In Appendix 1, most of the narratives from the Sahih books referenced are those that detail the event extensively. In addition to these, there are also shorter narrations that describe the same event partially. Among the mentioned narrations, some texts are brief, while others are more comprehensive. This demonstrates that the narrators transmitted what they understood, what they remembered, and what they considered significant according to their own comprehension, memory, and discretion, using their own words.
However, apart from the narration of Thabit al-Bunani, the remaining narrations show a general level of agreement and consistency. Despite this, differences in the details, diversity in expressions, and variations in the length or brevity of the narrations cannot be denied. Below is a comparative analysis of their contents.
Conclusion: Whether the Prophet (PBUH) was present in Al-Masjid Al-Haram or at home, either scenario is possible. There is a difference in the narrations regarding this detail. However, this difference does not affect the essence of the event. In our view, since the majority of narrations explicitly mention Al-Masjid Al-Haram, this account should be considered closer to reality.
Conclusion: There is no disagreement or contradiction in the narrations regarding this matter. That is, it is not the case that some narrations mention wakefulness while others mention sleep. In this context, if some narrations explicitly state sleep, then it must necessarily be accepted. The reason for this is that it is an established principle of knowledge and reasoning that when an event is transmitted by multiple narrators, its details should be determined by reconciling and analyzing all the narrations together.
Summary: There is no contradiction in any of the aforementioned accounts regarding this matter; thus, there is no reason to reject their authenticity. Furthermore, since the incident occurred within the realm of a dream, it does not lead to any difficulties in comprehension.
Conclusion: The concept of a lightning-speed mount is not implausible. All narratives are harmonious regarding this subject. Therefore, accepting this account is entirely appropriate. Moreover, since the event is portrayed as happening within the realm of a dream, its symbolic interpretation is entirely possible.
Conclusion: From the details and analysis presented in Appendix 1, it is evident that only the narration of Thabit al-Bunani includes the addition of the journey to Masjid Al-Aqsa. The other narrations do not mention this. It is known that the journey to Masjid Al-Aqsa, i.e., the Isra event, is mentioned in the Qur’an as a separate incident, and it does not include the journey to the heavens. Furthermore, even those narrations in which Allah presented Masjid Al-Aqsa as a representation before the Prophet (PBUH) do not mention the heavenly journey. Based on this, it seems most accurate to conclude that the mention of the journey to Masjid Al-Aqsa was inadvertently included by the narrator. It is a separate event and is not directly related to the heavenly journey of Mi‘raj.
Conclusion: There is no disagreement in the hadiths concerning the Prophet Muhammad’s (PBUH) ascension to the celestial realms accompanied by Gabriel (AS). Neither reason nor textual evidence opposes this, and therefore, this account should be accepted as accurate.
Conclusion: The tour through the seven heavens is also consistent with reason and tradition. No conflicting accounts have been reported regarding this. As such, its veracity should be accepted.
Conclusion: We cannot determine the precise nature of the encounters with various prophets in the different heavens. Nonetheless, it should be acknowledged that these were spiritual encounters for two main reasons: firstly, if the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was in a spiritual state during the vision, then the prophets he met would also be in a comparable spiritual state. Secondly, as the prophets are to remain without their physical bodies until the Day of Judgment due to their demise, it seems unlikely that these encounters were corporeal.
Conclusion: In Surah Al-Najm, it is stated that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) witnessed Sidrat al-Muntaha with his own eyes and also saw Gabriel (AS) in that place, while he [the Prophet] was still on Earth. This makes it abundantly clear that Sidrat al-Muntaha is indeed a real entity. However, this incident has no direct relation to the Mi‘raj event as explained in the narrations. Thus, the observation of Sidrat al-Muntaha during Mi‘raj should be regarded as a distinct event. Additionally, the difference lies in the manner of observation; the one in the Qur’an was with open eyes, whereas the one in the hadiths happened in a state of a dream.
Conclusion: It is conveyed in some traditions that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) beheld Allah in the realm of dream, making the occurrence quite credible. Although some Qur’anic verses and traditions dismiss the possibility of seeing Allah with the naked eye, the visionary experiences during Mi‘raj are unrelated to the open-eyed vision, and therefore, do not conflict with Qur’an or hadith.
Conclusion: The act of Salah (prayer) has been a fundamental pillar in the religion of Allah. It is clearly stated in the Qur’an that Allah prescribed Salah to all prophets and their people. In Sunan Abi Dawud, No. 393, there is mention of Gabriel (AS) enlightening Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) about the five daily prayers having been a continual practice. Hence, the most logical conclusion would be that Salah was established from the beginning of the Prophet’s mission, and the realities related to its establishment were presented symbolically during Mi‘raj.