz (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Itaqallah. Would you please let me know how the article looks like as of today. Thanks --Aminz (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

it looks a lot better now, thanks to all for having improved the article. i think it meets all criteria, but there is one specific improvement needed before i pass it: the quality of cites 1, 2 and 22 are below par. on first glance iqna.ir doesn't appear to be a reliable source (i could be wrong), but i'm sure imamreza.net isn't a reliable source. Harun Yahya is a popular writer (as opposed to scholar), but he generally isn't viewed as a reliable source on Islam-related articles and his comments here appear to be more speculation than anything. i would recommend the removal of the Harun Yahya material for now until stronger sources can be found which corroborate on this point; and similarly if a third party reliable source (or, at the very least, an invested reliable source) can't be found for the assertion that Muslims link the narrated events with the existing rilles, then i would suggest that part of the caption is also removed until one is found. regards, ITAQALLAH 17:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

i have looked around, and a report that Muslims in the UK linked the Apollo finding of rilles to the narrated splitting of the moon can be found in "Muhammad and the Course of Islam" by Hasan Balyuzi (1976) George Ronald Publisher (orig. published by Univ. Michigan) on page 2, so this cite may be incorporated. ITAQALLAH 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the reference. Actually I added ref 1 and 2 as a result of a desperate attempt to find a picture for the article. I don't necessarily feel good about the image too. should we keep it? I'll made its text hidden for now.

I agree with you regarding Harun Yahya. I'll remove it.

Thanks again very much for the review. --Aminz (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

you could probably use the above-mentioned cite with the image, it seems good enough to verify the claim that Muslims actually attempted to make a link. as the two issues regarding sourcing have currently been resolved, and as there are no further issues concerning coverage or general prose, i have passed the article. ITAQALLAH 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your review again. Thanks for the reference. I'll add it. BTW, where do you think the image is appropriate: In the intro or under "In later Islam"?--Aminz (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

putting in the section may be more appropriate, i think it might be possible to find a PD drawing of the moon-split. you'll also want to discuss the caption contents in the main prose as well. ITAQALLAH 22:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Keralolpathi : 

As the tradition goes, a Chera king, Cheramanperumal of Kodungallure, left for Makkah, embraced Islam, and accepted the name Thajudeen. He married the sister of then King of Jeddah. On his return trip, accompanied by many Islamic religious leaders, led by Malik-ibn-Dinar (RA), he fell sick and passed away. But he had given introductory letters for the team to proceed to ‘Musiris’ (Kodungallur, the Chera capital. The visitors came to Musiris and handed over the latter to the reigning king, who treated the guests with all respect and extended facilities to establish their faith in the land. The king also organised help for the artisans to build the first Mosque at Kodungallur, by converting Arathali temple into a Juma-Masjid. It was build in 629 A.C., and the area around it had been ear-marked for the team’s settlement.

Cheraman Perumal asked them what is this Islam which can so radically change the conduct of Arab thugs (who were so feared in Kerala that when an Arab ship downed anchor in port, people hid their women and buried their treasure) to so decent a nature that the populace was attracted to their trade and religion. The Arabs then described the tenets of Islam and talked about their Prophet. The king then wanted to know if there was any proof that this person is indeed a Prophet. The traders described the Mujizaat (supernatural deeds) of the Prophet, including the Shaqq Al Qamar or the Splitting of the moon into two.

Cheraman Perumal then summoned his Hindu Astrologers who consulted their almanacs and reported a similar phenomenon recorded by them. The King forthwith abdicated his throne and left with Malik Bin Deenar for Arabia where it is chronicled that he met the Prophet Muhammad, accepted Islam and performed the famous Last Hajj with him. On his journey back, he was drowned in a tempest which destroyed his ship and his body came ashore at Salalah, Oman where his grave is a famous landmark today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.132.96 (talk) 18:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll make the changes soon. --Aminz (talk) 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Itaqallah, p.96 of "Muslim Travellers: Pilgrimage, Migration, and the Religious Imagination" By Dale F. Eickelman, James P. Piscatori, University of California Press, has a drawing of moon being split. I think the picture should be usable but I can not get access to it (books.google.com does not have that page.) --Aminz (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

that's interesting, and would make a good lead image. there must be a PD image of this incident lying around somewhere... ITAQALLAH 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The difficulty is that the book is checked out from my library and books.google.com doesn't have that page :( --Aminz (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

wanna include this theory about moon splitting? ~atif ^Talk 02:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I couldn't find the author of that article. It seems to also support the view of Harun Yahya. I think we should be able to mention these recent minority views (also the one about the rilles on the moon) in a short paragraph (compared to the space that we have given to famous commentators of the Qur'an) in the section "Later Islam". But I'd like to know what Itaqallah thinks. Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 03:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hope you guys can make this a FA. Everyone needs to read it! --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

added moon splitting image

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)

It is wonderful!!!! Is this your work?? --Aminz (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So exciting! Thanks very much Atif!!!! I hope the original background image was not copyrighted :P --Aminz (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

It seems to be okay to me. Cheers, --Aminz (talk) 06:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Added section about alleged NASA evidence

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)

I reinstated this section after someone took exception that I did not point out that it was not something accepted by mainstream Islam and deleted it. I have now modified it to point that out, Apologies for causing offence, and I am only to happy to point out that this is only a minority view in Islam and not part of the mainstream.

I had encountered this belief on at least two internet forums, neither of which is related to Islam, and so I thought this belief needed some documentation.

If anyone else is still unhappy, instead of deleting it, could you please beef up my attempt at a disclaimer.

Stickings90 (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

What do you consider a published reliable source? I have come across this on internet forums, so it needs to be documented somehow, but I am happy to make it clear that this is fringe and not part of mainstream Islam Stickings90 (talk) 07:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Good evening all - I'm a first-timer on this page. I want to take issue with the posting of the two current Nasa theories concerning the origin of the moon. In particular, I take issue with the "two moons colliding to become one" part. With all due respect, that is *not* "splitting of the moon". Quite the opposite. However, it is no surprise that "certain people" would latch onto these theories and try to "spin them" as "splitting". Even *if* there were two moons which collided to become one, this would have happened several billion years ago, not 1400 years ago. I recommend that the section on the Nasa theories be removed. It is completely irrelevant. It is about *creation* of the moon anyway - not splitting it. Thoughts? Obsidian123 (talk) 19:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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)

Experts responses

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)

Rille photo should come with an explanation that such an effect is NOT due to supernatural phenomena or else be removed

Having never heard of this particular miracle, I came to read about it from another muhammad-related article and immediately saw a photo of a rille on the page before anything else. Its placement without any contextual explanation makes it look like it's helping to establish the credibility or authenticity of the miracle discussed. It needs context or to be removed. I'd add context myself, but I don't know how or if lunar rilles have been used in islamic theological discussion. 98.217.75.153 (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've certainly seen this photo used before, to prop up the "splitting of the moon" thing. I agree - it needs either context or removal.

Obsidian123 (talk) 05:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

A few days ago a vandal removed the lead image, which was an ancient painting of Muhammad splitting the moon. I have restored it. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've edited the rille photo's caption to read, "A Lunar Rille formed from natural geological processes. Credit: Apollo 10, NASA." I'm still not sure it should be there at all, though, unless there's some particular way it relates to the theological theories about the miracle. Do rilles have some sort of historical relation to the theological discussion? Have they been used as "evidence" of the miracle by notable sources? Some religious context? If not, I'm going to remove the photo. 98.217.75.153 (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the image as I agree it seems tangentially related to the topic at best and no-one has yet provided a reason for why it's there. - JRheic (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actual splitting of the moon

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)

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)

Can you give the sources that the Moon really splitted? I sensed you're coming here only to defend Islam while rejecting others.

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)

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)

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)

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)

Edit request on 21 August 2012

big block of text collapsed

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)

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)

Reversion of additional hoax material

(copied from User talk:Amatulic#Splitting of the Moon Article)

Dear Amatulic, I noticed that you had reverted some of the edits made by me on the splitting of the moon website. The reason you gave was that you felt that it was hampering the neutral nature of the article. While I cited credible sources that the hoax was propagated on a large scale by a person of eminence Mr. Zaghloul El Naggar. I see all the claims were completely baseless and were propagated on a large scale. Moreover these were even published by Jarfariya News Network- which should serve as a good reference. I fail to see how this affects the neutrality of the article. Infact I feel that not mentioning the source of the hoax/claims is affecting the neutrality. Hence I request you to reconsider the reverts you have made. I even feel that it is only logical to have a explanation about the faults of the claims. If the hoax slayer explanation is not credible enough I shall communicate with NASA Lunar Science institute for a better explanation. However I request you to let the source of the claims be in place. Thanks and Regards --Aditya Saxena (talk) 19:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

My main objections to the material you added is that it dwelled on a hoax that didn't have broad coverage and puts this article's good article status at risk. The hoax is notable enough to deserve a mention in this article, but the space you devoted to that topic struck me as giving undue weight to it compared to the rest of the article.

Some sources were also questionable. YouTube isn't a great source for a Good Article. Also, I wouldn't regard the hoax-slayer site as a principal source on which to base the section. It's basically a self-published source (see WP:SPS), with nearly all articles on it written by the site's owner.

I have no objection to including a short description of the hoax, but it seemed that the details you added (particularly, taking pains to point out how the hoax could be refuted) crossed the line into WP:UNDUE and original research territory. I invite you to propose a revision that addresses these concerns. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Muhammad splitting the moon

The description is completely inaccurate, Does anyone mind if I change the description in that photo to something like "Muhammad points at the moon being split", He never split the moon or claimed to have done it himself, the entire story behind the event describes in detail the how's and why's of this event. The Arabs asked for a sign from God and God obliged them. Iβn Mᾱsῡɖ ^τᾱℓк 09:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Put new comments at the bottom of the talk page please. I have moved them.

It looks like the caption was taken from the text provided by the person who uploaded the picture.

I don't mind you changing it, but I'd prefer better wording. Why would an artist want to depict Muhammad pointing at the moon being split? The artwork is supposed to depict a miracle that is attributed to Muhammad. Is there a better way of phrasing the caption? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Because that is all Muhammad did he watched it being split by God, who did the act, the title literally say "Muhammad [himself] split the moon" or it has that potential to confuse. ideally it should say something like 'Muhammad is pointing out to the non muslim arabs that god has split the moon in answer to their request'. How would you word that? Iβn Mᾱsῡɖ ^τᾱℓк 09:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn.masud (talk • contribs)

Sorry you can't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.135.22.175 (talk) 21:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Small Typo

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)

Hoax: further investigation

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)

Arabic transcription

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)

Assumptions

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)

Separate Article for the NASA dispute

@Dougweller, The article (like other articles dealing with theological issues such as miracles) should focus on the theological details relevant to the miracle. It is a theological article, not an article on astro-physics. It is irrelevant to the actual miracle what Zaghloul El-Naggar said or what a NASA representative said. It has no bearing or relevance on the exegesis of the scripture or the theological elements involved. Bringing in details pertaining to physics or astro-physics is therefore unnecessary and works to serve an agenda, rather than to enhance or add meaning to the article. There should be a separate article relevant to the issue(s) involved between Zaghloul El-Naggar's personal point of view of this miracle and the NASA representative Brad Bailey's understanding of NASA's data. If we look at some Evangelical-Christian websites, there are plenty of radical claims pertaining to science, however, these points of views (and the debates involving them) are not detailed on articles pertaining to Biblical descriptions of miracles. I do not see any such discourses on articles pertaining to other religious figures. Xtremedood (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Another suggestion is that the NASA issue be merged with Zaghloul El-Naggar's page.

Just like its irrelevant to bring Archimedes' principle into the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_walking_on_water

It is irrelevant bringing NASA astrophysics into this article. Xtremedood (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Blocked sock. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Can't agree with you here. It's about two Muslims expressing a viewpoint, and Bradley's comment. It belongs here. And claiming that a reason it shouldn't be here is because this was an "actual miracle" doesn't strengthen your case, although you might not have meant it that way. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

:::Dougweller, I think you are misunderstanding my above statements. I am talking about the actual topic at hand, which is a theological one. The article should involve a critical analysis of the scripture at hand. This article should not be an article about NASA astrophysics, just as the following article [2] should not be an article of the Archimedes principal or the following article [3] should not be about kinesiology (the skeletal structure of infants and their inability to stand up) or the following article [4] should not be about chemistry (the elemental composition of a snake and rod). Xtremedood (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The way to resolve this is to consider what the most reliable sources say. We have plenty of reliable sources which say that the moon did not literally split in two at any point in human history, so the article should clearly reflect that this is the case. On the other hand, if Zaghloul El-Daggar is only representative of a WP:FRINGE perspective within Islamic exegesis, then you can certainly make a WP:ONEWAY argument in much the same way we might for any minority claim regarding the interpretation of certain religious beliefs. The question is, then, "Is Zaghloul El-Daggar's position one that is held my a significant number of believers in the topic of the article?" If it is, then this section should remain. If not, any hint that there is serious scholarship the splitting of the moon is physically plausible needs to be excised completely and it needs to be made clear that this is purely of mythological importance. jps (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:V says that, whether moon once really splitted into two or not has nothing to do with the article. Therefore, what "reliable sources" say about the truth should not be included, normally (it would also be a little WP:SYNTH to refer to those sources to debunk this belief). Only the reliable sources discussing this belief and reporting/revealing what scientists think about it could be included. However, this is an exceptional case, because a guy named Zaghloul El-Naggar claims in his book by referring to NASA scientists/studies that there are many concrete evidences of a real split. Then, WP:WEIGHT could be a problem because this guy and/or his claims should be famous or well-known in the islamic world for such an attribution in the article. I personally would prefer the inclusion of this information, both because the audience should know what the answer from NASA was and because it is a kind of customs in islamic world to refer to NASA or astronauts to advance such myths/hoaxes; another one was "adhan on the moon" Neil_Armstrong#Personal_life. Logos (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

::Such issues pertaining to the person that is Zaghloul El-Naggar should be on his personal page or in a separate article. The topic of the Splitting of the Moon is a theological one, just like the topic of the walking on water (Biblical miracle) is a theological one. Neither of these topics have anything to do with Zaghloul El-Naggar's claims. According to Archimedes Principal there is no current scientific evidence that humans can walk on water without the use of a technological aid. Similarly what the scientist from NASA is saying is that there is no current evidence to show that the moon was split. We are talking about scripture and religious miracles here. Zaghloul El-Naggar was born approximately 1400 years after the Quran was revealed to mankind. Therefore Zaghloul El-Naggar has no relevance to the scripture being discussed. Therefore, his controversy (if there is one) should be in a separate article or on his page. If we look at the miracles ascribed to other religious figures, for example [5] and [6], we see no mention of the scientific validity of these miracles. This is not a scientific topic. This is a theological topic. Xtremedood (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Context is quite important; if someone had referred to NASA and its studies to "prove" some of jesus's or gautama buddha's miracles, then the same course of action would apply for those articles as well, I guess. If someone has been exploiting NASA in order to advance a position, then there should be a mention in the related article with an answer from NASA; simply because of the law of action-reaction. It seems that that guy has been quite popular in some of the islamic countries, such as egypt, malaysia, etc. Logos (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

:::: There are plenty of stories of science being used to justify or discredit other miracles, for example [7] (walking on water), [8][9] [10] (parting of sea), [http://www.wnd.com/2012/06/does-science-prove-noahs-flood/] (flood), etc. I can go on and on. If Zaghloul El-Naggar's claim and opposing claims are included in this article, it sets a dangerous precident. In that case, all of these articles and opposing views may be added to the miracle pages of other religious figures. If this is allowed, Wikipedia will look like a silly place and this could really spiral into nonsensical discourses. I think this article should focus on the scriptural analysis as well as the various perspectives surrounding it, just like the articles pertaining to the miracles of other religious figures are doing. Xtremedood (talk) 00:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but the links you present display a different pattern; those links talk about some people (some of whom do not possess the necessary expertise) who try to prove/explain "scientifically" that some miracles might have really occurred by natural causes (even though the pattern is different, those trials/studies to prove or disprove a miracle can be included in the related article also, if -of course- their notabilities are high enough). However, "splitting of the moon" case is totally different than that kind of pursuit; a guy had exploited (or has been exploiting) NASA to advance a position, which was not backed by NASA or any other scientist. Logos (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You didn't really answer my question, though. Is Zaghloul El-Naggar's claim representative of the ways this particular story is believed among Islamic scholars? Is this particular exigesis found in many of the sources associated with this story or is it not? We shouldn't really use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an excuse for excluding or not excluding information that is relevant according to the sources. Miracles are tricky things to deal with -- they are called "miracles" precisely because they are mythological and generally unbelievable. jps (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Logos,I think it is incorrect to label that as "exploited." Since according to the passage a man named 'David Musa Pidcock' supposedly told him about it. He was simply referencing him. David Musa Pidcock also never claimed that it was the official position of NASA that the moon was split in two and reassembled. He was simply stating what he had heard from a scientist or some scientists during a debate, see:[11]. Also, NASA never said it is not the position of every scientist that the moon was never split in two and reassembled. If you look at some of those websites that refer to supposed Biblical miracles, we see similar strategies. For example, they take certain scientific ideas, grey areas, or principles and adapt it into their own model of how they interpret the supposed miracle went. Also, El-Naggar's ideas received minor coverage from supposedly 'Jafariya New', which is not a major media station, but a self-identified religious news source. Zaghloul El-Naggar is also not a major figure.

::@jps, The whole Zaghloul El-Naggar's issue is centered, not around exegesis, but rather at his reference to a point made by 'David Musa Pidcock' - described above. I believe that the article's focus should be on exegisis, not on irrelevant scientific claims. Zaghloul El-Naggar's reference to Pidcock's supposedly hearing something from a scientist or some scientist is unique to him. I can't think of any scholar in the last ~1400 years that has utilized NASA-astrophysics to interpret the texts involved with this miracle. Therefore Zaghloul El-Naggar's claims is better suited on his Wikipedia page or on a separate article. Xtremedood (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The very same WP:V applies to Pidcock-Naggar case as well; the matter here is not what Pidcock claimed and what not, and what Naggar understood. The matter is NASA's being mis-cited as a proof of the "splitting of the moon" miracle. The Naggar link you provided clearly reveal that, Naggar exploits what NASA scientists allegedly "declared" during a TV show, by referring to a story allegedly told by Pidcock. We are not interested in (per WP:V) what the reality was; that is, whether pidcock told a story like that or did Nasa scientists actually declare something in a TV show. We are interested in the "exploitation" part of the story. Naggar even does not seem to care the time-frame of that supposed "splitting of the moon" which was supposedly "discovered" during moon landing by NASA. If NASA had announced that they discovered that the moon had splitted into two some millions of years ago, Naggar would omit or refuse that part (while refusing he could even tell that NASA is lying just to discredit this muslim belief). He just exploits a supposed NASA "announcement" to prove the "splitting of the moon" miracle/myth. Which, in my opinion, should be in the article. Logos (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Xtremedood. The next question is, "Is a literal belief that the moon physically split in two a common way to interpret this idea?" If it is, then I can see why we might need to address this. If that belief by itself is an extreme minority then it seems reasonable to me to figure out some way to slough off content related to such literalism into another article. Does Adnan Oktar have anything to say about this? jps (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

:::::Logos, I would not refer to it as "exploit," as I see no indication of him ever saying that NASA endorsed this idea. What I see with the source provided is a reference to what Pidcock heard from a debate. It is not clear exactly what these specific scientists exactly said, so it is improper to say "exploit" in this matter. We would first have to verify what exactly the scientist(s) in question said. Also, citing specific data from NASA does not mean NASA endorses the idea. For example, if you reference data from NASA in an essay, it doesn't mean that NASA endorses your essay. Your last statements are highly speculative as well. Xtremedood (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC) ::::::jps, many people do believe that the moon was split and rejoined. Similarly many people believe in the prophecy of walking on water, splitting of the sea, a staff turning into a snake, etc. I do not see scientific statements utilized in these articles to try and explain the miracle in the context of science. For example, Arhchimedes principal is not cited in the walking on water case, neither is it cited in the splitting of the sea. Chemistry is not cited in the transition of a staff into a snake. Since this is not the case for these articles, I do not see why the statement of an astrophysicist should be stated in this article. Also, there is the issue of WP:Notability pertaining to Brad Bailey, as there is not much known about him. Also, El-Naggar does not have anything to do with the actual miracle and whether or not he cited Pidcock correctly or incorrectly is relevant to him and his page, not this article. Xtremedood (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

So, here I think you are starting to lose it a bit. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a fair argument for whether or not we should be clear about certain aspects in a particular article. We need to deal with the situation here. What will a reader want to know? I think the reader will want to know the particular mythology, its significance, and what people believe about it. The explanation of whether or not such an event occurred is entirely relevant to the page and I think deserves at least an indication. It may be that the entire question of the literal belief is overly weighted on this page, but it is perfectly fair to include words to the effect that the claimed miracle did not occur just as we do for Noah's flood, for example. jps (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If you look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS it states "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." Consistency is a key factor here. In a general sense there may be two main ways in which we can attain some level of consistency within Wikipedia for articles pertaining to religious miracles.

1) All articles pertaining to religious miracles do not include claims by dissenting researchers.

2) All articles pertaining to religious miracles include claims by dissenting researchers.

:My inclination and view is towards the first way. The majority of articles pertaining to religious miracles do not have dissenting views of researchers. The question therefore arises, If we are singling out one or two supernatural events or religious miracles for examination by certain researchers, why not do it for other miracles? It may also seem that the other articles pertaining to religious miracles that do not have views of dissenting miracles are just that way because nobody added them. I guess those may be added later or something like that. It seems like a complex and lengthy issue. To make things simple, would you agree that El-Naggar's section atleast should be removed or moved to his page since it does not have any relevance to the actual topic. I also think the title should be changed (if we move it to El-Naggars page), as he did not mis-cite NASA (from the source provided), but referenced a person who claimed to have heard it in a debate. Xtremedood (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

To exclude claims by dissenting researchers solely because they are "dissenting" is a standard by which I do not think Wikipedia should hold. We should be looking at reliability, and as far as I can tell the most reliable sources indicate that the moon never was physically split in two. Do you agree with that? jps (talk) 14:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Xtremedood, I don't have anything more to say, because it is pretty obvious that you're trying to whitewash this article by excluding Mr.Naggar's "big" mistake. However, I don't suppose you can get any company here. You can't convince anybody here that he hasn't been exploiting NASA, while there is a statement like below by Naggar.

"In 1978 Mr. Pidcock was destined by Allah's Will to watch a program about space journeys, in which the well-known British announcer Jamed Burke, received three of the American space scientists"

Naggar was clearly exploiting NASA's fame, brand image, expertise etc. etc. in order to "prove" splitting of the moon miracle. As I stated above, it doesn't matter whether Mr.Pidcock exists/existed or not or what his real words was, because Naggar's narrating style does not leave any room for suspicion for the audience. Logos (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

:::jps, I would have to disagree with you. To make things simple, however, would you agree that El-Naggar's section atleast should be removed or moved to his page since it does not have any relevance to the actual topic? Xtremedood (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC) ::::Logos, I'm not trying to whitewash what happened. I think this discussion should happen on Zaghloul El-Naggar's page instead of here as it is irrelevant to the actual miracle. There are some questions you may want to ponder upon in the meantime however, 1) does quoting or misquoting a source from a debate constitute misquoting NASA? 2) On what basis can you say that Pidcock misquoted NASA? 3) can we verify exactly what Pidcock heard during the debate? Xtremedood (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC) Blocked sock. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree because I see that there is relevance to this topic. The moon did not physically split in two. We need to let the reader know this. We don't need to focus on El-Naggar if we don't want to, but we cannot simply remove all discussion of the fact that the moon has never physically split in two since it is a point of fact. jps (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:PG outlines what govern wikipedia and its articles. It seems that the account you use made its 1st edit in 2015. My suggestion to you would be to get familiarize yourself with those policies & guidelines. Wikipedia and other encyclopedias are interested in the facts in first place, not truths. If Naggar mis-cited NASA as proof, then that mis-citation becomes a fact to be reported, irrelevant to whether the content of the citation was correct/true or not. "NASA's being mis-cited as proof" case is notable, much the same as both Mr.Pidcock and Mr.Naggar are notable (there are stand-alone articles about them). My above comments contain answers to your questions already. Naggar and Pidcock can answer those questions themselves during Akhirah (according to their belief; I'm sure they see that exploitation as a "good deed"). Quoting is not exactly the same as citing; but it is an exploitation in any case. Logos (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, the presentation of "NASA mis-cited as proof" case in the article is such that WP:ASSERT, the audience can still have doubts/concerns about the accuracy of the story told by Naggar. Publication process includes fact-checking and editorial oversight, which Naggar's book was subject to also. Pidcock could also correct/refuse "inaccurate" quotes, if there had been any. Logos (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2015

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)

Sorry, but if you read MOS:ISLAM, part of our Manual of Style, we do not add this to the name Muhammad. Doug Weller (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing the image for the article

The image is not legitimate, the link yields a page not found error and when I took the time to actually search through the archive it was supposedly taken from, not only was it not in the collection but the collection itself appears bogus. I am not Muslim but I don't appreciate the insinuation made by the pointing of two fingers. Attempting to ridicule any person's spiritual beliefs whom you do not share your life with is extremely disrespectful. On the same note, there is no reason not to remove the NASA excerpts, as it is along the same level of disrespect and the standard difference of opinion as stated by those who claim it should be included does not justify abusive language nor abusive view points. -Dirtclustit (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait until after Christmas please, thanks. Doug Weller talk 22:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

A quick search for your "bogus" collection turns up [12] with the image at [13]. I think the insinuation is in your imagination. Different cultures and different times have different ways of pointing. The NASA excerpts are relevant and I see nothing abusive. Doug Weller talk 20:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

No Doug, SSL is not a source for that image, the supposed source for the image is Falnameh, which that image is not a part of. Burying the source under layers of alternate sources which site the actual source is not acceptable, esp. when the image doesn't exist where it's claimed to. But in a way this is a blessing in disguise, as I am sure this is not the only false citation buried beneath a cited source's citation beneath another cited source. It may be time to change wiki policy of acceptable citation.The article is about a faith's belief in a miracle, NASA and their ilk have no place here accept to add subtle insults, which are worse than the blatant insults because they are often not edited out. It's a disrespect that in uncalled for, just as a citing that it's not possible for a virgin to give birth to a child would be uncalled for under articles about the virgin Mary.-Dirtclustit (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The source for the image is the Library of Congress. If you want to challenge that as a reliable source, WP:RSN is that way. You are claiming that the image doesn't come from the 16th century book, if I understand you correctly, but that's your opinion or whatever you want to call it. If you have reliable sources that suggest otherwise, fine, trot them out. I doubt very much you are going to get a policy change but you are welcome to try.

You haven't explained the bit about two fingers.

And you are simply wrong about virgin births. See Virgin birth of Jesus#Psilanthropism. Are you going to remove that section? Or the following one on "Cultural context"? Removing the material you want to remove would be a violation of NPOV. Doug Weller talk 18:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Dirtclustit: I corrected the dead link in the image page so that it points to the actual source. Links change. No big deal. If you see one, fix it.

The part about the NASA image was widely reported and well sourced. Anything receiving significant coverage in reliable sources is fair game to include in an article. That section is encyclopedically relevant. Remember Wikipedia is not censored for anyone's benefit. The fact that you find something offensive is not a valid justification for removal. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not that it was a dead link, nor that I found the image offensive, I am saying that the image is no 16th century water color, it's 21st century tabloid cartoonist drawing and the library of congress would never allow their name to be affixed to such a fraud, despite the fact that it appears otherwise to viewers online. But I guess ultimately it really doesn't matter as I am sure this is not the only incident wherein some ignorant bigot with an inferiority complex imagines himself some sort of patriot for the public jab at one's religion. I leave it up as it's only a citizen's duty to speak up when they witness such occurrences. So I leave it at calling out the image for what it is, a fake. In any event, I doubt any authoritative wiki editor would waste time actual checking the Library of Congress for such a cowardly jab at Muslims, however they will probably look into exactly how a person can so easily go about inserting random junk images to be returned when queried online. People like scientists -- who honor truth as if it were religion -- know it's the problems like these that make negate the point of requiring reputablke sources for stated information>-Dirtclustit (talk) 12:12, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A reputable source when used in this manner, Doug, does not fit the definition of a reputable source for the actual information presented because it's a "reference that references" which in the scientific world amounts to rumors. Real researchers in the scientific community cite the actual source, citing a source that sourced that info from another is a journalist's trick to spread rumors, such as when a journalist cites another newspaper's article that wrote of the info, but was not the source. I am not going to explain something as personal and spiritual as sexuality and the practices of one's own with a tone of vulgarity, which is exactly what the esoteric meaning the tabloid cartoonist was trying to convey with this image. If no Muslims are offended by it, I guess it's not for me to say that it is not appropriate and needs to be removed. But it is my duty to speak out when I see it. -Dirtclustit (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you are attacking me or not, but if you are you are very wide of the mark. You do seem to be suggesting that the LoC entry is fake or - I'm not sure what, but you haven't attempted to prove your case. If you are serious, ask them. Doug Weller talk 12:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

First sentence of the article

"...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)

See WP:NPOVN#POV use of the word 'miracle'?. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

factual statements on theological topics

UtaUtaNapishtim, in justifying the removal of the following statement:

The splitting of the moon was never reported in any other country.

offers the following explanation:

... mentioning the absence of such documents would be of interest in a topic falling in the range of science. [... but this is clearly] a theological topic.

I certainly agree that this entire page is about a theological topic, but I think your logic is flawed.

If this were a claim of an apparition, then I would see the point in your logic.

However, this is a claim of a visible change to a physical object. You may well think that this is silliness, but there are people who insist that this actually happened as told in the Qur'an. A claim that this was visible simultaneously from multiple locations would strengthen such a claim, by arguably ruling out the possibility that it was some form of illusion.

As an additional point, wouldn't the same logic justify removing the section on the NASA photograph?

I believe this change should be reverted. In the absence of consensus on this, I would want to take this to dispute resolution. Fabrickator (talk) 02:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Expanding on the logic behind the deletion :

1. Regarding religion, such stories are here to stress the belief one should have in the cultural system that they support. Hence the idea of requiring additional proof becomes a proof of disbelief. It happens that this is also what the story aims to demonstrate here : the people around the holy figure did not believe the story and claimed that some magic could produce the effect, they needed more to believe. So considering the believers, starting a discussion about whether the fact happened, could actually be considered the very offense to their mind.

2. Regarding education, while the wikipedian audience is probably aware of the recent discoveries of exoplanets, it is harmful to consider whether the moon may have actually split and reassemble a dozen of centuries ago. In 2018 people who have access to Wikipedia should have also heard enough bits of information to consider that the scale of astronomical events is quite larger. Explanations about the sun, the stars, the moon, are so necessary for the human mind that they are key to every documented mythology. At the era of science many IQ evaluations test such basic knowledge. Suggesting that such an event could possibly reach the world of facts does not help.

3. Regarding science, confirming that the result of an experiment is identical for several people is the base requirement to confirm a theory. So having such a scientificly shaped statement after having said that this is a miracle from a holy figure of an active religion, makes it not only senseless but also very confusing about the state of mind of the writer. Does he want to demonstrate that theology is not science because he knows people who mess up the two ? The best would be not to make room for them on Wikipedia even to demonstrate their falseness. The topic has already been introduced enough as not scientific.

4. Regarding similar articles, we could consider the story about how Buddha destroyed an entire army with his mind. Is the related article mentionning that there is no trace of a kingdom whose army was defeated by a resting ermit ?

5. Regarding trolling, opposing religion and science is an easy one. Introducing a scientific statement in this article, itself introduced as a miracle, is childish and should not be accepted. Also absence of proof is not proof of absence, so this statement is senseless again. Ultimately Adler's razor would easily define what can be discussed by answering the question : what can be put into experiment here ? The story of the split of the moon can be read by many people, so let's discuss the story. The actual split of the moon by this holy figure however, can't be checked or put into experiment, so end of discussion.

Wikipedia would not need to justify itself about people confusing religion and science, if its authors didn't do it in the first place. So I would vote for removing every discussion in the article about whether this miracle actually happened. Splitting the Moon and reassembling it in few minutes does not fit in the current range of science. The arguments above show that this both hurts people who believe this story and people who don't.

-- UtaUtaNapishtim (talk) 22:40, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

6. Regarding this article itself, actually a banner is already declaring that it is about pure theology and offers to reroute people to actual scientific knowledge. So no scientific matter is expected after this.-- UtaUtaNapishtim (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I have closed the dispute after realizing that the content you removed was unsourced. This has nothing to do with the relevance of scientific evidence in regard to theological claims which involve the physical world. Fabrickator (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

@UtaUtaNapishtim: Should we also do the same with all articles related to Creationism? Doug Weller talk 06:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Legend of Indian king witnessing the moon splitting

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.

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)

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)

Can we assume Arab News, News 18, TwoCircles.net, as Reliable source? Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

References

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)

@Anachronist Thanking You Wholeheartedly! —Syed A. Hussain Quadri (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

GA?

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)

Edit: I want to withdraw my objection GA might be errourneous in 2007. This article obviously had a proper GA-review. Nevertheless, I would like to keep my other concerns broughtfroth and know they thnik about it and the Ga-Status of the article.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Meaning of "reliable source" in context of religious doctrine

@A.A Ghatge: With regard to these edits disputing that cyberistan.org is a suitable source, when the issue at hand is a matter of religious doctrine, what does it mean as to whether a source is reliable or not?

Is the issue whether the facts asserted by the religious doctrine are actually true, or is the issue whether adherents to this religion accept such "facts" are actually true?

In other words, in calling [cyberistan.org] an unsuitable source, are we claiming we would accept similar sorts of evidence that Muhammad's followers observed an actual splitting of the moon, or are we questioning whether cyberistan.org is a reliable source of what constitutes Islamic doctrine? (I apologize for my apparent denseness.) Fabrickator (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Fabrickator:

With regard to these edits disputing that cyberistan.org is a suitable source, the issue at hand is neither religious doctrine nor historical accuracy. The issue at hand is the verifiability of the following statement: "the phenomenon was seen at least in India as well."

The source given for it is a website which gives no verifiable sources for its this claim. Hence, deleted by me. A.A_Ghatge (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@A.A Ghatge: So what do you think about a citation to this source: arabnews.com story on "Splitting of the moon" with regard to its reported observation in India? Fabrickator (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fabrickator:

Again, this newspaper provides no verifiable sources for this, it has simply regurgitated myths from some Islamic apologetic site (very shoddy journalism if you ask me). The bottom line is that the entire edifice of this yarn rests on three major premises, 1) there being a king of Malabar, India, called Chakrawati Farmas and 2) him being a contemporary of Muhammad for him to witness the moon splitting miracle 3) Him actually having witnessed the moon splitting miracle. None of these premises is backed by any serious historical and/or verifiable evidence. Hence, the deletion of the line was completely warranted in my opinion. A.A_Ghatge (talk) 19:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@A.A Ghatge: You said you preferred this to be explained as a legend. Are you aware of any "reliable source" of Islamic doctrine that offers this explanation? Fabrickator (talk) 20:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: No, I merely said that I would like any such fantastic claims to be backed up by proper verifiable historical sources.

Further, I fail to grasp what the alleged incident of Chakrawati Farmas witnessing the splitting of the moon by Muhammad has to do with "Islamic doctrine", would be so kind as to elaborate on that, Thank you. A.A_Ghatge (talk) 1:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@A.A Ghatge: As observed elsewhere on this page, this article is not about scientific fact, but is about a theological issue. The issue is entirely a matter of what Islamic authorities teach and what those who practice Islam believe. Under these circumstances, your claims that a particular website is a "crank website" or is otherwise not a reliable source cannot be given much weight. Fabrickator (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Fabrickator: You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, the claim: "the phenomenon was seen at least in India as well." has NO basis in any verifiable — historical — traditional sources from India.

What Islamic authorities teach is not my business nor is what those who practice Islam believe.

My only business is expunging unverified pseudo-historical false and potentially misleading claims as any other Wikipedia editor.

Your criticism of this is bereft of any sense and cannot be given any weight. A.A_Ghatge (talk) 8:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2020

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)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:53, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, @MFarooqi: 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)

Requesting help in article expansion

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2020

description: The drawing dictates the Islamic belief upon how the moon was 'cleft asunder' and put back together by Muhammad or God, below it is the Quranic verse referring to the drawing and its English translation.

I request this to be in place of the pre-existing image of this page. That is because this elaborates upon the matter of discussion. The image is of a moon splitting and then being put back together as is apparent in Islamic belief and below it is the verse referring to the event as well as it's Arabic translation. Also, I'd love it if you could enlarge the image a bit. MuhammadZohair1 (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: for various reasons.

1. Sorry, but that image really isn't of a comparable quality to the displayed currently. The one currently displayed makes the moon clear enough that it doesn't need to be labelled "the moon".
2. The verse from the qua'ran is displayed in plain text in the article which is much more accessible than for anyone reading it than having it hand written in a raster image.
3. Having a 16th-century watercolor rather than a 21st-century pencil drawing illustrates the historical precedent for this belief. It enhances the article in a way that this replacement does not.

--Paul ❬talk❭ 10:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Controversial Picture

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)

Wikipedia is not censored. See Talk:Muhammad/FAQ. Vpab15 (talk) 23:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with 5.0.6.60. Just replace the picture on the article with a picture of a moon with a split in it, it is more accurate than some drawing 4 centuries ago. This is not about censorship, but about getting facts right. BazookaIce (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Which facts? AstroLynx (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The image shows Muhammad with his face veiled, which is permissible to view by all Muslims. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Do we really need the NASA rebuttal in the lead?

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) blocked sock. Kaalakaa (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

Regarding King Bhoja

@Wiki N Islam The source you provided does not mention that King Bhoja witnessed the splitting of the moon, but only states:

"The South Indian story of king Shakarwati tells that this ruler—like Raja Bojha of Ujjain—had been converted to Islam when the miracle of the splitting of the moon."

Additionally, on the same page, in footnote number 3, the source says:

J. Y. Friedmann, 'Qissat Shakarwati Farmat', Israel Oriental Studies V 1975, goes into the literary tradition of these and related stories which apparently reflect the tendency of the South Indians to date their history back as far as possible. As he quotes (p.245) the statement of F. Buchanan, A Journey from Madras through the countries of Mysore, Canare and Malabar, London 1807, II 421: "Being of Arabic extraction, they look upon themselves as of more honorable birth than the Tartar Musulmans of North India who of course are of a contrary opinion".

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.

It is now clear that the medieval Chera dynasty (as distinct from the ancient Cheras, who ruled this part of India in the early centuries of the Common Era, during the so-called Sangam era) came to prominence only in the ninth century and remained in power until the early twelfth century.
In other words, there was no Chera king during the time of Muhammad who could have relinquished his throne to meet the prophet, and the end of unified Chera rule – stylized in the tradition as the king’s division of his realm prior to his departure for Mecca – only occurred in the twelfth century. Moreover, critical epigraphical studies by scholars such as M.G.S. Narayanan and Elam Kunjan Pillai have shown that “Cheraman Perumal” was not the name of a specific king but a generic title meaning “great lord of the Cheras”.

References

Kaalakaa (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

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)

 Done ayakanaa ( t · c ) 03:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This Incident is not Post-quranic (acc. the Muslim sources)

Ibn Kathir states that the number of sound narrations reporting the splitting of the moon incident is indeed mutawaatir (absolutely authentic). There are authentic Hadiths in collections like Sahih Al Bukhari and Sahih-Al-Muslim which are the most reliable sources after the Quran according to the vast majority of the Muslims. So the point with "Post-Quranic" is inherently wrong. In other words, this incident is accepted by the Muslims to be authentic. Weak Subject (talk) 02:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The only time "post-quranic" is used in the article is in the context of scholars interpreting the event. What specific passage in the article are you referring to?

Whether the incident is accepted by Muslims as authentic is a point of religious faith and not relevant to scholarly analysis. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your answer!

I was referring to the part of the article:

"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."

It implies that the splitting of the moon was made up by "post-quranic" commentators, as if the earlier Muslims in the time of the Prophet had not believed in it. However, as Ibni Khatir states and the numerous authentic hadiths indicate the Muslims in the time of the Prophet really believed that the respective verse was about the incident respectively it had happened. Weak Subject (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide a scholarly source for this perspective? ~Anachronist (talk) 06:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Moon's crack line

@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)

Fixed. Thanks. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Доказательства

I have my own version of evidence that the moon split. Can I send a file here? Наиль111 (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

 السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته

One of the wonders of the prophet Muhammad ﷺ is the separation of the Moon. We can definitely say that this event was. But about how it was different versions. I want to say my version.

So according to Islamic sources five years before the hijra, while in the valley of the mine the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ divided the Moon. And one part was on one side of the mountain Jabal Nur, and the other on the other.

In my opinion, this phenomenon can be explained by the incomplete lunar eclipse and the upper mirage.

If you look at the map, Mount Jabal Nur is north-west of the Mina Valley.

So, according to the Islamic scholar Ibn Kassir, the prophet Muhammad ﷺ performed a hijra on Monday, that is, we get the following number:

5 oct 621 (12 rabigul auual 0 hijri, Monday)

Five years earlier, Mecca had experienced a lunar eclipse, the full phase of which was around 7:00 am. (4:19 TD)

29 November 616 (12 rabigul auual -5 hijri, Monday).

The sunrise at this time of year, also around 7:00 am or the setting of the moon, also around 7:00 am, so the lunar eclipse occurred around the time the moon went down. I.e. the separation of the Moon was possible the morning before sunrise.

Since it is winter and morning, the surface of the Earth is cold, and the upper layers of air are already beginning to heat up.

So maybe the Upper Mirage happened. The Upper Mirage happens over a cold surface and when the temperature rises with height.

Of course, it is also possible that the Mirage was caused by a cold air cycle.

This may have been a local event, meaning that China may not have seen this phenomenon. It’s certainly a miracle.

Please write your opinion on this version.

Video https://vk.com/video62246010_456239349

My name is Nail, Наиль111 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

no pictures added Наиль111 (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

No opinion is needed. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:No original research. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Section about scientific evidence/research/viewpoints

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)

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)

Proposal for Article Revision: 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)

Report of "Ibn Abbas"

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)