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 these:
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.