As  required  by the  mysteries  of  guidance  and  human  responsibility  and  the wisdom of prophethood, it was shown as a convincing proof to a number of people specified  by dominical  wisdom.  The mystery of  wisdom  required  that  it  was  not shown to people in every region of the world, who had not yet heard of Muhammad’s (UWBP) claim to prophethood. Numerous obstacles prevented them, therefore, such as mist, cloud, and time-differences, and the fact that in some countries the moon had not risen, and in others the sun had risen, while in others it was morning, and in yet others the sun had just set.

If it had been shown to all and sundry, it would have been shown as a sign of Muhammad   (UWBP)   and   a  miracle   of   his   prophethood,   in  which   case   his messengership would have been so obvious that everyone would have been compelled to affirm it. Human reason and will would have been cancelled, and belief is attained through  the  faculties  of reason and  will.  Human  responsibility  and  accountabilit y would  have  been  nullified.  If it  had  been shown merely  as an occurrence  in the heavens, its connection with Muhammad’s (UWBP) messengership would have been cut, and there would have  been nothing about it that pertained to him.

To Conclude:   No doubt remains concerning the possibility of the Splitting of the Moon; it has been proved decisively. Now we shall mention six [5] of the many evidences pointing to its occurrence.

The concurrence of the Prophet’s (UWBP) Companions, who were all men of justice, on its occurrence. [6]

The agreement of all exacting commentators on the Qur’an in their explanations of the verse, “And the moon is split.”

The fact that, relying on numerous different chains of authorities and lines of transmission, all the scholars of the prophetic traditions and transmitters of the sound narrations narrated the event. [7]

------------------------------

[5] That is to say, there are six proofs concerning the event in the form of a sixfold consensus. Unfortunately, the explanation of them is brief and they deserve more.

[6] See, al-Wahidi, al-Wajiz fi Tafsir al-Kitab al-‘Aziz, i, 370; al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan, 2784-7; al- Qurtubi, al-Jami’ li-Ahkam al-Qur’an, xvii, 126-7; al-Suyuti, al-Durr al-Manthur, vii, 672.

[7] Line of ‘Abdullah b. Mas’ud: Bukhari, Tafsir,(54:)1; Muslim, Sifat al-Munafiqin, 44-5; Tirmidhi, Tafsir, 54. Line of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar: Muslim, Sifat al-Munafiqin,45, 48; Tirmidhi, Tafsir, 54:1. Line of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Abbas: Bukhari, Manaqib, 27; Manaqib al-Ansar, 36; Tafsir (54:)1; Muslim, Sifat al- Munafiqin, 48. Line of Anas b. Malik: Bukhari, Manaqib, 27; Manaqib al-Ansar, 36; Tafsir (54:)1; Muslim, Sifat al-Munafiqin,48; Tirmidhi, Tafsir Sura 54. Line of Khuzayfa ibn al-Yaman: al-Tabari, Jami’ al-Bayan, xxvii, 51; ‘Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, iii, 193-4; Abu Nu’aym, Hilyat al-Awliya’, i, 280-1. Line of Jubayr b. Mut’im: Tirmidhi, Tafsir Sura 54; Musnad, iv, 82; Ibn Hibban, al-Sahih, xiv, 422.