Was al-Isrā wa al-Mi’rāj a bodily or spiritual journey?

The scholars of Islam – classic and modern – have long disputed the exact nature of
the Prophet’s journey to Jerusalem and the Heavens. Specifically, detailed discussions
can be found highlighting whether al-Isrā wa al-Mi’rāj took place with soul only, or
with body and soul.

Qādī Iyād analysed the debate in great detail in his book al-Shifā bi ta’rīf huqūq al-
Mustafā 1. From his work, it is clear there are three camps on this specific issue;

Camp One.
‘Al-Isrā wa al-Mi’rāj was with soul only, and that the entire journey was a
dream.’

However, the advocates of this camp accept that the dreams of prophets are truthful
and are part of revelation (wahy).

Their evidence.

• Mu’āwiya (may Allāh be pleased with him) was asked about the night of al-Isrā wa
al-Mi’rāj, and he replied that it was a ‘beautiful dream (al-ru’ya al-sāliha).’ 2

• Muhammad ibn Ishāq too accepts this position. As evidence, he cites the verse from
the Holy Qur’ān:

And We did not make the vision that we showed you except as a test for the
people. (Isrā; 60).

The word in the verse used is ru’ya, which means ‘dream’ in Arabic. Therefore, it
seems the Qur’ān asserts that the journey in its entirety was a dream.

• Āisha (may Allāh be pleased with her) reports:

I did not miss (mā faqad’tu) the body of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be
upon him).3

This suggests the Prophet in body remained in Makka throughout the night.

• Moreover, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) himself said:
‘Whilst I was sleeping…’ When Anas (may Allāh be pleased with him) related the
story of the Night Journey, he began with the words ‘…whilst he was sleeping in the
1
pp. 106-124. al-Shifa bi Ta’rif Huquq al-Mustafa. Allama Qadi Abu al-Fadhal ‘Ayadh ibn Musa (d.
544 A.H. /1149 C.E.). Dar Ibn Hazm Publications, Beirut, 2002.
2
p. 144. Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasfiyya. Allama Sa’d al-Din al-Taftazani. Qadimi Kutub Khana, Karachi,
Pakistan, n.d. on publication.
3
p. 144. Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasfiyya. Allama Sa’d al-Din al-Taftazani. Qadimi Kutub Khana, Karachi,
Pakistan, n.d. on publication.
Sacred Mosque…’ These two reports implicitly suggest that all the occurrences of
that night took place whilst he was asleep. 4 Also, a narration from Anas (may Allāh
be pleased with me) concludes with the words: ‘Then I woke up in the Sacred Mosque
[in Makka]’. Again, this implicitly implies the entire journey was a dream.

Camp Two
‘The Isrā (the Night Journey from Makka to Jerusalem) was performed with
body and soul, whilst the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) was
awake. Thereafter, the journey to the skies (al-Mi’rāj) was performed with soul
only.’

Their evidence.

Their proof is the verse from the Qur’ān in which Allāh Almighty proclaims:

Most pure is the One who took His blessed servant on the Night Journey from
the Sacred Mosque to the Furthest Mosque (Isrā; 1).

This verse indicates that the astonishing and miraculous part of the journey was up to
Furthest Mosque (Masjid Aqsā) only; there is no mention in the verse of the upward
journey to the heavens. 5

Camp Three (The Correct and Majority Opinion).

‘The Isrā and Mi’rāj occurred with body and soul, whilst the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allāh be upon him) was awake.’

This – Qādī Iyād affirms – is the truthful position and the opinion of the majority of
the classical scholars. 6 Allāma Sa’d al-Dīn al-Taftazānī adds that ‘the one who denies
its occurrence is an innovator (mubtadi). 7

Our evidence.

• Most Companions, Successors (Tābi’īn) and respected scholars express no doubt

whatsoever in the fact that al-Isrā wa al-Mi’rāj occurred with body and soul. Their
opinion itself is sufficient to dispel any doubts.

Supporters of this truthful position include Ibn Abbās, Jābir, Hudhayfa, Umar, Ibn
Mas’ūd, Abū Hurayra, Sa’īd ibn Jubayr, Mālik ibn Sa’sata, Abū Habba al-Badarī,
4
p. 112. al-Shifa bi Ta’rif Huquq al-Mustafa. Allama Qadi Abu al-Fadhal ‘Ayadh ibn Musa (d. 544
A.H. /1149 C.E.). Dar Ibn Hazm Publications, Beirut, 2002.
5
p. 113. Ibid.
6
p. 113. Ibid. See also, p. 356. al-Sharh al-Qawim fi Hill Alfaz al-Sirat al-Mustaqim and p. 209. Sahih
Muslim bi Sharh al-Imam al-Nawawi. Vol I; Part II. Dar al-Fikr; Beirut. n.d. on publication.
7
p. 144. Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasfiyya. Allama Sa’d al-Din al-Taftazani. Qadimi Kutub Khana, Karachi,
Pakistan, n.d. on publication.
Dhahak, Qatāda, Ibn al-Musayyab, Ibn Shihāb, Ibn Zayd, al-Hasan, Ibrāhīm, Masrūq,
Mujāhid, Ikrama, Ibn Jurayj, al-Tabarī, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (may Allāh be pleased
with them all), as well as the majority of the Fuqahā (Jurists), Hadīth scholars, Kalām
scholars and Qur’ān commentators.

• Qādī Iyād writes that we can only interpret the event differently when the possibility
of the event is questionable. He continues to affirm that ‘there is no impossible
element in the Isrā whilst awake and with body.’ 8 This is because the Being behind
al-Isrā wa al-Mi’rāj was Allāh Almighty Himself; nothing is beyond His ability. In all
of the Hadīth reports on the journey, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be
upon him) said ‘when I was taken on the night journey’; nowhere do we find a report
in which he said ‘when I went on the night journey.’ In other words, the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) ascribed the occurrences to Allāh
Almighty. It was He who made the journey possible. If people doubt the events on the
basis if its physical impossibility, then they are in essence questioning what Allāh can
and cannot do.

• Qādī Iyād adds that if the journey had occurred whilst the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allāh be upon him) was asleep, then;
(i) The verse in the Qur’ān 9 would certainly have mentioned that it occurred with just
his soul.
(ii) The journey would not have been categorised as a sign (āyah) or a miracle
(mu’jiza).
(iii) The infidels would not have considered the journey as far-fetched and would not
have mocked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him).
(iv) Some weak-hearted Muslims would not have become apostates (non-believers)
upon hearing the story the next day. 10
(v) Abū Bakr (may Allāh be pleased with him) was given the title of Siddīq (most
truthful/a verifier of the truth) by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon
him) just after al-Isrā wa al-Mi’rāj. This was because he believed the occurrences
without hesitation. This too indicates that the journey must have been miraculous.
Umm Hānī initially advised the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him
not to tell anyone, in the fear that the people of Makka would not believe him.11 She
would only do that if the journey was actual and physical.
(vi) There would be no reason for the Makkans to ask which caravans he met on the
way to Aqsa.12

• Professor Abd al-Halīm Mahmūd, who was the former Grand Shaykh of al-Azhar
University, Cairo, writes that people often have the most far-fetched and astonishing
dreams, travelling to far-off places and meeting people that they have never met
before. Seldom do people consider such dreams miraculous, or deny the possibility of
such visions occurring. The reaction of the infidels of Makka, as well as the Muslims,
8
p. 113. al-Shifa bi Ta’rif Huquq al-Mustafa. Allama Qadi Abu al-Fadhal ‘Ayadh ibn Musa (d. 544
A.H. /1149 C.E.). Dar Ibn Hazm Publications, Beirut, 2002.
9
Surah Isra; verse 1.
10
p. 113. Ibid. See also, al-Isra wa al-Miraj, Dr. ‘Abd al-Halim Mahmud. Dar al-Ma’arif, Cairo, Egypt.
9th edition, n.d. on publication, and p. 144-145, Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasfiyya. Allama Sa’d al-Din al-
Taftazani. Qadimi Kutub Khana, Karachi, Pakistan, n.d. on publication.
11
Tafsir al-Qurtubi, X; 137.
12
Tafsir al-Qurtubi, X; 137.
clearly suggest that the events of al-Isrā wa al-Mi’rāj could not have been a dream.
Otherwise, the reaction would have certainly been less controversial. 13

• The verse from Sūrah al-Isrā mentions the verb asrā. In Arabic, this verb (meaning
to travel by night) is not used to mean a journey performed whilst asleep. Rather, it is
used to denote an actual, physical journey. 14

• The word abd (servant) that features in the verse (Sūrah al-Isrā; 1) is only used to
describe a person with body and soul. It cannot be used in the Arabic language to
denote a person with soul only. 15

• Those who deny that al-Isrā wa al-Mi’rāj took place with body and soul on the sole
basis that it is scientifically impossible have simply misunderstood what a mu’jiza
(miracle) is. As Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan rightly points out, a miracle is not considered
as such until it breaks the law of nature. 16 The parting of the sea by Mūsā (peace be
upon him) – with the permission of Allāh – was miraculous precisely because it
contravened the laws of nature. In short, if a Muslim acknowledges Allāh Almighty as
‘capable of all things’, then denying al-Isrā wa al-Mi’rāj on the basis of its physical
impossibility should be completely avoided.

The answers to the evidence put forward by the first camp.

-In response to the verse ‘And We did not make the vision that we showed you
except as a test for the people.’

• Ziā al-Ummah Pīr Muhammad Karam Shāh al-Azharī writes that many Qur’ānic
commentators do not believe that this particular verse actually refers to the night of al-
Isrā wa al-Mi’rāj. 17 It could in fact be referring to the dream the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allāh be upon him) had prior to the Conquest of Makka.
Even if we do assume that this verse is referring to the Night Journey, then there is
still ample evidence to clearly indicate that it was not a dream, but a real occurrence;

• Imam al-Bukhārī records a Hadīth from Ibn Abbās (may Allāh be pleased with him)
who said in the commentary of the verse ‘And We did not make the vision that we
showed you except as a test for the people’ that ‘this was a vision of sight [i.e. not a
dream] that was shown to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) on
the night of the Ascension.’ 18

13
p. 41-42. al-Isra wa al-Miraj, Dr. ‘Abd al-Halim Mahmud. Dar al-Ma’arif, Cairo, Egypt. 9th edition,
n.d. on publication.
14
p. 115. al-Shifa bi Ta’rif Huquq al-Mustafa. Allama Qadi Abu al-Fadhal ‘Ayadh ibn Musa (d. 544
A.H. /1149 C.E.). Dar Ibn Hazm Publications, Beirut, 2002.
15
Imam al-Qurtubi writes in his Tafsir that if there was a higher title for the Prophet than Abd, it would
certainly have been mentioned here in this special verse (10: 135).
16
p. 631, Zia al-Quran. Pir Muhammad Karam Shah al-Azhari. Zia al-Quran Publications, Lahore,
1402 A.H.
17
p. 626. Ibid.
18
Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of Merits, Chapter; the Mi’raj, Hadīth no. 3599; Zia al-Quran, 2: 668. Pir
Muhammad Karam Shah al-Azhari. Zia al-Quran Publications, Lahore, 1402 A.H.
• The verse ‘except as a test for the people’(illa fitna li al-Nās) too supports the view
that the journey occurred whilst the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon
him) was awake. Qādī Iyād writes a dream (whilst asleep) is not ‘a test for the
people’, since no one denies the occurrences of a dream. 19

In response to the opinion of Āisha and Mu’āwiya (may Allāh be pleased with
them)

• As for the opinion of Āisha (may Allāh be pleased with her), she was not married to
the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) at the time. In fact, she may
not have been born at the time of the Night Journey, (as there are minor disputes as to
which year al-Isrā wa al-Mi’rāj took place). Hence, she did not witness this night, she
was very young at the time and must have heard the event from someone else. For this
reason, preference is given to the other Companions, of which most assert al-Isrā wa
al-Mi’rāj took place with body and soul. Also, Āisha never slept with the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) until Madina, and al-Isrā wa al-Mi’rāj
happened when the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) was in Makka
Sharif. 20

There is further evidence offered by Allāma Sa’d al-Dīn al-Taftazānī. He writes that
Āisha’s said the body of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) did
not part from her on the night of Ascension. This could possible mean that the body of
the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) did not part from his soul on
this night. In other words, she meant that the body and soul remained together
throughout the journey, thus supporting the view that the journey was not a dream. 21

• As for the opinion of Mu’āwiya (may Allāh be pleased with him), he was not a
Muslim at the time. 22

In response to the narrations of Anas (may Allāh be pleased with him).

• In response to the Hadīth recorded by Anas in which the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allāh be upon him) was reported to have said (at the end of the journey)
‘Then I woke up in the Sacred Mosque’, which seemingly suggests that the events of
the night was a dream, the scholars write that this does still not explicitly suggest that
the entire journey was a dream. Rather, it indicates that the Prophet (peace and
blessings of Allāh be upon him) was asleep or almost asleep when the angel
approached him in the Sacred Mosque in Makka. It cannot be deduced from this that
the entire events of the night was a dream. 23

19
p. 115. al-Shifa bi Ta’rif Huquq al-Mustafa. Allama Qadi Abu al-Fadhal ‘Ayadh ibn Musa (d. 544
A.H. /1149 C.E.). Dar Ibn Hazm Publications, Beirut, 2002.
20
p.117. Ibid.
21
p. 144, Sharh al-Aqa’id al-Nasfiyya. Allama Sa’d al-Din al-Taftazani. Qadimi Kutub Khana,
Karachi, Pakistan, n.d. on publication.
22
p. 627, Zia al-Quran. Pir Muhammad Karam Shah al-Azhari. Zia al-Quran Publications, Lahore,
1402 A.H., Tafsir al-Qurtubi, X; 137.
23
p. 210. Sahih Muslim bi Sharh al-Imam al-Nawawi.. Vol II; Part I. Dar al-Fikr; Beirut. n.d. on
publication.
Imam al-Qurtubī adds that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him)
had many Mi’rājs.24 There is nothing wrong with suggesting that some of them may
have been via the means of a dream.25 As for the Mi’rāj mentioned in Sūrah al-Isrā,
then there is no doubt that this was a physical journey, with body and soul.

In response to camp two.

Certainly, Sūrah al-Isrā does only mention the night journey from Makka to
Jerusalem. But that does not mean the rest of the journey (to the heavens) was with
soul only. This is because Sūrah al-Najm does mention the Mi’rāj. Moreover, this
chapter, like Sūrah al-Isrā, does mention the word abd when referring to the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him). And abd can only be used to describe
both body and soul.

Conclusion.

To conclude, there is insufficient evidence to suggest that al-Isrā wa al-Mi’rāj was

merely a spiritual journey. The Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings of
Allāh be upon him) were clearly in the best position to know the exact nature of the
journey, and the majority express no doubt in the fact it was a bodily occurrence.

Even without the evidence from the Qur’ān and ahādīth, the reaction from the people
of Makka after al-Isrā wa al-Mi’rāj is sufficient to support the fact that the journey
was with body and soul. If it was merely a spiritual journey, why did some Muslims
become apostates? If it was just a dream, why did the infidels challenge the Prophet
(peace and blessings of Allāh be upon him) to describe Jerusalem?

Once we wholly acknowledge Allāh Almighty as the force behind al-Isrā wa al-
Mi’rāj, then a true Muslim does not question the event at all. Nothing is beyond His
capabilities.

24
Imam al-Nawawi was of the opinion that it happened twice, once awake and once when he was
asleep (al-Mawahib al-Laduniyya, II: 340)
25
Tafsir al-Qurtubi, X; 137-8.