The Promised Messiah (as) explained that the splitting of the moon was a miracle which occurred during the life of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (sa). In Surah al-Qamar, Allah testifies to the occurrence of this miracle in the following words:
The Hour has drawn nigh and the moon is rent asunder. And if they see a Sign, they turn away and say, ‘A passing feat of magic.’ They reject the truth and follow their own fancies. But every decree of God shall certainly come to pass. (Surah al-Qamar, Ch.54: V.2-4)
The Promised Messiah (as) explained that this sign is attested to by numerous sources and therefore the occurrence of something extraordinary cannot be denied.
In his work Surma Chashm Arya, he wrote that the Quran reached millions of Muslims and non-Muslims during and immediately after the lifetime of the Prophet (sa), but even its opponents did not dare deny the occurrence of this miracle. Their silence despite the claim of such an open miracle to have occurred demonstrates that they were witnesses to its occurrence. He wrote:
“If the Holy Prophet (sa) – who had publicly and openly proclaimed the claim that the miracle of the splitting of the moon had occurred at his hands and the disbelievers had witnessed it with their own eyes but dismissed it as magic – was not truthful in his claim, then why did the opponents of the Holy Prophet (sa) living in that very era, to whom these reports had reached as loudly and clearly as the sounding of a drum, remain silent? And why did they not hold the Holy Prophet, peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, accountable, demanding from him that when did you ever split the moon into two pieces and when did we call it magic and turn our faces away from accepting it? Why did they maintain silence until their dying breath and keep their mouths shut to the extent that they passed away from this world? Does this silence of theirs – which completely contradicted their state of opposition and competitive fervor – not provide certainty that there was some severe constraint due to which they could say nothing except to witness the manifestation of truth? And what constraint was it? This miracle had manifested in Mecca and the Muslims were still very weak, poor and helpless. Then, the surprising thing is that even their sons or grandsons did not speak out in denial, although it was incumbent upon them to do so. If such a massive claim was mere fabrication and had become famous for hundreds of miles around, they would have written books in its refutation and published and publicized them throughout the world.
And while among those millions of people – Christians, Arabs, Jews, Magians, etc. – none had the courage to write a refutation, the people who were Muslims were openly giving eyewitness testimony before thousands of people. Their testimonies are found to this day recorded in the books of that era. This is clear proof that the opponents had certainly witnessed the splitting of the moon and there was absolutely no room left for them to write a refutation. This was the very thing that kept them quiet despite their denying clamor and uproar.” (Surma Chashm Arya, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 2, pp. 122-124)
Moreover, the event of the splitting of the moon has been attested to in the Hindu scriptures and histories. He wrote:
“The event of the splitting of the moon is even found in the authoritative books of the Hindus. Vyasa Ji Sahib writes in the Dharma Parva of the Mahabharata that during his era, the moon split into two pieces and then joined back together. And based on his groundless assumption, he attributes this splitting of the moon as a miracle of Vishvamitra. However, from the testimony of Pandit Dayanand Sahib and the statements of European researchers, it is found that the Mahabharata and the Puranas, etc., are not ancient at all; rather, the compilation of some Puranas occurred only eight hundred or nine hundred years ago. Now, it stands to reason that the Mahabharata, or this event within it, was written after witnessing the actual event of the splitting of the moon – the miracle of the Holy Prophet (sa). And the name of Vishvamitra was merely added out of a groundless habit, as is the ancient custom of Hindus regarding their ancestors.
It appears that the fame of this event among the Hindus was still quite widespread during the time of the author of Tarikh-e-Firishta (The History of Firishta). This is because he, in the eleventh chapter of his book, narrates based on this widespread fame or tradition received from the Hindus, stating that in the city of Dhar – which is situated adjacent to the Chambal River in the province of Malwa (now perhaps called Dharanagari) – the Raja of that place was sitting on the roof of his palace when he suddenly saw the moon split into two pieces and then rejoin. After further investigation, it became clear to the Raja that this was a miracle of the Arabian Prophet (sa) and he subsequently became a Muslim. The people of that land narrate this very reason for his conversion to Islam and it was a well-known event among the Hindus of that vicinity, which is why a researcher and author recorded it in his book.” (Surma Chashm Arya, Ruhani Khazain, Vol. 2, pp. 126-127)
As to the precise nature of the miracle, he primarily proposed two possibilities: that it was a kind of eclipse or that it was a vision.
On it being a kind of eclipse, he once stated:
“The other magnificent miracle that was given to the Holy Prophet (sa) was the splitting of the moon. In reality, the splitting of the moon was a kind of lunar eclipse and it took place with a gesture from the Holy Prophet (sa). In this era as well, Allah the Exalted has shown the sign of the lunar and solar eclipses.” (Malfuzat [Eng], Vol. 4, pp. 129-130)
“I believe it to have been a type of eclipse. I have written about it in my book, Chashma-e-Ma‘rifat.” (Ibid., Vol. 10, p. 480)
On it being a vision, he wrote in Surma Chashm Arya:
“It is also possible that through the effect of the holy power of the Prophet (sa), those who witnessed it were granted kashfi [visionary] eyes and the form of the splitting which is to take place near the Day of Judgement was brought before their eyes […].” (Surma Chashm Arya, Ruhani Khazain, vol. 2, p. 277)
To those who objected that such an event was impossible according to the laws of nature, he responded that their argument rested on the false premise that we possess complete knowledge of the laws of nature and that these laws operate wholly independent of Allah’s special will or Taqdeer. He wrote:
“The ‘law of nature’ is not an established, proven reality before which nothing else can stand. This is because by the law of nature, we mean those actions of God Almighty that have manifested naturally or will manifest in the future. However, since God Almighty has not grown weary of showing His powers, nor has His display of nature become powerless or gone to sleep, or retired to any place, or been forced by some external constraining force and has perforce withdrawn from the wondrous works of the future and left for us only the performance of a few centuries (or understand it as something even more than that). Therefore, all wisdom, philosophy, literature and learning dictate that we should not assume the laws of nature to be restricted to the few currently witnessed powers, in which there still remain hundreds of ambiguities. We must not stubbornly insist, like ignorant people, that the action of God Almighty can never transcend our observed findings, because this is merely a foolish claim that has never been proven, nor can it ever be proven.
We accept that religion is not the antithesis of the laws of nature (Nature). However, how can you make us concede that man has already encompassed all the properties of nature? Is there any proof for this, or do you wish to shut mouths by mere assertion? It is completely obvious that if the experiments and observations recorded up to this day were correct and complete, then there would be no room left for modern sciences to advance – even though you yourself say that the door to modern sciences is open forever. I am thinking: how can such things be perfect and absolute criteria for truth or a balance of ultimate reality when many stages of their own full disclosure are still remaining and this intricate, multi-layered enigma has left even the philosophers astonished and bewildered?” (Surma Chashm Arya, Ruhani Khazain vol. 2, pp. 93-94)
On this basis, he held that even a literal, physical splitting of the moon could not reasonably be ruled out as a possibility within the realms of the laws of nature.