The splitting of the moon (inshiqāq al-qamar) is one of the significant events that took place during the life of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). Most scholars of Qur’anic exegesis (tafsir), hadith, and theology (kalam), based on relevant verses and hadiths, have affirmed the occurrence of the splitting of the moon. As with many other topics, there are also those who hold different opinions and claim that such an event did not actually occur.
In this study, we will address the subject in four sections:
Textual Evidence Related to the Event
1. Those Who Accept the Splitting of the Moon and Their Evidence
2. Those Who Reject the Splitting of the Moon and Their Claims
3. Conclusion and Evaluation
1. Textual Evidence Related to the Event
Reports regarding the splitting of the moon are found in the works of major hadith scholars such as Bukhari, Muslim, and Tirmidhi, as well as Ahmad ibn Hanbal, ‘Abd al-Razzaq al-San’ani, Abu Dawud al-Tayalisi, ‘Abd ibn Humayd, Abu Ya’la, Tabarani, Hakim al-Naysaburi, Abu Nu’aym, and Bayhaqi. The hadiths concerning this event were transmitted by companions such as Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Anas ibn Malik, Abdullah ibn Umar, Jubayr ibn Mut’im, and Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman.
The Narration of Abdullah ibn Mas’ud
Among the Companions who narrated the splitting of the moon, only Abdullah ibn Mas’ud explicitly stated that he personally witnessed the event. Therefore, Ibn Mas’ud holds the most important position among the narrators. Hadith scholars such as Bukhari and Muslim prioritized his reports.
a. “During the time of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him), the moon split into two parts: one part was seen above the mountain and the other on the opposite side. The Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘Bear witness to this.'”
b. “During the time of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him), the moon split. The Quraysh said, ‘This is the magic of the son of Abu Kabsha.’ Some said, ‘Wait for travelers coming from other lands. Muhammad could not have bewitched everyone.’ Travelers arrived, and when asked, they too reported that they had seen the moon split.” (Tayalisi, 38; Abu Nu’aym, 2:281; Bayhaqi, 2:266–267).
According to the narration cited by Samarkandi, it was Abu Jahl who first proposed the idea that it was magic. When those arriving from outside confirmed the event, the Quraysh said, “This is persistent magic” (Samarkandi, 3:297). Another narration from Ibn Mas’ud states that upon this event, the verse was revealed: “The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has split” (Qur’an 54:1).
The narration from Jubayr ibn Mut’im aligns closely with this second version, so we will not discuss it separately.
The Narration of Abdullah ibn Abbas
There are several narrations from Abdullah ibn Abbas, but only one is considered authentic (sahih), while the others are weak. The authentic one states: “During the time of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him), the moon split into two.”
The narrations that provide further details, mentioning that the moon was not split but rather eclipsed, are classified as weak.
The Narration of Anas ibn Malik
The people of Mecca asked the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) to show them a miracle. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) showed them the splitting of the moon. They saw the two halves of the moon on either side of Mount Hira. Following this event, the verses were revealed: “The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has split. Yet whenever they see a sign, they turn away and say, ‘Persistent magic.'”
In some narrations from Anas ibn Malik, the word “marratayn” (meaning “twice”) is used, which could suggest that the splitting happened twice. However, hadith commentators have clarified that this actually refers to “firqateyn” (meaning “into two parts”) (Ibn Hajar, 7:222; Mubarakfuri, 9:174).
The Narration of Abdullah ibn Umar
“During the lifetime of the Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him), the moon split into two parts: one part was covered by a mountain, while the other part remained visible above the mountain. The Messenger of God (peace and blessings be upon him) said, ‘Bear witness to this.'”
The Narration of Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman
Tabari, Abu Nu’aym, Ibn Abd al-Barr, and ‘Abd al-Razzaq narrate from ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Sulami: “We arrived near Madain. When we were about one farsakh (roughly 5-6 km) away from the city, the time for Friday prayer came. My father and I went to pray. Hudhayfah delivered the sermon and said: ‘Be aware that God has said: “The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has split.” Know that the Hour has indeed drawn near and the moon has split. Be aware that today is the day of preparation, and tomorrow is the day of the race. He who wins the race will reach Paradise, and he who loses will end up in Hell.’ I asked my father, ‘Will people actually race tomorrow?’
He said, ‘My son, you do not understand. This is a race of deeds.'”
(‘Abd al-Razzaq, 3:193–194; Abu Nu’aym, 1:280–281)
Evaluation
As seen, there are numerous narrations regarding the splitting of the moon. The event was reported by several Companions, most notably those famous for their hadith transmissions, such as Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, Abdullah ibn Abbas, Anas ibn Malik, Abdullah ibn Umar, as well as Jubayr ibn Mut’im and Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman. Of course, it is not possible to classify all these hadiths as sahih (authentic), but it is equally impossible to ignore the authentic narrations that are recorded in the most reliable hadith collections like those of Bukhari, Muslim, and Tirmidhi.
2. Those Who Accept the Splitting of the Moon and Their Evidence
This event has been accepted by the majority of scholars. Listing all of their names would be very difficult. However, to provide an idea, some examples include: Qatadah, Mujahid, Tabari, Khattabi, Qadi Iyad, Ghazali, Ibn Hazm, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Hajar, Ayni, Suyuti, Nasafi, Abu al-Su’ud, Jurjani, Maturidi, Taftazani, Ibn Taymiyyah, Nur al-Din al-Sabuni, and Pazdawi.
a. The Splitting of the Moon as a Miracle
The word “mu’jiza” (miracle) comes from the root ‘a-j-z and is in the if’al form, meaning “one who causes incapacity or helplessness; an extraordinary event that cannot be opposed; something that produces weakness or inability” (Golcuk-Toprak, 337).
A mu’jiza is an extraordinary event, contrary to the usual laws of nature, created by God at the hands of a Prophet to prove the truth of his claim to prophethood. It is something that cannot be replicated by others (Taftazani, 5:11).
When Maturidi lists the sensory (hissi) miracles of the Prophet—those perceptible to the senses—he mentions the splitting of the moon as the very first (Maturidi, 203). Similarly, many other scholars, including Hamezani, Mawardi, Ibn Hazm, Zamakhshari, Qadi Iyad, Abu Hayyan, Ibn Kathir, Bikai, Alusi, Qasimi, Nabhani, and Harputi, have included the splitting of the moon among the miracles of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) .
b. Its Mention in the Qur’an
In the opening verses of Surah al-Qamar (The Moon), it is stated:
“The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has split. Yet if they see a sign, they turn away and say, ‘This is continuous magic.'”
Commentators (mufassirs) have mentioned narrations regarding the splitting of the moon as the reason for the revelation of these verses.
The first verse says, “The Hour has drawn near.” Scholars have interpreted this as meaning “the Hour of Judgment is near” or “the Day of Resurrection has approached.” Many commentators have taken a literal interpretation of the phrase “the moon has split,” understanding it to mean that the actual moon in the sky physically split into two parts. They assert that the moon, as a celestial body, was indeed divided into two, exactly as described in the verse (Tabari, 27:73; Ibn Kathir, 4:262; Alusi, 27:77).
c. The Authenticity of the Related Hadiths
It was previously mentioned that there are enough authentic hadiths (sahih) to confirm the occurrence of the Splitting of the Moon.
The eminent commentator Alusi states: “There are numerous authentic hadiths regarding the splitting of the moon. However, scholars have differed as to whether these narrations are considered mutawatir (mass-transmitted). Some have said they are not mutawatir” (Alusi, 27:74). Thus, the disagreement is not about the authenticity of the hadiths themselves but about whether their number and transmission chain meet the strict conditions for mutawatir status. Nonetheless, Ali al-Qari points out that even if there is a dispute about whether the narrations are mutawatir in their wording (lafzi), they are agreed to be mutawatir in meaning (mana).
Moreover, the fact that major hadith scholars such as Bukhari, Muslim, and Tirmidhi included these narrations in their collections is a significant proof of their reliability.
d. The Majority of Qur’anic Commentators, Hadith Scholars, and Theologians Accepted It
The Splitting of the Moon has been accepted by nearly all scholars of Qur’anic exegesis (tafsir), hadith, and theology (kalam).
In fact, some scholars like Qadi Iyad and Qastalani have even stated that there is a scholarly consensus (ijma’) on the matter (Iyad, 1:248; Qastalani, 2:522). Since the names of these scholars were mentioned earlier, there is no need to repeat them here.
e. The Disbelievers Did Not Deny the Event
Even though the Qur’an openly proclaims the event at the time it occurred, there are no reports indicating that the disbelievers (mushriks) outright denied it. If they had found any opportunity to deny it, they would have done so, just as they did when raising other objections and engaging in demagoguery against the Prophet’s message. The absence of any such denial suggests that the event occurred with such clarity and certainty that it left no room for dispute (Qutb, 6:3426). Rather, as learned from various reports, their only response was to claim that it was merely “magic.”
Highlighting an important point, Ali al-Qari notes that the verse “If they see a sign, they turn away” demonstrates that the event did indeed take place, because actual turning away (i’rad) could only happen after a real occurrence (al-Qari, 1:584).
3. Those Who Denied the Splitting of the Moon and Their Arguments
In the early periods, apart from a few philosophers, there were very few who rejected the splitting of the moon. According to early sources, only Hasan al-Basri and Ata ibn Abi Rabah held such a view at that time. Additionally, it is recorded that some leaders among the Mu’tazilites and the Batinites (esoteric sects) also rejected it.
The tendency to deny the event of the moon’s splitting has only become more widespread over the last century or two. Those who adopt this view are typically individuals who already reject supernatural miracles (cosmic miracles) and who follow a modernist approach.
a. Was the Prophet Not Given a Cosmic (Kawni) Miracle?
Those who deny the Splitting of the Moon argue that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was not granted any cosmic miracles. According to their view, Islam is a universal religion, and therefore its miracle must also be universal. The only miracle that fits this description, they say, is the Qur’an (Abduh, 68; Rida, 64).
They also cite the following verse as evidence:
“Nothing prevents Us from sending signs except that the former peoples denied them. We gave Thamud the she-camel as a visible sign, but they wronged themselves by rejecting it. We send signs only to instill fear.” (Qur’an, 17:59) The reasoning behind this is that since previous nations were destroyed when they rejected miracles, by the same token, the Quraysh in Mecca should have been destroyed if they had rejected a miracle like the Splitting of the Moon. Since they were not destroyed, the event must not have taken place.
However, it should be pointed out that the verse in question refers specifically to the type of miracles that the disbelievers demanded on their terms.
Secondly, even though the Qur’an itself is the greatest and universally acknowledged miracle, the disbelievers’ rejection of it did not immediately lead to their collective destruction.
Thirdly, the miracles that caused the destruction of previous nations occurred at a final stage—when there was no hope for their belief. In contrast, the Splitting of the Moon occurred during the Meccan period, and at that time, unlike earlier peoples, a significant number of people in Mecca did come to faith. Those who persisted in their disbelief were ultimately killed in battles during the Madinan period, while those who survived later embraced Islam.
Fourthly, the universality of Islam does not preclude the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) from displaying miracles specifically to his immediate audience during the early stages of the religion.
Another important point is that God elevated the Muslim nation above previous nations and dealt with them mercifully, knowing that future generations would include sincere believers. Therefore, wholesale destruction was not decreed for them (Biqāʿī, 11:455–456).
Thus, when considering both Qur’anic verses and authentic hadiths that mention miracles, the claim that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was not given any cosmic miracle is not a strong argument.
b. Will the Moon Split Only Right Before the Day of Judgment?
Those who reject that the Splitting of the Moon occurred during the Prophet’s lifetime interpret the verse “The Hour has drawn near, and the moon has split” to mean, “The Hour has drawn near, and the moon will split.”
According to them, the past tense used in the Qur’an is meant to emphasize the certainty of a future event (Ateş, 9:154).
However, interpreting the relevant verse in this future tense manner is considered a rare (shadh) opinion among Qur’anic commentaries. Elmalılı Hamdi Yazır explains that while the Qur’an sometimes uses the past tense to describe future events to emphasize their certainty, applying such an interpretation here would be meaningless. This is because the following verse, “If they see a sign, they turn away and say, ‘This is continuous magic,'” clearly indicates that the event had already occurred (Yazır, 7:336). Indeed, without the occurrence of an actual miracle, there could be no real “turning away” to speak of.
c. Why Is the Event Not Mentioned in History Books?
Another objection is that there are no clear accounts of the Splitting of the Moon in historical records, and the event was not widely reported globally. They argue that if the Splitting of the Moon truly occurred, it should have been observed worldwide and transmitted to us through mass reports (tawatur) (Iyad, 1:249; Ibn Hajar, 7:22).
Qadi Iyad addresses this by noting that the miracle occurred at night. Typically, at night people abandon their daily activities and retreat indoors to rest, and thus would not be aware of celestial events unless they were specifically observing the sky. Therefore, even when lunar eclipses occur, most people only learn about them through others rather than witnessing them firsthand (Iyad, 1:250). Factors like cloud cover and the fact that the moon is not visible in the same way from every part of the world further limit such observations.
It was also previously mentioned that there were individuals outside of Mecca who witnessed the Splitting of the Moon. Moreover, by their very nature, miracles are meant to be witnessed by the specific people or community to whom they are directed. According to a report transmitted by Mizzi, some travelers mentioned a building in India with an inscription that read: “This building was constructed on the night when the moon split.” (Ibn Kathir, 1981, 3:120). There is another account related to this: During the Prophet’s lifetime, a ruler of Malabar in India, known as Chakrawati Farmas, reportedly witnessed the splitting of the moon one night and was astounded. He began investigating the phenomenon and eventually found a reference in his ancestors’ scriptures that this event would be a miracle of the Final Prophet. Consequently, he traveled to Mecca and embraced Islam. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) instructed him to return to his homeland and propagate Islam there. However, on his journey back, he fell ill and passed away in the city of Dhafar in Yemen. His tomb continued to be known for centuries as “the grave of the Indian king” (Hamidullah, 701).
d. Is the Splitting of the Moon Contrary to the Laws of Physics?
Rashid Rida, emphasizing that God created the universe with perfect harmony and order, argues that this cosmic harmony stems from divine laws, referred to as Sunnatullah, which are unchanging. Based on this reasoning, he claims that the Splitting of the Moon would contradict these divine laws (Rida, 30:363). Hasbunnebi also advocates similar views (Sabri, 4:94).
However, the contemporary scholar Mustafa Sabri states that it is entirely possible for miracles to contravene the laws of nature—that this is, in fact, the very essence of a miracle. He explains that just because something defies natural laws does not necessarily mean it defies reason. Sabri stresses that miracles oppose the natural laws, not human logic or rationality; and those who fail to recognize this distinction mistakenly conclude that miracles are rationally impossible (Sabri, ibid.). Indeed, the defining characteristic of a miracle is that it overrides the laws of nature. It is clear that miracles cannot simply be denied; both the Qur’an and the authentic Sunnah offer numerous examples and proofs of miracles. The Splitting of the Moon is one such miracle, and naturally, it would transcend the usual laws of physics.
5. Are the Narrations (Hadith Reports) Flawed?
a. Issues in the Chain of Transmission:
Criticism regarding the chain of transmission mostly targets the companions (Sahabah) who narrated the event. It is argued that, except for Abdullah ibn Mas’ud, the other companions did not personally witness the event, meaning their reports fall under the category of Sahabi Mursal (a companion narrating a hadith without specifying the source from among the companions). Thus, they must have heard about the incident from other companions (Rida, 30:263–266). However, from the perspective of hadith methodology, this objection holds little weight. The overwhelming majority of scholars have accepted the Mursal reports of the companions without deeming them weak. This is because when a companion narrates something he did not hear directly from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), it is typically assumed that he heard it from another trustworthy companion. The omission of a companion in the chain does not compromise the integrity of the narration (Ibn al-Salah, 166).
b. Issues in the Text (Matn):
Criticism is also directed at discrepancies in the narrations regarding the specific locations where the event was witnessed. Places mentioned include Mina, Mount Hira, Suwayda, Qayqu’an, and Abu Qubays. Some have used the mention of different locations in various narrations as an argument against the reliability of these reports (Rida, 30:263–266). However, all of the mentioned locations are within or near Mecca. Moreover, these geographical references should be understood as approximate rather than absolute descriptions, which is a common and natural practice in everyday language. Treating these variations as flaws that undermine the reliability of the reports is not appropriate. The Splitting of the Moon is a singular event, narrated by multiple individuals. Minor verbal variations resulting from different people’s retellings are natural and do not alter the core substance of the event. The consistent and unanimous point in all the reports is that the moon split. Besides, people at different locations would naturally describe the event based on their own positions and perspectives.
4. Conclusion and Evaluation
Those who reject the Splitting of the Moon have resorted to forced interpretations. In fact, some of these interpretations are not just strained but fundamentally erroneous from a methodological standpoint. There is no valid reason for rejecting certain hadiths on the grounds that they are Sahabi Mursal (narrations where the companion does not specify the direct source). Unfortunately, much of the criticism stems from this misunderstanding. It is a well-established principle in Islamic methodology that hadiths explain the concise or general statements (mujmal) found in the Qur’an.
While some verses might appear concise, if there are clarifying details in the hadiths, insisting on treating the verses as absolute and venturing into alternative interpretations amounts to an artificial and strained approach.
There is, in fact, no obstacle to accepting the Splitting of the Moon as a miracle. However, those who stubbornly reject it would, by extension, also be compelled to deny the many other miracles attributed to the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), which have been reported through numerous authentic narrations in the hadith collections. Such a denial would also conflict with the principles of Islamic theology (‘ilm al-kalam).
The claim that the Splitting of the Moon could not have occurred because it defies the laws of physics is also fundamentally flawed.
This is because a miracle, by its very nature, is an event that breaks the regular patterns of nature—it overrides physical laws.
We can express this point through the perspective of Al-Shatibi (d. 790 AH / 1388 CE), who, unlike many classical jurists who briefly discussed the concept of causality (sabab) within a few pages, devoted nearly seventy pages to this topic, addressing its theological and mystical dimensions systematically. Al-Shatibi states:
“It is obligatory for every believer to believe that causes are not effective in themselves, that the true agent (fa’il) is none other than God (Glorified and Exalted is He), who is also the originator of causes; and that although the Divine custom (Sunnatullah) of consistent natural patterns has allowed us to deduce regular laws (Adatullah), God, when He wills and for whom He wills, can break and override these natural patterns.” (Shatibi, 1:184)
Hasan Yenibaş, January – February – March 2003, Issue: 59, Year: 15