Now let us consider the alleged miracles of Muhammad. The victory at Badr was not a miracle, for many idolaters have gained quite as great victories. No one but Muhammad seems to have seen the angels who are said to have fought on his side. As for the Night Journey, commentators differ regarding it. Muhiyyu'ddin says it has only a spiritual meaning, and 'Ayishah asserted that during that whole night Muhammad had not quitted her chamber1. There are no witnesses of the event, and there is this strong evidence against it. Regarding the splitting of the moon 2 (شقّ الْقمر), commentators and traditions differ. According to some, the passage means that one of the signs of the approach of the "Hour"—that is, the Day of Judgment—will be the splitting of the moon. Perhaps so, but we must wait till then to know whether this is a true prophecy or not. This seems to be the clear meaning of the verse, and so 'Abbasi understands that the splitting in two of the moon and the appearance of Dajjal will be signs that the Resurrection is at hand. If so, you can hardly assert that the Qur'an here attributes a miracle to Muhammad. If the moon had thus been split,

1 Vide the opinions of Muslim commentators and the Traditions quoted on this point in my Yanabi'u'l Islam.
2 On the question whether the first verse of Surah LIV., Al Qamar, is borrowed from a Qasidah of Imrau'l Qais, see Appendix to Ch. II of my Original Sources of the Qur'an. The Rev. Dr. Zwemer says that learned Muslims in Arabia are much perplexed about the matter.

doubtless some record of it would have been kept by astronomers, and the moon would still bear marks of it. But such is not the case. Again, had the moon been split, that would have been no proof of Muhammad's being an apostle. For (1) it would not be evident that he had done the deed (which even the Qur'an does not ascribe to him); and (2) injuring part of God's creation would not of itself suffice to prove a Divine commission. How different would such a deed have been from the miracles of mercy wrought by Christ and testified to in the Qur'an itself: raising the dead, opening the eyes of the blind, healing the lepers, &c. (Surahs V., Al Maidah, 110; III., Al 'Imran, 43).

Nor again can the Qur'an itself be considered a miracle. All Arabic scholars are not agreed that its style is superior to that of the Mu'allaqat or to that of the Maqamat of Al Hariri, although the fact that Muhammadans have for ages regarded it as of Divine composition has, by many people, caused it to be deemed the model of the best Arabic style1. But even if we acknowledge its style to

1 But in one or two places it contains grammatical errors: e.g. in Surah XIII., Ar Ra'd, 28, we have al qulubu 'lladhina; in Surah XX., Ta Ha, 66, we find in hadhani instead of inna hadhaini. Vide also Manaru'l Haqq, Arabic Ed., pp. 14-16; also Noldeke's Geschichte des Qur'ans; also the Appendix on the style of the Qur'an in the Maqalah fi'l Islam (an Arabic revision of Sale's "Introduction"). It also contains not a few foreign words (as Furqan, Taghut, Tabut, and others), so that its language is not pure Arabic. (Vide Yanabi'u'l Islam.)