When it comes to the Night Journey and Ascension, which is considered one of the foundations of the Islamic relationship with Jerusalem, the Orientalist skeptical narrative that attempts to promote doubts about this issue ranges from outright denial of the occurrence of the entire story, claiming it to be merely a dream or a vision, to asserting a possible Jewish origin for this story! This narrative seeks to undermine the Islamic account by questioning the explicit Quranic text that mentions this incident by name, sometimes claiming that the Al-Aqsa Mosque mentioned in this verse is a mosque in the area of Al-Ji'ranah between Mecca and Taif, and at other times attributing the name of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in present-day Jerusalem to the Umayyads, claiming that they are the origin of this name and that they were the first to invent the concept of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.
Skeptical Claims and Evidence:
The claim by some proponents of this narrative that the journey of Isra and Mi'raj was merely a dream attempts to trace it back to some of the noble companions, such as Lady Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) and Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan (may Allah be pleased with him). They rely on a narration attributed to Lady Aisha, in which she states: "The body of the Messenger of Allah was not lost, but Allah ascended his soul." Another narration attributed to Muawiya (may Allah be pleased with him) mentions that when he was asked about the Isra, he would say: "It was a true vision from Allah." Ibn Ishaq narrates both narrations in his biography.
Narrative Selectivity:
These individuals exploit these two narratives to use them as an explanation for the noble verse in Surah Al-Isra. (We granted the vision which We showed thee, but as a trial for men, - as also the Cursed Tree (mentioned) in the Qur'an: We put terror (and warning) into them, ) (Al-Isra:60) Here, the skeptics fall into the trap of selectivity in the narratives; they take the two mentioned narratives as the sole basis for this equation while neglecting two important facts. The first is that the vast majority of Muslim scholars in history, hadith, and interpretation have declared these two narratives to be fabricated (i.e., false) and not authentic regarding Aisha or Muawiya. Particularly since the narration attributed to Aisha appears in some versions with the wording “I did not find the body of the Messenger of Allah,” and it is well known that the Prophet, peace be upon him, married her in Medina and not in Mecca! Furthermore, Ibn Ishaq, when conveying this narration, transmitted it with a severe weakening formulation, saying: “Some of the family of Abu Bakr told me.” This is a known method used by Ibn Ishaq in conveying everything he presented from the perspective of academic integrity, and anyone who has studied the history and methodology of Ibn Ishaq is familiar with it.
Narrative Attribution Issues:
As for the narrative attributed to Muawiya, the person who transmitted this account in Ibn Ishaq's book (whose name is Yaqub ibn Utbah ibn al-Mughira) never actually saw him, as he died in the year 128 AH, and had not yet been born during Muawiya's time. He only met a few of the companions, such as Al-Sa'ib ibn Yazid, who was one of the younger companions, as mentioned by Al-Dhahabi in "Siyar A'lam al-Nubala." Additionally, Muawiya himself converted to Islam in the year of the conquest, which was eight years after the Hijrah. Therefore, the narration itself is problematic because it discusses an event that took place more than ten years before Muawiya's conversion to Islam. How could Muawiya comment on this event while contradicting all the other companions who witnessed it as Muslims?
Clarification by Ibn Abbas:
As for that verse, Ibn Abbas, the interpreter of the Quran, would clarify it by saying: "It was a vision that was shown to the Messenger of Allah on the night he was taken on the night journey." He is knowledgeable in the Arabic language that was used at that time, and he comes to clarify the Quranic text in the language that was used in his era. Then, someone who does not know the language of the Quran in our time comes to take the wording from the 21st century.
Western Academic Perspective:
The amazing thing is that the majority of Western academics who say this are not Arabs at all. Yet, they expect us to disregard the words of those who revealed the Holy Qur'an in their era and in their language and daily dialect, and accept instead the interpretations of today's Orientalist narrators... Is this reasonable?!
Quranic Text and Amazement:
More importantly, the Quranic text itself states that this matter is amazing because the Quranic verse in Surah Al-Isra begins with glorification accompanied by astonishment. (Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a journey by night) (Al-Isra:1) How can the human mind accept that amazement, glorification, and astonishment are needed for a dream that one of us today finds much stranger, which is supported by the numerous narratives found in Islamic sources that discuss the disbelief of the Quraysh regarding the story and their astonishment at it? If it was just a dream, could it really be a source of amazement and disapproval in Meccan society?
Skeptical Orientalism:
The clear selectivity in the work of the proponents of skeptical Orientalism is, in itself, a weakness of this narrative, as it relies on the assumption that the opposing side is unaware of the existence of many narratives and texts that expose this selectivity in the choice of texts.
Read the article in Arabic
