Appendices

Appendix 1: The Meaning of Miracle and Its Application to the Incident

Appendix 1

The Meaning of Miracle and Its Application to the Event of the Splitting of the Moon

The word muʿjizah (miracle) is derived from iʿjāz, and functions as an active participle (ism fāʿil), meaning ‘that which renders powerless’ or ‘incapable.’ In general usage, it refers to any grand and extraordinary occurrence. In technical (Islamic theological) terminology, it denotes a supernatural event that lies beyond human capacity and is manifested by the will of Allah through His Prophets. According to our scholarly tradition, the concepts and applications encompassed by this term are as follows:

• A miracle is an extraordinary event.
• It is based on the permission of Allah.
• It is manifested from the person of the Prophet.
• Supports and affirms the claim of prophethood.
• At times, it is revealed in response to the demands of the deniers.
• Sometimes the intent is to challenge the disbelievers.
• Sometimes occurs for the stability of faith.
• At time, it grants the believers support through the help of Allah.
• The audience are unable to produce anything like it.
• Consequently, this serves as the completion of proof against the Prophet’s addressees.

Excerpts from some eminent scholars are presented:

Allama Saad al-Din Taftazani (793 AH) writes in Sharh al-Aqaid al-Nasafi:

A miracle is an event that occurs against the norm. It manifests at the hands of one who claims prophethood. The purpose of this is to invite the deniers (of prophethood) to present the like of this (event against the norm) and for them to be unable to do so. (125)

Ali bin Muhammad al-Sharif al-Jurjani (816 AH) in his renowned book Mu‘jam al-Ta‘arifaat defined a miracle with these words:

A miracle is an extraordinary event that encompasses an invitation to goodness and blessing, and it is associated with the claim of prophethood. Its purpose is to manifest the truthfulness of the one who claims to be a messenger of Allah. (184)

Imam Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti (849 Hijri) has written:

A miracle is defined as such an extraordinary occurrence that includes a challenge and cannot be countered. (Al-Itqan fi ‘Ulum al-Qur’an 2/311)

In Muhammad Ali Thanwi’s (1158 AH) compilation Kashaf Istilahaat al-Funoon, it is stated:

Miracle: In Islamic law, this refers to the extraordinary event that manifests at the hands of someone claiming prophethood and supports their claim. (1575)

Imam Shah Waliullah has clarified the nature and necessity of the miracles of the Prophets with the example of a physician and medicine. In Hujjatullah al-Balighah, he writes:

In this matter (of prophecy), the example of Allah is like that of a master whose slaves have fallen ill. Therefore, he has instructed one of his particular workers to make them obligated to drink medicine, regardless of whether they wish to take it or refuse. Thus, if he exercises strictness in this matter, he will be justified. However, complete benevolence demands that before strictness, he should explain to them that they are ill and that this medicine is beneficial for them. Furthermore, he should manifest some miraculous events, which would convince them of the truthfulness of his words. That is, he should mix sweetness in the medicine. As a result, the slaves will carry out the duties they are commanded with full insight and willingness. Hence, it is clear that the occurrence of miracles, acceptance of prayers, and other similar matters are outside the essence of prophecy, though in most cases they are included among the causes and requirements of prophecy. (2/64)

Shah Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvi states:

A miracle is referred to as an extraordinary event that manifests at the hands of one who claims to be a prophet, with the purpose of a challenge. The meaning of a challenge is to match someone in an endeavor and to overcome the opponent by making them powerless. It is researched that a challenge is not a condition for a miracle. (Madarij al-Nubuwwah 1/229)

Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani writes:

The prophet who claims, ‘I am a prophet… there is no path to salvation without following me,’ presents this reasoning that Allah, the Almighty, will manifest through my hands and tongue things that are contrary to His usual practice, and the world will be unable to bring forth an example like it. If then, observation aligns with this, it is effectively God’s endorsement of his claim. In truth, a miracle is the practical verification of a prophet’s claim. (I‘jaz al-Qur’an, 31)

After the detailed explanation of the meaning and concept of ‘miracle,’ it is now essential to know that this is not a term used in the Qur’an. It is a word from the Arabic language, and several styles of speech in the divine texts mention it. However, as far as the aforementioned terminological meaning is concerned, neither this word nor any of its derivatives have been used in the Qur’an in this sense.

The same situation applies to the books of Hadith. This term has also not been used in them. However, the scholars of Hadith have used this term for the titles of chapters.

For this reason, some scholars maintain that the term ‘miracle’ should be avoided when referring to the extraordinary acts of prophets. Syed Sulaiman Nadvi, under the heading In waqiyat ka istilahi naam (The Terminological Name of These Events) in Seerat-un-Nabi, writes:

The extraordinary conditions and actions manifested by the esteemed prophets, peace be upon them, are generally referred to by the term ‘miracle.’ However, this terminology is incorrect in several respects. Firstly, because this term is neither used in the Qur’an nor in Hadiths, where instead the words āyāt (sign) and burhān (proof) are utilized, which aptly convey their meaning. Scholars of hadiths have used the terms dalāil (evidence) and ‘alamāt (indicators) in place of these, which are synonymous with the Qur’anic language. Secondly, due to its common usage, the word muʿjizah has acquired certain mental associations that are not accurate in reality. For example, among the general public, there exists the notion that a miracle is an act performed by the Prophet himself, emerging specifically from his own body or limbs. In fact, it should be said that many intellectual objections raised against the concept of muʿjizah arise from the misuse or misunderstanding of the term itself. Most importantly, what we truly need is a comprehensive term that encompasses all the distinctive qualities of Prophethood—its states, perceptions, and actions—whether they are extraordinary or within the natural order. The word muʿjizah, however, is not broad enough to encompass all of this. …Yet, since the term muʿjizah has become widely accepted in our language, it cannot be altogether discarded either. (3/21-22)

For this concept, the term āyah is used in the Book of Allah, which means a sign. However, it does not only refer to the signs manifested at the hands of the prophets. Included within its scope are the signs that appear daily in the universe and human selves, as well as the extraordinary signs that Allah directly manifests. Furthermore, the same term āyah is also used for the verses of the Holy Qur’an.¹⁴

The question now arises whether the term ‘miracle’ is appropriately applied to the event of the splitting of the moon. In light of the aforementioned definitions, the answer would be negative. The reason for this is that, according to these definitions, a miracle is an extraordinary event that occurs at the hands of a prophet by the command of Allah. The splitting of the moon is, without a doubt, an extraordinary event and occurred by Allah’s command, but it is clear from the Qur’an and Hadith that the agency of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was not employed for it. If Allah willed, He could have employed His Prophet’s agency for it, as has been the case in numerous other miracles mentioned in the Qur’an and Hadith. If Allah, in His wisdom, did not do so, we should describe it as a sign of Allah rather than a miracle. For example, the reviving of the dead by Jesus (PBUH) is undoubtedly called his miracle, but his birth without a father is not referred to as his miracle; rather, it is considered a sign of Allah.

Appendix 2: The Silence of Historians on the Incident

Appendix 2

The Silence of Historians on the Incident of the Splitting of the Moon

Response to the Objection

The truth of the splitting of the moon has been questioned by some individuals who argue that this event is not historically proven. Their point is that how is it possible for such a significant event to occur during an era enlightened by history, and yet no one is aware of it? Hence, according to them, if this event had indeed taken place, it was necessary for people from different parts of the world to have witnessed it and for narratives of it to be told in every region. However, the situation is such that it is not mentioned anywhere except in the books of Muslims.

In our view, this objection is baseless from several aspects.

Firstly, it is clear from both the Qur’an and Hadith that this sign was specifically for the Quraysh. It was not originally intended for the rest of the world. The purpose of its manifestation was to fully warn the addressees of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) about the impending punishment. In essence, it was a sign similar to the one that appeared in the form of a she-camel to the people of Prophet Salih (PBUH) or in the form of the birth of Jesus (PBUH) to the Israelites. These signs were related to the specific communities in which they appeared. It is not appropriate to view such signs in reference to all the people and nations of the world.

Secondly, this information is mentioned in the Qur’an. Based on the contents of this book, intellect and reason compel us to accept it as divine and non-human speech. Hence, if it is accepted by Muslims that this book is a supernatural miracle in its presentation, then reason and nature demand that all its information about the past, present, and future be considered true.

Thirdly, in response to the aforementioned objection, this question arises: If this incident is false, then why did none of the people from the region and community where this incident has been continuously narrated ever refute it? This was not some piece of news being shared behind closed doors with a select few and then passed on by word of mouth. Not at all, this was a public proclamation, broadcast day and night through the Qur’an in the streets and alleys. Among the listeners were Christians, Jews, and polytheists. Why did it not happen that one of their authors, poets, or historians refuted this widely known news, which would then be passed down as a historical document to subsequent generations?

Fourthly, looking at it from the perspective of Muslims, this was not a piece of news related to faith or life after death that required acceptance by believers of that time just because it was mentioned in the Qur’an. Instead, it was a sensory event. So, is there not even a single person from the early centuries of Muslims who denied the occurrence of this event or attempted to interpret the words of the Qur’an differently? If this did not happen, it means that this was an authenticated report of the Qur’an, which the Companions and their successors transmitted through their consensus and continuity. Therefore, denying this consecutively and widely transmitted report is a denial of a self-evident fact.

Fifthly, it should further be noted that this report has been transmitted through the most authentic historical sources, such as Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, and those who have narrated it are individuals whose integrity and reliability are beyond any doubt. Some among them were even eyewitnesses to the event. Therefore, to claim that history is silent regarding this matter is entirely incorrect. In reality, the very history that should speak on this matter is, in fact, proclaiming it openly and emphatically.

In response to the aforementioned objection, Muslim scholars have presented their arguments and evidences in their own respective styles. A few selected excerpts from their writings are presented below.

The historian and biographer, Syed Sulaiman Nadvi, writes:

The question is whether a famous incident from one country not being mentioned in the contemporary histories of another country can be taken as evidence of its denial. And if so, can you deny the Mahabharata of the Hindus? You could even deny all the miracles of Jesus (PBUH) and indeed the events of his life, because the contemporary Roman historians of Syria and Egypt did not document even a single letter about such extraordinary events. In contrast, it has been stated in the above-mentioned accounts that travelers coming from Arabia and Syria reported that they saw the moon split into two parts. (Seerat-un-Nabi 3/311)

He further wrote:

Allah manifested this sign for the people of Mecca, and it served as evidence for them alone. Therefore, it was not necessary for its appearance and sighting to occur throughout the entire world. Based on this, hypothetically, if the splitting of the moon was not observed in other parts of the world, it would not be a matter of surprise or astonishment. In fact, for those beyond the people of Mecca, not witnessing it in other cities and countries was a divine wisdom. Had it been visible to people generally across different regions of the world, it might have been considered a natural astronomical event, akin to the hundreds of other changes that had occurred before, as mentioned in astronomy and the science of natural history. However, since it was only seen by the people of Mecca, whether they were in the city or in caravans outside, this is clear and conclusive evidence that it was manifested solely as a sign for the Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Praise be to Allah. (Seerat un-Nabi 3/312)

Maulana Syed Abul A‘la Maududi commented on this objection by writing:

This objection is weightless because this event occurred suddenly and only for a moment. It was not necessary for the eyes of the whole world to be fixed on the moon at this particular moment. There was no explosion that would draw people’s attention towards it. There was no prior information that people would have been waiting for it and looking towards the sky. It could not have been seen over the entire surface of the earth, but only in Arab regions and countries to its east, where the moon was visible at that time. The art and passion for historiography were not so advanced back then that those in the eastern countries who had witnessed it would have recorded it, testimonials would have been collected by a historian, and it would have been entered into any historical book. However, it is mentioned in the chronicles of Malabar that a king there witnessed the scene that night. As for books on astronomy and calendars, mentioning it would have been necessary only if it had caused any change in the moon’s speed, its orbit, or its rising and setting times. Since this did not happen, the attention of ancient astrologers was not drawn to it. Observatories of that time were not advanced enough to take notice of every event that occurred in the heavens and record it. (Tafheem-ul-Qur’an 5/230-231)

Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi has provided a very compelling response to this objection. He writes:

This doubt is not valid that if such an event had occurred, it would have been mentioned in the histories of other nations as well. On our planet and other celestial bodies, numerous events of upheaval and fragmentation, with separations and reunions between parts, occur frequently. However, in earlier times, observations of such events were confined to a limited scope. In our era, international institutions and observatories exist for the investigation of such changes. Consequently, if an event occurs, research institutions around the world immediately begin to investigate it, and information about it rapidly spreads to all corners of the world. These means of research and communication did not exist in the past, which is why the news remained confined to a specific area. However, that area consisted of highly credible individuals, thus there is no reason to deny the authenticity of the event itself. (Tadabbur-e-Qur’an 8/92)

Appendix 3: The Silence of Astronomers and Scientists on the Incident

Appendix 3

The Silence of Astronomers and Scientists on the Splitting of the Moon

Response to the Objection

An objection raised about the occurrence of the splitting of the moon is that this event pertains to the field of astronomy, yet it has neither been documented by the astronomers of the prophetic era nor has it been confirmed by modern observatories and scientific instruments. Therefore, this event is not scientifically proven.

In our view, this objection is not valid for the following reasons.

Firstly, there is no evidence available to suggest that during the time of the Prophet (PBUH), there were people in the land of Hijaz who had an interest or expertise in such sciences and arts. If a region lacks experts in a particular science or art, it is unrealistic to expect the preservation and transmission of related information in that area.

Secondly, it is evident from the accounts in the Qur’an and Hadith that there was no effect on the moon’s orbit as a result of the event. If the moon’s orbit had stopped, astronomers who track the speed of the moon might have noticed this. Even in that case, the question remains as to whether they had the expertise to determine a momentary pause in the moon’s axial rotation and orbital revolution.

Thirdly, the most significant question regarding this objection is whether, from the time of the incident until now, any astronomer, observatory, scientist, or research institution has made a serious effort to investigate the event of the splitting of the moon. To the best of our knowledge, the answer is negative. It is quite possible that by going to the moon and conducting in-depth research, evidence of its splitting might be found.

Fourthly, it is also possible that after splitting, when the two parts rejoined, they merged together exactly as they were in their original state, without the slightest trace of fracture remaining. Just like when Prophet Abraham (PBUH) sacrificed four birds and placed them on separate mountains, and upon calling them, they returned by the command of Allah in the same state as they were before being sacrificed. This incident is narrated in Surah Al-Baqarah. It is stated:

وَاِذْ قَالَ اِبْرٰهٖمُ رَبِّ اَرِنِيْ كَيْفَ تُحْيِ الْمَوْتٰي قَالَ اَوَلَمْ تُؤْمِنْﵧ قَالَ بَلٰي وَلٰكِنْ لِّيَطْمَئِنَّ قَلْبِيْﵧ قَالَ فَخُذْ اَرْبَعَةً مِّنَ الطَّيْرِ فَصُرْهُنَّ اِلَيْكَ ثُمَّ اجْعَلْ عَلٰي كُلِّ جَبَلٍ مِّنْهُنَّ جُزْءًا ثُمَّ ادْعُهُنَّ يَاْتِيْنَكَ سَعْيًا وَاعْلَمْ اَنَّ اللّٰهَ عَزِيْزٌ حَكِيْمٌ.

And, [in this regard,] that incident should also be kept in consideration when Abraham had said: “Show me, Lord, how You will raise the dead?” He replied: “Do you not have faith?” “Yes I do have faith, but just want to fully reassure my heart,” said Abraham. God said: “Okay! Take four birds; then tame them with yourself; then [after slaughtering them] place each of them on every hill; then call them. They will [come back to life and] run swiftly towards you, and [for the future] fully understand that God is Mighty, very Wise.” (2:260)

Our scholars have also extensively addressed this objection. Syed Sulaiman Nadvi writes:

The primary factor in the occurrence and happening of celestial events is that their observation depends on horizons and settings, which are significantly different for each location. Especially in the case of the moon, there is even greater disparity; at one place, the moon sets, and at another, it rises. In one location, there is moonlight, while another is in darkness; in one place, the moon is eclipsed, and people in other locations do not even see it. Therefore, if the entire world did not witness this miracle, it does not serve as evidence against the splitting of the moon. Various informed nations of the world have recorded different celestial events in their respective books, but the event that one has described extensively is entirely absent in the contemporary books of other nations.

However, can this silence serve as proof of its non-occurrence? Among various other reasons for this silence and disparity, one reason is precisely that the entire world’s horizon is not the same. Hence, something is visible in one place and not in another. (Seerat-un-Nabi 3/312)

Syed Abul A‘la Maududi writes:

In the present era, based on the information that humans have acquired about the structure of planets, it is entirely possible for a sphere to burst due to its internal volcanic activity. From that tremendous explosion, its two pieces can travel a significant distance apart and then, due to the magnetic force of their center, come together again. …as for the books of astrology and almanacs, their mention of this event would only have been necessary if there had been any difference in the moon’s speed, its orbital path, and its times of rising and setting. Since this situation did not arise, the attention of the ancient astrologers was not drawn to it. During that era, observatories were not so advanced as to take notice of every event occurring in the heavens and record it systematically. (Tafheem-ul-Qu’ran 5/230-231)

Maulana Amin Ahsan Islahi has written:

It is possible that in the future, vast avenues for lunar research may open for scientists, and scholarly investigations may establish that a certain part of the moon was once connected to another, but separated and later joined to a different section. There are many such revelations regarding our planet that are now coming to light, and people are accepting them. So, why is there wonder at this statement about the moon in the Qur’an? If science has not yet confirmed it, it is an indication of its current limitations. Be patient and wait; perhaps in the future, science will also be compelled to acknowledge it. (Tadabbur-e-Qur’an 8/92)

Appendix 4: Different Contexts of the Word Āyah

Appendix 4

Different Contexts of the Word Āyah

Explanation of a Doubt

The introductory chapter of this book is titled “The Meaning and Referent of Āyah.” It explains that āyah means a sign or symbol. In the Qur’an, it has been used as a term and is applied in four different contexts. The context of the discourse determines which of these four applications is appropriate at a given instance. At first glance, this may raise the question of how it is possible for a single word to have four different applications, for all four to be used in the same discourse, and yet be distinguishable from one another.

In our view, the usage of a word for more than one meaning and application is a common style in language and rhetoric. Numerous examples of this can be presented from the Holy Qur’an. One well-known and commonly understood example among these is the word dhikr. This word has been used for several meanings. For instance:

1. In Surah Al-Baqarah, it is mentioned in the context of remembering. It is stated to the Israelites:

يٰبَنِيْ٘ اِسْرَآءِيْلَ اذْكُرُوْا نِعْمَتِيَ الَّتِيْ٘ اَنْعَمْتُ عَلَيْكُمْ وَاَوْفُوْا بِعَهْدِيْ٘ اُوْفِ بِعَهْدِكُمْﵐ وَاِيَّايَ فَارْهَبُوْنِ.

[The Qur’an has brought this very guidance for you; so,] O Israelites! Recall My favor which I had bestowed upon you and keep my covenant, I shall keep yours and keep fearing Me only. (2:40)

2. In Surah Al-Maidah, the same word is used in the meaning of mentioning by name with the tongue.

يَسْـَٔلُوْنَكَ مَاذَا٘ اُحِلَّ لَهُمْﵧ قُلْ اُحِلَّ لَكُمُ الطَّيِّبٰتُﶈ وَمَا عَلَّمْتُمْ مِّنَ الْجَوَارِحِ مُكَلِّبِيْنَ تُعَلِّمُوْنَهُنَّ مِمَّا عَلَّمَكُمُ اللّٰهُﵟ فَكُلُوْا مِمَّا٘ اَمْسَكْنَ عَلَيْكُمْ وَاذْكُرُوا اسْمَ اللّٰهِ عَلَيْهِﵣ وَاتَّقُوا اللّٰهَﵧ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ سَرِيْعُ الْحِسَابِ.

They ask you what is lawful for them. Say: All pure things are lawful to you as well as the hunting animals you have taught to hunt, training them from the knowledge God has taught you, [the animal hunted by them is also allowed.] So, eat of what they catch for you and [before you let loose the animal to catch the prey,] pronounce upon it the name of God. And remain fearful of God. Indeed, swift is God in taking account. (5:4)

This word appears in Surah Aale Imran in such a way that it includes both the remembrance of the heart and the expression of the tongue. The command is:

اِنَّ فِيْ خَلْقِ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالْاَرْضِ وَاخْتِلَافِ الَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ لَاٰيٰتٍ لِّاُولِي الْاَلْبَابِ. الَّذِيْنَ يَذْكُرُوْنَ اللّٰهَ قِيٰمًا وَّقُعُوْدًا وَّعَلٰي جُنُوْبِهِمْ وَيَتَفَكَّرُوْنَ فِيْ خَلْقِ السَّمٰوٰتِ وَالْاَرْضِ…

[They are totally bereft of intellect and that is why demand a sign to believe in the Prophet; otherwise,] in reality, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and in the alternation of night and day, there are many signs for people of insight; for those who remember God in all states whether standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and keep reflecting on the creation of the heavens and the earth. (3:190-191)

4. In Surah Al-Anbiya, this is mentioned in the sense of making a general mention or talking about someone:

قَالُوْا مَنْ فَعَلَ هٰذَا بِاٰلِهَتِنَا٘ اِنَّهٗ لَمِنَ الظّٰلِمِيْنَ. قَالُوْا سَمِعْنَا فَتًي يَّذْكُرُهُمْ يُقَالُ لَهٗ٘ اِبْرٰهِيْمُ.

[When they came and saw this state of their idols,] they said: “Who has done this with our idols? Surely, he is very oppressive.” People said: “We had heard a youngster called Abraham say something bad to them.” (21: 59-60)

5. In Surah Al-Ahzab, it is mentioned in the context of discussing and conversing:

وَاذْكُرْنَ مَا يُتْلٰي فِيْ بُيُوْتِكُنَّ مِنْ اٰيٰتِ اللّٰهِ وَالْحِكْمَةِﵧ اِنَّ اللّٰهَ كَانَ لَطِيْفًا خَبِيْرًا.

And communicate what is taught to you of the revelations of God and His wisdom. Indeed, God is Very Discerning and All-Knowing. (33:34)

6. In Surah Al-Maidah, this word has been used in the sense of a reminder:

وَمِنَ الَّذِيْنَ قَالُوْ٘ا اِنَّا نَصٰرٰ٘ي اَخَذْنَا مِيْثَاقَهُمْ فَنَسُوْا حَظًّا مِّمَّا ذُكِّرُوْا بِهٖ….

In a similar manner, We took a covenant from those also who said: “We are Nazarenes.” Then they too forgot a part of that through which they were reminded… (5:14)