Chapter 4: Chapter Two: Traditional Position and Its Critical Review

The traditional understanding of the events related to Isra and Mi‘raj has been summarized in the Introduction section and may be referred to there for review. The significant academic points are as follows:

• The events of Isra and Mi‘raj have been mentioned in both the Qur’an and hadiths. The Qur’an provides a brief description whereas the hadiths provide detailed accounts of the events.
• When the relevant passages from the Qur’an and Hadiths are combined, a cohesive story emerges that suggests it may be more logical to view it as a single event.
• The Prophet (PBUH) underwent this experience in full conscience and wakefulness, and witnessed the signs of Allah with both his physical sight and spiritual insight.
• It is true that the Qur’an and hadiths do not verbally affirm that the ascent was physical and the journey occurred while awake. However, the style of conversation in both the Qur’an and hadith indicate that it was a physical ascension and the journey took place in complete wakefulness.
• It is also true that the Qur’an has described the incident as ru’ya, which is commonly understood to mean seeing in a dream, i.e., a vision during sleep. However, interpreting it as a dream renders it a common occurrence and strips away its miraculous nature. Furthermore, such an interpretation affects the significance of the styles used in the Qur’an and Hadith which highlight the power and greatness of Allah in relation to this event. Therefore, it is necessary to interpret the word ru’ya in a context other than its common meaning, and use it in the sense of seeing while awake. Since Arabic literature contains several precedents of this style, it is entirely consistent with the language to use the word ru’ya to describe practical sighting (in state of wakefulness). Some hadith narratives claim that the event occurred in a spiritual form in the realm of dreams, but when we see them in context of and comparison to their text and chain of narrators of other hadith narratives, the position supporting a physical journey in complete wakefulness appears stronger.
• It also cannot be denied that the hadiths describing Isra and Mi‘raj carry some contradictions — for example, there are differences in the descriptions of the observations, events described by the narrators, the numbers associated with the event, and in the chronological and spatial sequence of the events. Some aspects even seem to contradict the text of the Glorious Qur’an²⁸. However, keeping the miraculous aspect of the event in mind, reconciling the various narrations, resolving the conflicts between statements, and rejecting the parts that contradict the Qur’an makes it entirely possible to establish a coherent narrative of these events. Thereafter, this emerges as a faith-inspiring miracle of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and a momentous event in the history of humanity.

In relation to these points, a study of some excerpts from highly reputed scholars will help understand the argument more deeply.

The author of Tafsir Ibn Kathir writes:

After considering all the Hadiths, including Sahih, Hasan, and Daeef ones, it is clear that there is consensus on the event of the Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) journey from Mecca to Jerusalem. It is true that there are differences in the narrations and variations in the details, but such errors are possible because no one is free from mistakes except the Prophets.

Regarding the differing accounts of whether milk and honey, milk and wine, or milk and water were presented to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), or all four, some narrations state that this happened in Jerusalem, while others say it occurred in the heavens. However, it is possible that these items were offered as hospitality at both places.

Furthermore, there is a debate on whether the Isra (night journey) happened with both the body and soul of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) or just the soul. Both views exist. Most scholars believe that the event occurred with both the body and soul while the Prophet was awake, meaning he was not sleeping. However, they do not dismiss the possibility that the event might have first been shown to him in a dream and then later occurred in reality. This is because the dreams of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) were as clear as daylight.

Allah Almighty has said: The dream We showed you We made it a trial²⁹ too for these people [because of this attitude of theirs].

Abdullah ibn Abbas (RA) explains in his commentary on Surah Al-Isra, verse 60, that ‘vision’ here refers to what the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) saw with his eyes on the night he was taken on the journey. The ‘accursed tree’ mentioned is the Tree of Zaqqum (Bukhari, Hadith 4716). In this context, Allah Himself states, ‘The sight [of the Prophet] did not swerve, nor did it transgress [its limit]³⁰,’ indicating that the vision was a function of his complete being, not just his soul.

Maulana Syed Abul A'la Maududi writes:

The Mi‘raj event is mentioned both in the Qur’an and in Hadith. The Qur’an tells us why Mi‘raj took place and what instructions God gave to His Messenger. The Hadith tells us how Mi‘raj happened and what events occurred during this journey. Details of this event have reached us through 28 contemporary narrators. Seven of the narrators were present during the time of Mi‘raj , and 21 others later heard the story directly from the blessed tongue of the Prophet (PBUH). Different reports shed light on different aspects of the story, and when combined, they form a travelog, a more captivating, meaningful and enlightening one than any other found in the entire history of human literature. (Travelog of Mi‘raj 3)

In Maulana Maududi’s Tafheem al-Qur’an, he explains the verse of Isra as follows:

What was the nature of this journey? Did it take place in a state of sleep or in wakefulness? And did the Prophet (PBUH) physically embark on this journey, or was it merely a spiritual experience while he remained seated in his place? These questions are answered by the words of the Glorious Qur’an itself. The beginning with the words ‘Subhāna alladhī asra…’ indicates that this was a great supernatural event that happened by the infinite power of Allah. It is clear that for someone to see such things in a dream or in a state of unveiling is not significant enough to necessitate an introduction declaring the purity of the Being who enabled the vision or revelation. The words ‘One night He took His servant…’ clearly indicate a physical journey. These words do not fit for a dream journey or an unveiled spiritual journey. Therefore, we have no option but to accept that this was not merely a spiritual experience but a physical journey and a direct observation that Allah Almighty had His Prophet (PBUH) undertake. (2/589)

Mufti Muhammad Shafi has stated:

The journey from Masjid al-Haram to Masjid Al-Aqsa, which is mentioned in this verse, is known as Isra, and the journey from there to the heavens is known as Mi‘raj . Isra is confirmed by explicit text in this verse (Surah Al-Isra 17:1), and the events of Mi‘raj are mentioned in the verses of Surah Al-Najm and are established by mutawatir (successive) hadith reports… It is discerned from the commands of the Glorious Qur’an and the mutawatir hadiths , as detailed later, that the entire experience of Isra and Mi‘raj was not just spiritual but was also physical, akin to the manner in which ordinary humans travel… When the Prophet, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, revealed this event to the people, the disbelievers of Mecca rejected it and mocked the Prophet to the extent that some of the new Muslims renounced their faith upon hearing about it. If the incident was simply a dream, then why would such reactions occur? And this does not rule out the possibility that the Prophet may have experienced a spiritual Mi‘raj in the form of a dream before or after this physical journey. The majority of the Ummah holds the view that the ‘ ru’yā’ referred to in the Qur’anic verse ‘Wa mā jaʿalnā al-ru’yā allatī araynāka’ implies actual seeing, but it is described as a ‘ ru’yā’ to convey that it was like something seen in a dream. And if the word ‘ ru’yā’ is literally interpreted as ‘dream’, it is not improbable to think that, in addition to the physical Mi‘raj , there was a spiritual journey through a dream either before or after the event. Therefore, the reports by Abdullah ibn Abbas (RA) and Aisha, the mother of believers (RA), regarding the Mi‘raj being a dream are accurate in their respective contexts. However, this does not mean there wasn’t also a physical Mi‘raj . (Maarif al-Qur’an 5/438-439)

Pir Karam Shah al-Azhari writes in his commentary, Zia ul Qur’an:

The word ‘Subhān’ indicates that Allah Almighty is devoid of all imperfections, deficiencies, and incapabilities. Such a claim necessitates evidence, for a claim without proof is unsubstantiated. As proof, the verse alladhī asra bi ʿabdihi is cited because Allah is the one who made His beloved servant travel a vast distance within a fraction of the night and showed him significant signs and manifest evidence. A Being capable of shortening such a lengthy journey indeed possesses limitless power and supreme magnificence, and His nobility is free from any weakness or incapacity. Therefore, the event Allah has presented as evidence of His exaltedness cannot be an ordinary occurrence but must be one of the most significant, graceful, and astonishing events… .

The style of conversation in the Qur’an clearly explicates that this event was not a dream but happened in a conscious state. One may argue that another verse of the Holy Qur’an specifies it as a vision, meaning a dream. God Almighty asserts: Wa mā jaʿalnā al-ru’yā allatī araynāka illā fitnatan lilnās. In this instance, the term ru’ya has been used, denoting a dream… When the Holy Qur’an has expressly pronounced it a dream, how could it be challenged?

In defense, it is necessary to articulate that most commentators believe that this verse does not refer to the event of Mi‘raj, but to a different dream. And if someone insists that this verse specifically refers to the Mi‘raj, then Ibn Abbas’s following explanation dispels any ambiguity. He asserted: ‘Here, vision pertains to seeing with one’s eyes while awake…’

People also base their argument on a hadith reported by Anas (RA). According to his report, after describing the Mi‘raj , the Prophet (PBUH) said: ‘Then I woke up and found myself in Masjid al-Haram.’ Regarding this hadith, the explanation of the hadith experts can suffice to resolve any misunderstandings automatically. Allama Alusi states that Sharik narrated these words from Anas. Sharik, the narrator, is not a good memorizer of hadith according to the experts of hadith… Allama Ibn Kathir claims that this report is one of the mistakes committed by Sharik. (2/626-627)

Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf, a famous representative of the Ahle Hadith school of thought writes:

…This event is narrated by more than twenty-four Companions. In this regard, it holds the status of tawatur ma’nawi (mass transmitted by meaning). Therefore, certain or specific interpretations of some narrators cannot cast doubt on the entire event and its important details, nor can they be allowed to affect the miraculous nature of the event by declaring it as a dream.

Similarly, the opinion of some scholars that there were multiple occurrences of the Ascension (Mi‘raj) based on differences in hadith narrator’s views is not correct, nor is it a proper solution to the differences among the narrators. When a significant and dignified event is narrated by multiple people, minor discrepancies in the details of the event or occasional additions and omissions are not unlikely. It is common for such differences to appear in the accounts of multiple narrators. In such situations, one cannot deny the occurrence of the event or explain them as several events. Instead, one has to accept the event and its necessary details in light of the common points and components of diverse statements of narrators. (The Event of Mi‘raj and its Observations 28-29)

He further writes:

These narrations come from different narrators; therefore, some of the details described in them vary as we have indicated earlier. When different people describe the details of a great event, such discrepancies are generally expected. Therefore, if some differences and misconceptions are found in the narrations about Isra and Mi‘raj , it does not affect the soundness of the event in terms of its reliability. Scholars and interpreters of Hadith literature have clarified these discrepancies and misconceptions and have provided solutions and reconciliations where it was possible, after which the principal event becomes clear of all doubts. (The Event of Mi‘raj and its Observations 42).

Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf writes about the word al-ru’ya in verse 60 of Surah Al-Isra:

In the Glorious Qur’an, ru’ya is used in the sense of sighting only. Some people, referring to the following verse of the Qur’an, consider it to mean a dream: Wa mā jaʿalnā al-ru’yā allatī araynāka illā fitnatan lilnās (And the vision We showed you was only a trial for the people.)

However, in this verse, ru’ya does not mean ‘dream,’ as it is often used. Here, it is used in the sense of actually seeing with the eyes, as this usage also exists in the Arabic language, so it is said: ra’aytuhuBiʿaynay ru’yatan wa ru’yā (I saw him with my own eyes). Meaning, seeing with the eyes can be expressed with both words ru’ya and ‘ru’yatan.’ And Imam Jamaluddin Al-Qasimi, may Allah have mercy on him, writes: “In language, ru’ya is also used in the absolute sense of ‘seeing’ (ru’yah), and this is its real meaning… like (qurbī and qurbatan) are. (The Event of Mi‘raj and its Observations 23)

Dr. Muhammad Luqman Salafi, a student of Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz, summarizes the views of the early and later scholars on the nature and condition of the Mi‘raj event in his Tafsir Taysir al-Rahman. He writes:

The majority view of the early and later scholars is that the Prophet (PBUH) went to Jerusalem and then to the heavens with both his body and soul. This is the opinion of Ibn Abbas, Jabir, Anas, Hudhayfah, Umar, Abu Huraira, Malik bin Sasaa, Abu Habba al-Badri, Ibn Mas‘ud, Dahhak, Said bin Jubair, Qatadah, Said bin Al-Musayyib, Ibn Shihab, Ibn Zaid, Hasan, Masrooq, Mujahid, Ikrimah, and Ibn Jurayj (may Allah be pleased with them all). This is also the shared opinion of Tabari, Ahmad bin Hanbal, and most later jurists and hadith scholars, as well as scholastics and commentators.

Another opinion is that the Mi‘raj was purely spiritual. Those who hold this opinion draw evidence from verse 60 of this surah: Wa mā jaʿalnā al-ru’yā allatī araynāka illā fitnatan lilnās, arguing that the Qur’an has explicitly stated that it was a dream. Ibn Ishaq has reported from Aisha (RA), and Muawiya (RA) that the blessed body of the Messenger of Allah was not found missing from his sleeping place. And the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), himself said: ‘While I was asleep,’ indicating that during the event he was sleeping.

The third opinion is that the journey to Jerusalem was accomplished physically , and from there the spiritual journey took place toward the heavens. This is because the verse limits the night journey (Isra) to Masjid Al-Aqsa.

Qadi Iyad writes in his book ‘al-Shifa’ that the correct and true belief, Insha’Allah, is that the event of Ascension (Mi‘raj) took place with both the body and soul of the Prophet (PBUH). The noble verse, authentic hadiths, and thoughtful consideration affirm this fact. Interpretational technique is used only when accepting the apparent meaning becomes impossible.

I hope the above details sufficiently explain the arguments upon which the traditional viewpoint is based. In the following pages, a critical review of these arguments will be offered in light of the stance of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi.

Fundamental Principles of Discourse and Argumentation

Before presenting a critique of the traditional stance, we will outline the foundational principles upon which the argumentation of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi is based. His stance on Isra and Mi‘raj, as mentioned in the previous pages, follows these principles. In the upcoming pages, these same principles will be the basis of argumentation for the understanding of his stance and the critique of the traditional stance. These are a few foundational principles of reason and tradition, without which attaining a correct understanding of religion and Shariah is not possible. They are as follows:

First, the Holy Qur’an holds the status of a scale and criterion in the religion³¹. This means that the Qur’an has a decisive status in all matters pertaining to religion. Thus, every statement, every claim, and every opinion from hadith and relics, history and biography, jurisprudence and interpretation will be weighed in its scale and tested against its criterion. Only that which it accepts will be accepted. That which it rejects will not be accepted as part of religion or its explanation and interpretation.

To act upon this principle, it is essential that hadith be understood in the light of the Qur’an, and anything that conflicts with the Qur’an and Sunnah should not be accepted. Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes in his Meezan:

…In religion, the Qur’an’s status is that of a scale and a criterion. It oversees everything and has been sent down to distinguish between truth and falsehood, thus this matter does not require further argumentation that anything which contradicts the Qur’an must necessarily be rejected… The definitive and conclusive source of history regarding anything done by the Prophet (PBUH) with his position of prophethood and messengership is also the Qur’an.

Hence, most of the contents of hadith are related to it as branches are to their origin and as commentary is to the text. To understand the explanations and derivations without looking at the original text is clearly impossible. If we analyze closely the mistakes made in understanding hadith thus far, this reality becomes plainly apparent. Incidents of stoning during the prophet’s era, the killing of Ka’ab bin Ashraf, narrations about the punishment of the grave and intercession, and commands like ‘Umirtu an uqātila-n-nās³²’ and ‘Man baddala dīnahu faqtulūhu³³' became the cause of confusion because they were not understood by relating them to their origins. (63-65)

Second, the Holy Qur’an has been revealed in a clear Arabic language. Its words and idioms are free from ambiguity, vagueness, anomalies, and oddities. It presents its message with complete clarity, which does not pose any difficulties for scholars to comprehend. Meezan reads:

The Qur’an has been revealed not just in Arabic, but in clear Arabic. This means in a language that is extremely distinct, devoid of any ambiguity; each word is clear and each style is familiar to its audience. It is stated: The Trusted Spirit has brought it down to your heart so that you also become a warner like other prophets, in very lucid Arabic. (Qur’an 26:192-195) In the form of a Qur’an that is in Arabic in which there is no flaw so that they can be secure from God’s torment. (Qur’an 39:28)

This is a clear fact about the Qur’an. Accepting it leads to the inevitable conclusion that no word or style in the Qur’an can be anomalous in terms of its meaning. It has been revealed using commonly known words and expressions to its audience. From the linguistic perspective, it contains no element of strangeness, but is clear and obvious in all aspects. Therefore, it must be translated and interpreted keeping in mind only the well-known meanings of its words. Any interpretation beyond these accepted meanings cannot be accepted under any circumstances. (20-21)

In our view, most misunderstandings in traditional schools of thought occur because of ignoring the principles of reasoning and transmitted knowledge. These principles³⁴ have been blatantly ignored while trying to understand and decipher the events of Isra and Mi‘raj . The texts of the Qur’an, which are definite in both proof and interpretation (qati al-thaboot and qati al-dalalah), were relegated to secondary importance, while the Hadith texts, which are speculative in proof and interpretation (zanni al-thaboot and zanni al-dalalah), were considered primary. Rather than interpreting hadiths in light of the Qur’an, the Qur’an has been interpreted in the light of hadiths. The same occurred with the commonly known words and styles of the Arabic language, which were given rare and foreign meanings, deviating from their general application. This incorrect approach to knowledge and comprehension, and this reversal in the order of understanding and reasoning, have undermined the position of the Qur’an as criterion (Furqān) and scale (Meezãn), neglected the established rules of language and expression, and relayed a message that contradicts the purposes of the Qur’an and Hadith in some aspects.

To comprehend what has transpired in this issue, a quick review of the relevant texts and the derived inferences will suffice. Anyone who reflects deeply will realize that various accounts have been merged to form an event, and then the verses of the Qur’an have been interpreted based on that constructed event. If a Qur’anic verse does not support the prearranged event, it is interpreted in a way that clashes with the common practice and language of the Qur’an. Similarly, if a narrative presents something discordant with the imagined event, it is disregarded, even if it complies with the standards of authenticity set by renowned Hadith scholars.

Single Incident or Four Separate Incidents?

From our traditional perspective, the detailed account of Isra and Mi‘raj is generally perceived as a single event. Various references to the event in the Noble Qur’an and varying hadith narratives are declared as components of that same event. The necessary outcome of this approach is that all the evidence concerning reason and revelation, language and expression, as well as time and space, are treated as parts of a unified whole. Hence, the evidence for one aspect is cited in support of another, and so forth. Even if language, expression, context, and general application do not support these connections, people still insist on declaring them a chain of the same sequence. Any evidence indicating difference or contradiction is dismissed. For instance, Surah Al-Najm mentions that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) saw Gabriel (AS) with his own eyes at Sidrat al-Muntaha, while Surah Al-Isra narrates that the Prophet’s journey to Al-Aqsa mosque occurred in a dream. The first instance denotes an awakened state of consciousness and the second indicates a vision, that is, a prophetic dream. Clearly, these two states are opposite and unique from one another. Now, if both these instances are taken to describe the same event simultaneously, then inevitably, the wording of one will need to be misinterpreted. That is, if this event is to be viewed as a visual experience, then the words Ra’ā (he saw) and Mā zāgha-l-basaru wa mā taghā (his sight did not swerve, nor did it transgress) would have to be explained in the context of a dream and slumber, and if it is to be understood as an event of wakefulness, then ru’yā (dream) would have to be interpreted as visual perception, that is, seeing with the eyes.

Consider that the Qur’an and hadith outline several events relating to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). In some instances, it is one event, but its components and related issues are described in various places. There is also the case where the same setting is used to describe more than one event and then there are distinct incidents, each occurring separately and narrated at different occasions. The first case can be exemplified by the story of Adam and Iblis. The second case is represented by verses 59-60 of Surah Al-Isra, which pertain to three separate events. The last case illustrates events such as the encounter between Prophet Moses and Khidr (peace be upon them) or the duel between Prophet Moses and the magicians.

Now the question is, how can we determine whether a particular verse, hadith, narrative, or statement pertains to a single event, a unique event in itself, or multiple events? One possible answer might be to deduce this via intellectual effort, using one’s imaginative capacity to piece together various disparate elements into a cohesive whole. Such an approach may be deemed acceptable when crafting a work of fiction, but holds no place in the discourse of understanding the contents of the Qur’an and Hadith or assembling the biography of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). In these domains, the final and authoritative weight is given to those accounts or declarations that have reached us through unequivocal or acknowledged sources. If they amalgamate distinct incidents into a single event, then it shall be treated as one; otherwise, they must be viewed as individual occurrences. No attempt will be made to link them to one another through speculative interpretation.

If this concept is clear, it can then be easily understood that the attempt to merge four distinct events into a single incident is the fundamental misunderstanding that has made it difficult to comprehend the true nature and essence of these magnificent occurrences.

In our opinion, the compelling evidence that distinguishes these four events lies in the fact that their respective accounts do not depict them as a singular occurrence. The arrangement within their respective contexts, the choice of words, stylistic nuances, and their intended meanings and ends, all emphasize their distinctiveness. Hence, when the texts do not aggregate them into a single incident but rather depict them as separate happenings, then one is not entitled to merge them based upon personal interpretation, and portray them as a singular event.

If it is objected that these events do not explicitly state that they are distinct occurrences, such an objection itself demonstrates a lack of understanding of linguistic and rhetorical nuances. In the Qur’an, hadith, and accounts of Seerah and biographies, dates are generally not mentioned, nor is it explicitly stated that one event is directly connected to another, or that certain parts of an event precede or follow others. It is the narration of the event itself that determines whether it should be considered a standalone occurrence or as part of another event’s sequence, either preceding or succeeding it. In such matters, the decisive authority rests with the speaker and their speech. It is they who determine whether a statement is definitive or ambiguous, detailed or concise, related or unrelated. The role of the listener or reader is merely to hear or read the text and strive to understand it. For this purpose, they rely on the use of words, sentence composition, customary language usage, context, and other similar indications to deduce the intent of the speaker. In the realms of explanation and interpretation, their duty is solely to elucidate the meaning contained within the text and the implied intent behind it. To go beyond this is akin to encroaching upon the speaker’s domain—a violation for which neither religion, morality, nor scholarly reasoning offers any justification.

Apart from the principal argument, there are additional points to consider:

1. Difference in Locations

The journey of Isra is described in Surah Al-Isra, whereas the narratives of Mi‘raj are found within the hadith. The incidents of Qāba Qawsayn and Sidrat al-Muntaha are recounted in Surah Al-Najm. Though the last two events are mentioned in Surah Al-Najm, the Qur’an distinctly distinguishes them as separate occurrences.

2. Difference in States

The experiences of Isra and Mi‘raj transpired in dreams , while the encounters at Sidra al-Muntaha and Qāba Qawsayn took place during wakefulness. These distinct states are explicitly outlined within the textual sources.

3. Difference in Observations

The event of Isra involved observing earthly locations while remaining on Earth. The event of Mi‘raj involved ascending to the heavens and observing celestial locations. The event of Qāba Qawsayn involved observing Gabriel (AS) on the higher horizon while still on Earth. The event of Sidrat al-Muntaha involved observing Sidrat al-Muntaha and the celestial lights and radiance while remaining on Earth.

4. Difference in Objectives

The purpose of the event of Isra was to announce the decision of entrusting both Masjid Al-Aqsa and Masjid Al-Haram to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The purpose of the event of Mi‘raj was to exhibit the signs of God in the form of specific prophecy. The significance of the events of Qāba Qawsayn and Sidrat al-Muntaha was to make the Quraysh understand the truth and authenticity of the Qur’an.

5. Difference in Details

Each of the four events contains entirely distinct and unique details, making them separate and individual occurrences.

The Meaning of al-Ru’ya in Relation to Isra —Traditional Position

The event of Isra is mentioned in the noble Qur’an in Surah Al-Isra. Its opening verse depicts the journey from Masjid Al-Haram to Masjid Al-Aqsa, and in verse 60 the manner of this journey is discussed. It is commanded:

سُبْحٰنَ الَّذِيْ٘ اَسْرٰي بِعَبْدِهٖ لَيْلًا مِّنَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ اِلَي الْمَسْجِدِ الْاَقْصَا الَّذِيْ بٰرَكْنَا حَوْلَهٗ لِنُرِيَهٗ مِنْ اٰيٰتِنَا اِنَّهٗ هُوَ السَّمِيْعُ الْبَصِيْرُ.

Flawless is the being who one night took His servant from the Sacred Mosque to that Distant Mosque whose surroundings We have blessed so that We can make him observe some of Our signs. Indeed, only He hears and knows all. (Qur’an 17:1)

… وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الرُّءْيَا الَّتِيْ٘ اَرَيْنٰكَ اِلَّا فِتْنَةً لِّلنَّاسِ …

…The dream We showed you We made it a trial too for these people [because of this attitude of theirs]³⁵… (Qur’an 17:60)

In relation to these verses, there is a consensus about two points:

Firstly, only the journey from Masjid Al-Haram to Masjid Al-Aqsa is described in Surah Al-Isra. The ascent to the heavens is not covered here.

Secondly, the term al-ru’ya that appears in verse 60 is connected to the same event of journeying to Al-Aqsa which is cited in the first verse.

The recognized authority on the exegeses of the companions, their followers, and the followers of their followers, Imam Ibn Jarir al-Tabari states that there is a consensus among the leading exegetes that the term ru’ya in verse 60 refers to the night of Isra. This is noted in Tafsir Ibn Kathir:

…Therefore, Imam Ibn Jarir adopted the stance that (this point in verse 60) refers to the night of Isra. …In his view, the eminent scholars of exegesis are in agreement on this matter. (5/85)

Imam Abu Abdullah Al-Qurtubi writes under verse 60 in his exegesis Al-Jami’ li Ahkam al-Qur’an:

Allah Almighty says: ‘The dream We showed you We made it a trial too for these people [because of this attitude of theirs].’ In this verse, when the Almighty says that the purpose of the revelation of the Qur’anic verses is to warn and threaten, it refers to the verse describing the Isra event. The verse appears at the beginning of the Surah. (10/282)

It is clear that both early and later scholars are in agreement that the mention of al-ru’ya allatī araynāka (the vision which We showed you) in verse 60 of Surah Al-Isra refers to the Isra event, and this is the same event highlighted in verse 1 of the Surah. This signifies that it is the unanimous opinion of scholars that the event of Isra took place in the world of dreams.

Ru’ya is a commonly employed word in the Arabic language and generally signifies seeing in a dream, just as we use Sapna in Hindi, and Khwab in Urdu. Arabic dictionaries list its meanings accordingly. In poetry and literature, the term is used to denote the concept of dreams. It appears approximately seven hundred times in the Hadith literature, invariably with the meaning of dream. The noble Qur’an also uses it in various Surahs a total of seven times, each instance conveying the notion of a dream.

Our scholars acknowledge its typical use in the context of dreams; in fact, they utilize this term when expounding on and translating the Qur’an and hadith to imply the idea of dreams. However, because they view the journey of Isra as a physical one, they interpret the ru’ya associated with this journey not as a dream but as a vision experienced while awake. Thus, according to them, the Prophet’s journey was corporeal. Throughout this journey, the sights presented by God were perceived in a conscious state, and the Prophet (PBUH) witnessed them with his own eyes and clear sight.

The summary of the evidence upon which the scholars’ stance is based is as follows. These are the very arguments that are presented to refute the position of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi on this subject.

1. The word ru’ya is most commonly utilized in the context of dreams. However, it is not solely confined to this implication. It is also used to denote seeing with open eyes. For example, the famous Arab poet Al-Mutanabbi has employed this word in one of his poetic verses not in the sense of viewing during sleep, but in a wakeful state. Therefore, deducing the meaning of direct sight from the term ru’ya within the context of Surah Al-Isra and interpreting the journey to Masjid Al-Aqsa as a physical venture aligns entirely with Arabic language and literature. Imam Ibn Hajar Al-’Asqalani has indicated in Fath al-Bari relating to the verse of Isra:

Among those who consider al-ru’ya to imply seeing in wakefulness include Mutanabbi, a famous poet. He writes: Your sight (ru’yaka) is sweeter than slumber for my eyes. (5/673)

Similarly, the statement from the well-known Arab poet Al-Ra’i stands as: Fa kabbara lil ru’ya wa hashsha fu-adihi (He witnessed the ru’ya (scene) and shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’, with his heart leaping for joy.) This elucidates that in Arabic, the term ru’ya also encompasses the concept of seeing in an alert state.

2. The esteemed status of Abdullah ibn Abbas (RA) in terms of authenticating from the Arabic language and literature, and his explanations and interpretations of the Qur’an and hadith, is widely recognized. In Sahih Bukhari, it is reported from him that the term ru’ya in Surah Al-Isra refers to ru’yatu ‘ayn, which means to see with one’s own eyes³⁶. If such an eminent commentator has given this interpretation, then there is no place for any more guesswork. His statement should be considered conclusive evidence on this topic. The author of Tafsir Ibn Kathir writes:

Abdullah Ibn Abbas (interpreting verse 60 of Surah Bani Israel) says that in this verse, the word ‘al-ru’ya’ implies seeing with open eyes that happened on that night when the Prophet was taken (to Masjid Al-Aqsa) (5/84)

3. Having established that ru’ya also means to see with open eyes, and since the reputable scholar Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RA) has indicated this, it is imperative that the explanation of verse 60 should be guided by the context of verse 1. It would be incorrect to interpret the specifics of verse 1 from the stance of verse 60. The verbs, nouns, and expressions used in verse 1 are more indicative of a physical episode rather than a visionary one. Thus, the definition of ru’ya should be based on these considerations.

4. Before detailing the event in verse 1 of Surah Al-Isra, Allah Almighty described His purification from all flaws. The phrase Subhāna alladhī (Exalted is He) is employed for this purpose. The prerequisite of this mode of expression is that it should be succeeded by the description of a remarkably unique incident. If the event is perceived as a mere dream, the link between Subhāna alladhī for exalting Allah and the subsequent narrative weakens. This is because in dreams, long journeys or witnessing things against ordinary norms is a routine occurrence for humans. Such conditions in an event cannot be deemed astonishing or metaphysical to the listener. Therefore, the usage of Subhāna alladhī suggests that the subsequent event must be comprehended as a phenomenal miracle, showcasing Allah’s power in an exceptional way. Evidently, this extraordinary aspect is accentuated when a trek of forty days is accomplished within a few hours of a single night.

Imam Ibn Kathir writes:

A proof of this conclusion is the word ‘Subhāna alladhī’ (God describing His exaltedness). The start of the conversation with such an exceptional phrase indicates that a highly important event is going to be discussed. If we consider the event as an experience in a dream, such observations in dreams are not of much significance (5/40).

5. The expression Alladhī Asra bi ‘abdihi is mentioned in verse 1 of Surah Al-Isra, translated as “He who took His servant…” In this context, the verb asra does not imply a dream. Its significance is to physically transport. This is an activity that is exclusively associated with a physical existence. Thus, applying it to a dream would be inaccurate. Furthermore, the term abd (servant) cannot refer solely to the spirit, for abd signifies the amalgamation of soul and body. Therefore, the deployment of this term indicates that a physical entity, representing a fusion of soul and body, is contemplated. In Tafsir Ibn Kathir, it is mentioned:

Here, the words asra bi abdihi laylan have been used. The word ‘abd’ refers to the combination of body and soul (5/41).

6. In verse 60, the incident is portrayed by the phrase fitnatan lilnās (trial for the people), elucidating that this episode was set forth as a trial for humankind. A fitnah or trial, by its nature, can only result from something extraordinary. In dreams, people frequently observe unusual things. When they share such observations with one another, it does not cause surprise or astonishment for anyone. People typically listen to others’ dreams and share their own without any sense of amazement. A dream neither creates hesitation nor becomes a test or trial for them. If this is the general behavior of people, how is it possible that the Prophet (PBUH) narrated a dream, and it became a trial for them? This trial could only arise if the event were presented as a physical occurrence. In such a case, all the factors necessary for it to become a test would naturally be present.

Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani states:

It is not permissible to dispute the fact that the journey to Al-Aqsa mosque in one night was undertaken in a state of wakefulness, because the apparent meaning of the Qur’an clearly affirms this. Additionally, the Quraysh rejected this claim, and if the journey to Bayt al-Maqdis had occurred in a dream, the Quraysh would not have denied it. (Fath al-Bari 1/460)

Maulana Syed Abul A'la Maududi provides a more thorough discussion on this subject. In his commentary on verse 60, he states:

The reference here pertains to the event of Mi‘raj. The term ‘ru’ya’ in this context does not signify ‘dream’ as related to sleep; it implies seeing with one’s own eyes. Clearly, if the event were merely a dream and the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had depicted it as such to the disbelievers, there would be no grounds for it to become a point of contention for them. People often have unusual dreams and share them, yet such dreams do not provoke astonishment to the extent that the teller would be ridiculed, accused of lying, or labeled as a mad. (Tafheem al-Qur’an 2/627)

7. It is narrated that when the story of the Isra event was told, people refused to believe it. The disbelievers derided it, and some Muslims even renounced their faith. This response from the people suggests that the journey was of a physical nature because had it been a dream, it would have simply been disregarded as a commonplace happening. Neither would the disbelievers have dismissed it, nor would there have been cases of Muslims abandoning their faith.

In Tafsir Ibn Kathir, it is expressed:

(The words of glory present the evidence that the event of Isra took place physically) Glorifying Allah requires that it must precede a highly important and graceful incident. However, taking the event as an experience in a dream cannot make the event an extraordinary one (and does not match the glorification). It is because in that case, neither the Quraish would hurry in rejecting the claim nor some Muslims would renounce their faith. (5/40)

Our scholars, based on these proofs, firmly state that to interpret the Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) journey as a spiritual one or a dream is incorrect; it should be taken as a literal physical journey.

According to the esteemed teacher, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, the scholars’ position regarding the event of Isra is not correct. While acknowledging their scholarly stature and religious sincerity, the fact remains that their position contradicts the established principles of language and expression, the definitive foundations of reasoning, and the precedents set by the Qur’an and hadith. As a result, it amounts to attributing their own interpretation to the words of Allah and His Messenger (PBUH).

The details concerning the components and nature of the event of Isra have already been discussed earlier. Here, we will present the critique of the scholars’ position as outlined by the esteemed teacher.

Conclusive Evidence in the Debate over Physical or Spiritual Journey

The question arises whether the texts present such definitive evidence concerning the physical or spiritual nature of the Isra event as to decisively resolve the argument? The answer to this question is in the affirmative. The evidence lies in the fact that Allah has not left this matter ambiguous but has explicitly clarified the state in which this event occurred.

To understand this, when we examine the inaugural verse of Surah Al-Isra, we learn that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was taken overnight from Masjid al-Haram to Masjid Al-Aqsa. This phrasing leaves open both interpretations. It could be perceived as a corporeal ascension while awake, or as a journey within a dream³⁷. Were the situation limited to only verse 1, relying on words such as subhān, asra, and abd for indicative or conjectural evidence might serve as the focal point³⁸, with one of the two interpretations then validated accordingly. However, the conversation extends beyond verse 1. Verse 60 introduces another element, and in it, the Word of Allah makes it clear that the event occurred within a world of vision.

This indicates that after the explicit declaration of Allah Almighty, a definitive and pivotal evidence has now come forth. As a result, the following points are its inevitable implications:

• The term al-ru’ya will assume the role of the primary evidence, and all other proofs will become secondary.
• The definition and interpretation of al-ru’ya will be determined in alignment with the standard usage in the Arabic language.
• Since ru’ya in Arabic typically refers to seeing in sleep or a dream, the event will be deemed spiritual rather than physical, rendering all other potential interpretations invalid.
• Interpretations of indicative evidence such as subhān, asra, and abd mentioned in verse 1 of Surah Al-Isra will likewise be considered in light of the definition and interpretation of al-ru’ya³⁹.
• The term ru’ya will also be decisive concerning its relationship between the event of Isra mentioned in Surah Al-Isra and the incidents of Sidrat al-Muntaha and Qāba Qawsayn mentioned in Surah Al-Najm. As a result, it will be necessary to consider these as separate events because it has been explicitly mentioned that one occurred in the realm of dream and it is clear regarding the other two that they took place in a state of wakefulness with open eyes. Thus, verse 60 of Surah Al-Isra holds the decisive position in distinguishing between verse 1 of the same surah and the relevant verses of Surah
  al-Najm. It establishes the basis for differentiating between the two contexts.
• All the Hadiths and reports related to the event of Isra will be understood in the light of this definitive evidence, and anything that contradicts this will be declared against the Qur’an and hence rejected.

This explanation makes it clear that the term al-ru’ya serves as definitive evidence. It decisively refutes all the arguments that are commonly used as a basis in this matter, and which have been mentioned earlier in references such as Fath al-Bari, Tafsir Ibn Kathir, and other sources. Similarly, it is also sufficient to counter the arguments related to language and expression that are often presented in this discussion and have been adopted by the majority of scholars, both past and present.

With this being established, the argumentation of the esteemed teacher becomes complete in its entirety. After this, there is no need to scrutinize the mentioned arguments of the scholars individually and to demonstrate how they contradict the texts of the Qur’an and hadith, and the established facts of language and expression. However, since the early generations of Muslims (salaf) have presented these, the later generations have insisted upon them, and the general masses have accepted them, it seems necessary to comment on them. This commentary is included in the following pages. It should be regarded as a secondary consideration, and while reviewing it, the aforementioned primary argument should not be overlooked.

1. Meaning and Concept of al-Ru’ya

Ru’ya is a very common word in the Arabic language, used in the sense of dream. This meaning has been adopted in the Qur’an, hadith, literature, and dictionaries. Here are a few examples to illustrate this:

Arabic Lexicons

First, let’s take a look at references from the mother of lexicons. In al-Sihah fi al-Lugha by Ismail bin Hammad al-Jawhari, it is written:

Al-ru’ya means something that a person observes in his or her dreams (6/2349)

The well-known lexicon Lisan al-Arab by Ibn Manzur states:

Al-ru’ya is something that you see in your dreams. (8/278)

In Taj al-Arus by al-Murtada al-Zabidi, it is quoted:

Al-ru’ya is something that you see in your dreams. (17/436)

The statement in Al-Mu’jam al-Waseet says:

Al-ru’ya is something observed in dreams. (1/320)

Imam Raghib Asfahani, in his renowned book Mufradat al-Qur’an, has ascribed the meaning of ru’ya to dreams seen in sleep. Moreover, he did not mention any other meanings. Furthermore, among the verses of the Holy Qur’an he has cited as evidence, there is the aforementioned verse of Surah Al-Isra. He writes:

Ru’ya means something that is seen in sleep. In a hadith, it is stated that ‘Only ru’ya remain from prophethood.’ In the Qur’an, it is mentioned that ‘Allah showed His Messenger a true dream⁴⁰.’ Additionally, it says, ‘The dream We showed you, We made it a test for the people⁴¹.’ (209)

These are just a few references from lexicons. In addition to these, every Arabic dictionary lists the meaning of the word ru’ya as seeing or dreaming in sleep. These can be found under the Arabic root ‘ra’a’ in lexicons.

The Holy Qur’an

Next, look at the Holy Qur’an. The term appears in various places 7 times and on each occasion, it is used in the well-known and commonly used sense of a dream. Excluding Surah Al-Isra, the exegetes have translated it as a dream in all other instances. Note that of these six instances, four pertain to the dreams of prophets. All these instances are as follows, and under each is a note derived from Tafsir Ibn Kathir to give readers an idea of how explicit this term is in the context of a dream:

a. The ru’ya of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in Surah Al-Fath

لَقَدْ صَدَقَ اللّٰهُ رَسُوْلَهُ الرُّءْيَا بِالْحَقِّ لَتَدْخُلُنَّ الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ اِنْ شَآءَ اللّٰهُ اٰمِنِيْنَ مُحَلِّقِيْنَ رُءُوْسَكُمْ وَمُقَصِّرِيْنَ لَا تَخَافُوْنَ…

Indeed, Allah affirmed His Messenger’s dream (al-ru’ya) in truth: ‘You will definitely enter the Sacred Mosque, if Allah wills, in security, [heads] shaved or hair cut short, not fearing [anyone]…’ (48:27)

According to all exegetes, here ru’ya means a dream. For example, in Tafsir Ibn Kathir, it is mentioned:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saw in his sleep (i.e., in a dream) that he went to Mecca and performed Tawaf of the Kaaba. He mentioned this to his companions while still in Medina. In the year of Hudaybiyyah, when he set out with the intention of performing Umrah, the companions were fully confident that they would see the fulfillment of this dream during this journey. (7/331)

b. The ru'ya of Prophet Abraham (PBUH) in Surah As-Saffat

فَلَمَّا٘ اَسْلَمَا وَتَلَّهٗ لِلْجَبِيْنِ . وَنَادَيْنٰهُ اَنْ يّٰ٘اِبْرٰهِيْمُ . قَدْ صَدَّقْتَ…

And when they both submitted and he put him down upon his forehead. And We called to him, ‘O Abraham, You have fulfilled the dream (al-ru’ya)…’ (37:103-105)

Here, too, everyone has interpreted it as referring to a dream. Imam Ibn Kathir has written, citing Abdullah ibn Abbas (RA):

Ibn Abbas (RA) stated that the dreams of the prophets are a form of revelation. Then he recited the verse where Abraham said, “My son, I have seen in a dream that I am sacrificing you, so what do you think?” (Tafsir Ibn Kathir 7/24)

c. The Vision of Prophet Yusuf (PBUH) in Surah Yusuf:

اِذْ قَالَ يُوْسُفُ لِاَبِيْهِ يٰ٘اَبَتِ اِنِّيْ رَاَيْتُ اَحَدَ عَشَرَ كَوْكَبًا وَّالشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ رَاَيْتُهُمْ لِيْ سٰجِدِيْنَ . قَالَ يٰبُنَيَّ لَا تَقْصُصْ رُءْيَاكَ عَلٰ٘ي اِخْوَتِكَ فَيَكِيْدُوْا لَكَ كَيْدًاﵧ اِنَّ الشَّيْطٰنَ لِلْاِنْسَانِ عَدُوٌّ مُّبِيْنٌ.

This is the story of when Yusuf said to his father: ‘Father, I saw eleven stars the sun, and the moon in my dream; I saw them prostrating to me.’ His father replied: ‘My son, do not share your dream (al-ru’ya) with your brothers, lest they plot against you, for Satan is indeed a clear enemy to man.’ (12:4-5)

On these verses, Ibn Kathir writes:

Ibn Abbas (RA) stated that the dreams of the prophets are a form of revelation. Commentators have said that the eleven stars in this context refer to the eleven brothers of Yusuf (Joseph), peace be upon him. The sun and moon symbolize his father and mother. Upon hearing this dream and understanding its interpretation, Yaqub (Jacob), peace be upon him, emphasized that Yusuf should not repeat it to his brothers, as the interpretation of this dream was that his brothers would bow down to him. (4/317-318)

d. The Interpretation of the Vision of Prophet Yusuf (PBUH) in Surah Yusuf:

فَلَمَّا دَخَلُوْا عَلٰي يُوْسُفَ اٰوٰ٘ي اِلَيْهِ اَبَوَيْهِ وَقَالَ ادْخُلُوْا مِصْرَ اِنْ شَآءَ اللّٰهُ اٰمِنِيْنَ. وَرَفَعَ اَبَوَيْهِ عَلَي الْعَرْشِ وَخَرُّوْا لَهٗ سُجَّدًاﵐ وَقَالَ يٰ٘اَبَتِ هٰذَا تَاْوِيْلُ رُءْيَايَ مِنْ قَبْلُﵟ قَدْ جَعَلَهَا رَبِّيْ حَقًّا…

When they entered Yusuf’s presence, he made a place for his parents and said, ‘Enter Egypt, God willing, in safety.’ He seated his parents upon the throne, and they all prostrated before him. Yusuf proclaimed: ‘O my father, this is the fulfillment of my earlier dream (ru’yaya). My Lord has made it reality…’ (12: 99-100)

Imam Ibn Kathir writes:

Sulaiman said that there was a forty-year gap between seeing the dream and its interpretation becoming apparent. Abdullah bin Shaddad mentioned that it does not usually take longer than this for a dream’s interpretation to occur. This is the maximum duration. (4/353)

e. The Vision of the King of Egypt in Surah Yusuf:

وَقَالَ الْمَلِكُ اِنِّيْ٘ اَرٰي سَبْعَ بَقَرٰتٍ سِمَانٍ يَّاْكُلُهُنَّ سَبْعٌ عِجَافٌ وَّسَبْعَ سُنْۣبُلٰتٍ خُضْرٍ وَّاُخَرَ يٰبِسٰتٍﵧ يٰ٘اَيُّهَا الْمَلَاُ اَفْتُوْنِيْ فِيْ رُءْيَايَ اِنْ كُنْتُمْ لِلرُّءْيَا تَعْبُرُوْنَ.

The king said, ‘I see in my dream seven fat cows being eaten by seven lean cows, and seven green ears of corn and another seven dry. O my chiefs, explain to me my dream (ru’yāya) if you can interpret dreams.’ (12: 43)

Imam Ibn Kathir has interpreted this as follows:

This is the dream of the king of Egypt. Divine providence had decreed that Yusuf (Joseph), peace be upon him, would emerge from the prison with honor and respect. To bring this about, God caused the king of Egypt to have a dream that left him astonished. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir 4/335)

It is evident from this detail that the word ‘dream’ has appeared seven times throughout the Noble Qur’an. Of these instances, four refer to noble prophets, while two are about an ordinary man, the king of Egypt. All the places mentioned above have been enumerated. In all cases, except for once in Surah Al-Isra, both the earlier and later scholars interpret ru’ya in its usual sense as a dream. In these instances, they show no hesitation whatsoever. Only in Surah Al-Isra does the term diverge from its common meaning without an explicit rationale. Deviating a word from its normal, established meaning without clear reason opposes the accepted norms of language and elocution. Such action is tantamount to misrepresenting the speaker’s intention or putting words into the speaker’s mouth, which is indisputably impermissible⁴².

Books of Hadith

Let us examine some references from hadiths:

…ان ابا هريرة، قال: سمعت رسول اللّٰه صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم، يقول: لم يبق من النبوة إلا المبشرات، قالوا: وما المبشرات؟ قال : الرؤيا الصالحة.

Abu Huraira (RA) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: ‘Prophethood has ended, but glad tidings remain.’ People asked: ‘What are these glad tidings?’ The Prophet (PBUH) said: ‘Good dreams.’ (Bukhari, No: 6990)

والرؤيا ثلاثة : فرؤيا الصالحة بشرى من اللّٰه، ورؤيا تحزين من الشيطان، ورؤيا مما يحدث المرء نفسه، فإن راى احدكم ما يكره فليقم فليصل ولا يحدث بها الناس.

The Prophet (PBUH) said: ‘Dreams are of three types: a good dream that is from Allah, a distressing dream that is from Satan, and a dream that reflects one’s own thoughts. So, when any one of you sees a bad dream, let him get up and perform prayer, and not narrate it to people.’ (Muslim, No: 6042)

عن ابي قتادة، عن النبي صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم، قال: الرؤيا الصالحة من اللّٰه، والحلم من الشيطان، فإذا حلم فليتعوذ منه، وليبصق عن شماله، فإنها لا تضره.

Narrated by Abu Qatada (RA), the Prophet (PBUH) said: ‘Good dreams are from Allah, and bad dreams are from Satan. So, if anyone sees a bad dream, he should seek refuge with Allah from its evil and spit to his left side. Then it will not harm him.’ (Bukhari, No: 6986)

عن عائشة ام المؤمنين، انها، قالت: اول ما بدئ به رسول اللّٰه صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم من الوحي الرؤيا الصالحة في النوم، فكان لا يرى رؤيا إلا جاءت مثل فلق الصبح.

Narrated by Ummul Mu’minin Aisha (RA): ‘The series of revelations to the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) commenced with good dreams. Whatever he saw in his dreams would come to him in the morning as clear as daylight.’ (Bukhari, No: 3)

Similarly, this term ru’ya recurs numerous times in various hadiths, where it typically refers to the experience of dreaming while asleep. An important instance is when hadith scholars select titles for dream-related traditions in their collections, opting to use the same term to denote the subject matter. Here are some examples from Sahih Bukhari:

• Bāb Ru’ya Yusuf (The chapter on the dream of Joseph)
• Bāb Ru’ya Ibrāhīm Alayhis-Salām (The chapter on the dream of Abraham, peace be upon him)
• Bāb Ru’ya al-Layl (The chapter on dreams at night)
• Bāb al-Ru’ya bi-n-Nahār (The chapter on dreams during the day)
• Bāb Ru’ya an-Nisa (The chapter on the dreams of women)
• Bāb Mā Budi’a bihi Rasūlullāh Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam min al-Waḥy al-Ru’ya al-Saliḥah (The chapter on how the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) began to receive revelation through true dreams)
• Bāb al-Ru’ya min Allah (The chapter on good dreams being from Allah)
• Bāb al-Ru’ya al-Saliḥah Juzʾ min Sittatin wa-Arbaʿīna juzʾan min al-Nubuwwah (The chapter on a good dream being one part of forty-six parts of Prophethood)
• Bāb al-Tawāṭuʾ ʿalā al-Ru’ya (The chapter on the concurrence of dreams, meaning when several people see the same dream)
• Bāb Ru’ya Ahl al-Sujūn wa al-Fasād wa al-Shirk (The chapter on the dreams of prisoners and the people of corruption and polytheism) ⁴³.

Arabic vocabulary and the contents mentioned in the Qur'an and hadith make it evident as daylight that the word ru’ya commonly means a dream. While it is true that in some lexicons, secondary or additional meanings such as ru’yatu ‘ayn (seeing with the eyes) or metaphorical interpretations of witnessing something in wakefulness are mentioned, and the word is used in Arabic discourse in figurative, metaphorical, and allusive styles as per customary usage, this does not mean that the word, in its literal usage, carries any meaning other than that of a dream.

It is a basic rule of language and communication that words take on their most recognized meanings. To utilize them in an unfamiliar sense or to infer that they hold unusual or alien meanings contradicts the essence of language. The reason lies in the fact that the primary function of language is to facilitate communication, which can only be effective through words and definitions that are known and understood by the audience. Uncommon and seldom used terms do not serve in conveying the intent of the speaker, nor are they interpreted clearly by the listener. This principle is universal across all languages and modes of discourse⁴⁴. When it comes to comprehending the Holy Qur'an, this guideline is considered a crucial foundation. The Qur'an asserts that it is revealed in Bi-lisānin ʿarabiyyin mubīn, meaning in a clear and plain Arabic tongue, and it is Ghayra dhī ʿiwaj – devoid of ambiguity, confusion, and deficiency⁴⁵.

Although the foundational lexicons do encompass linguistic, symbolic, specialized, and obscure meanings alongside the conventional and commonly used ones, this does not suggest a discordance of understandings. The objective is to enclose an exhaustive array and to gather the meanings extensively. The compiler desires that the readers are informed about the multifaceted and varied usages of the word. Consequently, isolating a preferred meaning listed under a word in a lexicon and deducing that it conveys only that specific sense within a particular context of speech is against the accepted rules of syntax and language use.

2. Reality of Citing Al-Mutanabbi’s Verse as Evidence

In reference to considering the word ru’ya as signifying seeing something while awake, evidence is derived from a verse by Abu Tayyib al-Mutanabbi⁴⁶. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani has based his argument on this verse in his explanation of the verse of Isra in the book Fath al-Bari:

And those who have used ‘al-ru’ya’ in the sense of wakefulness, among them is a poet. His saying goes: ‘Wa ru’yak ahla fi al-‘uyun min al-ghamad.’ (Your vision is sweeter to the eyes than sleep). (5/673)

The argument about this verse revolves around the fact that here, the word ru’ya is not associated with a dream. That is, it is not about an imaginary scene witnessed during sleep but rather refers to perception while being fully conscious. In our view, Ibn Hajar's assertion that the term ru’ya in this context does not mean a dream and hence should imply seeing with open eyes is unequivocally accurate⁴⁷. However, the question remains: does this argument lead to the conclusion drawn by Ibn Hajar and other scholars, that the word ru’ya is used both for seeing in sleep and for seeing in wakefulness, and that in Surah Al-Isra it is used in the latter sense? We consider the response to this query to be negative.

To unravel this, it is essential to evaluate the following three aspects:

• Does the word, phrase, or structure of the verse in question necessitate looking beyond the Book of God to determine the intent of the speaker?
• Is Abu Tayyib al-Mutanabbi counted among those poets whose poetry is deemed admissible for interpreting the Qur’an?
• Is there any congruity or resemblance between the scheme or mode of articulation of the poem and that of the verse?

Addressing these three queries is vital for grasping the matter thoroughly. Neglecting them while building an argument is not in alignment with the established methodologies for Qur’anic exegesis and linguistic principles. In our assessment, the answer to all three questions is negative, therefore the verse by Al-Mutanabbi cannot be considered valid evidence.

The verse from Surah Al-Isra does not require an interpretation that necessitates the confirmation from Classical Arabic to comprehend the word or style. The need for such a confirmation might arise when the word or style is unfamiliar, ambiguous, susceptible to multiple interpretations, lacks a clear indication of its meaning, or is used in a metaphorical manner. In the preceding discussions, it has been conclusively demonstrated that the word ru’ya is not unusual, ambiguous, or conjectural in its denotation⁴⁸. It is a commonly known term in the Arabic lexicon, with a singular meaning of 'dream.' Its usage is always explicit, unambiguously conveying its meaning and relevance. In the Qur’an and hadith, whenever ru’ya is mentioned, it conveys this particular and customary meaning. Additionally, in the aforementioned verse, it is employed in its literal sense and not as a metaphor. Consequently, there is no obscurity in the employment of ru’ya in the verse that would necessitate external linguistic evidence to grasp its meaning.

Regarding Al-Mutanabbi, it is acknowledged that his poetic works are not applicable for facilitating the understanding of the Qur’an. He is a poet from the Abbasid period and is categorized among the fourth category (out of a total of four categories) of Arabic poets, whereas it is established that for linguistic clarification regarding the Qur’an and Hadith, only works from the foremost two categories of Arab poets are valid. Abdul Qadir bin Umar al-Baghdadi states in the renowned text on Arabic language and literature, Khizanat al-Adab wa Lubb Lubab Lisan al-Arab:

The texts used as evidence for linguistic matters can be divided into two categories: those in poetic form and those that are not. The first category, poetry, has been classified by scholars into four groups: The first group consists of the pre-Islamic poets (Shu‘ara al-Jahiliyyah), such as Imru’ al-Qais and Al-A‘sha.The second group includes the Mukhadramin, those who lived during both the pre-Islamic and Islamic periods, such as Labid and Hassan ibn Thabit. The third group comprises the early Islamic poets (Mutaqaddimin), also known as Islamiyyin. These are individuals from the early Islamic era, such as Jarir and Al-Farazdaq. The fourth group includes the later poets (Muwalladin), also referred to as Muhdithin. This group includes all poets who came after the first three groups up until our present time, such as Bashar ibn Burd and Abu Nuwas.

There is consensus regarding the first two groups that their poetry can be used as a basis for linguistic evidence.

The existence or resemblance of compositional style between a poem and a Qur’anic verse holds no weight. The reason being that the term ru’ya in the verse is utilized in its actual meaning, whilst Al-Mutanabbi has employed it metaphorically. Anyone well-versed in expression and rhetorical art would know that a term’s literal and metaphorical applications cannot serve as dependable illustrations for one another. This is because the metaphorical usage renders the word’s significance and application vastly different from its literal context. It signifies an alternate application of the word, which stands distinct and separate from its original meaning. Hence, the metaphorical context does not provide a reliable basis for logical reasoning or exemplification when compared to the literal context. This concept can be illustrated with a few instances from Urdu poetry.

Take for example the opening lines of Allama Iqbal’s poem Mother’s Dream where dream is denoted with literal significance:

Main soyi jo ik shab to dekha yeh khwaab

Barha aur jis se mera iztirāb

Yeh dekha ke main ja rahi hoon kahin

Andhera hai aur raah milti nahin

I slept one night and had this dream (Khwab),

Which escalated my restlessness even more.

I saw that I am going somewhere,

It’s dark, and the path is not found.

Now, notice the metaphorical use of ‘dream’ in another verse from Allama’s Khizr-e-Rah:

عام حریت کا جو دیکھا تھا خواب اسلام نے

اے مسلماں، آج تو اُس خواب کی تعبیر دیکھ

The dream (khwab) of general freedom Islam saw,

O Muslim, witness today the interpretation of that dream.

Here, the Poet of the East has anthropomorphized the faith of Islam and articulated that it envisioned a ‘dream’ about human freedom. Evidently, Islam is not an entity that slumbers and experiences dreams. Thus, in this instance, ‘dream’ is not literal but serves as a metaphor to convey a vision or ideology. Consider the lines by Mir Taqi Mir:

ہوا ہے خواب ملنا اُس سے شب کا

کبھو آتا ہے وہ مہ خواب میں اب

The meeting her at night was a mere dream,

Now she sometimes appears in the moonlight of dreams.

Here, Mir employs ‘dream’ in two contexts – metaphorically to imply ‘unattainable’ and then literally meaning ‘experienced during sleep’.

From these examples, any individual fluent in a language can discern the difference between a term’s literal and metaphorical usage, and why the latter cannot be used for explanation or as evidence when discussing the former. This principle holds for any word in any language that possesses both literal and metaphorical connotations.

After this explanation, let us now try to understand how the word ru’ya in the verse of Abu Tayyib al-Mutanabbi is used in a metaphorical sense. For this purpose, it would be appropriate to consider the verse in its context:

إذا اعتل سيف الدولة اعتلت الأرض

ومن فوقها والناس والكرم المحض

When Saif al-Dawlah falls ill, it is as if the earth itself becomes unwell, and everything upon it is overcome with grief and sorrow — including both the people and the pure benevolence and generosity (which also seem to fall ill).

وكيف انتفاعي بالرقاد وإنما

بعلته يعتل في الأعين الغمض

How can I find solace in sleep when his (Saif Al-Dawlah’s) illness has even sickened sleep in the eyes? (Hence sleep did not come, and I stayed awake all night gazing at you, Saif Al-Dawlah).

مضى الليل والفضل الذي لك لا يمضي

ورؤياك أحلى في العيون من الغمض

Now the night has passed, but the generosity of your (presence) continues (if I had slept tonight, surely the dreams of your visage would have sweetened my sleep), but this waking dream (in which I see you with open eyes), is far sweeter to my eyes than sleep (those dreams).

When you read the verse, it itself tells us that here ru’ya is used in a metaphorical meaning. In sleep, a person sees sweet dreams (ru’ya) that make the sleep delightful. From this common experience, the poet alludes to and says about his patron that instead of dreaming sweet dreams in sleep, I have stayed awake gazing at you, and this waking dream (sweet vision) is sweeter than the dreams (ru’ya) in sleep. This is the meaning of the verse, and it is supported by the previous verses as well.

The metaphorical use of words is a common practice in language and expression. Every language is adorned with it. We elevate the word from its literal meaning and, based on some commonality, adopt the method of simile, metaphor, or allusion, and use it in a completely different meaning. When we say to our nation that Pakistan is the dream of the Poet of the East, or when we tell our son that I have dreamed a lot for you, it doesn’t mean the dreams we have while asleep. For further understanding, let’s look at some Urdu verses that use the word dream. You will realize how varied and diverse the metaphorical use of the word can be:

Allama Iqbal says:

یہ حکم تھا کہ گلشن کن کی بہار دیکھ

ایک آنکھ لے کے خوابِ ِپریشاں ہزار دیکھ

This was the command: to behold the spring of ‘Gulshan Kon.’

With one eye, perceive a thousand troubled dreams.

Here, Iqbal has used the word ‘dream’ to mean ‘seeing with the eye’. This technique of allusion is roughly the same as the one Al-Mutanabbi used in his verse. It means that nature has provided the human eyes to see terrifying dreams, as the poet here adopts the depiction of seeing dreams with eyes.

In another verse by Iqbal, youth has been metaphorically referred to as a dream:

لکھی جائیں گی کتاب دل کی تفسیریں بہت

ہوں گی اے خواب جوانی، تیری تعبیریں بہت

Many interpretations of the heart’s book will be written,

Oh dream of youth, you will have many interpretations.

Here is Mirza Ghalib’s famous verse:

ہے غیبِ غیب جس کو سمجھتے ہیں ہم شہود

ہیں خواب میں ہنوز، جو جاگے ہیں خواب میں

What we think of as presence is still mysterious and unseen,

Those who are awake in dreams are still in a dream while awake.

Here, Ghalib has illustrated the unique situations of waking up in a dream and dreaming within a dream.

In the following verse of Mir, the word ‘dream’ has been used metaphorically to mean sleep:

گزری ہے شب خیال میں خوباں کے جاگتے

آنکھیں لگا کے اُس سے میں ترسوں ہوں خواب کو

I have spent the night awake, lost in thoughts of the beloveds,

Fixing my gaze upon them, I now yearn for dreams to come.

See an interesting usage of the word in the following two verses of Mir where the word ‘dream’ is literally in its actual sense, but figuratively it is used for metaphorical meaning:

سن کان کھول کر کہ تنک جلد آنکھ کھول

غافل یہ زندگانی فسانہ ہے، خواب ہے

جو کچھ نظر پڑے ہے، حقیقت میں کچھ نہیں

عالم میں خوب دیکھو تو عالم ہے خواب کا

Listen carefully, open your ears swiftly those eyes,

Careless one, this life is but a tale, a dream.

Whatever seems apparent, there is nothing in reality,

If you look carefully in the world, the world is nothing more than a dream.

Respected Dr. Khurshid Rizvi used ‘dream’ in its actual sense in one of his verses and clarified its condition with excellent skill:

عالم خواب کا عقدہ نہیں کھلتا، یعنی

آنکھ باقی نہ رہے اور تماشا رہ جائے

The knot of the dream world does not unravel, as if ,

The eye no longer remains and the spectacle persists.

In another verse, he has considered the tasks of open eyes for vision and perception to be effective for the world of dreams and ineffective for the world of awakeness, thus creating a unique meanings of self-awareness.

مری نگاہ نے خوابوں میں خود کو پہچانا

کہ جاگتے میں جو گزری، وہ بے بصرگزری

My vision recognized itself in dreams,

For what passed while awake was without sight.

Consider a verse from the poem by the Javed Ahmed Ghamidi. Here, the dream is utilized both literally and metaphorically, artistically merging the concepts of the dream world and the waking world to express the inner emotions of the heart:

مرے ندیم، کئی بار آخرِ شب میں

مرے چراغ کی لو میں بنی تری تصویر

کنارِ آب چناروں میں ڈوب کر ابھری

خیالِ خواب میں خوابِ خیال کی تعبیر

My friend, many a time at the conclusion of night,

Beneath the flickering light of my lamp, your figure took shape.

Immersed in the currents beneath the Chinar trees, it appeared

A dream within contemplation, deciphered in the reverie of thought.

It’s a frequent occurrence that upon awakening, dreams dissolve from memory. Hence, matters forgotten are often likened to dreams metaphorically. In the Urdu language, the phrase ‘khwab o khayal’ (dream and thought) is regularly used. The esteemed teacher has this to say in a verse:

نہ وہ زماں ہے، نہ وہ مکاں ہے، عجیب منظر بدل رہا ہے

ہوا ہے خواب و خیال وہ بھی، جو تھا کبھی دیدہ و شنیدہ

Neither that time remains, nor that place—the scene is strangely shifting.

Even what was once seen and heard has now become mere dream and illusion.

These instances serve to demonstrate the entwining of metaphor with reality. Were we to delve deeply, we could endlessly populate pages with discourse. To wrap up, here are two couplets by the contemporary poetess Parveen Shakir in her ghazal, where dream is a metaphor for enchanting visions. This mirrors Al-Mutanabbi’s style, where the word ru’ya hints at the attractive features of a person she admired:

آنکھوں سے میری، کون مرے خواب لے گیا

چشم صدف سے گوہر نایاب لے گیا

کچھ کھوئی کھوئی آنکھیں بھی موجوں کے ساتھ تھیں

شاید اُنھیں بہا کے کوئی خواب لے گیا

Who has plucked the dream from my eyes?

From the mollusk’s stare, a precious pearl was purloined.

There, amidst the waves, were lost-looking eyes,

It seems someone has snatched them away with the dream.

From this explanation, it’s abundantly clear that interpreting a word differently from its conventional and known meaning and using it in variant contexts as proof is linguistically unsound. If we were to adopt this practice in text interpretation, based on the above verses, we would be compelled to augment the meanings of ‘dream’ to encompass ‘sight’, ‘alertness in slumber’, ‘futility of effort’, ‘vanishing of entities’, ‘forgetfulness’, amongst numerous other implications.

It would be akin to construing Ghalib’s verse,

غالب کو برا کہتے ہو، اچھا مرے آگے

“You call Ghalib bad, but praise him in my presence” – as if it meant to speak ill of Ghalib behind his back yet praise him before the speaker. Or interpreting Iqbal’s declaration, ‘Life is a surge of milk, chisel, and massive rock’ as if the essence of life includes, apart from existence, a stream of milk, a sculptor’s tool, and a hefty stone. This would amount to a massacre of language and articulation, achievable only by one who deciphers language through logic rather than conversational use.

Furthermore, it’s paramount in our discourse to acknowledge that the text itself dictates whether a word is intended literally or metaphorically. The authority to discern the meaning doesn’t belong to the listener, reader, annotator, translator, or interpreter based on personal perspective or opinion. To assume otherwise is tantamount to attributing one’s own words to the speaker and distorting their intent, an act devoid of any legitimacy in linguistic articulation.

One might then inquire: how do we deduce a word’s implied meaning within a text? The answer is through context, coherence, sentence structure, and the written expression. These elements offer clear signals about the intended message and utilization of the word. These very signals serve as the cornerstone in disputes around interpretations. Using these criteria, we discern the denotations of nouns and verbs in the text, stating, for instance, that ‘lion’ in one sentence signifies the jungle beast and in another symbolizes courage, that Aftab (sun) and Mahtab (moon) sometimes denote celestial bodies, and other times beloved or exalted individuals, and that ‘dream’ can mean a vision in one context, ideation in another, or sleep in yet another. Much like verbs, where ‘sleeping’ and ‘awakening’ might not merely indicate the physical states but could also metaphorically imply negligence and proactiveness.

The excerpt from Meezan could be helpful in understanding aspects of language and expression:

The words and styles of every living language in the world, which indicate certain meanings, are all based on continuous use and are absolutely definite in every respect. Dictionaries, grammar, and other such sciences describe this continuity. When considering these elements, the truthfulness or falsehood of those transmitting the language, and their number, is not a topic of discussion. Words and expressions that are considered rare or uncommon are described as such not because of their intrinsic meaning, but due to their infrequent or abundant usage, and in light of the knowledge and awareness of the audience. The usage of a word and the evolution of its meaning are inseparable; as long as a word is in use, its meaning accompanies it. We might be ignorant of a word’s meaning and we can err in its interpretation, but it is inconceivable that it has ever been used without a defined meaning or that it has been utilized arbitrarily in any era. The understanding of devices such as metaphor, euphemism, generality, and specificity continues concurrently as well. In all world languages, this is a shared legacy of human culture. Consider the sentences ‘The lion is the king of the jungle’ and ‘Which lion’s arrival makes the desert shiver—an individual might mistake metaphor for reality, but this collective human consciousness is unwavering. It is this collective understanding that corrects an individual’s mistakes. This is the fundamental truth about language that enables us to communicate with assurance, confident that others will comprehend our intended message. Consider the documents that are written every day, the verdicts handed down, directives issued, information shared, and knowledge conveyed—if even for a moment we doubt that the relationship between words and their meanings is definite, then everything would become entirely nonsensical. (32-33)

3. Reality of Citing Al- Ra’i’s Verse as Evidence

The word ru’ya is presented as evidence in the sense of physical sight in a couplet by the Umayyad-era poet, Ra’i⁴⁹:

فكبر للرؤيا وهش فؤاده

It was upon such a ru’ya that he exclaimed ‘Allahu Akbar’ and his heart became joyful.

It is said that a linguistic poet used ru’ya not to mean seeing in a dream but seeing with open eyes. This indicates that in the Arabic language, the term also conveys the sense of physical sight. Thus, interpreting it as physical sight in verse 60 of Surah Al-Isra aligns with language and expression. The meaning is that if this is interpreted as an observation made in a state of wakefulness, rather than a non-physical or unreal vision of a dream, it would align with the established usages of the word.

In this context, the following reference from “Lisan al-Arab” is typically mentioned:

قال ابن بري: وقد جاء الرؤيا في اليقظة،قال الراعي: فكبر للرؤيا وهش فؤاده. وبشر نفسًا كان قبل يلومها. وعليه فسر قوله تعالٰى: وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الرُّءْيَا الَّتِيْ٘ اَرَيْنٰكَ اِلَّا فِتْنَةً لِّلنَّاسِ.

Ibn Bari states that the term ‘al-ru’ya’ can also refer to wakefulness. Al-Ra’i says: ‘He magnified the vision, and his heart rejoiced. And he gave glad tidings to a soul that had previously blamed itself.’ Based on this, the interpretation of Allah’s statement is given: ‘And We did not make the vision which We showed you except as a trial for the people.’ (8/297)

This argument is, in our view, another example of the same error that happened with the poetry of Mutanabbi. Namely, first, the metaphorical sense of ru’ya was mistakenly superimposed on its actual meaning, then this misinterpretation was used to justify new usages of the word. This was followed by applying this new meaning as literal in the verse. The matter has become slightly convoluted. Let's clarify it with an example:

Consider these verses from Urdu poets where dil (heart) is metaphorically used to mean home or as its equivalent:

دل میں ذوقِ وصل و یادِ یار تک باقی نہیں

آگ اِس گھر میں لگی ایسی کہ جو تھا جل گیا

In the heart, there’s no longer longing for union or remembrance of the beloved,

The fire that was kindled in this house has consumed all that existed. (Ghalib)

دل کے تئیں آتش ہجراں سے بچایا نہ گیا

گھر جلا سامنے پر ہم سے بجھایا نہ گیا

The heart could not be saved from the flames of separation,

The house blazed before our eyes, beyond our power to douse. (Mir)

ترا کیا کام اب دل میں غم جانانہ آتا ہے

نکل اےصبراِس گھر سے کہ صاحب خانہ آتاہے

What need have you now to dwell in the heart? Sorrow of the beloved approaches,

Depart, o patience, for the owner from this house returns. (Ameer)

درد کو پھر ہے مرے دل کی تلاش

خانہ برباد کو گھر یاد آیا

Agony again seeks out my heart,

The ruined dwelling has hearkened to its homestead. (Fani)

جنھيں ميں ڈھونڈتا تھا آسمانوں ميں زمينوں ميں

وہ نکلے ميرے ظلمت خانۂ دل کے مکينوں ميں

Those whom I sought in the skies and the earth,

Have now emerged from the dusky chambers of my heart. (Iqbal)

Based on these verses, would it be wise to say that the word ‘heart’ has been used in the sense of ‘house’ in them, then the lexicon of this word should also include the definitions of house, abode, or dwelling along with the physical organ and emotions and feelings, so that readers can choose the meaning they find closer to their taste and understanding in the context of the text they are considering? So, for example, if they were to read this verse by Maulana Zafar Ali Khan:

میں اُس کو کعبہ و بت خانہ میں کیوں ڈھونڈنے نکلوں

مرے ٹوٹے ہوئے دل ہی کے اندر ہے قیام اُس کا

I don’t need to search for Him in the Kaaba or the idol house;

For He resides within my shattered heart’s space.

Would they explain it as – I don’t need to seek Allah Almighty in the Kaaba or in the idol house, because He resides in my own broken ‘home’ – then it would be considered absolutely correct according to language and expression.

In this example, to take ‘the broken heart’ as ‘a broken house’ is evidently wrong, which readers can understand with due reflection. For further understanding, one could look back at the previous pages discussing the concept of literal and metaphorical implications.

After this clarification, one should also become acquainted with the metaphorical meaning of the word ru’ya used in the mentioned line of 'Ubaid Ibn Hussein an-Nameri al-Ra’i’. When the verse is read in its context, the meaning will become fully clear. The poet says:

ومستنبح تهوي مساقط رأسه

على الرحل في طخياء طمس نجومها

When the stars of the dark night began to fade, a strange traveler arrived whose head (due to sleepiness and exhaustion from traveling all night) kept falling on the saddle.

رفعت له مشبوبة عصفت لها

صبا تزدهيها مرة وتقيمها

I had kindled a fire for him. A breeze blew over it, which occasionally stirred it and made it stand.

فكبر للرؤيا وهش فؤاده

وبشر نفسًا كان قبل يلومها

(The weary and disheartened) traveler exclaimed 'Allahu Akbar' when he saw this beautiful dreamlike scene and his heart was filled with joy. Then he gave glad tidings to his soul, which he was blaming just a while before.

It’s crystal clear that here the poet has used the word ru’ya in lieu of ruyatan to signify a vision of alluring scenes. The intent is to highlight the unexpected joy the traveler feels amidst the severity of his situation⁵⁰. For the traveler—having just emerged from the trials and tribulations of traveling throughout the night in the desert—the sudden sight of a fire was no less than a delightful dream. The poet chose this style to accentuate this unexpected and extraordinary scenario. On such an occasion, if ru’ya had been replaced with the literal sense of ruyatan, the desired expression of the theme would not be possible at all. Allama Shahab Khafaji in his book Sharh Durratul-Ghawas fi Awahamil-Khawas clarifies, referencing Ibn Barri, that 'Al-Ra’i' used the word ru’ya in its metaphorical sense in the stated verse. He writes:

وقال ابن بري الرؤيا وإن كانت في المنام فالعرب استعملتها في اليقظة كثيرًا، فهو مجاز مشهور كقول الراعي…

Ibn Bari states that although ru’ya is commonly used to mean a dream, the Arabs frequently use it to refer to seeing something while awake as well. However, this usage is well-known as a metaphor rather than a literal reality. For example, as Al-Ra’i says…(318)

Nonetheless, the use of the word ru’ya here is in no way related to its usage in Surah Al-Isra. Both these styles are completely distinct from each other and share no commonality, resemblance, or similarity. The manner of their use and their respective contexts clearly demonstrate that in the Surah, the word is employed in its real sense while in the poetic verse it has been used metaphorically. Therefore, these two uses cannot be presented as examples of one another.

4. Intendend Meaning of the Phrase Subhāna alladhī

The word Subhān is an expression of glorification and exaltation. When used for Allah Almighty, its purpose is to dispel any misconceptions or misunderstandings about His essence and to highlight His attributes. In this context, it signifies that Allah’s essence is free from every imperfection or flaw and is characterized by the specific attribute concerning which doubt or misgiving has been raised. This meaning is employed in multiple instances throughout the Noble Qur’an.

So, if Allah’s unity is questioned, it would be stated: Subhāna alladhī wa ta‘ala ‘amma yushrikoon (Allah is pure and exalted above what they associate with Him⁵¹).

If any weakness or inferiority has been attributed to Him, it is said: Subhāna rabbika rabbil-Izzati Ammā Yasifūn (Your Lord, the Lord of honor, is far above what they describe⁵²).

If His planning and management of affairs have been questioned, then these supplicatory words have been uttered: Rabbana mā khalaqta hādhā bātilan, subhānaka faqinā adhāba an-nār (Our Lord, You have not created all this without purpose. You are free from any imperfection of creating anything without a purpose⁵³).

If there has been any doubt about His knowledge and wisdom, then the saying of the people of truth has been narrated: Subhānaka lā ilma lanā illā mā allamtanā, innaka anta al-Alīmu al-Hakīm (Your being is free from all flaws; we only know as much as You have told us. Indeed, You are the All-Knowing, the Wise⁵⁴).

This is the case with power, lordship, mercy, and His other attributes.

In the verse under discussion, the word Subhāna has not come to highlight the attribute of power, as commonly thought, but it has come from the aspect of Allah being All-Hearing and All-Seeing. The verse begins with Subhāna alladhī asra bi ʿabdihi laylan mina al-masjidi al-harāmi ilā al-masjidi al-aqsā (Glory be to Him who took His servant by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest mosque) and ends with the words Innahu huwa al-Samīʿu al-Basīr (Indeed, He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing). This means that the aspect from which Subhāna has appeared shall be determined by the words al-Samīʿu al-Basīr, and it will be implied that Allah is free from any suspicion that may arise regarding His attributes of being All-Hearing and All-Seeing.

Accordingly, the subject matter of the verse is how the Creator, who endowed the Israelites with the position to bear witness to the religion⁵⁵ and entrusted them with the responsibility to exhibit the true faith within their collective existence and testify before the nations of the world in such a manner that the sovereignty of Allah’s religion is established in this world⁵⁶, could tolerate their persistent shirking of duties and yet allow them to remain in this great position. The fact is, they not only failed to meet the demands of their position but went further and adopted a rebellious and denying attitude towards God. Their disobedience and rebellion eventually escalated to the point where they pursued to murder one of Allah’s prophet. Allah, All-Hearing and All-Seeing, was observing their crimes while granting them respite. Now that respite has ended, and He has decided to depose the Israelites from this esteemed position and bestow the responsibility of testimony upon the Prophet who is unlettered and his nation, Ishmaelites⁵⁷.

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi writes:

The word Subhān at the beginning of the verse comes from a perspective explained by these attributes. It means that it was the responsibility of God to hold those treacherous people accountable, who, in the words of Jesus, peace be upon him, had turned His house into a den of thieves. After hearing and seeing what the Israelites have been saying and doing in this house, it was inevitable. Hence, God has decided that the trust of this house should be handed over to the unlettered prophet. He was brought here from the Sacred Mosque overnight for this purpose. God is free from all imperfection, so He could not possibly tolerate that a nation, despite such a level of defiance on its part, should be left in charge. It was imperative that He arrange for another in view of the intended objective. He has done this and has entrusted the global responsibility of preaching and testimony to the Ishmaelites. (Al-Bayan 3/63)

From this detailed explanation, it is clear that the word Subhān here has not been used to highlight the attribute of divine power but to clarify the attribute of Allah being All-Hearing and All-Seeing. It means that this word serves the purpose of negating or erasing any such suspicion that has or could arise concerning Allah’s attribute of being All-Hearing and All-Seeing.

After this explanation, it should also be understood that the journey mentioned in asra bi abdihi laylan mina al-masjidi al-harāmi ilā al-masjidi al-aqsa — meaning the journey of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque — was not intended to present a miraculous phenomenon to the Quraysh or to prove the truth of his prophethood through it. The context of the verse, its style of expression, and its underlying message all clarify this point. Allah the Almighty has described this journey as a favor upon the Prophet (PBUH) and has clearly indicated its purpose: linuriyahu min āyātinā — ‘so that We might show him some of Our signs.’ Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi explains in his commentary:

… It is said that this journey was made to show His servant some of the signs. What these signs were is not mentioned here. However, the context provides evidence that these imply the traces and observations, and the lights and blessings, with which both of these houses [the Sacred Mosque and the Farthest Mosque] were endowed. It seems clear that the purpose of showing these signs was to make evident to the Prophet (PBUH) Allah’s intent that now this trust would be taken away from those unworthy and treacherous and placed in his care. In other words, during this extremely challenging period of his mission, this journey of the Ascension was further confirmation of the glad tidings of Allah’s support and victory, and what was to happen was also shown to him. (Tadabbur-e-Qur’an 4/475)

It becomes clear that this event was a great glad tiding for the Prophet (PBUH) and a herald of the Lord's selection and favor for the people of faith. It was not directly related to the disbelievers of Quraysh. It was their misfortune that, due to their obstinacy and enmity, they turned this into a trial for themselves. If this argument is clear, then scholars’ reasoning around Subhān and the entire discussion on physical and spiritual vision becomes irrelevant to the verse of Isra.

Here we conclude our discussion. However, there are two additional points to note below. The aim of discussing these points is that if someone insists on the association of the word Subhān with God’s attribute of power, it should become clear to them that there is no room for such interpretation in the examples of the Qur’an, nor does the narration of the event accept it.

The first point is that even if Subhān relates to the attribute of God's power, it is not necessary to tie it to an event or matter that is supernatural or peculiar and alien. From this perspective, it also appears to direct attention to the truths of God's power. The following verses indicate the same:

سُبْحٰنَ الَّذِيْ خَلَقَ الْاَزْوَاجَ كُلَّهَا مِمَّا تُنْبِتُ الْاَرْضُ وَمِنْ اَنْفُسِهِمْ وَمِمَّا لَا يَعْلَمُوْنَ.

Glorious is the Being Who made all the pairs of things which the earth sprouts and from among these people themselves too and also of things which they do not know. (36:36)

…وَتَقُوْلُوْا سُبْحٰنَ الَّذِيْ سَخَّرَ لَنَا هٰذَا وَمَا كُنَّا لَهٗ مُقْرِنِيْنَ.

and say: “Exalted is the being who has put them to our service. We were not capable of bringing them into our control. (43:13)

The second point to consider is that even if the term Subhān, which signifies glorification, necessarily indicated something extraordinary or miraculous, it would still not require physical travel as a prerequisite. The reason being, the miraculous nature of physical travel would have only been evident if people had witnessed the ascension and descent of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in their own eyes, which was not the case. Rather, the Prophet (PBUH) simply relayed the events of his journey afterward. Regardless of whether the journey was physical or spiritual, it was effectively a report from the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). It was akin to his daily expressions of eloquence, where he would inform people of the unseen and unknown matters of the past, present, and future. Thus, for his audience, the primary concern was not the physical or spiritual nature of the journey. Due to the absence of direct observation, both scenarios were equivalent to them. Their true challenge related to the claim presented by the Holy Qur’an and the narrative that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) shared the following morning. Their concern was not about the content of the message, but rather the trustworthiness of the messenger. That is why their questions revolved not around the soul or body, but rather around the features and specifics of the mosque. Even when detailed descriptions were provided, they did not inquire whether the Prophet (PBUH) ascended alone, used a mount, or whether the event occurred in a spiritual or physical state. Considering they attributed even more miraculous acts to their idols, sorcerers, and the jinn with whom they interacted, the idea of such an event was not utterly implausible to them.

5. Reality of the Argument Based on Asra bi ‘abdihi

The phrase Asra bi-fulan translates to taking someone away during the night. The term abd refers to a servant. Hence, alladhī asra bi ‘abdihi signifies ‘The One who took His servant away during the night.’ Scholars argue that asra, which means to take away, necessitates it being linked with a tangible form or a physical entity. Associating this solely with the soul or the self is deemed incorrect. Additionally, abd, which means servant, denotes an entity comprising both soul and body, and its use cannot be restricted to just the soul or the body alone. Dreams encompass conditions relating only to the soul, with the body and its parts not participating, so the act of asra and the term abd do not fit dream experiences.

On the surface, this argument might seem compelling, yet it lacks foundation in knowledge, reasoning, or linguistic principles. Is a new language crafted or a separate lexicon developed specifically for recounting dreams? It would be hard to identify a greater act of neglect towards language and expression than this viewpoint.

It is a fundamental rule in all languages that the expressions used to describe actions in a state of wakefulness are equally applied to dreams and imagination. One only has to attempt retelling their dream in any language to recognize that the articulation of dream states does not differ from that of wakeful experiences. The only requirement might be to initially specify or clarify that the narrative pertains to a dream.

In the Holy Qur’an, the dreams of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and Prophet Abraham (PBUH) are documented in Surah Al-Fath and Surah As-Saffat, respectively. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) envisioned himself and his companions entering Masjid al-Haram, shaving their heads, and trimming their hair. Prophet Abraham (PBUH) saw himself sacrificing his son Ishmael (PBUH). Both dreams were validated and revealed through Allah’s Messengers. The nouns and verbs utilized in their description are identical to those used for conscious events. The pertinent verses are as follows:

لَقَدْ صَدَقَ اللّٰهُ رَسُوْلَهُ الرُّءْيَا بِالْحَقِّ لَتَدْخُلُنَّ الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ اِنْ شَآءَ اللّٰهُ اٰمِنِيْنَ مُحَلِّقِيْنَ رُءُوْسَكُمْ وَمُقَصِّرِيْنَ لَا تَخَافُوْنَ فَعَلِمَ مَا لَمْ تَعْلَمُوْا فَجَعَلَ مِنْ دُوْنِ ذٰلِكَ فَتْحًا قَرِيْبًا.

[So, rest assured O Believers!] it is a fact that God had shown His messenger an absolutely true dream. Indeed, if God wills, you will definitely enter the Sacred Mosque with complete peace in a way that you will shave your heads and have hair-cuts; [you will have no fear. It was only that God knew what you did not; so, before this, He blessed you with a victory near at hand. (48:27)

قَالَ يٰبُنَيَّ اِنِّيْ٘ اَرٰي فِي الْمَنَامِ اَنِّيْ٘ اَذْبَحُكَ فَانْظُرْ مَاذَا تَرٰيﵧ قَالَ يٰ٘اَبَتِ افْعَلْ مَا تُؤْمَرُﵟ سَتَجِدُنِيْ٘ اِنْ شَآءَ اللّٰهُ مِنَ الصّٰبِرِيْنَ.

Abraham said to him [one day]: ‘My son! [Since the past few days,] I dream that I am slaughtering you. So reflect; what is your opinion?’ He said: ‘Father! Do as you are being directed. God willing, you will find me steadfast.’ (37:102)

From these verses, it is evident that the Prophet (PBUH) dreamt that Muslims were entering the sacred enclosure of the Kaaba, shaving their heads, and trimming their hair. Similarly, Prophet Abraham (PBUH) dreamt that he was sacrificing his son. The pronouns and verbs expressed in these dreams involve human actions, including those of absence, presence, and addressing, using verbs like ‘enter,’ ‘shave,’ ‘shorten,’ and ‘sacrifice,’ which apply to beings composed of body and soul. If our scholars were to impose their interpretations here too, they would have to view these occurrences as waking events and interpret the phrases Laqad Sadaqallahu Rasūlahu al-ru’yā and Innī Arā fī al-Manām as perceptive experiences in a state of wakefulness.

Consider several hadiths where the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) vividly described his dreams through actions:

‘I saw two men’ – رايت رجلين

‘both of them took me away’ – اتياني

‘Both of them took hold of my hand’ – فاخذا بيدي

فاخرجاني إلى الارض المقدسة – ‘Both of them took me to the Holy Land’

‘I am migrating’ – اني اهاجر

‘I wielded a sword’ – اني هززت سيفًا

‘I was asleep, and I performing Tawaf’ – انا نائم اطوف بالكعبة

These narrations include:

عن سمرة بن جندب، قال: كان النبي صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم إذا صلى صلاةً اقبل علينا بوجهه، فقال: من راى منكم الليلة رؤيا؟ قال: فإن راى احد قصها، فيقول: ما شاء اللّٰه، فسالنا يومًا، فقال: هل راى احد منكم رؤيا؟ قلنا: لا، قال: لكني رايت الليلة رجلين اتياني، فاخذا بيدي فاخرجاني إلى الارض المقدسة.

Narrated by Samura bin Jundub (RA): The Prophet (PBUH) used to face us after completing the prayer and would ask, ‘Who among you had a dream last night?’ If anyone had seen a dream, they would narrate it, and he would say whatever Allah willed. One day, he asked, ‘Did anyone see a dream last night?’ We said, ‘No.’ He said, ‘But I saw last night in which two men came to me, took hold of my hand, and led me to the Holy Land.’ (Sahih Bukhari, No. 1386)

عن ابي موسى، عن النبي صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم، قال: رايت في المنام اني اهاجر من مكة إلى ارض بها نخل، فذهب وهلي إلى انها اليمامة، او هجر، فإذا هي المدينة يثرب.

Narrated by Abu Musa Al-Ash‘ari (RA): The Prophet (PBUH) said, ‘I saw in a dream that I was migrating from Mecca to a land with palm trees. My mind went to the idea that it might be Yamama or Hajar, but it turned out to be Medina (Yathrib).’ (Sahih Muslim, No. 6072)

عن ابي موسى، عن النبي صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم قال: رايت في رؤياي اني هززت سيفًا فانقطع صدره، فإذا هو ما اصيب من المؤمنين يوم احد.

Narrated by Abu Musa Al-Ash‘ari (may Allah be pleased with him): The Prophet (PBUH) said, ‘I saw in a dream that I shook a sword and its blade broke. This was manifested in the form of the loss that the Muslims suffered in the Battle of Uhud.’ (Sahih Bukhari, No. 4081)

…ان ابا هريرة رضي اللّٰه عنه، قال: بينا نحن عند رسول اللّٰه صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم إذ قال: بينا انا نائم رايتني في الجنة فإذا امراة تتوضا إلى جانب قصر، فقلت: لمن هذا القصر؟ قالوا: لعمر فذكرت غيرته فوليت مدبرًا.

Narrated by Abu Huraira (RA): We were in the company of Allah’s Messenger (PBUH) when he said, ‘While I was sleeping, I saw myself in Paradise, and there I saw a woman performing ablution beside a palace.’ I asked, ‘Whose palace is this?’ They said, ‘It is ‘Umar ibn Al-Khattab’s.’ Then I remembered ‘Umar’s sense of honor, and so I turned back and left.’ (Sahih Bukhari, No. 3242)

عن عبد اللّٰه بن عمر، ان رسول اللّٰه صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم، قال: بينا انا نائم اطوف بالكعبة.

Narrated by Abdullah bin Umar (RA): The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, ‘While I was sleeping, I saw myself performing Tawaf around the Kaaba.’ (Sahih Bukhari, No. 7128)

حدثنا سمرة، قال: قال رسول اللّٰه صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم: اتاني الليلة آتيان فاتينا على رجل طويل لا اكاد ارى راسه طولاً وإنه إبراهيم صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم.

Narrated by Samura (RA): The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, ‘Two persons came to me last night and took me to a very tall man whose head I could hardly see because of his height, and that man was Abraham (PBUH).’ (Sahih Bukhari, No. 3354)

Also, reflect on a dream narrated by Abdullah ibn Umar (RA), which contains nouns and verbs such as Malikayn Atayani (two angels approached me), Fantalaqā bī (and they took me with them), Faqāla lī (and they said to me), paralleling expressions we would use for actual events.

عن ابن عمر، قال: كنت غلامًا شابًا عزبًا في عهد النبي صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم، وكنت ابيت في المسجد، وكان من راى منامًا قصه على النبي صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم، فقلت: اللهم إن كان لي عندك خير فارني منامًا يعبره لي رسول اللّٰه صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم، فنمت، فرايت ملكين اتياني فانطلقا بي فلقيهما ملك آخر، فقال لي: لن تراع، إنك رجل صالح، فانطلقا بي إلى النار فإذا هي مطوية كطي البئر وإذا فيها ناس قد عرفت بعضهم، فاخذا بي ذات اليمين، فلما اصبحت، ذكرت ذلك لحفصة.

Abdullah ibn Umar (RA) narrated: During the time of the Prophet (PBUH), I was a young unmarried man, and I used to sleep in the mosque of the Prophet. It was a common practice that whoever had a dream would narrate it to the Prophet (PBUH). I prayed, ‘O Lord, if there is any good in me in this matter, show me a dream that the Prophet (PBUH) can interpret for me.’ Then I slept and saw two angels who came to me and took me along with them. Then a third angel joined them. He said to me, ‘Do not be afraid; you are a good man.’ Then the two angels took me towards Hell, which was like a well with layers upon layers. In it were people whom I recognized. Then the two angels took me towards the right side. (Sahih Bukhari, No. 7030)

6. Argument Based on the Report From Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RA)

Regarding the interpretation of the word ru’ya in verse 60 of Surah Al-Isra, the following commentary (athr)⁵⁸ by Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RA) is often cited:

عن ابن عباس رضي اللّٰه عنهما في قوله تعالٰى: وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الرُّءْيَا الَّتِيْ٘ اَرَيْنٰكَ اِلَّا فِتْنَةً لِّلنَّاسِ. قال: هي رؤيا عين اريها رسول اللّٰه صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم ليلة اسري به إلى بيت المقدس.

Abdullah ibn Abbas (RA) commented on Allah’s statement, ‘And We did not make the vision which We showed you except as a trial for the people,’ saying that this refers to a ru’ya ‘ayn, meaning a vision seen with the eyes. This was shown to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) on the night he was taken to Bayt al-Maqdis. (Sahih Bukhari, No. 3888)

To properly utilize this commentary as grounds for reasoning, one must first comprehend the significance of his words.

Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RA) stated:

Hiya ru’yā ‘ayn arāhā Rasūlullāh laylata usriya bihi ilā Bayt al-Maqdis (هي رؤيا عين أراها رسول اللّٰه صلى الله عليه وسلم ليلة أسرى به إلى بيت المقدس).

In this statement, ru’yatu ‘ayn (رؤية عين) does not appear. If these words were included, the interpretation involving the visual sight—that is, perception via the eyes—would have been appropriate. However, this would render the word arāhā (اَرَاهَا) redundant and meaningless, as it would imply ‘sight that was shown.’ The translation would erroneously be: ‘This was a visual witnessed by the eyes shown to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) on the night of Isra.’

Here, the term ru’ya ‘ayn (رؤيا عين) appears. Its literal meaning is ‘a vision of the eyes,’ that is, ‘a dream seen with the eyes.’ The accompanying words arihā (اريها) are neither redundant nor meaningless; rather, they are indispensable. The reason for this is that the meaning now becomes ‘a dream of the eyes was shown,’ and the translation is: ‘This was a dream seen with the eyes, which was shown to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) during the night of Isra.’

This makes it clear that Ibn Abbas (RA), neither interpreted this as the ru’yatan (seeing) that every sighted person benefits from in a state of wakefulness, nor as the ru’ya (dream) that is every person’s experience in a state of sleep. Instead, he attributed it to a third category, which is a blend of wakefulness and sleep, and of dream and reality. His point is that just as scenes are observed in dreams, in a similar manner, Allah Almighty presented certain scenes before the eyes of the Prophet (PBUH), which he witnessed while being awake. In essence, according to Ibn Abbas (RA), while it was a dream-like vision, it was shown to the Prophet (PBUH) with open eyes during wakefulness. For explaining this unique nature, he coined the phrase ru’ya ‘aynun urīhā laylatan (رؤيا عين اريها ليلة). This is a distinctive expression crafted to describe an exceptional situation. It signifies the extraordinary nature of this observation, which is exclusively a characteristic of prophethood, and one that ordinary humans are entirely devoid of. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, in his commentary Tarjuman al-Qur’an, has clarified the statement of Ibn Abbas (RA) from this very perspective. He writes:

The conditions and occurrences of the noble Prophets (peace be upon them) relate to such a realm that our common interpretations do not apply. Any interpretation we make will suggest the idea of a state that we commonly experience, but the nature of the situations the noble Prophets (peace be upon them) experienced is different. These are matters beyond our senses and common understanding. This is why the impressions of the Companions varied. Those who denied that the events took place in a state of wakefulness leaned towards the belief that the events were not like our physical movement and transportation. Those who insisted that the events occurred in a state of wakefulness argued that these cannot simply be dismissed as dreams. And there is no doubt that both groups were correct in their respective impressions. Even in the Hadith of the Sahihain, it is reported that the Prophet (PBUH) said: I was in such a state that I was neither asleep nor awake, ‘بين النوم واليقظة’ (between sleeping and being awake). This clarifies that we cannot categorize this matter as one that occurs in wakefulness, nor as one seen in sleep. It was a state different from both of these, one for which we have no terms or interpretations.

… Abdullah ibn Abbas (RA) was among those Companions who believed that the Mi‘raj occurred in a state of wakefulness and was a foremost proponent of this belief. …And what Hazrat ibn Abbas (RA) referred to by by ru’yā ‘ayn urīhā settled the issue, and the reality became clear, to which we have just alluded. That is, whatever happened was indeed a Ru’ya (vision), but what kind of Ru’ya? Was it like what we experience in the realm of dreams? No, it was ru’ya ‘ayn. Such a vision in which the eyes are not neglectful; they are alert. What is seen is as if it is being witnessed with the very eyes. (2/430-431)

In summary, there are three kinds of human observation:

• Ru’yah: Observing the external landscape with physical sight while awake.
• Ru’ya: Observing internal manifestations with internal vision while asleep.
• Ru’ya ‘Ayn: Observing internal sceneries with physical sight while awake.

With regards to these three types, there are two confirmed differences between Prophets and ordinary people:

• Firstly, the Prophets experience all three types of observation, whereas ordinary people typically experience only the first two types.
• Secondly, all three types of the Prophets’ observations are true and based on reality⁵⁹, unlike those of ordinary people.

According to Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RA), the third type occurred during the incident of Isra⁶⁰. That is, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) witnessed spiritual scenes with his physical sight while in a state of wakefulness. This interpretation aligns well with the nature of prophetic observations. The reason for this is that such observations of this nature by the Prophet (PBUH) are grounded in reality and are well-documented and acknowledged. A prominent example of this is the incident reported in Sunan an-Nasa’i when, during the eclipse prayer, Paradise was brought before him, and he stepped forward to pluck a cluster of its fruits. The incident has been recorded in Sunan an-Nasa’i in the following words:

عن عبد اللّٰه بن عباس، قال: خسفت الشمس فصلى رسول اللّٰه صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم والناس معه قالوا: يا رسول اللّٰه رايناك تناولت شيئًا في مقامك هذا ثم رايناك تكعكعت. قال: إني رايت الجنة او اريت الجنة فتناولت منها عنقودًا ولو اخذته لاكلتم منه ما بقيت الدنيا

Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RA) narrates that there was a solar eclipse, and the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) along with the people performed the prayer. (After the prayer) the people said to him: O Messenger of Allah, we saw you moving forward as if to take something, and then we saw you stepping back? He replied: ‘I saw Paradise, or it was shown to me, and I moved forward to take a bunch of its fruits. Had I taken it, you would have eaten from it for as long as the world remains.’ (Sunan an-Nasa’i, No. 1493)

The observation of Paradise in this moment clearly happened while the Prophet (PBUH) was awake. Paradise was presented before the Prophet (PBUH) during the prayer. The narration indicates that it was not just a vision; Paradise appeared vividly, which is why the Prophet (PBUH) reached out to take fruit from it⁶¹.

Similarly, another event took place when the truthfulness of the Prophet’s night journey was challenged by the disbelievers. On that occasion, the Al-Aqsa Mosque was also brought before the Prophet (PBUH) in a state of wakefulness⁶².

Thus, if the term ru’ya ‘ayn is employed to describe such an event, there can be no literal objection. This term can be used to express this concept, and similar interpretations are also valid. Imam Shah Waliullah in his book Hujjat Allah al-Balighah has used the terms Ālam al-Mithāl (world of similitude) and Barzakh al-’Ālam ash-Shahādah (barzakh of the realm of testimony) to convey the same meaning. He writes:

The Prophet of God ascended to Masjid Al-Aqsa, then to Sidrat al-Muntaha, and as far as God willed during the Mi‘raj, and all this event took place with the body in a state of wakefulness. However, it was in a condition that represented a barrier between the world of similitudes and the world of witnessing, encompassing the rulings of both worlds. The effects of the spirit became dominant over the body, and the states of the spirit took the form of the body. This is why each event within this journey has a distinct interpretation. (2/365)

From this detail, it is clear that the innovative interpretation of Ibn Abbas (RA), ru’ya ‘ayn (a vision with open eyes), is also understandable, and its application to some incidents mentioned in the hadiths does not contradict the assertion. However, regarding the event of Isra, despite appreciating the scholarly greatness of Hazrat Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RA) and recognizing his significance, neither can his interpretation of ru’ya ‘ayn be accepted, nor can it be considered a waking event. The reason is that God Himself has termed this event as ru’ya in the Qur’an. With this clarification in the Qur’an, it is not feasible to interpret it as a physical vision or ru’ya ‘ayn. If the Qur’an had not elucidated this, then perhaps, based on correlational evidence and analogies, there could have been room for such discourse.

7. Argument Based from the Phrase Fitnatan lilnās

In verse 60 of Surah Al-Isra⁶³, the phrase Fitnatan lilnās (a trial for the people) has been used as a rationale to endorse the physical nature of the journey. The reasoning is that only an incident which is extremely perplexing and whose belief appears implausible can become a source of trial or tribulation. Since witnessing extraordinary events in dreams is a common human occurrence and such occurrences are often dismissed as mere dreamlike imaginings, with their authenticity easily accepted. As a result, they do not become a cause of trial or a test of belief for people. However, if a similar extraordinary event occurs in a state of wakefulness, people become skeptical about its authenticity and are subjected to a test in terms of their acceptance or rejection of it. This is a well-established human experience. Hence, the event of Isra could only serve as a trial and test for people if it occurred in a state of wakefulness and if the Prophet (PBUH) described it as such. Otherwise, it could neither cause a trial for the people nor could the words Fitnatan lilnās apply to it. In our opinion, this argument is flawed, for the foundational reasons outlined below:

Firstly, it presumes that the disbelievers of Quraysh deemed any perplexing event associated with a human or the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) as impossible. This is not accurate. Due to their myths and beliefs, they were predisposed to believe in all forms of supernatural occurrences linked to their ancestors and deities. Consequently, they had concocted the notion of deeming the Prophet (God forbid) a sorcerer and a magician. Thus, whenever a statement that inspired faith emerged from him or an astonishing event unfolded, they would employ this excuse to dismiss his prophecy. This indicated that they were inclined to anticipate supernatural occurrences from his noble person.

Furthermore, a profound supernatural miracle was occurring before their eyes daily, which was the Divine Speech that was being uttered through the blessed tongue of the Prophet. Its unique and unparalleled mode of articulation was enough for them to concede that the speech could not have been human-made. Even more so, relating it to the Prophet was unfathomable, given that for the first forty years of his life he had never participated in poets’ assemblies nor learned the craft of poetry and literature, nor had he created poetry or shown any eloquence. Then, all of a sudden, such words emanated from him that rendered their esteemed poets and literati speechless, forcing them to acknowledge that such speech could not come from a human source. For them, this reality was as astonishing as a celestial ascent.

It becomes evident that the nature of an occurrence being supernatural or astonishing was not a cause for confusion or difficulty for them.

Secondly, when the Prophet (PBUH) informed the gathering the next morning about the details of the structure of Masjid Al-Aqsa—which in itself was an extraordinary miracle, unfolding before the people’s very eyes—any doubts they had should have been dispelled at that moment. Yet, this did not happen, and they persisted in denying the event. This also demonstrates that the connection between the event being extraordinary or not and its being a Fitnatan lilnās (a trial for the people) is not absolute.

Thirdly, the aforementioned argument leads to the acceptance of the excuse presented by the disbelievers of Quraysh, which neither the words of the verse support nor historical facts validate. This would imply that if Abu Jahl had witnessed the event and seen the Prophet (PBUH) ascending to the heights of the heavens, the event would no longer have been a trial for him. However, the reality is that despite witnessing numerous miracles, he did not believe. In fact, it must be understood that a trial or test arises only from something whose authenticity is certain. Something whose occurrence is uncertain or is beyond comprehension and perception cannot become a trial. In such cases, uncertainty or lack of comprehension becomes an excuse and is considered justifiable both in the eyes of people and before Allah.

Additionally, the solitary experience and testimony of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), whether in dreams or wakefulness, were simply his narrations to the people, holding equal credibility for them. The transgression of the Quraysh was that they rejected his prophethood out of sheer defiance and obstinacy, even though they considered him reliable and honest in all other respects. Thus, whether the event was a vision or an actual experience, they opted to dismiss it as false. Even had they been eyewitnesses, their denial would persist as Pharaoh rejected Moses’s (PBUH) prophecy despite the sorcerers’ defeat and their subsequent belief.

Fourthly, Allah has clarified fitnah (trial) for the people in the conclusion of verse 60, leaving no room for ambiguity or for pushing any contrived interpretations. The verse explicates:

وَنُخَوِّفُهُمْ فَمَا يَزِيْدُهُمْ اِلَّا طُغْيَانًا كَبِيْرًا.

We are only frightening them of their fate, but this thing is merely increasing them in their extreme rebelliousness.

This means that the cause of the trial (fitnah) was not the extraordinary or non-extraordinary nature of the event; rather, it was the warning of the impending outcome. The words nukhawwifuhum (We frighten them) serve as conclusive evidence for this. The intended meaning is that this warning and forewarning should have caused them to take heed and work toward self-correction. However, they adopted an attitude of defiance and turned the warning—manifested in the event of Isra as a clear indication that their removal from authority had been decreed and that their religion and kingdom were about to be overturned—into a trial and test for themselves. Thus, it is stated in Al-Bayan:

The issue is not whether a sign is demonstrated to elicit belief. The affliction they suffer from is the malaise of obstinance and defiance. All of this served as a warning and a scare tactic, yet what was the outcome? These three instances only reveal an escalation in their rebellion, just as the Thamud did with the she-camel. (3/95)

Abu Bakr al-Jassas quotes a statement reflecting similar sentiments from Ibn Abbas (RA):

What does this vision imply? The Exalted says: Wa mā Ja‘alnā al-ru’yā allatī araynāka illā Fitnatan lilnās (And the vision We showed you was only a trial for the people). According to the narration from Said ibn Jubair on the authority of Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, as well as reports from Qatadah, Hasan, Abraham, Mujahid, and Dahhak, this vision is different from the night journey to Jerusalem, that is, Isra. When Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) mentioned it to the polytheists, they denied him. Ibn Abbas (RA) also reported that this vision indicated that the Prophet (PBUH) was shown that he would soon enter Makkah as a victor. (Ahkam Al-Qur’an 5/30)

At the conclusion of the discussion, it should be understood purely as an academic point that being a trial or tribulation does not necessarily mean that we should take it as something difficult or alien to the comprehension and perception of people. The Qur’an explicitly refutes this idea. Consider verse 20 of Surah Al-Furqan, where the command is stated:

وَمَا٘ اَرْسَلْنَا قَبْلَكَ مِنَ الْمُرْسَلِيْنَ اِلَّا٘ اِنَّهُمْ لَيَاْكُلُوْنَ الطَّعَامَ وَيَمْشُوْنَ فِيالْاَسْوَاقِﵧ وَجَعَلْنَا بَعْضَكُمْ لِبَعْضٍ فِتْنَةً …

Whichever messengers We sent before you also, all ate food and roamed about in markets. [Believers!] We have made you a trial for one another;…

In the explanation of this verse, Tafsir Ibn Kathir writes:

If Allah Almighty were to grant His prophets abundant worldly wealth and resources, most people would refrain from opposing them out of greed for those benefits. However, since Allah’s intent is to test people, He generally keeps His prophets in modest conditions so that they may serve as a trial for others.

It is stated in Sahih Muslim (No. 2865): The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said that Allah Almighty has declared, ‘I will test you, and I will test others through you.’

Maulana Maududi writes in the interpretation of this verse:

That is to say, the disbelievers are a trial for the Messenger and the believers, and conversely, the Messenger and the believers are a trial for the disbelievers. The furnace of oppression and ignorant animosity that the disbelievers had heated up is precisely the means by which it will be proved that the Messenger and his true believers are pure gold. On the other hand, for the disbelievers, the Messenger and the companions of the Messenger are a severe trial. An ordinary person being suddenly proclaimed a Prophet among his community, with no army, wealth, or wondrous attribute other than divine revelation and a pure life, and the inclusion of mostly the poor, slaves, and young people among his early followers, and Allah Almighty leaving those few handfuls of people unprotected among wolves, this is the sieve that prevents the wrong kind of people from approaching the faith and only filters through those who recognize the truth and accept righteousness. (Tafheem al-Qur’an 3/444-445)

Al-Bayan states:

That is to say, your humble state is made a trial for them, and their mocking attitude a trial for you. Because of this, they are denying the truth by saying that if this were the religion of God, then the leaders and nobles of Mecca and Taif would have benefited from it, not these impoverished Muslims. (3/472)

8. Argument Based on People's Reactions

The physical aspects of the journey of Isra and Mi‘raj have also been inferred from the reaction of the people. This inference is based on some narratives in the hadith and history of the Prophetic biography. These describe that the day after the event of Isra, when the Prophet (PBUH) informed the people about it, the Quraysh disbelievers denied it, and many Muslims turned apostate. According to scholars, this incident of denial and apostasy is evidence that the journey was incredibly astonishing and seemingly unbelievable. Hence, believing it to be physical is necessary.

The rationale is that if the journey had been merely spiritual, and the Prophet (PBUH) had presented it as something that had happened in a dream, then neither would the disbelievers have rejected it, nor would some Muslims have decided to leave Islam. Everyone would have accepted it as a common human dream. Their denial proves that the event occurred physically while awake. For them, it was intellectually impossible to believe that a journey of two to three months could be completed in one night. In Tafsir Ibn Kathir, it is stated:

(The physical nature of the Isra event is evidenced by the use of the words of tasbih). Declaring the purity and transcendence of Allah necessarily implies that what follows is something immensely grand and significant. However, if this journey is interpreted as a mere dream, it cannot be regarded as a great and extraordinary event (and thus does not align with the use of the words of tasbih). In such a case, neither would the disbelievers of Quraysh have hastened to reject the Prophet (PBUH), nor would a group of those who had embraced Islam have reverted to disbelief. (5/40)

In Tafsir Al-Qurtubi, regarding the phrase Fitnatan lilnās from verse 60 of Surah Al-Isra, it is written:

Fitnah refers to the apostasy of those who had already accepted Islam. This occurred when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) informed them that he had been taken to (Masjid Al-Aqsa). This event has also been interpreted as a dream seen during sleep. However, this verse refutes the validity of such an interpretation. The reason is that a statement of this nature made in the context of a dream does not become a trial or test (fitnah), nor does anyone deny it upon hearing it. (5/282)

Regardless of the authenticity or inauthenticity of the narratives related to this topic, the aforementioned reasoning and method of reasoning are both unfounded. The underlying assumption, whether consciously or unconsciously held, is that for the audience of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the decision to embrace Islam, remain steadfast in it, or to opt for disbelief was heavily influenced by supernatural occurrences and sensory miracles. This notion is rebutted by the Noble Qur’an. In the verses of Surah Al-Isra, Allah the Exalted recounts the demands of the disbelievers of Quraysh for miracles beyond the ordinary and has addressed these demands by instructing the Prophet (PBUH) to tell the Quraysh, ‘Am I anything but a man sent as a God’s messenger?’ Javed Ahmed Ghamidi interprets this to mean:

(To those making such demands, say:) ‘When did I claim to be God? When did I ever say that I have power over everything? When did I declare that the heavens and the earth are in my grasp and that I can do with them as I will? From the very beginning, I have only said this much: that I am a human being, and God has sent me as His Messenger. Tell me, what connection does your making such demands have with what I have said? All these are deeds of God, and I have never made any such claim.’ (Al-Bayan 3/109)

The relevant verses are as follow:

وَلَقَدْ صَرَّفْنَا لِلنَّاسِ فِيْ هٰذَا الْقُرْاٰنِ مِنْ كُلِّ مَثَلٍﵟ فَاَبٰ٘ي اَكْثَرُ النَّاسِ اِلَّا كُفُوْرًا . وَقَالُوْا لَنْ نُّؤْمِنَ لَكَ حَتّٰي تَفْجُرَ لَنَا مِنَ الْاَرْضِ يَنْۣبُوْعًا . اَوْ تَكُوْنَ لَكَ جَنَّةٌ مِّنْ نَّخِيْلٍ وَّعِنَبٍ فَتُفَجِّرَ الْاَنْهٰرَ خِلٰلَهَا تَفْجِيْرًا .

اَوْ تُسْقِطَ السَّمَآءَ كَمَا زَعَمْتَ عَلَيْنَا كِسَفًا اَوْ تَاْتِيَ بِاللّٰهِ وَالْمَلٰٓئِكَةِ قَبِيْلًا . اَوْ يَكُوْنَ لَكَ بَيْتٌ مِّنْ زُخْرُفٍ اَوْ تَرْقٰي فِي السَّمَآءِﵧ وَلَنْ نُّؤْمِنَ لِرُقِيِّكَ حَتّٰي تُنَزِّلَ عَلَيْنَا كِتٰبًا نَّقْرَؤُهٗﵧ قُلْ سُبْحَانَ رَبِّيْ هَلْ كُنْتُ اِلَّا بَشَرًا رَّسُوْلًا.

وَمَا مَنَعَ النَّاسَ اَنْ يُّؤْمِنُوْ٘ا اِذْ جَآءَهُمُ الْهُدٰ٘ي اِلَّا٘ اَنْ قَالُوْ٘ا اَبَعَثَ اللّٰهُ بَشَرًا رَّسُوْلًا. قُلْ لَّوْ كَانَ فِي الْاَرْضِ مَلٰٓئِكَةٌ يَّمْشُوْنَ مُطْمَئِنِّيْنَ لَنَزَّلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ مِّنَ السَّمَآءِ مَلَكًا رَّسُوْلًا. قُلْ كَفٰي بِاللّٰهِ شَهِيْدًاۣ بَيْنِيْ وَبَيْنَكُمْﵧ اِنَّهٗ كَانَ بِعِبَادِهٖ خَبِيْرًاۣ بَصِيْرًا .

We have mentioned in this Qur’an various words of wisdom for people in different ways. Even then most people are adamant on denying. They have said: ‘We shall not believe in you unless you make a spring gush from the earth or an orchard of dates or grapes is produced for you; then unless you make many canals run through it. Or unless, as you say, you make the sky fall upon us in pieces or unless you bring God and His angels to stand before us, or you not have a house of gold or you not climb to the sky [right before our eyes]. And We shall not even believe in your climbing unless you reveal a book to us [from there] that we can read’ – Tell them: Exalted is my Lord. Am I someone else besides a human being whom the Almighty has sent as a messenger? When guidance came to them, the only thing that stopped these people from accepting faith was that they said: ‘Has God sent a human being as a messenger?’ Tell them: Had there been angels on the earth walking about calmly, We would have sent down from the heavens an angel as a messenger to them.

Say: Sufficient is God between you and me as a witness. Undoubtedly, He knows His servants; He is watching them. (17:89-96)

The relevant verses clearly convey that the disbelievers of Quraysh demanded the following types of miracles from the Prophet (PBUH):

• To cause a spring to gush forth from the earth all of a sudden.
• To conjure a lush garden of date palms and grapevines, with rivers running through it, out of thin air.
• To break the sky apart and make it collapse upon us, as they alleged.
• For Allah and His angels to descend and show themselves to them.
• To erect a castle of gold for himself.
• To ascend to the sky and return with a scripture.

Allah could have undoubtedly realized these demands as they were posed and could have shown them through His messenger (PBUH). But rather, He directed His prophet to inform them that he is simply a human who lacks the capabilities to perform such marvels. Imam Amin Ahsan Islahi comments:

In answer to all such demands was the command: Qul subhāna rabbī hal kuntu illā basharan rasūlā, ‘Say, My Lord is glorified and free from imperfection; am I anything but a human messenger?’ It means that I have not claimed to be God or to share in God’s sovereignty for you to make such considerations of me. My Lord is exalted and free from such affiliations. I am nothing but a man and a messenger of God. My role as a messenger is to deliver God’s revelation to you. It is not within my power to perform even one of these feats. (Tadabbur-e-Qur’an 4/542)

Additionally, verse 60 of Surah Al-Isra indicates that Allah did not intend in the final prophecy to use miracles and extraordinary signs as a means of warning and instilling fear as was done with certain previous prophets. This is elaborated upon in the following verse from Surah Al-Isra:

وَمَا مَنَعَنَا٘ اَنْ نُّرْسِلَ بِالْاٰيٰتِ اِلَّا٘ اَنْ كَذَّبَ بِهَا الْاَوَّلُوْنَﵧ وَاٰتَيْنَا ثَمُوْدَ النَّاقَةَ مُبْصِرَةً فَظَلَمُوْا بِهَاﵧ وَمَا نُرْسِلُ بِالْاٰيٰتِ اِلَّا تَخْوِيْفًا .

What has stopped Us from sending signs of punishment is that the earlier generations had denied them. We had given the Thamūd a she-camel [in a similar way] as an eye-opening sign but they were unjust to themselves and denied it. [What then is the use to send signs?] We only send signs to frighten [people before punishing them]. (17:59)

The interpretation provided in Al-Bayan states:

It means that when people do not regard (God’s signs) with awe but grow even more obstinate and dismiss them, what purpose do these signs serve in being sent? Experience has shown that to warn or to intimidate such obstinate individuals is futile. They are only liable to be influenced by the actual infliction of punishment. (3/94)

This explanation makes it entirely clear that the Qur’an’s stance is that the nature of miracles, their occurrence, and the reactions or demands of the direct recipients of prophethood have no intrinsic connection with one another. Therefore, relating these aspects to one another or attempting to understand them in interrelation is incorrect.

Following this, let us now examine the accounts provided in the relevant narrations. As for what has been recorded in the Sahihain (Bukhari and Sahih Muslim), there is no ambiguity in those reports.

The narration in Bukhari is:

قال ابو سلمة: سمعت جابر بن عبد اللّٰه رضي اللّٰه عنهما، قال: سمعت النبي صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم يقول: لما كذبتني قريش قمت في الحجر، فجلى اللّٰه لي بيت المقدس، فطفقت اخبرهم عن آياته وانا انظر إليه.

Abu Salamah narrates that he heard from Jabir bin Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him), who reported from the Prophet (PBUH), that he said: ‘When the Quraysh rejected me regarding the matter of Isra, I was standing at the Hijr (the area near the Kaaba). Allah brought Bayt al-Maqdis before me, and I began describing its signs to them as I looked at it.’ (No. 4710)

And in Muslim:

عن ابي هريرة، قال: قال رسول اللّٰه صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم: لقد رايتني في الحجر، وقريش تسالني عن مسراي، فسالتني عن اشياء من بيت المقدس لم اثبتها. فكربت كربةً ما كربت مثله قط، قال: فرفعه اللّٰه لي انظر إليه ما يسالوني عن شيء، إلا انباتهم به.

Abu Huraira (RA) narrated that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: ‘I saw that I was in the Hijr (the area near the Kaaba), and the Quraysh were questioning me about my journey. They asked me about various things concerning Bayt al-Maqdis, but I was unable to answer them. This caused me such distress as I had never experienced before. Then Allah lifted Bayt al-Maqdis before me, and I began to look at it. I described to them whatever they asked about.’ (No. 448)

The narrations only describe the reaction of the disbelievers from Quraysh; there is no record of Muslims turning apostate. The reports that do speak of apostasy do not fulfill the criteria for authenticity as per scholars and specialists in hadith. Hence, the majority of the knowledgeable companions rejected these accounts. Maulana Syed Sulaiman Nadvi has thoroughly and respectfully analyzed these issues in Seerat-un-Nabi. He suggests that certain narratives lack proper chains of transmission (isnad), and among the narrators are those known for storytelling and dishonesty. After discussing the incident cited in the collections of Bukhari and Muslim, he comments:

The story has been documented to this point in the Sahihain (Bukhari and Muslim). However, relating to this event, narrators like Waqidi, Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Jarir Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, Bayhaqi, and Hakim, who are not considered authoritative in the tradition literature, have added peculiar annotations. A report from Umm Hani indicates that in the morning, after telling his family about the night’s experience, the Prophet planned to share it with others, but she grabbed his clothing and said, ‘Do not pursue this, for the disbelievers will categorically deny it.’ Another account states when the Prophet wasn’t found in his bed at night, his family worried the Quraysh might have hurt him and searched for him in mountains and caves. There is also an account of the Prophet, during his return from the Mi‘raj, encountering a Quraysh caravan and subsequent interactions. When the event was denied by the people, the Prophet remarked, ‘Alright, your caravan will arrive the day after tomorrow; you can ask them.’ Accordingly, when the caravan arrived, they confirmed the Prophet’s words. Among these accounts, one states that some disbelievers approached Abu Bakr Siddiq, informing him that Muhammad was proclaiming in the Kaaba about his night journey to Jerusalem and back. Abu Bakr Siddiq inquired if Muhammad had indeed stated this, and upon confirmation, he stated, ‘Then I deem him truthful; I believe in it.’ The disbelievers questioned, ‘How do you believe such an improbable tale?’ He responded, ‘I believe in things more extraordinary than this – that he receives revelations from angels every day.’ Following this, Abu Bakr was known by the title as-Siddiq (The Truthful).

Nevertheless, all these anecdotes are considered utterly frivolous and baseless. Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Saad didn’t provide any chains of narration for these events. In contrast, narrators like Ibn Jarir Tabari, Bayhaqi, Ibn Abi Hatim, Abu Ya‘la, Ibn Asakir, and Hakim did provide chains for their stories. Among their narrators are individuals such as Abu Ja‘far al-Razi, Abu Harun al-‘Abdi, and Khalid ibn Yazid ibn Abi Malik. The first, despite being considered reliable, has a reputation for reporting unfounded hadiths, while the others are notorious for their deception and storytelling.

The final strand of these dubious narratives is the claim that many Muslims had their faith shattered and apostatized upon hearing the Prophet’s description of the Mi‘raj incident. ‘Many who had embraced faith turned away’ (Seerat Ibn Hisham 1/241). This narrative likely sprang from a misguided interpretation of the Qur’anic verse: Wa mā Ja‘alnā al-ru’yā allatī araynāka illā Fitnatan lilnās (Al-Isra 60), which implies, ‘The vision We showed you was only a test for the people.’

Ibn Sa‘d and Waqidi have narrated this account without any chain of transmission. Historians such as Tabari, Ibn Abi Hatim, Bayhaqi, and others have cited it referencing the same three associates whose virtues we have recounted earlier. In his commentary on this particular verse, Ibn Jarir has relayed anecdotes from Hasan, Qatada, and Ibn Zaid concerning the defection, but these accounts don’t trace back beyond these individuals. The compelling argument against the occurrence of this event lies in the fact that at that time in Mecca, there were only a limited number of companions who had embraced Islam, each known by name. Not one of them has the stain of renouncing Islam. It is possible that among those who previously did not exhibit intense hostility towards the Prophet—even if they did not acknowledge him as the Messenger, they did not accuse him of being untruthful or fabricating lies. However, following the event of the Isra and Mi‘raj, they could have forsaken even their favorable inclination and trust towards him. The Holy Qur’an refers to this as ‘Fitnatan lilnās’ (a trial for mankind), not ‘Fitnatan lilmu’mineen’ (a trial for the believers or Muslims). Moreover, even if it was a test for the faithful, nothing within this verse indicates that they failed to endure it.

The Concept of Seeing Allah Almighty

The expressions from Surah Al-Najm, Thumma Danā Fatadallā Fa-kāna qāba qawsayni aw adnā, and the text from the hadith of the Isra and Mi‘raj, Wa Danā Lil Jabbāri Rabbil Izzati, Fatadallā, Hattā Kāna Minhu Qāba Qawsayni Aw Adnā are understood to be depicting the vision of the Almighty. The relevant passages regarding this divine vision from the Surah and the hadith are as follows:

وَالنَّجْمِ اِذَا هَوٰي. مَا ضَلَّ صَاحِبُكُمْ وَمَا غَوٰي. وَمَا يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوٰي. اِنْ هُوَ اِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُّوْحٰي. عَلَّمَهٗ شَدِيْدُ الْقُوٰي. ذُوْ مِرَّةٍ فَاسْتَوٰي. وَهُوَ بِالْاُفُقِ الْاَعْلٰي. ثُمَّ دَنَا فَتَدَلّٰي. فَكَانَ قَابَ قَوْسَيْنِ اَوْ اَدْنٰي. فَاَوْحٰي اِلٰي عَبْدِهٖ مَا اَوْحٰي. مَا كَذَبَ الْفُؤَادُ مَا رَاٰي. اَفَتُمٰرُوْنَهٗ عَلٰي مَا يَرٰي.

The stars, when they fall, bear witness that your companion is neither lost nor has he gone astray. He does not speak out of his own fancy. This [Qur’an] is but a revelation sent down to him. He has been taught by one mighty in power, towering in character and endued with wisdom. Thus, he appeared such that he was on the higher horizon. Then he drew near and bent down until he was within two bows’ length or even closer. God then revealed to His servant that which He revealed. Whatever he saw was not his heart’s delusion. Then will you now quarrel with him over what he is seeing with his eyes? (53:1-12)

ثم علا به فوق ذلك بما لا يعلمه إلا اللّٰه، حتى جاء سدرة المنتهى، ودنا للجبار رب العزة، فتدظلى، حتى كان منه قاب قوسين او ادنى، فاوحى اللّٰه فيما اوحى إليه خمسين صلاةً على امتك كل يوم وليلة.

Then Gabriel (AS) took the Prophet (PBUH) beyond even the seventh heaven, to those exalted heights that only Allah knows. Until the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) reached Sidrat al-Muntaha. Then Allah, the Lord of Glory and Majesty, descended and came near to him, so much so that there remained a distance of two bow-lengths or even closer. Then Allah conveyed His revelation to the Prophet (PBUH), in which fifty prayers were enjoined upon him to be performed every day and night, which were made obligatory upon your Ummah. (Sahih Bukhari, No. 7517)

There are two principal views among scholars regarding the interpretation of seeing the Almighty.

One school of thought maintains that it is incorrect to assert the possibility of a visionary encounter with the Divine in relation to the Prophet (PBUH). Asserting such contradicts Qur’anic verses and hadiths that negate the potentiality of seeing Allah Almighty. Consequently, they contend that the mentioned segment of Surah Al-Najm pertains to the sight of Gabriel (AS). In terms of the tradition which expounds on Allah Almighty’s appearance explicitly, some from this group outright dismiss this section of the tradition, while others reject the entire tradition.

Syed Abul A'la Maududi has elaborated on this viewpoint extensively. The following excerpts are from his exegesis of Surah Al-Najm in Tafheem al-Qur’an:

Some interpret ‘mighty in power’ to refer directly to Allah Almighty, but the vast consensus among exegetes identifies it as Gabriel (AS). This view is reported from Abdullah ibn Mas‘ud, Aisha, Abu Huraira (may Allah be content with them), Qatada, Mujahid, and Rabe’ ibn Anas. Ibn Jarir, Ibn Kathir, Razi, Alusi and others have also upheld this interpretation. Prominent scholars such as Shah Waliullah and Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi have echoed this stance in their translations. The most sensible deduction, indeed, aligns with other explicit statements found within the Holy Qur’an itself. …

This particular verse details the second encounter between Gabriel (AS) and the Prophet (PBUH), during which Gabriel manifested in his true form. The encounter site is pinpointed as ‘Sidrat al-Muntaha,’ and it is denoted that ‘Jannat al-Mawa’ is situated adjacent to it. …

The verse concludes that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) did not behold Allah Almighty but instead His sublime signs. As the context suggests, this second meeting is with the same entity as the first encounter. Therefore, it is essential to accept that the figure the Prophet witnessed on the utmost horizon initially wasn’t Allah, and the one seen near the Sidrat al-Muntaha subsequently wasn’t Allah either. If the Prophet had beheld Allah Almighty at any point, it would have constituted an incident of such magnitude that it would undoubtedly have been distinctly conveyed here. …

For these reasons, it would seem that there should be no room for debate over whether the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saw Allah Almighty on these two occasions or whether he saw Gabriel (AS). However, the reason this discussion arose is the presence of differing reports in the narrations of Hadith on this matter. …

A report from Anas bin Malik (RA), which Imam Bukhari has included in the book of Tawheed regarding the incident of Mi‘raj and attributed to Shareek bin Abdullah, encounters a significant objection because it contradicts the Qur’an explicitly. This is because the Qur’an details two separate events of vision, one that initially occurred at the highest horizon and then the ‘Dana Fatadallā Fa Kana Qāba Qawsayni Aw Adna’ episode, and the other happened near Sidrat al-Muntaha. But this report conflates these two events into a single vision. Therefore, since it contradicts the Qur’an, it is unacceptable. (5/195-205)

Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf has gathered the statements of scholars who believe that Allah Almighty was not seen (by the Prophet during the Mi‘raj) in his book Waqia-e-Mi‘raj aur Uske Mushahadat. He writes:

In some narrations, it is reported solely from Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RA) that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saw Allah with his physical eyes. However, on the other hand, it is also reported from Ibn Abbas (RA) that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saw Allah with his heart. …Thus, both types of narrations—seeing with the eyes and seeing with the heart—are transmitted from Ibn Abbas (RA). For this reason, Hafiz Ibn Kathir states:

‘The narration of absolute vision from Ibn Abbas (RA) should be interpreted in light of the report specifying vision with the heart, and whoever has conveyed from him about seeing with eyes has said something very odd because such a thing is not substantiated from the companions.’

Contemporary scholar, Nasir al-Din Albani says:

‘Regardless, the interpretation of verses of Al-Najm related to the vision of Allah Almighty by Hazrat Ibn Abbas (RA) is affirmed, but the interpretation we mentioned earlier from Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), narrated by Aisha (RA), is preferable. Therefore, it is compulsory to accept the marfu (statement of the Prophet) over the mawqoof (statement of a companion).’

Hafiz Ibn Hajar also notes:

‘General narrations concerning vision from Ibn Abbas (RA) and specific ones about vision with the heart exist. So, the general should be interpreted in the light of the specific.’

In summation, from this discussion, it is evident that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) neither saw Allah nor spoke directly to Him on the night of Mi‘raj, nor did he experience the ‘approach and drawing near’ with Allah, which some have suggested in their explanation of the verses from Surah Al-Najm.’ (75-77, 84)

Esteemed scholars from the other viewpoint reconcile the words of Surah Al-Najm Thumma Danā Fatadallā Fa-kāna qāba qawsayni aw adnā (Then he approached and drew closer, until he was at a distance of two bow’s length or even closer) and the specific statement found in the narrations that says Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) saw Allah. They support their belief by citing other narrations that explicitly mention seeing Allah. They believe not just in the divine vision, but also interpret the Qur’anic verses Lā Tudrikuhu al-Absār and Wa Mā Kāna Li-Basharin An Yukallimahu Allahu Illā Wahyan Aw Min Warā’i Hijāb through the lens of these hadiths.

Pir Karam Shah Al-Azhari documented the positions of scholars who advocate the vision of Allah Almighty in his exegesis Zia ul Qur’an. His summary is as such:

The summary of the discussion is expressed by Allama Nawawi in these words:

‘The conclusion of the matter is that, according to the majority of scholars, the preferred opinion is that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saw Allah Almighty with the eyes of his head during the Night of Ascension, and there is no room for doubt in this.’

Allama Syed Mahmood Alusi Baghdadi, after completing the interpretation and explanation of these verses, expresses his personal opinion about the vision of Allah as follows:

‘I say that the Leader of the Worlds (PBUH) was blessed with the vision of his Noble Lord and was granted closeness to Allah. However, it was in a manner befitting His majestic grandeur.’ (Ruh al-Ma‘ani)

When Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal was asked whether the Prophet (PBUH) had seen his Lord, he would reply: ‘Yes, the Prophet (PBUH) saw Allah Almighty, yes, the Prophet (PBUH) saw Allah Almighty.’ He would repeat this statement so many times that he would become breathless. (Ruh al-Ma‘ani)

Mawlana Syed Anwar Shah, after an elaborate discussion on this matter, writes:

The Prophet (PBUH) was honored with the vision of Allah. Allah Almighty granted him this eternal blessing and dignified him with His grace and favor. Thus, the Prophet (PBUH) saw Allah, the Prophet (PBUH) saw Allah, as Imam Ahmad has said. However, this vision was such as a beloved sees his beloved—not being able to close his eyes, nor having the strength to gaze fixedly at the face of the Beloved. This is the meaning of Allah’s statement: ‘The sight did not swerve, nor did it transgress.’ (Fayd al-Bari, Sharh Fath al-Bari)

Sheikh Abdul Haq Muhaddith Dehlvi, while investigating this issue in the fourth volume of Ashiat-ul-Lam‘at, preferred the same opinion that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) was honored with the vision of Allah Almighty. (5/23-24)

In summary, there has been a difference of opinion regarding the sighting of the Divine from the time of the Companions until the present day. One group affirms that the Prophet (PBUH) saw Allah, and another denies it.

In the view of the respected teacher, Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, according to the Qur’an and hadith, both of these viewpoints are incorrect. Behind both lies the same mistake, which is their refusal to accept the events of Isra and Mi‘raj as a dream (ru’ya). This refusal contradicts the clear meanings of Verse 60 of Surah Al-Isra, and the explicit words of the hadith in Sahih Bukhari. Both of these sources clearly establish that the event of Mi‘raj took place not in a state of wakefulness, but in sleep and in the form of a visionary experience. Surah Al-Isra mentions:

…وَمَا جَعَلْنَا الرُّءْيَا الَّتِيْ اَرَيْنٰكَ اِلَّا فِتْنَةً لِّلنَّاسِ…

…The dream We showed you We made it a trial too for these people…

And the beginning and ending words of the Hadith are:

حتى اتوه ليلةً اخرى فيما يرى قلبه، وتنام عينه، ولا ينام قلبه، وكذلك الانبياء تنام اعينهم ولا تنام قلوبهم.

واستيقظ وهو في مسجد الحرام.

Until one other night, they (once again) came. At that time, the state of the Prophet (PBUH) was such that his eyes were asleep, but his heart was not. This is the way with messengers: (even when in a state of sleep,) their eyes may sleep, but their hearts do not.

After this, when the Prophet (PBUH) woke up, he was in Masjid al-Haram.

Therefore, according to Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, it is entirely plausible that during the event of Mi‘raj, the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) was granted the honor of beholding Allah Almighty. This is also supported by some other narratives suggesting that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) had the privilege of beholding Allah in a dream state. In Tirmidhi it is stated:

عن معاذ بن جبل رضي اللّٰه عنه، قال: احتبس عنا رسول اللّٰه صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم ذات غداة عن صلاة الصبح حتى كدنا نتراءى عين الشمس، فخرج سريعًا فثوب بالصلاة فصلى رسول اللّٰه صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم وتجوز في صلاته، فلما سلم دعا بصوته، فقال لنا: على مصافكم كما انتم. ثم انفتل إلينا، ثم قال: اما إني ساحدثكم ما حبسني عنكم الغداة اني قمت من الليل فتوضات وصليت ما قدر لي، فنعست في صلاتي حتى استثقلت فإذا انا بربي تبارك وتعالٰى في احسن صورة. فقال: يا محمد، قلت: لبيك رب، قال: فيم يختصم الملا الاعلى؟ قلت: لا ادري، قالها ثلاثًا، قال: فرايته وضع كفه بين كتفي حتى وجدت برد انامله بين ثديي، فتجلى لي كل شيء وعرفت.

Mu‘adh bin Jabal (RA) narrates that one morning the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) delayed leading us in the Fajr prayer. (That is, he did not come, and we refrained from praying while waiting for him.) It was nearly time for us to see the sun (meaning the time of sunrise was very near). Then the Prophet (PBUH) quickly returned and called the people for prayer. He led the prayer and kept it brief. After completing the prayer, he called out to the people and said, ‘Sit in your places.’

Then he turned toward us and said, ‘I want to tell you what held me back this morning. I woke up during the night, performed ablution, and offered the Tahajjud prayer—just as much as was destined for me. Then, while I was still in prayer, I dozed off, and soon I fell into a deep sleep. All of a sudden, I saw myself in the presence of my Lord, and He was in the best form.’

He said, ‘O Muhammad!’ I replied, ‘My Lord, I am present.’ He said, ‘Do you know what the angels of the higher assembly are discussing?’ I replied, ‘I do not know.’ Allah asked this question three times. Then the Prophet (PBUH) said, ‘I saw Allah. He placed His hand between my shoulders, and I felt the coolness of His fingers in my chest. With that, everything became illuminated before me, and I came to know (everything).’ (No. 3235)

Since the narrative of Mi‘raj explicitly mentions that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) observed the Divine being in a dream state, it cannot contradict the texts of the Holy Qur’an which reject the possibility of visual sighting of the Divine. Furthermore, by interpreting the observations of Isra and Mi‘raj as visions, in accordance with the explicit words of the Qur’an and Hadith, the following hadith of Aisha (RA), is also completely clarified, and it resolves any perceived contradictions between the narratives of Divine vision:

عن مسروق، قال: كنت متكئًا عند عائشة، فقالت: يا ابا عائشة، ثلاث من تكلم بواحدة منهن، فقد اعظم على اللّٰه الفرية، قلت: ما هن؟ قالت: من زعم ان محمدًا صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم راى ربه، فقد اعظم على اللّٰه الفرية. قال: وكنت متكئًا فجلست، فقلت: يا ام المؤمنين، انظريني ولا تعجليني، الم يقل اللّٰه عز و جل: وَلَقَدْ رَاٰهُ بِالْاُفُقِ الْمُبِيْنِ⁶⁴ وَلَقَدْ رَاٰهُ نَزْلَةً اُخْرٰي. ⁶⁵ فقالت: انا اول هذه الامة، سال عن ذلك رسول اللّٰه صلى اللّٰه عليه وسلم، فقال: إنما هو جبريل، لم اره على صورته التي خلق عليها، غير هاتين المرتين، رايته منهبطًا من السماء، سادًا عظم خلقه ما بين السماء إلى الارض. فقالت: اولم تسمع ان اللّٰه يقول: لَا تُدْرِكُهُ الْاَبْصَارُﵟ وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الْاَبْصَارَﵐ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيْفُ الْخَبِيْرُ⁶⁶ اولم تسمع ان اللّٰه يقول: وَمَا كَانَ لِبَشَرٍ اَنْ يُّكَلِّمَهُ اللّٰهُ اِلَّا وَحْيًا اَوْ مِنْ وَّرَآئِ حِجَابٍ اَوْ يُرْسِلَ رَسُوْلًا فَيُوْحِيَ بِاِذْنِهٖ مَا يَشَآءُ. ⁶⁷

Masrooq narrates that I was sitting, reclining on a cushion, at the house of Aisha (RA). Aisha said, ‘O Abu Aisha (this was Masrooq’s kunya), ‘There are three things, and whoever claims any of them has fabricated a great lie against Allah.’ I asked, ‘What are those three things?’ She said, ‘(One of them is) that someone thinks Muhammad (PBUH) saw his Lord. Such a person has fabricated a great lie against Allah.’

Masrooq said, I was reclining (semi-lying down), and upon hearing this, I immediately sat up. Then I said, ‘O Mother of the Believers, please wait and do not rush. Did Allah not say: ‘And indeed, he saw him at the clear horizon’ and ‘And he certainly saw him in another descent’?

Aisha (RA) replied, ‘I was the first in this Ummah to ask the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) about these verses.’ The Prophet (PBUH) said, ‘It was Gabriel (mentioned in these verses). I saw him in his original form only on these two occasions. I saw him descending from the heavens, and his vast form filled the space from the heavens to the earth.’

Then Aisha (RA) said, Have you not heard that Allah says: ‘Vision perceives Him not, but He perceives [all] vision; and He is the Subtle, the Acquainted’, and ‘It is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation, or from behind a veil, or by sending a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills’?

Summary of Discussions

The Traditional Position

The key points of our traditional position are as follows:

• The incident of Isra and Mi‘raj has been mentioned in both the Holy Qur’an and the hadiths. The Qur’an mentions it in summary, and the Hadiths in detail. The event is referred in Surah Al-Isra and Surah Najm of the Qur’an. The event has been reported through about 25 different chains and is quoted in most books of hadith, including Bukhari and Muslim.
• By connecting the relevant parts of the Qur’an and hadith, the picture that emerges suggests that it is more plausible to regard it as an event that took place on a single occasion. This journey is likely to have begun at night from Masjid al-Haram, proceeded to Masjid Al-Aqsa, and from there, on to the highest heaven, where it was completed.
• The Prophet (PBUH) experienced this event in a state of wakefulness, and he observed the Divine signs (ayat) both with his physical eye and with the eye of his heart.
• Indeed, there is no explicit description in the Qur’an and hadith of the Ascension (Mi‘raj) and the journey being a physical experience in a state of wakefulness. However, the linguistic expressions used in both the Qur’an and Hadith suggest the physical nature of the event and that it took place while the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was awake.
• Although the Holy Qur’an mentions this incident as a ru’ya, commonly understood as a dream, it is not appropriate to interpret this journey solely as a spiritual experience or a vision. This is due to several reasons:
• The word ru’ya is mostly used in the sense of a dream. However, it is not exclusive to this meaning. It is also used in the sense of seeing with open eyes. The evidence for this is that renowned Arabic poets like Al-Mutanabbi and Al-Ra’i have used this word in their poetry to mean seeing in a state of wakefulness.
• The statement of Abdullah ibn Abbas (RA) is that in Surah Al-Isra, the word ru’ya refers to ru’yatu ‘ayn —that is, seeing with the eyes
• In verse 1 of Surah Al-Isra, before narrating this incident, the word Subhān (Glory be to Him) is used. This linguistic style necessitates that an extraordinary event is mentioned afterward that highlights Allah’s power. This manifestation of Allah’s power becomes evident when a journey that would take forty days is completed within a few moments of the night.
• In verse 1 of Surah Al-Isra, the words Alladhī asra bi ’abdihi (Who took His servant by night) are used. The word asra means ‘to take someone along,’ which is an act that can only be performed with a physical being. Thus, it cannot be applied to a dream.
• In Alladhī Asra bi ’abdihi, the word abd (servant) cannot be applied to the soul alone because abd refers to a combination of both body and soul. Therefore, the use of this word necessitates that the reference here is to a physical being, which is a composite of body and soul.
• In Surah Al-Isra, verse 60, this event is referred to with the words Fitnatan Lilnās (a trial for the people). This means that this event was made a test for the people. A trial or test, evidently, can only be caused by something extraordinary. Even the greatest event seen in a dream is not considered extraordinary. Thus, it is impossible that the Prophet (PBUH) narrated a dream, and it became a trial for the people. This trial could only occur if the event was considered a physical occurrence.
• It is narrated in hadiths that when the account of this event was shared, people refused to believe it. The disbelievers mocked it, and some Muslims even apostatized. This reaction of the people proves that it was considered a physical journey because if it had been a dream, it would have been considered a normal occurrence and ignored. Neither would the deniers have rejected it, nor would it have led to Muslims turning away from Islam.

The Position of Javed Ahmed Ghamidi

Javed Ahmed Ghamidi presents the following key points:

• The details presented under the title of Isra and Mi‘raj are not about a single event but rather four distinct events. Among these⁶⁸:
• The first is the Event of Isra, which is mentioned in Surah Al-Isra. This occurred in the realm of a dream.
• The second is the Event of Sidra, mentioned in Surah Al-Najm, verses 1 to 12. This occurred in the state of wakefulness.
• The third is the Event of Qāba Qawsayn, which is also recorded in Surah Al-Najm, verses 13 to 18. This too occurred in the state of wakefulness.
• The fourth is the Event of Mi‘raj, which is narrated in Sahih Bukhari, Hadith No. 7517, and some other reports. This occurred in the realm of a dream.
• The separation of these events is evident as they are depicted individually in the Qur’an and hadith and not presented as a single consolidated event.
• All four events are divine in origin and should be viewed as signs from Allah. Their very nature is linked to revelation and inspiration, and the information and experiences described are related to the prophetic mission of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). They should be interpreted and understood within this framework.
• Was the event of Isra physical or spiritual? On this matter, the word al-ru’ya in Surah Al-Isra, verse 60, holds the status of decisive textual evidence. This means that Allah has not left this matter ambiguous but has explicitly clarified that this event occurred in the realm of dream. Hence, it is necessary to understand the words Subhān, Asra, and Abd in the light of al-ru’ya.
• Al-ru’ya is an exceedingly well-known word in the Arabic language. In Arabic, it is used in the sense of seeing in sleep just as we use ‘Dream’ in English, ‘Sapna’ in Hindi, and ‘Khwaab’ in Urdu. In the realm of poetry and literature, the meaning of a dream is conveyed using the same word. This is the meaning recorded in Arabic dictionaries. The word appears around seven hundred times in the hadith, and on every occasion, it has been used in this same sense. Even in the Holy Qur’an, the word appears seven times across various chapters, where it always pertains to a dream. If such is the case with the meaning and understanding of this word, then it is essential that in the aforementioned verse, it must be taken to mean a dream, and consequently, the journey of Isra should be understood as a spiritual journey.
• However, this Ru’ya does not refer to the kind of dream that is part of everyday human experience. Absolutely not. This Ru’ya is a form of divine revelation (Wahi Ilahi) and is exclusive to the prophets. Ordinary humans have no connection with it. Whatever is shown to the prophets in ru’ya is truthful, certain, and based on reality. At times, it is even clearer and more evident than seeing something with one’s own eyes in a state of wakefulness.
• With regard to the meaning and understanding al-Ru’ya, all arguments advanced by traditional reasoning are contrary to the Qur’an, hadith, and the principles of language and expression. The points of refutation are as follows:
• The reference to the poem of Abu Tayyib Al-Mutanabbi regarding the meaning of ru’ya is not reliable for the following reasons:
• Firstly, the verse (of the Qur’an) does not require one to go outside the Qur’an to Arabic poetry to understand its words or style.
• Secondly, there is no commonality in the composition or linguistic style between the verse and the poem. This is because the word ru’ya in the verse is used in its literal sense, whereas Al-Mutanabbi has used it in a figurative sense. It is an established linguistic principle that literal and figurative usages cannot serve as evidence for one another.
• Thirdly, Al-Mutanabbi is not among the poets whose poetry can be cited as evidence to understand the Qur’an. He was a poet of the Abbasid era and belongs to the fourth category of Arabic poets. However, it is a well-established rule that only the poets of the first two categories can be used as examples to understand the language of the Qur’an and Hadith.
• The poem by Al-Ra’i that is cited as evidence also uses the word ru’ya in a figurative sense. Since the word in the Qur’anic verse is used in its literal sense, Al-Ra’i’s poem cannot be presented as an example.
• In the verse under discussion, the word Subhān is not used to highlight Allah’s power, as is commonly thought. Rather, it is used in the context of Allah being All-Hearing and All-Seeing. The verse begins with Subhāna alladhī asra bi ’abdihi laylan mina al-masjidi al-harāmi al-masjidi al- aqsa (Glory be to Him who took His servant by night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque) and ends with innahu huwa samīʿu al-basīr (Indeed, He is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing). This means that the context of Subhān is determined by as-samīʿu al-basīr, and the meaning derived is that Allah is far above any suspicion regarding His attributes of hearing and seeing.
• Scholars argue that the verb asra (to take along) and the noun abd (servant) in alladhī asra bi ’abdihi refer to the combination of body and soul (a physical being), and therefore, the event must have been a physical journey. This argument contradicts established linguistic principles. It is an accepted fact in every language that the same linguistic structures used for wakeful events are also used for dreams. The only difference is that the dream is explicitly mentioned either before or after the statement. In the Qur’an, the dreams of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) (Surah Al-Fath) and Prophet Abraham (PBUH) (Surah Al-Saffat) are described using the same nouns and verbs that are used for wakeful events.
• Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RA) adopted the phrase ru’ya ‘ayn to describe the nature of the Isra event. This does not mean ‘seeing with the eyes,’ as is commonly interpreted. Instead, its meaning refers to a dream seen with the eyes. This indicates that the Prophet (PBUH) observed inner, spiritual scenes through physical sight while awake. This interpretation is not inconsistent with the prophetic observations of the Prophet (PBUH), which are well-known and based on reality. For instance, during a solar eclipse prayer, paradise was presented before the Prophet (PBUH), and he reached forward as if to take a cluster of its fruits. Such events may be described as ru’ya ‘ayn or similar expressions. However, regarding the Isra event, despite acknowledging Abdullah ibn Abbas’s scholarly stature, the term ru’ya ‘ayn cannot be applied here, nor can it be taken as a wakeful event. This is because Allah Himself has described this event as ru’ya (dream). Therefore, interpreting it as ru’yah basari (physical sight) or ru’ya ‘ayn is not permissible. Had the Qur’an not explicitly clarified this, there might have been room to deduce such interpretations based on context and examples.
• The argument that the phrase Fitnatan lilnās (a trial for the people) in the verse necessitates the occurrence of a miraculous event is also incorrect. This reasoning, like the other arguments, is very weak. The fundamental reasons for this are as follows:
• The premise assumes that the disbelievers of Quraysh found such an enigmatic event, either on a human scale or in association with Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), to be unfathomable. This assumption is flawed as their superstitious beliefs led them to attribute supernatural abilities to their ancestors and deities. Consequently, they had fabricated the charge of the Prophet (PBUH) being, God forbid, a sorcerer or soothsayer. Thus, the extraordinary or confounding nature of an event was not a potential source of their bewilderment.
• When Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) recounted the particulars of the Masjid Al-Aqsa to the assembly on the following morning, any reservations held by the disbelieving Quraysh should have dissipated instantly. However, they persisted in their denial of the event, which suggests that the Fitnatan lilnās is disconnected from the event’s supernatural aspect.
• Fundamentally, the argument acknowledges the pretext of the disbelieving Quraysh, which is unsubstantiated by either the verse’s language or the historical narrative. It implies that the disbelievers would not have deemed the event a trial had they observed the Prophet (PBUH) ascending to the heavens. The reality remains that in spite of witnessing numerous miracles, their faith was not awakened.
• The experience and observation that solely the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) had, whether it was in the world of dreams or the state of wakefulness, was only of the status of his own narration to people. Therefore, from this perspective, both states (dream and wakefulness) held the same significance for them.
• In the last sentence of verse 60, Allah Almighty Himself has interpreted the words Fitnatan lilnās. After this, there is no room left for conjecture or presenting far-fetched interpretations. It is said, Wa Nukhawwifuhum Famā Yazīduhum Illā Tugh’yānan Kabīrā (We only frighten them with the consequences, but it only increases them in great rebellion). Meaning, the thing which has caused the trial is not whether the matter is supernatural or not, but the fear of the consequences. The words Nukhawwifuhum stand as the decisive evidence on this.
• Rebutting the clear evidence of language and expression through the reactions of people is wrong, both rationally and traditionally. Hence, historical stories in this matter are not worthy of attention. However, despite this, it should be clear that all the traditions relating to apostasy regarding the event of Isra are considered weak and rejected in the view of Hadith scholars.