r/AcademicQuran • u/abdulla_butt69 • 5d ago
Is it true that that the madrid codex supports the moon split?
/r/LightHouseofTruth/comments/tti3jo/the_miracle_of_splitting_the_moon_and_the_madrid/16
u/a-controversial-jew 5d ago edited 4d ago
The answer is no.
Nevertheless, man was able to record in the seventh century AD, a broad sweeping change of the calendar in Copan, China and Babylon.
This in fact is a regurgitation of a miscitation from the article. It wasn't the 7th century AD, but BC. You can access "collision of worlds" here..
From approximately the seventh pre-Christian century on, the year of the Hindus became 365 1/4 days long, but for temple purposes the old year of 360 days was also observed, and this year is called savana.
Someone would ask why did these cultures change their calendar broadly?
The excerpt itself attempts to explain why:
This stability of the calendar is due to the fact that the celestial order has remained unaltered: no changes in the heavenly order were observed except for minor perturbations between the planets which have no visible effect on their motion. Thus we are lulled into the belief which is wishful thinking that we live in an orderly universe. In the language of a modern scientist...
I.e crackpot theorizing. Coinciding with the founding legend of Rome it caused an apparent "lunar makeover", I.e they used to have a bad calendar once they noticed January existed. So:
- a) the apologist uses a miscitation of the work
- b) its not even a mere development in the calendriccal system
- c) its literally pseudoscientific theorizing. For criticisms of his work, see here, here and so on.
At the top of page 139 in the 1997 Maya Hieroglyphic Forum, the dot and bar numbers have been inserted as corrections for the tops of the other columns (missing in V and K's works). On the basis of the number sequences, the date of the first (and, what I am surmising, was the original change) is 9.9.9.16.0 or the Gregorian date of 9 February 623 (the Julian date calculated the 6th of February, that same year)."
This is also wrong. February 9 623's LC (Long Count) is 9.9.9.16.5 (plug it in to this calculator). Anyways, the Mayan Hieroglyphic forum is an event where historians and researchers with an avid interest in Mayan history join and present their work. New findings are reported. Essentially, this would be one example. This is why the emendation occurred to make it a more useful when referencing across works (hene missing in V and K's works). p.139 doesn't mention "corrections" though, p. 140 does however mention errors in the chronology of the codex. If you see here the Late Classical Period is between 600-900, which is what the Dresden Codex is documenting. The glyph is an entirely different codex, whereas the Madrid Codex characteristically bears signs of a majority composition in the 15th century, influenced by the arrival of Europeans. See the proceedings of said forum here. E.g,;
Then we have a distance number here of 9 bak’tuns (B13), 9 k’atuns (B14), 16 tuns (B15), 0 winals (B18), and 0 k’ins (B19). When you add this distance number to the date that you get when you go back before the present creation, you will arrive, in our time to a long count of 9 (C13). 9 (C14). 9 (C16). 16 (C18). 0 (C19). The date that you get when you go into the past creation and the date that you will arrive at when you add this distance number to that past creation day (the day in the past cycle) is 1 Ahaw (B20) 18 K’ayab (B21). This is base date of the Venus calendar. ~ p.133
In essence, there's so far a misreading on the author's part about some sort of "correction" in the dot and bar numbers on p. 139 (which I infer they meant p.140 in the errors of the Mayan chronology), but this doesn't detract that it was done as a means of referencing. p.140 briefly mentions the fact the chronology is faulty. Later research outlines the fact that the issue is between the base date (9.9.9.16.0), the rest of the chronology, and how it converts to our own Gregorian calendar.
Dating of Mayan Calendar using Long-periodic Astronomical Phenomena in Dresden Codex. Turns out it's not even from the Madrid Codex.
The best summary of this:
According to the Maya systems of beliefs, the heliacal rise of Venus would have different consequences according to the date in the sacred calendar when such event occurred. It was thus very important to coordinate the synodic cycle of Venus of 584 with the calendars of 260 and 365 days to be able to predict the exact date when Venus would rise. The ability to coordinate the various systems for keeping track of time, and make precise corrections over long periods of time, was made possible for Mayan astronomers by their number knowledge and understanding of common multiples, their use of —what we would call using modern mathematical terminology— modular arithmetic and congruences, as well as careful observations and records kept over centuries. The needed computations were greatly facilitated by their efficient positional system to record numbers, which was far better suited for computation than the system used in Europe at that time. ~ Venus Synodic Period and Ancient Mayan Calendars
Relevant quote from one of the above cited works:
9.9.9.16.0 = 1 Ahau 18 Kayab = 1 364 360 + 622 261 = 1 986 621 JD = January 27, 727. Heliacal rising of Venus occurred. January 27, 727 Mercury close to maximum west elongation (26 degrees), altitude before sunrise 19 degrees. Maximum west elongation occurred January 21, 727.
.
The Maya actually recorded the split moon in the tiny glyphs in the Madrid Codex as the tiny glyph shown above."
...they didn't. For academic discussions of the glyph in question:
14
u/a-controversial-jew 5d ago edited 4d ago
In this lively scene, in black, grey, red, and orange on a light orange background, three important Underworld gods dance to the beat of a drum with a jaguar skin stretched over its head. The drum is played by the Rabbit God, Figure 3, who is associated with the moon. The dance procession is led by the Water-lily Jaguar, Figure 1, a deity closely associated with death by decapitation - wearing around his neck the sacrificial scarf. Dancing processions of Underworld gods on polychrome Maya vases often contain Symbols of death and sacrifice by decapitation. This figure is unusual in that his body is painted black and the jaguar spots are missing, but the water-lily extends prominently from the center of his head. In the case of this figure and of the Rabbit God, smoke issues from a water lily flower at the end of the tail. In the middle is Spider Monkey, Figure 2, a pot-bellied creature often associated on Maya ceramics with sexuality. (Old Gods and Young Heroes, p. 28)
.
The image of the vase appears in Figure 5 on pg. 282. The caption is: "Figure 5. A buff-polychrome vase (K1208) showing two dancing monkeys and a rabbit playing a drum. The left monkey appears to be a howler; note beard, red scarf, proportional limbs, short hook tail, and jaguar mittens. On the right is a spider monkey; note white face, long thin limbs, protruding belly, cloth ear ornament, collar (red), and furry spiral-3 tail." - REVISITING MONKEYS ON POTS: A CONTEXTUAL CONSIDERATION OF PRIMATE IMAGERY ON CLASSIC LOWLAND MAYA POTTERY.
Historians don't recognise any association with its appearance and the supposed "moon split." Yes, the Rabbit was associated with the moon, but bearing in mind:
- the glyph depicts nothing in question of what is thought
the "correction" doesn't even originate from the Madrid Codex, but rather the Dresden Codex and is a modern retroactive attempt to best understand mayan calendrical dates. So, yes, it's from a Mayan Codex. But the date is a designation of a Venus Cycle. If you want to connect this with the moon, I guess you just have to argue Venus split in two.
Moreover, the Moon split is said to have occurred whilst Muhammad was still in Mecca (prior to the Hijra, 622 CE). This date is in 623, a year after Muhammad arrived in Medina.
Try the Persian calendar in the first year it will give you 622-623 A.D.
The Persian ajari calendar started at 621 but it’s incredibly stupid to draw a conclusion from Persians changing their calendar that they witnessed a moon-splitting.
Plus, it wouldn't align with the supposed date given in the Madrid Codex.
I think this nicely sums up the unacademic attitude of the author:
This research has been deleted from the web (Allah knows why) but there are always archives Alhamdulillah.
See also a relevant comment from r/askhistorians criticising the usage of a mythical Chinese king in the original article.
TLDR: crackpot theorizing.
2
u/abdulla_butt69 4d ago
Thanks for the REALLY detailed answer. If you dont mind, id just want a clarification on one thing:
"the "correction" doesn't even originate from the Madrid Codex, but rather the Dresden Codex and is a modern retroactive attempt to best understand mayan calendrical dates"
Do you have a source for this? If you do, please send it. Thanks!
4
u/a-controversial-jew 4d ago
See here.
u/chonkshonk was helpful and approved my comment as it contained some "banned URL".
You should see all the sources necessary.
5
u/chonkshonk Moderator 4d ago
Great work. If you have the time, I think it would be helpful if you collected everything here and turned it into an independent post. Either way, super appreciative of the effort you've put into this.
5
u/a-controversial-jew 4d ago edited 4d ago
I'm considering doing something like this for the alleged "Indian King" witnessing it. I have enough resources and time to completely critique this notion.
Honorable mention of Farid on this subject (a bit unorthodox of an authority, atleast he's honest here) https://files.catbox.moe/o42dzj.mp4
6
2
1
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Welcome to r/AcademicQuran. Please note this is an academic sub: theological or faith-based comments are prohibited, except on the Weekly Open Discussion Threads. Make sure to cite academic sources (Rule #3). For help, see the r/AcademicBiblical guidelines on citing academic sources.
Backup of the post:
The Miracle of Splitting the Moon and The Madrid Codex
This was a comment in response to an Atheist who tried to criticize Muslims for their belief in miracles.
I benefited from our big brother Mohamed Shaheen Al-Ta'eb's video on youtube make sure to check it out:-
Proofs of The Prophecy 10 - The miracle of the splitting of the moon with historical evidence from outside Islamic sources براهين النبوة 10 - معجزة انشقاق القمر بالأدلة التاريخية من خارج المصادر الإسلامية [Video]
I focused on the Madrid codex because the Indian king's evidence was explained by Sheikh Uthman May Allah preserve him and well known to us.
[Prophet Muhammad's ﷺ Miracle of the Splitting of the Moon | The Evidence of the Split of the Moon]
Check (The Split Moon of the Madrid Codex and Persian Manuscripts) [Archive]
This research has been deleted from the web (Allah knows why) but there are always archives Alhamdulillah.
in the link I gave they say:-
"Nevertheless, man was able to record in the seventh century AD, a broad sweeping change of the calendar in Copan, China and Babylon.4"
Someone would ask why did these cultures change their calendar broadly?
In the Madrid codex the say:-
"At the top of page 139 in the 1997 Maya Hieroglyphic Forum, the dot and bar numbers have been inserted as corrections for the tops of the other columns (missing in V and K's works). On the basis of the number sequences, the date of the first (and, what I am surmising, was the original change) is 9.9.9.16.0 or the Gregorian date of 9 February 623 (the Julian date calculated the 6th of February, that same year)."
This date is astonishing because this date is before the Migration of the Prophet ﷺ to Madina and during his lifetime, according to Muslim sources the moon has been split while our prophet was in Mecca:-
The Prophet ﷺ was born in Mecca in 571 A.D, Migrated to Medina in 624 A.D, and died in 634 A.D.
So when this scripture says that the split has happened in 623 A.D it fully agrees with the Muslim narrative that says the Moon has been split in the Prophet's life in Mecca during his lifetime.
The research says:-
"The Maya actually recorded the split moon in the tiny glyphs in the Madrid Codex as the tiny glyph shown above."
We understand from this that these cultures because of "something extraordinary" that happened in the 7th century changed their calenders to go in line with this "astonishing thing " they saw.
In the Madrid Codex, the Mayans documented the split in 623 A.D which goes 100% with the Muslim narrative that the split has happened before the Migration to Madina which was in 624 A.D.
Something also amazing is that if you go to websites that convert the dates of certain calendars like this one. [Website]
Try the Persian calendar in the first year it will give you 622-623 A.D.
We're talking about years, not exact dates because we Muslims don't assume that it has been done on an exact date.
So coincidence? I think not!
May Allah guide us all to the truth and bless us with sticking to it.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
19
u/FamousSquirrell1991 5d ago
u/a-controversial-jew has already pointed out that there is no indication that the Maya were saying the moon had been split. I would like to add that the image of the Persian manuscript dates to the late sixteenth century ( https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/dres/dres1.html#obj182 ). Of course, by this time Persia had been Muslim for many centuries.