Regarding the interpretation of the word ru’ya in verse 60 of Surah Al-Isra, the following commentary (athr) 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:
With regards to these three types, there are two confirmed differences between Prophets and ordinary people:
According to Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RA), the third type occurred during the incident of Isra. 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 it.
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 wakefulness.
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.