THE JOURNEY OF ISRAA AND MI’RAAJ: MYTHS AND FACTS

Every Muslim who have studied the biography of the Prophet solaa Allahu alayhi wa sallam would have definitely learnt or read about his particular miraculous journey; the one unanimously known as the journey of “al-Israa wal Mi’raaj”. The first verse of Qur’an 17, some verses in Suratu Najm give insight into this incidence. We have grown to see Muslims showing differential opinions about this journey. Some condemned it totally, some explained it away, while some give interesting points to be considered.

In all of these, so far its an essential history in the life of the Prophet and Islam, then it should be intelligently discussed. There are certainly facts about this journey, likewise upon verification, we notice there are some myths being subjected to beliefs by some Muslims.

1: The famous opinion about this journey is that the prophet was taken on the night journey in a physical sense when he was awake, from al-Masjid al-Haraam in Makkah to al-Masjid al-Aqsa in Palestine, riding on an animal called al-Buraaq, in the company of Jibreel alayhi Salaam.

When he got there, he led the Prophets in prayer, and he tied al-Buraaq to the ring of the door of the mosque. This journey is termed the “Israa”.

2: The same famous opinion has it that, then he was taken up from al-Aqsa on that same night to the first heaven, where Jibreel asked for it to be opened and it was opened for them. There he saw Adam, then he was taken up to the second heaven, till he reached the seventh heaven and met some prophets. This journey is termed the “Mi’raaj”.

Kindly note that an opinion being famous does not mean it is automatically the correct opinion. Evidences and facts backing it up will tell if it’s the actual correct opinion. There are many famously held but incorrect opinions.

Let’s subject this above two points into further verification while considering other differing opinions of revered Salaf and scholars.

3: In the book Sharh at-Tahaawiyyah by Ibn Abil ‘Izz, Vol. 1 pg 245, he narrated some other differing opinions of some revered salaf.

It was said that the Israa involved the prophet’s soul only and his body was never absent. This was narrated by Ibn Ishaaq from Aa’ishah and Mu‘aawiyah bn Abi Sufyaan (radiya Allahu anhum), and a similar report was narrated from Hasan al-Basri.

But you should note that there is a difference between saying that the Israa was a dream and saying that it involved his soul but not his body. There is a great difference between these two ideas.

Aa’ishah and Mu’aawiyah did not say that it was a dream; rather they said that his soul was taken by night but his body was not absent. The difference between the two is that what a sleeper sees in his dream may be representations of things that are known in real life. So in a dream it may be as if a person sees himself being taken up to heaven and being taken to Makkah, but his soul did not ascend or go there; rather the malaa’ik of dreams caused him to see a representation of something.

Aa’ishah and Mu‘aawiyah did not mean that the Israa was a dream; what they meant was that the soul itself was taken on the night journey, so it left the body and then returned to it, and they regarded this as something unique to the Prophet because no one else could have the experience of their very soul ascending completely to heaven except after death.

4: Another opinion has it that the Israa occurred twice: once when the prophet was awake and once in a dream.

Similarly, some of them said that it happened twice: once before the revelation began and once after that.

The third opinion here says that it happened three times: once before the revelation began and twice after that.

5: Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani in his Sharh of Saheeh Bukhari, on the particular hadith of Israa and Mi’raaj, he established that there are differences of opinion on the matter. Some Salaf said it occurred at a night while the prophet was awake and this is the famous opinion; and some said both the Israa and Mi’raaj occurred at a night “both” while he was asleep. As another opinion has it that both happened twice in two different nights, one while he was awake, and the other while he was asleep. Another opinion is that the Israa to baytu Maqdis in Palestine is the only physical one while he was awake, while the Mi’raaj to heaven was in his sleep either in that same night or other night.

Ibn Hajar then said:
“That which we shouldn’t drag is that al-Israa to al-Aqsa in Palestine was physical while he was awake for the explicit verse of the Qur’an that denotes on this (Q 17:1), likewise because the Quraish disbelieved him on that; if it had been in his sleep they wouldn’t have disbelieved him even for a farther place..”
“والذي ينبغي أن لا يجري فيه الخلاف أن الإسراء إلى بيت المقدس كان في اليقظة لظاهر القرآن، ولكون قريش كذبته في ذلك ولو كان مناما لم تكذبه فيه ولا في أبعد منه،…”

6: This famous hadith of Israa and Mi’raaj from the prophet was reported by some group of Sahabah but the route of the hadith in both Saheeh Bukhari and Muslim circulates on Anas bn Maalik (radiya Allahu anhu) with his companions disagreeing with him.

Az-Zuhri also reported the hadith from Anas from Abu Dharr, and Qataadah as well reported it from Anas from Maalik bn Sa’sa’ah, and Sharik bn Abi Nimr and Thaabit al-Banaaniy all reported it from Anas from the prophet without any third party in between. And in the context of each of these narrators there are wordings that cannot be found from another.

This is established by Ibn Hajar as well.

7: Al-Haafiz al-‘Ayniyy also established in his Sharh of the hadith of Mi’raaj in the book عمدة القاري that the Salaf differed on Al-Israa and Mi’raaj – did both occur in a night or in two different nights? Are both while he was awake or in his sleep? Or it’s one that is awake while the other is at sleep. As it was said that Israa occurred twice, one with his soul while asleep and other with his soul and physical body while awake. There are also among them who claimed Israa occurred more than once while he was awake, till some said it was 4 Israa-aat, and some of them claimed some of these Israa-aat occurred in Madeenah and Abu Shaamah agreed to this report.

Undoubtedly, there are some of the Salaf who did not go by some narrations in Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim on this issue and they believe there are some problems with the narratives.

8: Similarly, Ibn Kethir said in his Tafseer, Vol.3 pg 33:

“Then the people differed as to whether the Israa involved both body and soul, or only his soul. There are two views; the majority of scholars are of the view that he was taken on the night journey both body and soul, when he was awake, and not in a dream, although they do not reject the idea that the Prophet may have seen a dream before that, then seen those things after that when he was awake, because he never saw a dream but it came true like the breaking of dawn…”

Even though Ibn Kethir favored the famous opinion, he still cited the recognized varying opinion. This as well tells you revered Salaf had a different opinion to the famous one and non of their contemporaries accused them of Kufr, misguidance or Bid’ah.

9: Al-Haafiz al-Hakami posited in his Ma‘aarij al-Qubool Vol. 3 pg 1067:

“If the Israa and Mi’raaj had to do with the soul in a dream, the Quraysh would not have rejected it and they would not have said {it takes us a month by camel to reach Palestine and a month to come back, but Muhammad claims that he was taken there last night and was back here with us this morning…!} And they ridiculed the prophet.

If that had been a dream, they would not have found it so far-fetched and there would have been no meaning in their rejection because a person may see in his dream things that are farther away than Palestine, and no one will disbelieve his dream or find it far-fetched. But the Prophet told them about a night journey that was real and had happened when he was awake, not in a dream, so they rejected it and ridiculed him, as they found it far-fetched and outrageous, and also out of stubbornness, because they had little knowledge of the might and power of Allah, and they did not realise that Allah does whatever He wills.”

10: I subscribe to the camp of the famous opinion that both Israa and Mi’raaj truly occurred while the prophet was in his physical state and awake, because with this will a mu’jizah (miracle) be completed and meaningful.

That of Israa is established in the first verse of Suratu Israa (Q17), while that of Mi’raaj is in the verse 13 and 14 of Suratu Najm (Q53):
وَلَقَدْ رَآهُ نَزْلَةً أُخْرَىٰ** عِندَ سِدْرَةِ الْمُنتَهَى
[And certainly the prophet saw him (Jibreel) in another descent, at the farthest lote-tree in heaven.] This verse is subjected to interpretation which its correct meaning denote on the prophet’s Mi’raaj.

Likewise, there are few mutawaatir reports about the hadith of Israa and Mi’raaj narrated from Umar bn Khattaab, Ali, Ibn Mas‘ood, Abu Dharr, Abu Hurayrah, Ibn Abbaas, Aa’isha, Asmau and few others. Even though the reports of some of them do not meet the conditions of soundness (Saheeh), and some scholars reject the claim of Mutawaatir as well.

11: However, the lengthy and famous hadith of Israa and Mi’raaj in Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim, the hadith of Anas from Maalik bn Sa’sa’ah has some issues and myths in it.

That some of the wordings of this particular hadith are myths and not correct is not my own statement, rather statement by revered scholars of old. Ibn Hajar in the Sharh of this hadith in Bukhari, in pg 483 Vol. 13 said:
“قال الخطابي: ليس في هذا الكتاب يعني صحيح البخاري حديث أشنع ظاهرا و لا أشنع مذاقا من هذا الفصل”
“Al-Khataabiy (d.388AH) said: There is nothing in this book, that is, Sahih Al-Bukhari, a more uglier hadith in appearance, and a more horrible in taste than this chapter (specific hadith)”

As well Ibn Hajar said:
“و قد روي هذا الحديث عن أنس من غير طريق شريك فلم يقل فيه هذا الألفاظ الشنيعة”
“And this hadith has been reported from Anas other than the route of Shareek and these ugly wordings (that is found in that of Bukhari) aren’t found in it”.

And these denote there are some incorrect wordings in the specific narration in the Saheeh as said by scholars. For scholars statement about this fact that the hadith contains some ugly wordings, see Fathu Baari of Ibn Hajar, which is a Sharh (further explanation) of Saheeh Bukhari.

12: Do not mind the extremist Muslims who (will) claim what we mentioned in point 11 is a war against the Sunnah or war against Saheeh Bukhari. Certainly, the likes of Ibn Taemiyyah, Sheikh Al-Albaani have considered some ahadeeth in Saheeh Bukhari and Saheeh Muslim as weak and inauthentic. And no one crucified them for such!

13: In the entire story of Israa and Mi’raaj, it is not mentioned anywhere therein that Allah is (confined to) in heaven (السماء) or above the heaven (فوق السماء) or any specific place. And the essence of the journey of Mi’raaj is not that the prophet went to meet Allah at a specific place. Rather Allah says in Suratu Israa that
لِنُرِيَهُ مِنْ آيَاتِنَا
“So that We may show to him some of Our signs;..”

And in Najm:
لَقَدْ رَأَىٰ مِنْ آيَاتِ رَبِّهِ الْكُبْرَىٰ
“Certainly he saw of the greatest signs of his Lord…”

And Allah Himself is not among His own signs. Allah shouldn’t be confined to a specific place and point.
لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْبَصِيرُ
“nothing like a likeness of Him; and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.”

Allah spoke with Nabiyy Musa in Waadi Muqadddas Tuwa which is in Palestine. And that doesn’t mean Allah is located in Palestine. He spoke with Musa while Musa was on earth and spoke with Muhammad while he (Muhammed) was above the sky; as we can’t confine him to the earth, so we can’t confine him to above the sky.

14: Among the incorrect statements in this specific hadith of Israa in Saheeh is the narrative that Musa described the Prophet solaa Allahu alayhi wa sallam as “غلام” a young boy.

In the hadith, it says
“ما يبكيك؟ قال: أبكي لأن غلاما بعث بعدي يدخل الجنة من أمته أكثر مما يدخلها من أمتي”
“What is making you cry? He (Musa) said: I am crying because the people of a young boy who was raised after me will enter Jannah than my own people”

This is uncalled for and we reject such statement from (ascribed to) Nabiyy Musa describing the best of mankind from whom he received faith as a young boy. Then, as at the time of the Mi’raaj, the prophet’s age was 50yrs. As well, how can a Nabiyy be crying that the best set of people will enter Jannah more than his own people? Is there envy among the prophets?

Kindly note that some wordings in the hadith are wordings of the Israelites (israa-iliyyaat).

15: In this particular hadith of Israa, the narrative says
“فانطلق بي جبريل حتى أتى بي السماء الدنيا فاستفتح فقيل من هذا؟ قال جبريل قيل ومن معك؟ قال محمد قيل أوقد أرسل إليه؟..”
“And Jibreel ascend with me till we reached the heaven close to the earth, he knocked for the door to be open, he was asked who is that? He answered Jibreel, he was asked and who is with you? He said Muhammad, he was then asked, was he sent upon?” and this was how it happened in all the heavens.

Another narrative says
(أو قد بعث؟ قال: نعم)
“has he been raised (as a prophet)? He (Jibreel) answered: Yes”.

There are two issues here:

A: It insinuates that the Malaa’ik (angels) did not know that the prophet has been raised as a prophet and has been sent upon during that time, this is after around 12yrs after his prophethood! This is an issue!

B: How will Allah sent upon the best of mankind and the leader of all creations and alongside him was the leader of all the Malaa’ik and Allah wouldn’t have informed the Malaa’ik of their coming!

16: Among the issues that verifying scholars talked about in this particular hadith is the claim that solaat was first legislated as fifty (50) then it got decreased by the intervention of Nabiyy Musa.

This point seems inserted by the creed of the Israa-iliyyaat who want to give preference to Musa over the Shari’ah of the Prophet Muhammad. And an insult that Allah did not know the ummah of Muhammad much as Nabiyy Musa does and Nabiyy Musa can make change to the want of Allah and Muhammad. Claiming Musa has lived with the same people before Muhammad, whereas the prophet wasn’t living among the Israa-iliyyaat and yet he has met prophet Ibrahim earlier and he didn’t say anything as regard the solat. The narrative seems giving preference to the experience of Nabiyy Musa (which we believe didn’t say so) over the experience of Nabiyy Ibrahim and Nabiyy Muhammad; rather, over the knowledge of Allah that knows what is best for His servants.

The person who inserted this part in the hadith forgot that Jibreel had likewise experienced the experience of prophet Musa and his people, as well as all other prophets, yet Jibreel never made such claim that the Ummah of Muhammad won’t be able to observe the solat. We must not attribute to Allah, His messengers, His angels what do not suit their majesty!

As regard this part of the hadith, al-Qaadiy Iyyad rejected this hadith by saying such point means abrogation of a ruling before its presence
قَالَ الْقَاضِي: وَهَذَا يَقْتَضِي نَسْخَ الحكم قَبْلَ حُضُورِهِ، وَأَنَّهُ يُوجِبُ الْبَدَاءَ وَذَلِكَ عَلَى اللَّهِ تَعَالَى مُحَالٌ، فَثَبَتَ أَنَّ ذَلِكَ الْحَدِيثَ مُشْتَمِلٌ عَلَى ما لا يَجُوزُ قَبُولُهُ فَكَانَ مَرْدُودًا.”
This was recorded in the Tafseer of verse 1, Suratu Israa of Imam Fakhru Deen ar-Raaziy.

17: This particular narrative also mentions that the river Nile and Euphrates both originated from above the seventh heaven at the Sidratu Muntahaa.

This certainly is among the false claim of the Israa-iliyyaat which opposes the explicit meaning of the Qur’an which already established the origin of these rivers.

Allah says:
أَلَمْ تَرَ أَنَّ اللَّهَ أَنزَلَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً فَسَلَكَهُ يَنَابِيعَ فِي الْأَرْضِ..
[Do you not see that Allah sends down water from the cloud, then makes it go along in the earth in springs,…]

And as well, this certain part of the hadith opposes the reality of the knowledge of Cosmology which the national geographical has detected the flow and sources of these rivers. Also, the distance between Sidratu Muntahaa and the seventh heaven is not something that can be imagined that a river down the seventh earth got its original source from such a distance.

In all, Ibn Hajar mentioned alot of Huffaz (scholars) of Hadith who considered this hadith of Shareek bn Abi Nimr as a fallacious narrative. See Vol. 13 pg 485 of Fathu Baari. It was said that Shareek opposes the Huffaz of Hadith on 10 major issues as regard this hadith.

18: There is also differences of opinions among the scholars on the period in which the Israa and Mi’raaj occurred. It was suggested that it occurred one year and two months before the Hijrah to Medinah as stated by Ibn Abdil Barr. Ibn Hajar reported about ten different opinions in determining its time. There should be less concern about this.

And the point that Suratu Najm has been revealed and the prophet has been recited it before the incidence of Mi’raaj is null. For not all suwar of the Qur’an has all its verses revealed once.

19: Let me mention this as well, there is this null assertion that the entire story of the Mi‘raaj is pure myth, and it is not possible that this could have happened to any human being. Those who bring up this usually quote the verse 93 of Suratu al-Israa as an evidence.

In response to this, if one reads the verses from verse 90, he will understand the context of the verse 93 whereby Allah was referring to a number of demands that the mushrikoon made out of stubbornness and going to extremes in rejection and denial.

Is it possible for a human being to cause a spring to gush forth from the earth, and rivers, or to cause the heaven to fall down, or to bring Allah and the angels, or to ascend up into the sky and bring from it a Book addressed to every disbeliever?!

Certainly, these are not characteristics of human beings, nor are they within their capabilities. The statement of the Qur’an that the Prophet is not able to do that refers to all of these demands together, and not just some of them, because among them are some demands that are ordinarily possible. It is proven that water sprang from between the fingers of the Prophet. To cast doubt on the generality of the prophet’s Mu’jizaat (miracles) is invalid and a heresy!

20: Wa solla Allahu ala sayyidinaa Muhammadin wa ala aalihi wa sahbihi wa sallim tasleeman.