Islamic preachers assert that the following verse of the Quran confirms that the miracle of moon splitting indeed happened. One of them wrote:

The Quran confirms that the moon splitting incident indeed happened.

Quran 54:1  ٱقۡتَرَبَتِ ٱلسَّاعَةُ وَٱنشَقَّ ٱلۡقَمَرُ

The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder (Translation by Yusuf Ali)

The grammar that is used for وَٱنشَقَّ (cleft asunder) is "perfect verb فعل ماض"  (See the CorpusQuran Website for grammar) which means this incident has already happened in the past. 

And we respond to this claim as under:

Firstly: The verse talks about the splitting of the moon in the FUTURE

The correct understanding of this verse is:

• This verse does not tell about any 'past' incident where the moon has already been split. 
• But this verse is figuratively talking about the 'FUTURE', where the Hour WILL come.
• And when the hour will come, only at that time the moon will also split. 
• And the moon will not split into TWO EQUAL parts (as it allegedly happened according to Ahadith), but it will split into MANY parts (i.e. in the sense of total destruction). 

Muslim translator  M. A. S. Abdel Haleem  wrote in the footnote of this verse (link):

The Arabic uses the past tense, as if that Day were already here, to help the reader/listener imagine how it will be. Some traditional commentators hold the view that this describes an actual event at the time of the Prophet, but it clearly refers to the end of the world.

There are traditional Muslim Scholars, who also mentioned the same.Al-Qurtabi recorded it in his commentary of the Quran (link):

وقال قوم: لم يقع ٱنشقاق القمر بعدُ وهو منتظر أي ٱقترب قيام الساعة وٱنشقاق القمر وأن الساعة إذا قامت ٱنشقت السماء بما فيها من القمر وغيره. وكذا قال القشيري. وذكر الماورديّ: أن هذا قول الجمهور، وقال: لأنه إذا ٱنشق ما بقي أحد إلا رآه لأنه آية والناس في الآيات سواء. وقال الحسن: ٱقتربت الساعة فإذا جاءت ٱنشق القمر بعد النفخة الثانية.

Some people have said that the splitting of the moon has not yet occurred and is still awaited. They interpret this as meaning that the approach of the Day of Judgment and the splitting of the moon are imminent, and that when the Hour (the Day of Judgment) arrives, the sky will split apart, including the moon and everything else in it. Al-Qushayri also mentioned this view. Al-Mawardi noted that this is the opinion of the majority, explaining that if the moon were to split, everyone would see it because it is a sign, and all people are equal when it comes to witnessing signs. Al-Hasan said that the Hour has drawn near, and when it comes, the moon will split after the second trumpet blast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_Moon

Al-Raghib al-Isfahani, Al-Mawardi and Al-Zamakhshari in their commentaries, in addition to mentioning the miracle, also note that the second half of verse 54:1 can be read as "and the moon will be cleaved", referring to one of the signs of the Islamic end of times.

For example, look at this verse, where the same grammar of "perfect verb فعل ماض"  is used (please see the same CorpusQuran Website for grammar):

Quran 55:37:

فَإِذَا ٱنشَقَّتِ ٱلسَّمَآءُ

When the sky is rent asunder (Translation by Yusuf Ali)

We can see that the sky has not been asunder in the past, but the Quran is telling about a future event in this verse. 

Secondly: The moon will not split into Two Equal parts, but into MANY parts

Islamic literature claims that Muhammad split the moon into two equal parts. 

However, the word وَٱنشَقَّ does not mean here "splitting into TWO Equal Parts", but it is used in the meaning of "Total Destruction"  i.e. to "split asunder/cleft asunder into MANY Parts".

For example:

Quran 55:37:
فَإِذَا ٱنشَقَّتِ ٱلسَّمَآءُ
And when the heaven splitteth asunder

This does not mean that heaven will split asunder into TWO Equal Parts, but it means total destruction. Similarly:

Quran 50:44:
یَوۡمَ تَشَقَّقُ الۡاَرۡضُ
On the day when the earth splitteth asunder from them

Again, this does not mean that the Earth will split into Two Equal Parts, but it means total destruction.

Islamic Apologists: The 2nd verse of Surah 54 makes clear that indeed the incident of the splitting of the moon happened

The first 2 verses of Surah 54 are as under:

54:1  The Hour has come near, and the moon has split

54:2  Yet, whenever they see a sign, they turn away, saying, “Same old magic!”

Islamic apologists claim that the 2nd verse is proof that indeed the 1st verse is talking about the past incident of the splitting of the moon. 

Response:

Absolutely not.

This verse does not say that the pagans said "particularly" about the miracle of the splitting of moon to be a magic. No, but this is a "common" statement by disbelievers whenever a miracle is shown to them, they claim it to be a magic.

It says that whenever the disbelievers see a sign, they pass it off as magic. It is very consistent with the future tense interpretation of the moon split. It's a warning to the kuffar that they should accept whenever a prophet comes to them before judgement day seals their fate.

• The second verse in Arabic is clearly in the present (continuous) tense.
• To report an event such as a miracle occurring in the past that includes onlookers, the onlookers’ actions should also be in the past. But here it is in the present (continuous) tense.
• It clearly refers to the continuous GENERAL BEHAVIOUR of non-believers denying Allah’s warnings and signs.

If the 2nd verse was indeed for the particular past incident of the splitting of moon, then it should have also been in the past tense, and it should have looked like this:

The Quran Bears Witness to Muhammad/Allah's Failure to Present a SINGLE Miracle to the Pagans/Jews

Islamic preachers present the following tradition:

Sahih al-Bukhari, 3868:

These are undoubtedly fabricated traditions and falsehoods propagated by Muslim transmitters of Ahadith.

Fortunately, the Quran itself documents the persistent demand of the Pagans/Jews, who repeatedly asked Muhammad/Allah to provide any sign or miracle as evidence of Muhammad's prophethood. However, Muhammad/Allah failed to produce a single sign or miracle. Instead of demonstrating any miraculous signs, the Quran offered various EXCUSES for Muhammad's inability to do so. These Quranic Excuses included:

1. Muhammad's inability to perform miracles while he is only a human.
2. Allah's decision not to send miracles to Muhammad at this time, as previous nations had rejected the miracles of earlier prophets.
3. Allah does not show any miracle to the pagans as He has already DECIDED that the pagans would not get guidance. 
4. Muhammad's refusal to perform miracles for the Jews due to the sins of their forefathers.
5. The absence of the predicted miracle of the sky falling on the Meccans, is attributed to Muhammad's presence among them and Allah didn't want Muhammad to be hurt due to any divine punishment.

Dear Reader, please contemplate these questions:

1. If the people of Mecca indeed saw the splitting of the moon, why then they were demanding Muhammad to bring a miracle as proof of his prophethood?
2. And why didn't Allah/Muhammad not simply refer to the incident of the splitting of the moon as proof of Muhammad's prophethood?"

However, the Quran consistently offered numerous explanations without ever using the alleged incident of the moon splitting to address the pagans' challenge to provide a miracle. Not only the Quran, but the entire Hadith literature is also devoid of any instance where Muhammad used this alleged miracle of splitting the moon in response to the pagans' demand for a miracle.

Let us see the details about these Quranic Excuses here to understand it.

The 1st Quranic Excuse: Muhammad cannot show a Miracle while he is only a human

This incident occurred in Mecca. Muhammad used to threaten the Meccans, warning them to believe in his prophethood or face the consequences, claiming that his Allah would make the sky fall upon them in fragments. 

Quran 17:90-93: And they (the polytheists of Quraish) say, "...  Or you make the sky fall upon us in fragments AS YOU HAVE (previously) CLAIMED ...

Actually, the pagan Meccans not only accepted this challenge by Muhammad but also extended it and asked Muhammad to show other miracles too and they would believe in his prophethood. 

However, Muhammad/Allah failed to deliver on this promise.

Therefore, Muhammad was forced to come up with an EXCUSE for his failure to fulfil his promise and show any miracle. And he made the following excuse:

Quran 17:90-93:

And they (the polytheists of Quraish) say, "We will not believe you until you break open for us from the ground a spring. Or [until] you have a garden of palm trees and grapes and make rivers gush forth within them in force [and abundance] Or you make the sky fall upon us in fragments as you have (previously) claimed or you bring Allah and the angels before [us] Or you have a house of ornament [i.e., gold] or you ascend into the sky. And [even then], we will not believe in your ascension until you bring down to us a book we may read."  Say: "Glory to my Lord. (I cannot do it while) I am only man and a messenger." 

Quran 67:25-26:

They ask, when will this promise be fulfilled, if you are truthful? Say, God alone has knowledge of that; and I am only a warner.

The writer of the Quran (i.e., Muhammad himself) attempted to justify his failure to perform miracles by claiming that he was merely a messenger and could not perform miracles.

However, the pagan Meccans had issued this challenge not only to Muhammad but also to Muhammad's god (i.e., Allah was already automatically included in this challenge). They believed that if Allah truly existed, He should have demonstrated a miracle to them.

Moreover, it was Muhammad/Allah who promised that the sky would fall upon them if they didn't believe in Muhammad's prophethood. Yet, both Muhammad and his Allah failed to fulfill their promise.

Furthermore, if Muhammad's lack of miracles was due to his role as a mere messenger, why did previous prophets demonstrate miracles to validate their prophethood? For instance:

• Jesus spoke as an infant in the cradle, gave life to birds made of clay, Cured the blind and the leper and gave life to the dead by God’s permission (Quran 5:110 and 3:49).
• Moses received nine miracles, including his staff transforming into a dragon, his hand becoming radiant, the plague of locusts/lice, the swarm of frogs, and the parting of the sea for the Children of Israel (Quran 17:101).
• Solomon comprehended the language of animals and birds and controlled jinn and winds (Quran 27:16-17, 34:12-13),
• while Joseph interpreted dreams and predicted future events (Quran 12:46-47, 40:51-52).

And the Meccans were correct in their demand. Even the Quran mentioned their argument:

Quran 21:5: So let him bring us a sign just as the previous [messengers] were sent [with miracles]."

So, if the earlier prophets were able to demonstrate miracles despite being humans, why then Muhammad could not?

And then the Quran claims that Allah does not change his PRACTICE (i.e. Sunnah):

Quran 17:77: This has been Our Way with the Messengers whom We sent before you. You will find no change in our Practice (i.e. the Sunnah of Allah).

Quran 48:23: [This is] the established practice of Allah which has occurred before. And never will you find in the Practice of Allah any change.

Quran 35:43: But you will never find in the practice of Allah any change, and you will never find in the practice of Allah any alteration.

The Quran presents a contradiction regarding the expectation of miracles from prophets. In one instance, it suggests that prophets are not required to display miracles as evidence of their prophethood, yet in another, it describes earlier prophets performing miracles to prove their legitimacy. This raises a question: Why did earlier prophets show miracles to disbelievers, but Muhammad and his Allah refused to do so?

The answer lies in the fact that the Quran recounts fictional tales of earlier prophets' miracles, which cannot be verified since they took place in the distant past. Conversely, when it came to Muhammad and his Allah, they were expected to perform miracles in real-time, right before the very eyes of the Kuffar Meccans who challenged them. However, they failed to deliver on these expectations.

The 2nd Quranic Excuse: Allah would not send a miracle to Muhammad this time while nations of earlier prophets denied the miracles of earlier prophets

This incident also happened in Mecca.  

Quran 17:58-59:

وَإِن مِّن قَرْيَةٍ إِلَّا نَحْنُ مُهْلِكُوهَا قَبْلَ يَوْمِ ٱلْقِيَٰمَةِ أَوْ مُعَذِّبُوهَا عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا ۚ كَانَ ذَٰلِكَ فِى ٱلْكِتَٰبِ مَسْطُورًا وَمَا مَنَعَنَآ أَن نُّرْسِلَ بِٱلْءَايَٰتِ إِلَّآ أَن كَذَّبَ بِهَا ٱلْأَوَّلُونَ ۚ

There is not a population but We shall destroy it before the Day of Judgment or punish it with a dreadful Penalty: that is written in the (eternal) Record. And We REFRAIN from sending the signs (now in front of Kuffar Meccans), only because the men of former generations treated them as false.

Meccans repeatedly asked Muhammad for a miracle, but he always offered new excuses for not delivering one. Earlier Muhammad claimed he could not perform any miracle while he was only a human being. But that excuse was shaky as the challenge was not limited to Muhammad only, but his god (i.e. Allah) was also automatically included in that challenge. 

Thus, Muhammad was forced to change his excuse. This time, he came up with a new excuse that Allah had ceased sending new miracles/signs since earlier people rejected them.

In simpler terms, Allah's practice (i.e. Sunnah of Allah ) supposedly changed when earlier people denied the signs. However, this contradicts the Quranic CLAIM that Allah's Sunnah never changes.

As they say, where there's a contradiction, there's a lie.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that there's also a flaw in Verse 58:

Quran 17:58:

There is not a population but We shall destroy it before the Day of Judgment or punish it with a dreadful Penalty: that is written in the (eternal) Record.

Muhammad recounted various tales in the Quran about ancient prophets like Thamud, 'Aad and Saleh etc., describing how their communities were destroyed by Allah. Muhammad presumed that nobody could fact-check his accounts by journeying into the past. However, he made a critical error.

The problem lies in the fact that, according to the Quran, Jesus also performed miracles in front of the Jews and Romans. He spoke as an infant in the cradle, gave life to birds made of clay, cured the blind and the leper, and even brought the dead back to life, all by God's permission (Quran 5:110 and 3:49). Yet, neither the Jews nor the Romans believed in him. Despite this, neither the Jews nor the Romans of Jesus's era were destroyed (which again goes against the Quranic Promise of Destruction).

The incident of Jesus took place in the recent past, making it feasible to verify its authenticity through historical records. Thus, this claim in the Quran has been exposed as a lie.

The 3rd Excuse: Muhammad shouldn't ask Allah for a Miracle while Allah had misguided the Pagans

Furthermore, the previous two excuses naturally failed to satisfy people regarding Muhammad's/Allah's inability to show any miracle. They continued to ask Muhammad to bring a miracle as proof of his prophethood. To deflect their demand, Muhammad introduced another excuse:

• He (Muhammad) cannot ask Allah for any miracle because Allah does not want the pagans to be guided.
• And if he (Muhammad) persists in asking Allah for a miracle, then Allah will punish him, and he (Muhammad) will be among the ignorant.

Quran 6:35:

وَإِن كَانَ كَبُرَ عَلَيْكَ إِعْرَاضُهُمْ فَإِنِ ٱسْتَطَعْتَ أَن تَبْتَغِىَ نَفَقًا فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ أَوْ سُلَّمًا فِى ٱلسَّمَآءِ فَتَأْتِيَهُم بِـَٔايَةٍ ۚ وَلَوْ شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ لَجَمَعَهُمْ عَلَى ٱلْهُدَىٰ ۚ فَلَا تَكُونَنَّ مِنَ ٱلْجَٰهِلِينَ

If you (O Muhammad) find rejection by the unbelievers so unbearable, then seek a tunnel into the ground or a ladder into the sky in order to bring them a SIGN, but [remember that], had God willed it, He would have guided all of them. Do not be among the ignorant (by asking a SIGN from Allah).

Once more, this verse serves as evidence that no miracle was shown to the Meccan disbelievers by Muhammad/Allah. 

The 4th Quranic Excuse: Muhammad will not show the miracle to the Jews while their forefathers sinned

This incident happened just after Muhammad's migration to Medina when he had to prove his prophethood to the Jews of Medina. 

The Bible contains several passages that highlight the phenomenon of divine acceptance of a person's sacrificial offering through the appearance of a mysterious fire that consumes the offering. These instances can be found in verses such as Judges 6:20-21, 13:19-20, and 2 Chronicles 7:1-2.

Actually, Muhammad had already made a mistake, and he had also previously confirmed this method of the miracle of fire in the Quran 5:27, in the story of Adam and his sons, where a fire appeared and consumed the offering of one son who sacrificed a sheep.

Quran 5:27:

Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah): It was accepted from one, but not from the other.

Tafsir Tabari, under verse 5:27 (link):

It was narrated from as-Suddi, in his narration from Abu Maalik and from Abu Saalih from Ibn ‘Abbaas, and from Murrah from Ibn Mas‘ood, and from some of the companions of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): ... Habeel (Abel) offered a fat lamb as his offering, while Qabeel (Cain) presented a sheaf of corn but secretly took out and consumed a large portion of the corn. Subsequently, fire descended from the heavens and consumed Habeel's offering, while Qabeel's offering remained untouched and unaccepted. In response, Qabeel became enraged and threatened to kill Habeel, vowing that he would not allow him to marry his sister.

Grade: Sahih (Albani)

Consequently, when Muhammad asserted his prophethood, the Jews asked him to provide proof through the manifestation of a miracle, specifically the fire consuming his offering.

Muhammad found himself unable to dismiss this demand outright, as he already acknowledged it in the story of Adam in the Quran.

However, Muhammad resorted to a different approach, offering a new excuse. He accepted the validity of the miracle involving the fire accepting the offering, but he refused to showcase this miracle. He justified his inability to show this miracle by accusing the Jews of Medina that their forefathers sinned by killing previous prophets

Quran 3:183:

They (the Jews) said: "Allah took our promise not to believe in any messenger unless He showed us a sacrifice consumed by Fire (From heaven)." Say: "There came to you messengers before me, with clear Signs and even with what ye ask for: why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?"

However, this excuse by the writer of the Quran does not hold up under scrutiny for several reasons.

Firstly, it is unjust to punish individuals for the sins of their ancestors. In this case, the writer of the Quran is essentially claiming to hold the Jews of his time accountable for the actions of their forefathers. This contradicts the concept of divine justice, which does not attribute guilt based on lineage.

Didn't the quran claim that no one is accountable for the action of others?

Quran 6:164:

Say, "Is it other than Allāh I should desire as a lord while He is the Lord of all things? And every soul earns not [blame] except against itself, and no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another. 

Secondly, the Jews of Muhammad's era maintained a strong belief in their own holy scriptures, which also indicated that the proof of prophethood involved successfully passing the miracle test. It is understandable that they would request the same evidence from Muhammad and, upon his failure to provide it, reject his claims. This rejection cannot be seen as their fault, as they were simply following the principles outlined in their own religious texts.

Ironically, when the Jewish holy books seemingly predicted the arrival of Muhammad (according to Muslim claims), Muhammad expected the Jews to adhere to their own scriptures. However, when those same holy books instructed them to seek the miracle of fire as a validation of prophethood, Muhammad wanted them to abandon that requirement. This double standard raises questions about consistency and fairness.

Thirdly, the writer of the Quran contradicts his own claims within the text. The Quran repeatedly asserts that the practices of Allah remain unchanging. Yet, in this instance, Muhammad is deviating from that principle by rejecting the miracle of fire as a valid proof of prophethood.

Quran 48:23: [This is] the established way of Allah which has occurred before. And never will you find in the practice of Allah any change.

Quran 35:43:  But you will never find in the practice of Allah any change, and you will never find in the practice of Allah any alteration.

Since Muhammad was unable to perform the miracle of fire in front of the Jews, a sudden shift occurred in the ways of Allah to accommodate his inability to demonstrate miracles.

Fourthly, it is worth noting that compared to the ancestors of the Jews, the ancestors of the pagan Meccans (Mushrikeen) did not have a history of killing prophets. However, Muhammad didn't show any miracle to them too by making other excuses. 

Muhammad got so much exposure in this incident, that despite all his struggles to make the Jews of Medina happy in the beginning (by adopting many Biblical laws in Islamic Sharia), not even 10 Jews of Medina believed in him and converted to Islam;

Sahih Bukhari, 3941:

The Prophet said: "Had only ten Jews believe me, all the Jews would definitely have believed me." 

The 5th Quranic Excuse: The Miracle of the Sky Falling on the Meccans Did Not Occur due to Muhammad's Presence Among Them

This incident happened later in Medina after Muhammad had also failed to show the miracle of fire to the Jews.

Quran 8:32: 

And when they [Meccans] said, "O Allah, if this should be the truth from You, then rain down upon us stones from the sky or bring us a painful punishment." But Allah did not punish them while you, [O Muhammad], was among them, and Allah would not punish them while they sought forgiveness.

This verse was revealed in Medina after the Battle of Badr (in the 2nd Hijri Year), in which Muhammad got victory against the Meccan pagans. 

Is it not strange and ridiculous that AFTER MANY MANY YEARS, Allah remembered to tell the reason why He didn't let the sky fall on Meccan pagans? During the 13 years of the Meccan life of Muhammad, the pagans were constantly demanding and challenging Muhammad/Allah to fulfil their promise, but Allah uttered not a single word. 

Two more pertinent questions arise from this narrative:

• Firstly, why did Allah not choose to punish the Meccans with the miracle of the falling sky during Muhammad's absence or just after his migration to Medina? Due to no divine punishment, the Meccan pagans succeeded in waging wars against Muhammad, even killing many Muslims and even breaking the teeth of Muhammad in the Battle of Uhud. But despite breaking the teeth of Muhammad, and despite Muhammad's absence among them, still no sky fell on them. 
• Secondly, the Meccans did not solely request the miracle of punishment; rather, they sought any miraculous manifestation (even without any punishment), similar to those experienced by the previous prophets, that could substantiate Muhammad's claim to prophethood. 

 Please see the following verse again where they are also asking Muhammad for any miracle (even without punishment), and they were ready to believe in his prophethood. 

Quran 17:90-93:

And they (the polytheists of Quraish) say, "We will not believe you until (1) you break open for us from the ground a spring. (2) Or [until] you have a garden of palm trees and grapes and make rivers gush forth within them in force [and abundance] Or you make the SKY FALL UPON US IN FRAGMENTS AS YOU HAVE CLAIMED (3) or you bring Allah and the angels before [us] (4) Or you have a house of ornament [i.e., gold] (5) or you ascend into the sky. And [even then], we will not believe in your ascension until you bring down to us a book we may read."  Say: "Glory to my Lord. (I cannot do it while) I am only man and a messenger." 

Thus, Muhammad along with his Allah failed to show even any simple miracle without any punishment, as it happened in the cases of previous prophets. 

Islamic Apologists: NASA Photos confirmed that the Moon was Split

Islamists use the above image and claim that the moon was indeed split. But they are wrong. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_of_the_Moon#NASA_photograph

After NASA made an Apollo mission photograph of Rima Ariadaeus available online, it began circulating in the Muslim online community, with "the moon's crack line" being interpreted as evidence that the Moon had once split. NASA clarified that the image shows a lunar rille similar to Earth's geological faults, stretching about 300 km. Astronomer Paul Groot from Radboud University explained that the "split" seen in the photo does not encircle the entire lunar surface, and it possibly relates to the impact that formed the Tycho crater nearby the feature. Additionally, NASA scientist Brad Bailey stated, "No current scientific evidence reports that the Moon was split into two (or more) parts and then reassembled at any point in the past."

Islamic Apologist: God shows miracles by His Will and on His time per His Wisdom

An Islamic apologist wrote:

Concluding that "Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) not showing a miracle on demand must mean he had an inability to show miracles" by itself is an "argument from silence" or "negative proof fallacy." It fails to consider that there may be other reasons for those miracles not being shown at those times, the most ultimate being that God shows miracles by His Will and on His time per His Wisdom, not just by the mere demands of humans. Humans don't rush God. But God later showed miracles when the time was right, indeed.

Response:

If Allah had himself presented this excuse in the Quran (i.e. Allah will show the miracle to pagans at the time of his choice), then there would have been absolutely no problem. But not showing the miracle at all is the problem.

And then coming up with different lame excuses for his complete failure to show miracles is again a problem.

Firstly, Muhammad/Allah started the game of threatening about miraculously falling the sky on the Meccans if they didn't believe in the prophethood of Muhammad:

Quran 17:90-93:

And they (the polytheists of Quraish) say, ... you make the SKY FALL UPON US IN FRAGMENTS AS YOU HAVE (previously) CLAIMED

Not only did the Meccans accept this challenge by Muhammad/Allah, but they also added to it and asked Muhammad to perform even other small miracles. However, Muhammad/Allah failed to fulfil their promise of the sky falling on them. This means Muhammad/Allah didn't show the miracle at all. This is not equal to the claim of the Islamic apologist (i.e. Allah showing a miracle at a time of his own choice). 

Moreover, the Quran presented the excuse that Allah stopped sending the signs/miracles to the Kuffar of the era of Muhammad while earlier kuffar Nations didn't take a lesson from signs/miracles (Quran 17:58-59). This excuse is again not equal to the claim of the Islamic apologist (i.e. Allah showing a miracle at a time of his own choice).

Islamic Apologist: Not all Ahadith about miracles of the Prophet can be denied

An Islamic apologist wrote:

Dismissing Hadith entirely in order to formulate your thesis is the set up of a strawman because you're not working within the full framework of religious texts that are followed by the religious community. Thus, your argument can only validly work against Hadith Rejectors/Quranists, not against mainstream Islam. Per mainstream Islam, there are more than enough Hadith that demonstrate that Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) did miracles, some of which are indeed touched upon in the Qur'an [e.g., the moon splitting, night journey and ascension].

Response:

Only Muslims regard the science of hadith as reliable. Therefore, using it as evidence in this discussion is entirely futile unless you can prove the reliability of the science of hadith.

There are numerous so-called Sahih (authentic) and Ahadith that claim the occurrence of the incident of the splitting of the moon, such as those found in:

• Bukhari:4864
• Bukhari:3868
•  Bukhari:3869
•  Bukhari:3871
•  Bukhari:3638
•  Muslim:2802c
•  Bukhari:3636
•  Bukhari:3637
•  Bukhari:3870
•  Muslim:2800a
•  Muslim:2802a
•  Tirmidhi:2182
•  Tirmidhi:3289
• ... and many more (Muslims claim these are Mutawatir Ahadith regarding this issue)

However, all of them are contradicted by the Quranic verses themselves, which assert that Allah had ceased sending signs/miracles to the disbelievers of Muhammad's era, as earlier disbelieving nations failed to heed signs/miracles (Quran 17:58-59).

Quran 17:58-59:

وَإِن مِّن قَرْيَةٍ إِلَّا نَحْنُ مُهْلِكُوهَا قَبْلَ يَوْمِ ٱلْقِيَٰمَةِ أَوْ مُعَذِّبُوهَا عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا ۚ كَانَ ذَٰلِكَ فِى ٱلْكِتَٰبِ مَسْطُورًا وَمَا مَنَعَنَآ أَن نُّرْسِلَ بِٱلْءَايَٰتِ إِلَّآ أَن كَذَّبَ بِهَا ٱلْأَوَّلُونَ ۚ

There is not a population but We shall destroy it before the Day of Judgment or punish it with a dreadful Penalty: that is written in the (eternal) Record. And We REFRAIN from sending the signs (now in front of Kuffar Meccans), only because the men of former generations treated them as false. (Translated by Yusuf Ali)

Thus, Muhammad himself never presented this so-called splitting of the moon as a miracle of his prophethood, despite constant demands from the Meccans to demonstrate any miracle.

This serves as sufficient evidence that no such incident of moon splitting by Muhammad ever occurred, and all those numerous so-called Sahih (and Mutawatir) Ahadith regarding that incident are nothing more than fabrications by Muslims.

Therefore, Ahadith can never be relied upon, as Muslim transmitters of hadith were engaging in the fabrication of Ahadith.

If these numerous Sahih (and Mutawatir) Ahadith are proven to be fabrications in the case of the splitting of the moon, then what assurance is there that Ahadith concerning other miracles are not fabrications as well?

The Fabricated Story of Indian King:

This is a ridicolous story, which is 100% fabricated. PROOF. 

External Links: 

• Wikiislam.net
• Debunking the Islamic Miracle of Splitting of the Moon 

The Fabricated Story of Indian King:

This is a ridicolous story, which is 100% fabricated. PROOF. 

Original Video: Prophet Muhammad's ﷺ‎ Miracle of the Splitting of the Moon | The Evidence of the Split of the Moon

The segment of interest is from 23:20 onwards. There is no doubt that a manuscript containing the story of the Indian king is a genuine manuscript, as confirmed by the British Library. What we are interested in is whether the contents of the story are true, rather than the genuineness of the manuscript. Sheikh Uthman explains that he reached out to the National Digital Library of India to ask them about additional documentation of the story. The response email states that an English translation of the Qissat exists, authored by Dr Yohanan Friedman, in the Israel Oriental Studies Journal.

• Here it is important to note that this work by Dr Friedman is actually available for free online.

For some strange reason, Sheikh Uthman decides not to examine this translation further, because if he had, the rest of his video would have been rendered unnecessary. Dr Friedman's work is not just a translation, but a scholarly discussion of the source material and whether any authenticity can be ascribed to it. So let's take a look at the paper that I linked above. Right in the beginning, Dr Friedman laments how the sources dealing with the subject are "full of inconsistencies and contradictions" that historians are unable to form any agreement. Regarding the story of the Indian king, he explains that the dating of this story is a matter of controversy:

As we can see, Dr Friedman lists three widely different opinions of the story's dating, none of them overlapping with the prophethood years of Muhammad. This is already an issue for Sheikh Uthman, which is probably why he didn't share any of this with his Youtube audience.

It must be pointed out that historians are not rejecting this story because of their commitment to naturalism; they are rejecting it because the authorship and the dates of the manuscripts are completely unknown. The original stories have anonymous authors, so even if a modern historian believed in a God who split the moon, there would still be no reason for him to accept this Indian story due to its unknown origins.

The Sheikh continues reading the email. The email states that the story of the Indian king embracing Islam is "well documented in many manuscripts that are housed in the National Digital Library of India." Here we must pause and understand the wording used. The email states that the story is "well documented", not "well corroborated". This is important to note because to document a story means you are simply recording the story after hearing it from another source. It is possible for a story to be recorded a hundred times by different people and it would still have no bearing on the story's authenticity, because the story is simply being passed on from one person to the next as is.

A story is corroborated if we have more than one source from the time of the event itself. As we will divulge from this post, no such corroboration for this story exists. In fact, no one even knows who wrote the original story, and no one knows when it was written. No one even knows anything about this very king who the story is about. So corroboration is an impossibility.

The email continues by naming two more works that mention the story. The first being Tarikh Zuhur Al Islam Fil Malibar, which is labelled as "an early manuscript on the genesis of Islam in Kerala". There is a reason the librarian simply calls it "an early manuscript" instead of giving more details — and that is because the contents of this manuscript have never been confirmed to be authentic, and no one even knows the date it was written in.

The second work mentioned in the email is Tuhfat al-Mujahidin by Sheikh Zayn ud-Din. Once again, Shaykh Uthman doesn't care to examine the contents of the material he is being recommended. If he actually cared to read the Tuhfat al-Mujahidin, which can be done from here:

...then he would have known that Zayn ud-Din does not support the story at all. Instead, Zayn ud-Din claims that the Indian king converted to Islam in the 9th century, 200 years after the actual moon split story is said to have taken place. He rejects the original story as told in the Qissat Shakarwati Farmad, and is quoted as saying, "there is but little truth in this".

Moving on, the email then names four more personalities:

• Hermann Gundert

• Duarte Barbosa

• João de Barros

• Diogo do Couto

All four of these individuals lived after the 14th century, and they were simply recording the stories as local legends of the Indian people. Duarte Barbosa is even hostile to it, calling Muhammad the "abominable Mafamede". Yet again, if Shaykh Uthman had simply read the source material being recommended, he would have understood that these historians were simply documenting these stories for educational purposes. Barbosa starts his narration with the words "they say", implying that this is the story as it is believed by the locals.

Yet again, if Shaykh Uthman had simply read the source material being recommended, which you can do here:

...then he would have understood that these historians were simply documenting these stories for educational purposes. Barbosa starts his narration with the words "they say", implying that this is the story as it is believed by the locals.

We can now move on to modern scholarship around this story. It is strange that the National Library of India cited Dr Friedman's translation to Sheikh Uthman, which is from 1975. Dr Friedman's translation is only a summary of the story, rather than a full translation of the complete text. There is in fact a more recent work from 2017, authored by Scott Kugle and Roxani Elani Margariti, in which they have translated the entire story in its complete form for the first time.

As mentioned in their abstract, up till now "historians have dealt with such origin stories by transmitting them at face value, rejecting their historicity, or sifting them for kernels of historical truth."

(The Writer)