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