Re-Evaluating the Notion of Isrâ and Mi’râj in Ibadi Tradition: With Special References to the Modern Sirah Readings

Abstract

The notion of mi’râj (the heavenly journey of Prophet Muhammad) is an important non-homogenic topic, although it is not often handled in Ibadi intellectual, sīrah (biography of the Prophet) and exegetical traditions. In this article, we analyse the treatment of the subject chronologically in the Ibadi tradition. We discuss the Ibadis’ main concerns on the subject, how they differ, what inferences they make from the related verses, sīrah, hadith and exegetical (tafsir) reports, and most importantly whether they accept the notion of mi’râj. This article analyses the notion of isrâ because of its close relationship to mi’râj. In summary, there are variations on the issue of mi’râj among the North African and Omani Ibadis. Even more interesting is the existence of significant nuances among the Omani Ibadis. In short, while all North African Ibadis accept mi’raj as an event, it is observed that some Omani Ibadis accept it, while others sometimes reject it for religious and sometimes rational grounds.

1. Introduction

We discussed the issue of nuzul Isa (the return of Jesus) in the Ibadi intellectual tradition in a long chapter a few years ago (Albayrak and Shueili 2020). The main argument of the chapter was that the rich Ibadi tradition is not monolithic or homogenous. We pointed out that the Ibadis of North Africa and Oman sometimes have sharp differences in their approaches to the subject, and with modernity, their views have become more similar. The notion of mi’râj (the heavenly journey of Prophet Muhammad) is yet another non-homogenous topic, although it is not often handled in the Ibadi intellectual tradition. In this article, we analyse the treatment of the subject chronologically in Ibadi exegetical, sīrah and juristic works. The Ibadis’ main concerns on the subject and how they differ are examined in detail. We will also discuss which scholars accept mi’râj narratives without question, the nuances between those who accept and do not accept them, and what approaches Ibadi scholars have taken on the subject in the contemporary period.

It is also important to note that sirah and (kalam) theology are two intertwined disciplines in the Ibadi tradition from the beginning to the present. As Abdulrahman al-Salimi rightly stated, we see that dogmatic issues constitute an important aspect of the sirah literature among early and medieval Ibadis, especially the Nizwa and Rustaq schools (Al Salimi 2009, pp. 475–514).1 This article is also very important in terms of showing the reader not only classical but also contemporary sirah discussions in the Ibadi tradition with special reference to the issue of mir’aj. In this way, the article contains information about the Ibadi sirah debates in the modern period, and the evolution of the direction and approaches of these debates. As Sertkaya pointed out, in the late 19th and early 20th century, with the advent of Islamic modernism, a new era in the field of Sunni sirah also began (Sertkaya 2022, p. 14). Similarly, we will try to extract the modern version of the official and civil Ibadi understanding of the notion of mi’raj from the general readings of sirah, exegesis and other sources.

The miracles of isrâ and mi’râj, which are very rich and discussed in detail in Sunni and non-Sunni traditions, are briefly: after the year of sorrow, when the Prophet Muhammad lost his wife (Khadija) and uncle (Abu Talib) and faced unexpected mistreatment from the people of Taif, he was taken from masjid al-haram (Mecca) to masjid al-aqsa (Jerusalem) on a mount named Buraq sent by God. From Jerusalem, he ascended to bayt al-ma’mur (lit. ‘the Flourishing House’ but it is generally considered as the heavenly counterpart of al-Bayt al-Harām in Mecca) and sidrat al-muntaha (Sidr tree that marks the utmost boundary in the seventh heaven), accompanied by the angel Gabriel. It is mentioned in the sources that this journey is physical and spiritual. After this brief sketch of the narrative, we start with the Ibadi commentator Hud b. Muhakkam’s (c. 210–280/825–893) evaluations.

2. Isrâ and mi’râj in the Works of North African Ibadis: Chronological Survey

Hud b. Muhakkam is one of the earliest Ibadi exegetes who gave the most detailed information on isrâ (night journey) and mi’râj (heavenly journey). Hud discusses various hadith, sīrah and exegetical reports about the events of isrâ and mi’râj. Thus, it is easy to follow his presentation of the event in his exegesis.2 As is known, Hud’s work is heavily based on Yahya b. Sallam’s (d. 200/816) exegetical work; therefore, he rarely goes beyond the information given by Yahya in these narratives. For this reason, Hud’s comments on the first verse of Surah Isrâ contain small details that cannot be separated from the exegeses of Yahya and Ibn Abi Zamînîn (d. 399 AH).3 One reason why this rich information did not have serious impacts on later Ibadi scholars may be that Hud’s exegesis was not widespread. Second, unlike some North African Ibadis, there was no clear-cut Ibadi view on this issue (isrâ and mi’râj) in the east, especially in Oman. From Hud’s work, it is safe to assume he has no doubt about the authenticity of isrâ and mi’râj. In fact, Hud accepts that the Prophet went on this heavenly journey with his body and soul (al-Hawwārī 2005). When one looks at his presentation, it can be seen that every detail about the journey is mentioned, such as the Prophet’s chest being opened and heart washed with zamzam water, his heart being filled with faith and wisdom, and details about the mount named Buraq (al-Hawwārī 2005). Hud’s exegesis contains information not only about the preparations for the journey but also what happened during it—for example, the Prophet being offered milk and wine and his preference for milk, the Prophet’s prayer in al-Aqsa mosque and his visitation to the other prophets one by one on the mi’râj journey, his long dialogue with Moses, the reduction in prayers from 50 times to five and the names of the rivers in heaven (al-Hawwārī 2005). Hud also talks about what happened after the Prophet returned from his heavenly journey, such as the questions raised by the Meccan polytheists and their refusal, plus Abu Bakr’s approval of the Prophet and becoming a siddiq (confirmer) in this tafsir (al-Hawwārī 2005).

It is remarkable that Hud occasionally uses different verses of the Qur’an in his explanations. His presentation in this way, which he probably received from Yahya, responds not only to the confessional but also the pastoral expectations of interlocutors. In particular, Prophet Muhammad’s meeting with other prophets and the scenes of heaven and hell he witnessed on his journey (those who take interest/usury, unjustly consume the wealth of orphans,4 scholars and preachers who tell people what they did not do, those who kill their children for fear of living, etc.)5 are good examples in this regard (al-Hawwārī 2005). For example, when describing the situation of people who take interest, Hud mentions verse 2:175 (al-Hawwārī 2005). In addition, Prophet Muhammad’s meeting with Moses and Moses’ statement, “The Children of Israel think I am the best of the creatures, whereas this (Muhammad) is better than me” (al-Hawwārī 2005: II.260) are remarkable in terms of showing pious envy.6 In these narratives, which are full of messages, Hud goes into interesting details. The long and many hairs on Moses’ chest are good illustrations of this narrative. According to the report, they were visible even if Moses wore two shirts. This anecdote is not mentioned by Yahya but is by Muqatil b. Sulayman (d. 150/767). However, it should not be dismissed as a baseless report of isrâiliyyat but should be evaluated in the context of a Muslim response to prophetic tradition, which describes Moses as a hairy man. Again, other anecdotes are not mentioned in the commentary of Yahya and Ibn Zamînîn but we see them in the commentary of Hud. According to one, an unnamed prophet, who went on a night (isrâ) journey before Prophet Muhammad, saw an angel on the road and, without being aware, he mistook this angel for God and prostrated before him. That angel has been waiting there with a spear in its hand to this day (al-Hawwārī 2005). The question of why Hud mentioned this anecdote loses its legitimacy when one understands the nature of his exegesis. This anecdote has interesting connotations for him; not only was the narration wasted by not telling it, but also different considerations may have been pursued, including pedagogical and pastoral concerns.

Hud does not skip the interesting narrations mentioned in Yahya b. Sallam’s exegesis but rarely found in other commentaries. While describing what the Prophet saw in sidrat al-muntaha,7 Hud describes the birds and pomegranates there: “its bird is like a hummingbird, and a pomegranate is like the domed skin of a camel” (al-Hawwārī 2005: II.263). In this context, another example is given by Hud that, when the Prophet reached the nearest heaven (al-sama al-dunya), he met an angel named ‘Ismail’, who had an army of 70,000 angels. Then he reminds the reader about verse 74:318 (al-Hawwārī 2005). Finally, an interesting anecdote is mentioned with different additions and subtractions in a few tafsir (such as Abd al-Razzaq, Yahya b. Sallam, Tabari and Ibn Zamînîn). On the way to Jerusalem, the Prophet was called by a beautiful woman from his left side and the Prophet did not look at her. Like Yahya’s narration, Hud has pointed out that, if the Prophet had turned to the woman, his community would have become Jewish or Christian (al-Hawwārī 2005).

The main purpose of describing all these details is that Hud, an early Ibadi scholar, seems not to have doubted the authenticity of the isrâ and mi’râj reports, and he narrates the events that took place that night in a full story package down to the smallest detail. It is also clear from his narration that Hud does not have serious dogmatic concerns about the occurrences of the events of isrâ and mi’râj in contrast to some later Ibadi scholars in the east. This is perhaps due to the narration-oriented nature of his exegesis or because he accepts the subject as indisputable. However, he is careful and sensitive not to enter discussions about the possibility of the Prophet’s meeting with God (seeing Him) in this journey. Regarding the interpretation of the famous verse in Surah Najm (53:18),9 he is satisfied with the comment that God did not say the Prophet saw his Great Lord; on the contrary, He told that he saw great signs of God– laqad ra’â min âyâti rabbihi al-kubrâ wa-lam yaqul ra’â rabbahu’l-kubrâ (al-Hawwārī 2005: III.481). Similarly, another point to be noted is the last part of the first verse of Surah Isrâ: linuriyahu min ayatina ( in order that We might show him of Our signs) and innahu samiun basir (He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer). While interpreting this part, Hud clearly expresses his school’s view regarding the impossibility of the vision of God by saying: God showed signs to the Prophet on the way of bayt al-maqdis (Jerusalem) and He (God) is the one who hears and sees himself (nafsahu), otherwise no one else can hear or see Him (al-Hawwārī 2005: II.263). In brief, Hud is not an impartial narrator from Yahya.

Another work that points to the events of isrâ and mi’râj is Kitab al-Tartib. The work titled Tartib al-Jami al-Sahih Musnad al-Rabi was edited and arranged by the famous Ibadi scholar Abu Ya’qub Yusuf b. Ibrahim al-Warjilani (d. 570/1175). For this reason, we mention Hud’s interpretations before the narration of Musnad al-Rabi b. Habib and its famous annotations. In a narration mentioned in Musnad compiled by Warjilani (Abu Ubayda-Jabir b. Zayd-Ibn Abbas-the Prophet), it is stated that the five daily prayers were made obligatory two years before the hijrah (Rabīʿ b. Ḥabīb 2003, p. 191). In this narration, the Prophet turned towards the Ka’ba direction in Mecca until he went to bayt al-maqdis. Interestingly, the word used in this report is urija (mainly refers to mi’râj, but probably includes isrâ and mi’râj); after that, bayt al-maqdis became a qibla (direction for prayer) (Rabīʿ b. Ḥabīb 2003). It is also noted in this report that the Ansar took bayt al-maqdis as the qibla for two years in Madina until the Prophet emigrated (Rabīʿ b. Ḥabīb 2003). The existence of this narration in Musnad, which was arranged by Warjilani, shows he saw this narration as authentic and accepted the events of isrâ and mi’râj.

Warjilani does not deal with this issue (isrâ and mi’râj) in his works. As far as we can see, when replying to a question, he opens a new section under the title fasl then indirectly mentions the events of isrâ and mi’râj. In short, Warjilani deals with the issue through the questions of whether the Prophet followed and applied the shari’ah (law) of another prophet before Islam or abrogated the shari’ah of all previous prophets. Warjilani discusses various views and says the issue is disputed among jurists and, without naming the authorities, he says some said this while others said that. According to this, some have put forward opinions that the Prophet obeyed the shari’ah of Noah, Abraham and even Jesus for a while. These views are supported by Qur’anic verses and prophetic traditions. Then, by saying wa qala ba’duhum (some said) that the Prophet worshipped with the shari’ah of Moses, then he argues “do you not see that the burden of prayer times was lightened on the night of the mi’râj”, meaning it was reduced from 50 to five times (al-Warjilānī 1984: I.78). As can be deduced from these explanations, although Warjilani does not make a systematic evaluation on the notions of isrâ and mi’râj, he accepts the authenticity of the mi’râj report.

After Warjilani came the explanation of Abu Umar Muhammad b. Umar (Ibn Abi Sittah) (d. 1088/1678) from Jarba, the commentator of Tartib among the North African Ibadi world, on the related narration. Ibn Abi Sittah, reminding readers of the long hadith mentioned by Bukhari in addition to the hadith in Tartib, says the prayer times on the night of mi’râj were reduced from 50 to five for the ummah. He interprets the expression urija bihi (heavenly journey) in the hadith of Tartib as usriya bihi (night journey). Although he seems to approach the issue of mi’râj cautiously with this expression, the fact he mentions the hadith of Bukhari shows he accepts isrâ and mi’râj. He also says, after the isrâ incident, the qibla changed towards bayt al-maqdis (Ibn Abi Sittah 1982: II.27-31).

After Hud b. Muhakkam, Muhammad b. Yusuf Atfayyish (d. 1914) extensively deals with the subject. He summarises almost the entire Islamic intellectual tradition in his interpretation of the first verse of Surah Isrâ, over about 75 pages.10 These long narratives, which include tafsir, hadith, fiqh, kalam, tasawwuf, sīrah, qisas al-anbiya, tarikh, tarikh al-adyan (history of religions), al-milal wa al-nihal (history of sects), language, geography and adab (general pastoral literature), tell us not only Atfayyish’s view on the subject, but also give us information about his general mindset. It is useful to draw attention to a couple of issues before concentrating on Atfayyish’s analysis, which dealt with the subject of mi’râj, which many Ibadi scholars almost never touched, in his broad and rich exegesis Himyan al-Zad ila Dar al-Ma’ad, which he wrote at the age of 25. First, Atfayyish’s treatment of the subject is too versatile and broad to be explained within the boundaries of one article. This section in his exegesis, which was probably written in different time periods, contains some expressions that are not very systematic at first glance, even mixed and contradictory. However, those who know the style and methodology of Qutub Atfayyish will see that he wrote a comprehensive salvation history in the context of the isrâ-mi’râj events. A sensitive reading of Atfayyish leads to a smooth connection, analysis and conclusion rather than a contradiction. This rich narrative, dominated by religious technical terms, sometimes goes out of context to seek answers to some dogmatic concerns, whereas other times we witness the expansion of the pastoral and guiding-priority (irshad) narrative. As he states in the interpretation of verse 17:1, he blends many of the narrations he deals with and brings them together by adding some things from himself. Although the concept of time is sometimes lost in the narrations of Sheikh Atfayyish, we do not know of any other commentator in exegetical tradition who deals with the subject in such a versatile way. If the internal dynamics and logic of Atfayyish’s approach and interpretation of the verse are not understood, his explanations can be called simply isrâiliyyat reports and rejected altogether. However, his success can be understood clearly when the nearly 50 scholars and various opinions he mentions in the interpretation of the relevant verse are considered. He brought many reports and views together in one neat piece of narrative. He successfully formulates a wealth of sources on and insights into one narrative, and the richness of the mentioned anecdotes lies in the fact that they present all kinds of connotations and lessons to be learned.

As stated above, the inner integrity of Atfayyish’s analysis and explanations, which seems to be scattered into superficial approaches, requires careful reading. After the linguistic explanations of words such as subhan (glorification of God) and laylan (night) in 17:1 (Atfayyish 1991), Atfayyish deals with many issues directly or indirectly related to the notions of isrâ and mi’râj. The exact time of isrâ and mi’râj, how many times they happened, how they happened, whether the Prophet made this journey while asleep or awake, whether with his soul and body or just one of them, the nature of the famous mount (Buraq), detailed information about masjid al-haram and al-aqsa, the events the Prophet encountered on his journey, and the persons, angels, prophets and interesting scenes the Prophet witnessed are the main topics Atfayyish focuses on in his exegesis and vividly describes (Atfayyish 1991). Someone looking at the narration of the lively scenes from the outside may even think that Atfayyish accompanied the Prophet on his night and heavenly journeys. In all these narratives, Atfayyish includes some dogmatic concerns and engages in intra-school and denominational debates. Sometimes his inferences are dominated by the juristic point of view and sometimes comments are made about the linguistic11 and literary12 aspects of the narrated reports and anecdotes. In short, if we specify Wansbrough’s category, Atfayyish deals with the sīrah reports and anecdotes he conveys from haggadic (narrative), halakhic (legal), masoratic (linguistic), rhetorical and allegorical aspects (Wansbrough 1977). Atfayyish, who bases his writing mainly on Sunni sources rather than Ibadi literature (mostly he precedes the narration of Bukhari and Bukhari’s commentaries on the subject), sometimes even uses the terms isrâ and mi’râj interchangeably. In Taysir, however, he does not use the word mi’râj; instead, he prefers to just use the word isrâ for both notions.13 Atfayyish and many contemporary Ibadi scholars frequently use Sunni sources on sirah and tafsir. However, it does not go beyond the general practices related to Ibadi dogma. An important point worth mentioning here is that although we cannot see it in Atfayyish, some recent Ibadi scholars have emphasized the issue of fiqh al-sirah (internalizing the notion of sirah). Unfortunately, we do not dwell on this approach, which was inspired by Muhammad Ghazzali (d. 505/1111) and Ramadan al-Buti (d. 2013), because it did not come to the fore regarding incidences of isra and mi’raj.14

In addition, while narrating the events the Prophet encountered and saw on the night of isrâ and mi’râj, Atfayyish rewrote a script from the existing materials and did not miss almost any anecdotes in his Himyan. He evaluates each alternative by mentioning the year, day and place of isrâ and mi’râj, sometimes by mentioning the narrators or conveying it with the formula qila (it was said). He also criticises some anecdotes. For example, it is possible to see narrations in which isrâ is realised with the soul and body; it is also mentioned in the Qur’an. It is also possible to strange comment such as mi’râj occurs 33 times. Atfayyish talks extensively about the opening of the Prophet’s heart (chest or stomach) before the heavenly journey and it being washed with zamzam water, the nature of Buraq, its gender, saddle, bridle, etc., which Prophets15 rode Buraq before Prophet Muhammad, descriptions and situations16 of the masjid al-haram and al-aqsa, sidrat al-muntaha (utmost boundary), and the Pharaoh’s daughter (Atfayyish 1991). Moreover, it is possible to see extensive explanations in Atfayyish’s Himyan about the milk and wine presented to the Prophet as well as the rivers he saw in his mi’râj. Contrary to the limited information given by other commentaries, Atfayyish says that besides milk and wine, the Prophet was offered honey and water. As for the rivers, Atfayyish adds the Sayhun and Jayhun rivers; Kawthar (Abundance) and Rahmat (Mercy) are in heaven and the Nile and Euphrates are situated in the world (Atfayyish 1991).

In fluent and gripping narratives, Atfayyish has a tendency to write information about the sirah, which we do not encounter in other sources, in the light of the isrâ-mi’râj incident. It is almost as if Atfayyish reads the isrâ-mi’râj incident in the light of the events in the Prophet’s later life and makes original comparisons and comments. He establishes a relationship between the meeting of Abraham and the Prophet in the seventh heaven and the first umrah (minor pilgrimage) that took place in the seventh year of the migration. The key word here is the number “seven” (Atfayyish 1991). Atfayyish gives the issue a rational basis by saying that this meeting means reviving the sunnah of Abraham, whom he encountered in the seventh heaven, during the umrah of the Prophet in the seventh year of Hijra. There are also interesting comparisons about the other prophets, not only in heaven, but also on the earth (in the vicinity of masjid al-aqsa). For instance, the post-prayer conversation with some prophets is presented from a purely Islamic and Qur’anic perspective. Interestingly, Atfayyish narrates that the Prophet is talking to Jesus in the masjid al-aqsa whereas no heavenly conversation is recorded between the two in their meeting (Atfayyish 1991).

Atfayyish often gives dogmatic messages between the lines of his exegesis and sīrah reading. The issue of whether the rank of Abraham as khalil Allah (friend of God) at the seventh heaven is superior to the spiritual level of Prophet Muhammad as a habib Allah (beloved of God) is a good illustration. Atfayyish says al-habibu a’la martabatin min al-khalil (Being a beloved is a higher level than being a friend) concludes the subject (Atfayyish 1991: IX(2).40). Another issue Atfayyish problematises is the term used by all prophets when they address Prophet Muhammad, namely ghulam (young, child or slave), during mi’râj. With a linguistic and allegorical manoeuvre, Atfayyish leaves no question in the mind, stating ghulam means sayyid ‘master’ (Atfayyish 1991: IX(2).44). It is also worth mentioning the comparative narratives of Moses about Prophet Muhammad and his community are also beautifully explained from an Islamic framework. In addition, Atfayyish states no prophet performed ascension (mi’râj) with the soul and body apart from Prophet Muhammad. Furthermore, other prophets were informed in advance like Moses, who was told he would stay for 40 days and nights on the mountain of Tur. Atfayyish emphasises that Prophet Muhammad suddenly ascended to his heavenly journey, mi’râj (Atfayyish 1991).

Regarding the virtue of zamzam water, Atfayyish combines the descriptive (khabar) and prescriptive (insha) nature of the reports or brings sīrah (biography of the Prophet) and kalam (theology) together by saying zamzam is more virtuous than all waters except that which comes out of the fingers of the Prophet (Atfayyish 1991). This is a common practice in modern times among many sirah writers. In our opinion, Atfayyish uses the Prophet’s encounter with many prophets as an argument for his universality. He even harshly criticises the Mutazilite school, which holds the view that there is no difference among the prophets. As the Qur’an and prophetic traditions make clear, Atfayyish reiterates his belief that the Prophet was sent as a mercy to the worlds and a herald of good news to all humanity (Ibid). This is the gist of the topic, which constitutes a different manifestation of Atfayyish’s main approach.17 Atfayyish goes on and frequently points to the virtue not only of the Prophet, but also of the scripture (the Qur’an) that was sent and the community that follows him. Regarding virtue, he even divides angels into categories and talks about their special characteristics (Atfayyish 1991).

Atfayyish, who often goes off topic and tries to give messages with intermediate sentences, is also involved in semi-juristic and semi-pastoral matters, such as debt or charity and the virtues of cupping, hijama (Atfayyish 1991). Regarding the reduction of 50 prayers to five, which was made obligatory on the night of mi’râj, the subject also covers technical issues such as naskh (abrogation) or badâ (renouncing). Here, Atfayyish asks the question of whether it is possible to abrogate the relevant provision before it is communicated or put into practice. Then he argues this is a bayan (declaration) and îdâh (explanation) rather than naskh or badâ (Atfayyish 1991). With this brief but right approach, he solves the problem theologically and juristically. As far as we can see, in the interpretation of verse 17:1, in which no detail is omitted, Atfayyish does not mention Hud b. Muhakkam’s name, but includes a few anecdotes that we think were taken from Hud’s exegesis. The anecdotes seem to be taken from Hud’s exegesis but in a more elaborate fashion (Atfayyish 1991)—for example, there are narrations about the existence of an angel named Ismail and his protection by 70,000 angels, the Prophet being called but not responding to a man on his right and a beautiful woman with open arms on his left, one representing Judaism and the other representing Christianity, and the words of the Prophet about what he saw, such as the birds and pomegranates. It can also be mentioned among these quotations that, if Moses had two shirts, the hairs on his chest would stick out (Atfayyish 1991).

Atfayyish sometimes gives contradictory statements. In the interpretation of verse 17:1, he says “as the Ibadi community, we say that it is a spiritual journey (meaning isrâ and mi’râj)” (Atfayyish 1991: IX(2).9), while in another place he holds the view “as we have mentioned, it (isrâ and mi’râj) took place while the Prophet was awake with spirit and body, this is the general (majority) opinion (jumhur) and people have accepted it as true” (Atfayyish 1991: IX(2).12). When we look at the interpretation by Atfayyish, he has no doubt about the occurrences of isrâ and mi’râj with the spirit and body while the Prophet was awake. The details described in the pages are the clearest proof of this conclusion. The only point to which Atfayyish objects is related to the notion of ru’yat Allah (whether the Prophet saw God in his heavenly journey). As it is known, the report from Aisha states the Prophet did not see God whereas the narration from Ibn Abbas says the opposite. Atfayyish considers such a claim as slander (al-firyah) in Surah Isrâ and falsehood (batil) in Surah Najm (Atfayyish 1991: IX(2).50; XIV.29–30). This is understandable and a natural interpretation by Atfayyish because his approach to this subject is in tune with the theology of the Ibadi school. Atfayyish refers to one Ibadi source, Musnad al-Rabi b. Habib, on this topic. Most of the quotations and narrations are from Sunni sources. For Atfayyish, the Prophet saw everything except God (ghayr Allah) during his heavenly journey and witnessed the realm of mulk (material) and malakut (spiritual) (Atfayyish 1991).

After Atfayyish, it is seen that Ibrahim b. Umar Bayyud (d. 1981), one of the North African commentators, handled the subject more carefully. Bayyud argues Prophet Muhammad may have seen Gabriel in his real identity while he was going back and forth between Moses and God regarding the verse wa-laqad ra’ahu nazlatan ukhra (And indeed he saw him another time). However, it should not be understood from this statement by Bayyud that the Prophet saw God. In the verse of mâ-zâgha al-basar wa ma-taghâ (the eye neither went wrong, nor did it exceed the limit), Bayyud argues that the Prophet can see what his Lord revealed to him as truth. Bayyud, who focused mostly on the Prophet’s vision of Gabriel in his real identity, accepted isrâ and mi’râj, but, unlike Hud and Atfayyish, he is cautious not to exceed the boundaries because they are related to the unseen news, ghayb (Bayyūḍ 2009: XXI.121–25).18

Farhat Ja’biri, one of the greatest living Tunisian Ibadi scholars, deals with the issue entirely within the framework of whether God is seen in the world by the Prophet, and says Ibadis agree with most of the Mu’tazilites and Ash’arites. Ja’biri also says some Ash’arites talked about the possibility of the Prophet seeing God based on mi’râj narratives, whereas the Ibadis firmly reject this. According to Ja’biri, the main source of Ibadis is the narration from Aisha, who says the Prophet saw Gabriel in his original form (al-Jaʿbīrī 1987: I.279). Although the basic line of approach of North African Ibadis to the subject after Atfayyish is preserved, it is seen that many details are gradually decreasing, and they becoming more similar to the Omani Ibadis in their presentation of the events. However, it is also safe to assume we have not yet come across a single North African Ibadi scholar who openly rejects the notion of mi’râj. Now it is time to evaluate the approaches of the eastern Ibadi world on the subject.

3. The Views of Omani Ibadi Scholars on the Isrâ and Mi’râj Events

When it comes to the approach of Omani Ibadi scholars to this subject, we encounter an interesting picture. As stated in the introduction, the early and pre-modern Omani Ibadi scholars did not touch very much on the issue of isrâ and mi’râj. Even in some encyclopaedic works (it could at least be mentioned in the prayer section, kitab al-salat) and sīrah texts, we unfortunately witness the subject was only briefly covered. For example, as far as we have researched, the writers of the book titled Kitab al-Jami, like Abu al-Hasan Ali b. Muhammad al-Bisyuwi (d. 370), Ibn Baraka al-Bahlawi (4th/10th century) and Izkawi (b. 1150/1737), do not enter the subject of mi’râj. Similarly, Salama b. Sa’d al-Awtabi (5–6th centuries) in his Kitab al-Diyâ and Ahmad b. Abd Allah al-Kindi (d. 557/1162) in his al-Tawhid and Kitab al-Salat do not mention this issue. Sheikh Salih b. Sa’îd al-Zamili from Nizwa, who was a blind scholar but active in the Ibadi community (mid-11th/17th century), did not refer to this topic.19 Sheikh Khamis b. Sa’id al-Shaqsi (d. 1034/1565), who lived two centuries before the exegete Kindi, in his work called Minhaj al-Talibin wa Balagh al-Raghibin (al-Shaqsi n.d., I.412–13; II.359–60), only mentions the notion of isrâ and does not deal with mi’râj. Different speculations can be made about the reason for this silence,20 but for now, it is useful to look at the approaches by Omani Ibadi scholars who have conducted evaluations of the subject, whether short or long, positive or negative.

When we look at the Omani commentator Sa’id b. Ahmad al-Kindi (d. 1207/1792) on the verses about isrâ and mi’râj, he made a concise and short comment. Without stating his preference for verse 17:1, he cites two views: he (the Prophet) travelled spiritually or physically. Kindi, who gave both the formula qila (it was said), says in the 18th verse of chapter Najm that the Prophet observed the greatest proofs of the mulk (seen) and malakut (unseen) world of God on the night of mi’râj (al-Kindi 1998: II.203, III.298). As can be understood from this presentation, Kindi accepts isrâ and mi’râj, but does not elaborate. Kindi, who generally deals with many subjects briefly and concisely, has sufficed to indicate this subject.

When examining North African Ibadis, they often use the terms isrâ and mi’râj interchangeably. We have pointed out that almost all of them accept mi’râj except for the issue of the Prophetic vision of God. When it comes to Omani Ibadi scholars, they make a sharp distinction between the notions of isrâ and mi’râj. For example, Sheikh Nasir b. Abi Nabhan (d. 1263/1847) says there is no doubt about isrâ because it is confirmed by Qur’anic verse. As for mi’râj, he makes interesting comments. He mentions many alternatives and discusses the positive and negative aspects of all these. According to Ibn Abi Nabhan, the Prophet’s spiritual or mental mi’râj is possible, but the available data (Qur’an, sunnah, ijma) do not support its occurrence. Therefore, Ibn Abi Nabhan argues that it is not correct to say that someone who does not accept mi’râj as an event has made a mistake. He even describes anyone who makes such a claim as cruel, sinful and heretic. He believes the reports are inauthentic regarding the details about mi’râj (reducing the prayers to five times, the Prophet’s meeting with other prophets in heaven, etc.) (Jumayyil 2015: VI.516). For Ibn Abi Nabhan, the issue of mi’râj is not from religious dogma and creed. The biggest evidence on this issue is the report from Aisha, the Prophet’s wife. The body of the Prophet did not somehow ascend to the heavens (uruj).21 Ibn Abi Nabhan argues the related verses of Surah Najm cannot be proof for the authenticity of mi’râj. With this approach, he seems selective about sunnah and consensus (ijma), unlike Atfayyish. Although Ibn Abi Nabhan speaks clearly about the fact isrâ is realised in soul and body because of verse 17:1, he rationalises his doubts about mi’râj. With simple logic, Ibn Abi Nabhan states isrâ is a smaller miracle than mi’râj, and if mi’râj was certain, it would not be reasonable for God to leave a greater miracle and mention the smaller one.22 Omani scholar Sa’id b. Khalfan al-Khalili (d. 1287/1871), on the other hand, repeats and simplifies Ibn Abi Nabhan’s comments then points out Ibn Abi Nabhan made right and authentic determinations about mi’râj because it is not a necessity of the religion (darurat al-diniyya).23

Ibn Abi Nabhan and Muhaqqiq Khalili are not exceptions and are cautious about mi’râj. Sheikh Jumayyil b. Khamis (d. 1278/1861) is one scholar who put forward serious dogmatic concerns about mi’râj. As clear as he is about isrâ, he is just as sceptical about the notion of mi’râj. The point is that it does not make much sense to mention the minor miracle (isrâ) in the Qur’an instead of the great miracle (mi’râj). This argument, which is given by many Omani Ibadis, is still important in Jumayyil b. Khamis’ magnum opus, Qamus al-Shari’ah. But he is not satisfied with this argument alone. According to Sheikh Jumayyil, the fact that all the reports about mi’râj are khabar ahad (come from a few people rather than masses, mutawatir) means that it is not sufficient to be verified knowledge. Second, these reports are not valid in the eyes of the community, inda al-qawm. At first glance, it can be understood that he refers to the Ibadi community with this expression (inda al-qawm), but when one looks at the textual context of this expression, it immediately becomes clear that he refers to Ahl al-Sunnah. Sheikh Jumayyil is probably of the opinion that there is no authentic narration about mi’râj in Sunni sources. It is unthinkable that the writer of Qamus al-Shari’ah lacked this basic knowledge about the Sunni view of the mi’râj event, but it seems he considers the mi’râj hadiths as being âhâd; therefore, they are not enough to establish dogma. Third, there are issues involving tashbih (anthropomorphism) due to the notion of ru’yat Allah, visio beatifica, etc. Fourth, he says it is badâ to abrogate something before it is put into practice, such as reducing the prayers from 50 to five times. Badâ is impossible for God (Jumayyil 2015: VI.511).

Unlike Nasir b. Abi Nabhan and Said b. Khalfan, the famous Omani Ibadi scholar Nur al-Din Abu Muhammad Abd Allah b. Humayd al-Salimi (d. 1332/1914) follows a different path regarding isrâ and mi’râj. Although Salimi sometimes does not make a sharp distinction between the two concepts, he evaluates the subject from different points in his various works. Although it is not a tidy and ordered narrative, it generally provides interesting information about the events of isrâ and mi’râj, which he evaluates from the perspectives of a traditionalist (muhaddith) and jurist. In the commentary of the related hadith, Salimi first deals with the determination of the night of isrâ, which some have said is the 17th of Rabi al-awwal, while others have said is the 27th. It has also been said to be the 27th of Rabi al-akhir and the 27th of Rajab. It has even been called Dhu al-hijjah. Salimi notes the two times of ritual prayer mentioned in Surah Muzzammil were abrogated on the night of isrâ and five daily prayers were made obligatory. He also mentions, after 12 years in Mecca, people turned their face towards bayt al-maqdis as the qibla after the isrâ event. (al-Sālimī n.d.c.: II.271–2). In his work Ma’arij al-Âmâl ala Madârij al-Kamâl, Salimi touches on similar issues to those in Sharh al-Jami al-Sahih. Furthermore, he repeats the fact that five times of prayer became obligatory (fard) on the night of isrâ and mi’râj. An important point that draws one’s attention in Ma’arij al-Âmâl is the quotation Salimi takes from two Shafi’i scholars who lived in Egypt. One of them is the author of al-Sirat al-Halabiyya, Ali b. Burhan al-Din al-Halabi (d. 1044/1635) while the other is Ibn Hajar al-Haythami (d. 807/1404). In the part quoted from al-Halabi, the obligatory prayer is mentioned, and from Haythami, the events observed on the night of mi’râj are briefly pointed out (al-Sālimī n.d.b.: II.34–5; VI.13–14).

Apart from Sharh and Ma’arij, Salimi deals with this issue with the eyes of a jurist in his works Tal’at al-Shams and Jawabat al-Imam al-Salimi. The main debate is how the prayers were reduced from 50 to five on the night of mi’râj. Salimi asks many questions in this context. For instance, is this a naskh (abrogation), if the naskh was abolished before the first proposal was put into practice and another proposal came? Is this easiness and mercy for the Prophet or ummah, or is there any possibility it is a badâ (changing thought, which is impossible for God)? Salimi gives a more concise presentation in Jawabat and does not go into much detail. He says “our knowledge of the way it was reduced from fifty to five is limited; God has reduced it from fifty to five times as a blessing to this ummah. Five times are worth fifty times” (al-Sālimī n.d.a.: I.297). Here, he reminds of verse 62:4, “Such is Allah’s favour: He bestows it on whomsoever He pleases. Allah is the Lord of abounding favour” (al-Sālimī n.d.a.: I.297). He even says it is not right to speculate on events that did not happen in the end (al-Sālimī n.d.a.: I.297). In short, Salimi is more interested in reality and practical repercussions of the matter, rather than focussing on unseen issues and abstract speculation.

In Tal’at al-Shams, on the other hand, contrary to the above approach, Salimi goes into detail. He draws attention to the narrative of the sacrifice of Ismail (son of Prophet Ibrahim). According to this Qur’anic narrative (37:102–7), the story was abrogated before the sacrificial order was fulfilled and a ram was sent instead of Ismail. However, the question is asked whether the time between abrogating (nasikh) and being abrogated (mansukh) was sufficient for the fulfilment of the order. In response, Salimi says: “All of that time is steadfastness in the matter, clarification of the ruling, and preparation for compliance, not negligence in action” (al-Sālimī 2008: I.561–2). After that, Salimi, who went into the subject of mi’râj, reminds the reader that it was reduced from 50 to five times without using a similar approach. Here, too, Salimi, who deals with the issue of the abrogation of the ruling before its implementation, says the Mutazilites rejected the hadith because of this, while those who accepted the narration rejected the abrogation. Salimi’s response to them is explicit. First, the mi’râj hadith is famous and accepted by the Muslim community. The reports and hadiths of mi’râj and the hadiths of the reduction in the obligation from 50 times to five are mentioned in the same narrations in the collection of Bukhari and Muslim and many other hadith books. For this reason, Salimi argues it is possible there is a test on the night of mi’râj, either directly or indirectly, about the ummah of the Prophet. He even says the Prophet might be tested because of his compassion for his ummah. Evaluating the decrease from 50 to five times within the framework of testing, Salimi also criticises the approach of Mutazilite scholar Abu al-Husayn (d. 436/1044). According to Abu al-Husayn, it is not permissible to abrogate a religious (shari’ah) decree of God without specifying it, making it felt (al-ish’âr bihi) or hinting and pointing it out (al-Sālimī 2008: I.562). To support this view, Abu al-Husayn mentions verses 4:15 and 65:1, which are related to divorce issues. Abu al-Husayn writes that if this Divine hint does not occur, the addressee thinks the decree will continue and this is not permissible. Salimi flatly denies this. The word amr (command) does not require continuation in terms of language, the custom of the community, law/religion, lughatan, urfan and shar’an (al-Sālimī 2008: I.562–3).

Salimi next takes up a different issue on the subject. Is abrogation permissible without offering any equivalent (badal)? (al-Sālimī 2008: I.563). Saying that Davud al-Zahiri did not allow this, Salimi quotes a couplet and draws attention to the permissibility of abrogation without an equivalent and the possibility that the new provision may be lighter or more severe. He cites many examples in this regard. For example, he says the verse about almsgiving before meeting with the Prophet privately and secretly was abrogated (58:12). Salimi, who opens the subject even more, also encounters issues such as the specification of the general, takhsis al-umum (al-Sālimī 2008: I.564–7). As a result, Salimi accepts the notion of isrâ and mi’râj, but does not clearly state the nature of mi’râj (whether it is spirit and body or just a spiritual event).

Like Salimi, other scholars from Oman put isrâ and mi’râj on the agenda. Sa’id b. Nasir b. Sa’id al-Ghaythi (b.1882 in Zanzibar) (See al-Harithi (2013)) succinctly states in his famous theological poem (Îdâh al-Tawhid bi-Nur al-Tawhid) that the Prophet went up to seven layers of the heaven on the night of mi’râj and witnessed interesting scenes, but did not see his Lord (la-qad irtaqa sab’a al-tibaq nabiyyuna fi laylat al-mi’râj minha, fa-ra’â min al-âyât duna ilâhihi) (al-Ghaythi 1996, p. 107). Al-Ghaythi seems to follow the North African Ibadis. Mansur al-Umani,24 on the other hand, accepts mi’râj in his work called ‘Discussion between those who accept and reject the subject of ru’yat Allah’, but rejects the notion of visio beautifica in the context of the Aisha hadith that the Prophet did not see his Lord that night (Mansur al-Umani, Maktaba Shamela Ibadi CD Program: I.16). Sheikh Sa’id al-Qannubi, on the other hand, states there is a clear nass (Qur’an verse) about isrâ and there is an obvious implication and indication of mi’râj in Surah Najm. However, al-Qannubi concentrates on the discussion about the time of the fast to be held on the night of mi’râj but is careful because there is no transmission from the Companions on this issue (al-Qannubi 2018). Bakri,25 a contemporary Ibadi scholar, gives a brief answer to the question in al-As’ilat wa al-Ajwibat al-Nathriyya of whether mi’râj was realised while awake or asleep, or whether the prayer was made obligatory during mi’râj. According to him, there are those who accept it was only a spiritual journey, whereas others say the Prophet was awake with the soul and body during mi’râj. Bakri does not neglect to state that the second opinion is held by the majority (al-Bakri n.d., Bakri, Maktaba Shamela Ibadi CD Program: I.92).

Recently, it has been observed there is no single voice among Omani scholars on the issue of mi’râj. Another author who preferred the path of Ibn Abi Nabhan instead of his predecessor Salimi is Zakariyya al-Muharrami. Muharrami is a medical doctor and works at Sultan Qaboos Hospital but is actively involved in many religious and cultural debates. Muharrami is one of the rare contemporary writers who deals with the subject of mi’râj in detail. Probably, he is also classified by many religious scholars and the establishment in Oman as a rationalist who denies some of the authentic and established hadiths; therefore, he is not acceptable to them. Muharrami rejects the ascension by using classical and modern arguments with semi-philosophical and semi-logical discussions in the contemporary period. He begins his discussion by stating the evidence supporting mi’râj contains too many uncertainties. Mentioning verses 3–18 from Surah Najm, he says these do not prove or point to mi’râj. As Aisha stated, according to Muharrami, the claim that the Prophet saw his Lord is the greatest sin. These verses indicate the Prophet saw Gabriel in his original form. Muharrami goes even further to reject the view of the authors of sirah and the history that the Prophet used to pray before his prophethood in the cave of Hira (Muharrami 2004: I.277). Muharrami claims the verses of Surah Najm show the first revelation began in the Prophet’s dream. According to Muharrami, these verses indicate the revelation was frightening to the Prophet rather than the event of mi’râj. Muharrami, who warns the interlocutors, also draws attention to the fact the story of the Prophet worshipping in the cave of Hira allows the enemies of religion to use these stories against Islam. According to Muharrami, one of the important problems in the narrations about the cave of Hira is that the revelation received by the Prophet is the result of his long-term asceticism. Thus, Muharrami likens the revelation to interesting and extra-ordinary events experienced by mystics who go through material and spiritual abstinence for a long time. However, the revelation of all the prophets, according to Muharrami, came down suddenly (fujâiyya). In this context, he gives the examples of Moses (20:9–12) and Talut (2:247) (Muharrami 2004: I.277).

He also rejects the details about the place or tree of sidrat al-muntaha mentioned in Surah Najm. Muharrami analyses the sīrah and tafsir sources about it with a semi-mystical, semi-rational approach. Sidra is a nabq tree (Ziziphus lotus) that is located between the desert and residential areas (bayn al-badiya wa al-hadira) and always keeps its leaves. Because of the tree’s strategic location, Muharrami accepts the sidra as a metaphor and considers it as the meeting point of the human (the Prophet) and Divine realms (Gabriel) (Muharrami 2004: I.278). For this reason, Muharrami does not perceive sidra as a final destination where everything after the seventh heaven mentioned in the books of sirah and tafsir ends. Muharrami is of the opinion that the definitions and explanations made for sidrat al-muntaha in the sīrah and tafsir literatures such as above the head of the throne, the last stop of all client angels and prophets etc. are all fabrications. For him, no one knows these places except God. Muharrami discusses the Jewish convert Ka’b al-Ahbar (d. 32/652-3?) spread the idea that sidra is in the seventh heaven among Muslims. Muharrami also indirectly presents Ka’b al-Ahbar al-Yahudi (Muharrami 2004), who was presented as the first Zionist by the Egyptian scholar Abu Rayya (d.1970),26 as the fabricator of the mi’râj reports.27

Muharrami deals with the issue in the context of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslimism in the later parts of his chapter. For example, he focuses on the fact that all the prophets that Prophet Muhammad met on the night of mi’râj were people adopted as prophets by the Children of Israel. According to him, even the degrees or layers of the prophets in question in heaven indicates they were designed according to a Jewish perspective. At this juncture, Muharrami argues, if this was not so, Adam would not be in the first layer, and Abraham, Moses and Aaron would not be at the top. More interestingly, the fact that prophets such as Shu’ayb, Hud, Salih28 and even Noah are not mentioned is related to the fact the subject is told from the Jewish perspective (Muharrami 2004: I.283). In addition, a different argument put forward by Muharrami about the origin of the mi’râj story is that Moses knew the situation of the community of Muhammad better than God. In the footnote of the discussion, by quoting Sheikh Ahmed b. Sa’ud al-Siyabi, he conveys the question of why Moses was chosen as a guide for Muhammad, not Abraham, and points out the fiction of the mi’râj story within the framework of isrâ’iliyyat (Muharrami 2004). Muharrami, who came to this subject at the end of the discussion, evaluates Moses’ position of advising the Prophet as preferring the Jews over the Muslims.

Muharrami prefers to use all kinds of arguments and hermeneutical tools to reject the mi’râj reports. Sometimes one feels there is a limit to the polemic. It is possible to see the flexibility and comfort of not approaching the subject via traditional learning of classical Islamic disciplines directly from the respected sheiks or scholars, as in Muharrami’s case. There is a serious gap, as wide as the distance between east and west, between the evaluations of Muharrami and the explanations of Sheikh Ahmad Khalili, which will be discussed on the same issues a little later. In this context, it can be remembered that Muharrami holds the view that the original story of the mi’râj is mentioned in the books of Jews and Christians. He cites this information from the work of Jordanian scholar Hasan Thaqqaf (b. 1961). Accordingly, it is also mentioned in the book of Idris (Book of Enoch, Kitab Ikhnuh), which is considered as one of the ancient Jewish works. This book, which is still respected by the Abyssinian church, has not been accepted as canonical by contemporary Western churches. Muharrami states some early Muslim scholars and commentators were familiar with this work. Accordingly, just like the expression “And We raised him to a high station” (19:57) mentioned in the Qur’an, the Jewish story of Enoch raises Idris to the seventh heaven (Muharrami 2004: I.285). Moreover, Muharrami says that the rivers mentioned in the Jewish story are explained in a way that Arabs can understand, such as Sayhun, Jayhun and the Euphrates. According to Muharrami, the narrators of this story do not know geography either. He says this especially in the context of the rivers mentioned in the reports (Muharrami 2004).

Muharrami also criticises the transmitters of the long mi’râj hadith because of the details contained in it (he mentions Buraq plus the opening and cleaning of the Prophet’s chest with zamzam water). For him, these reports and narrations, despite their length and many hermetic details (wa kathrat tafasiliha al-harmasiyyati), never mention the great night journey (isrâ) mentioned by God in the Qur’an. Muharrami also criticises the narration, which is presented as if the Prophet ascended directly to the seventh heaven from Mecca. On the other hand, these reports imply not only Jewish and Christian influences, but also the influence of Greek philosophy (Muharrami 2004). Muharrami also criticises some people (post-Companion period) in the chain of isnads and various versions of the narration, in terms of jarh and ta’dil (the discipline of criticism, impugnment and validation of hadith scholars). For example, Hammad b. Salama (d. 167/784), who is said to be reliable by hadith scholars such as Yahya b. Maîn, Ahmad b. Hanbal, Abu al-Hasan al-Ijlî and Nasâî, is heavily criticised by Muharrami (Muharrami 2004).

Another detail that Muharrami criticises is the encounter and conversation of Prophet Muhammad with other prophets during his heavenly journey. According to Muharrami, these prophets passed away before the Prophet and no dead person will be resurrected until the Day of Judgment. In this context, he, who also mentions some verses (45:26; 3:185), rejects these details totally (Muharrami 2004). It does not go unnoticed that Muharrami sometimes takes a reductionist and literal view of the reading. In our opinion, he simplifies his arguments and makes simple pseudo-logical comments to support the view he previously accepted. To put it another way, he had already made up his mind and the discussion is provided to prove his pre-conceived perception.

We also observe that Muharrami defines the expression wa dana al-jabbaru rabb al-izzati …/“and Glorious God approached …”, which is also narrated in the context of the verse of Surah Najm thumma dana fa-tadalla/ “he drew near and came down” (53:8), as the ugliest explanation. He does not neglect to record the statement he quoted from Khattabi to support his view. Muharrami also records the opinion of Sheikh Ibn Abi Nabhan that there is neither explicit textual evidence (nass) nor a consensus on the issue of mi’râj (Muharrami 2004: I.284). In summary, it is not a matter of religious creed. He also quotes the commentary of Abu Tahir of Mutazilite and argues it is not permissible for God to mention the smaller miracle (isrâ) while evidence of a greater miracle (mi’râj) exists (Muharrami 2004). It is important to underline North African Ibadis did not find this argument convincing, a fact that some Omani Ibadis sometimes emphasise.

Muharrami believes the reports and hadiths about mi’râj should be rejected based on ahad transmission. Similar to Sheikh Jumayyil, Muharrami explains it is not authentic among the community, annahu laysa min al-sihah inda al-qawmi (Muharrami 2004: I.286). However, it is not clear that Muharrami associates the community (al-qawm) with Sunnis or Ibadis. Even so, Muharrami provides many other arguments to reject these reports. Some of them are: the fact that prayer was reduced from 50 to five times means there is badâ (change of the thought which is impossible for God); the Jewish role in the blending of the narrations; and the creation and dissemination of a whole from a Jewish perspective necessitates the rejection of the mi’râj narration. Even more interestingly, according to Muharrami, it is claimed that telling mi’râj as it is in the books of sirah and tafsir will spoil religious feelings and spirituality (Muharrami 2004). It is observed that Muharrami evaluates the subject mostly according to the positivist perception of the contemporary period. The rule that one should use the narration if possible (i’mal) rather than neglect it (ihmal) completely disappears in Muharrami’s dry rationalist approach.

The grand mufti of Oman, Sheikh Ahmad b. Hamad al-Khalili (b. 1943), also extensively covers this subject in his weekly talks. Since the Sheikh’s exegesis does not include the relevant verses, the subject is dealt with obliquely and in a completely different context in his Jawahir al-Qur’an. Sheikh Khalili indirectly addresses verse 17:1, which deals with the expression abd (servant) in a theological and spiritual framework (al-Khalīlī 2004: I.293). He sincerely and openly answers the questions asked about isrâ and mi’râj in the program on Oman TV titled su’âl ahl al-dhikr/”Question for Someone Who Knows”. We are not sure whether the opinion of the official mufti of Oman is binding on all Ibadis, but it is impossible for Sheikh Khalili not to know about the different approaches of Omani scholars on the subject. As we will discuss in detail below, our first impression of his response to various questions related to isrâ and mi’râj is that he tried hard to find the middle ground away from any dogmatic sharpness.29 Some of the 16 questions asked to Sheikh Khalili are: Can you evaluate the time and historical context of isrâ and mi’râj? Are isrâ and mi’râj confirmed and fixed by the main sources of Islam? Is belief in them (isrâ and mi’râj) considered to be a necessity of religion, darurat al-diniyyah? Could we use modern scientific data to calculate the time of this event and how accurate would such an approach be for the miracle? What is the ruling of fasting on the days of isrâ and mi’râj? What are the lessons that Muslims will learn from isrâ and mi’râj? What is the authenticity of the speculations about the characteristics of Buraq (mount) and this mount asking for intercession from the Prophet? Is this heavenly journey just spiritual or is it spiritual and physical? Is it true what the Prophet witnessed on the night of mi’râj or are these superstitions or fabrications from the transmitters and narrators? It is also noted that most of these reports come from Ibn Abbas. Therefore, the question that arises is the reliability of different and sometimes contradictory narrations to discussion; they also ask about the Sheikh’s general approach to this issue. It is also observed that different questions and doubts about mi’râj have been expressed. For example, the question of the existence or possibility of different mi’râj events from the Qur’anic expression nazlatan ukhra (another descending) in Surah Najm is one of the issues discussed in detail. Also, did the Prophet lead the other prophets in prayer during his heavenly journey? If so, are these prophets still alive? What exactly is mi’râj, what is its nature, how did it happen and what is the religious situation of those who do not accept it? Sheikh Khalili was given the opportunity to evaluate the subject in all its aspects in the light of well-thought-out questions (al-Khalili and al-Qannubi 2004: I.1–2).30 Khalili handled the issue well with his knowledge and considered all the alternatives in several episodes of the program.

Sheikh Khalili begins his discussion by saying isrâ is clearly stated and the notion of mi’râj is implied in the Qur’an, so there is no dispute or conflict. As for determining the exact time, Khalili says, there is no evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah, so it is difficult to verify the exact timing. However, he does not neglect to mention the general approach to the issue of time. It is safe to assume one can re-write sirah text based on the Sheikh’s reply to the first question only. According to Khalili, who gives the general historical perspective from his comprehensive and cautious explanation, isrâ and mi’râj took place before the migration, hijra. We will not go into every detail given by the Sheikh but can easily say it is eye-opening. Regarding the religious position of the person who does not accept isrâ and mi’râj, Sheikh Khalili makes a straightforward distinction. He, for example, declares someone as a disbeliever, even kufru shirk, if they do not accept isrâ, because there is a clear text about it. Regarding mi’râj, he says this is a situation close to an explicit text (nass). For the Sheikh, when Surah Najm and various hadiths are considered, there is cumulative evidence for mi’râj. The expression he uses in this regard is: takâdu takunu sarihatan (close to clear evidence) (al-Khalili and al-Qannubi 2004: I.7). For this reason, he calls the one who rejects mi’râj as a sinner (fasiq) but not a disbeliever (kafir). According to the Sheikh, whoever denies isrâ is an unbeliever, but a person who denies mi’râj is not faithless/an infidel. He even states those who accept mi’râj as a spiritual event and interpret it that way are not sinful (fasiq) (al-Khalili and al-Qannubi 2004: I.7). With this approach, Sheikh Khalili also puts the negative discourses of some Ibadi scholars about mi’râj into a framework. His answer on whether isrâ and mi’râj should be explained by the laws of nature or accepted as a miracle is rich in content. In short, since the prophethood of the Prophet was general, the miracle he showed must be general; in this context, Sheikh Khalili argues the greatest miracle of the Prophet is the Qur’an. We will not dwell on the indirect explanations of Sheikh Khalili, who deals with the subject in the context of salvation history a little more. From these answers, which contain many details, we observe that Sheikh Khalili accepted isrâ and mi’râj. Contrary to some Omani scholars who were more cautious about mi’râj, we can easily say the Sheikh, who represents the official religion at the highest level, resembles the North African Ibadis in his approach. However, he is clear on the impossibility of the issue of ru’yat Allah (al-Khalili and al-Qannubi 2004: I.17), which is the hallmark of Ibadi theology, and he maintains a good balance in his evaluations.

4. Conclusions

Ibadi sources do not give much credence to the events of isrâ and mi’râj despite the fact it is one of the longest narrations in hadith and sirah sources in Muslim tradition. Presumably, the mi’râj incident includes the issue of ru’yat Allah in some narrations, which may be a reason for this silence. However, some people, such as Hud b. Muhakkam, Atfayyish, Muharrami and Sheikh Ahmah Khalili, deal with the issue quite extensively. Others focus only on the time of isrâ and mi’râj and the special aspects of some events that took place on this night. Salimi, who brings up the subject in many of his works, is a good example of this approach in this regard. In the contemporary period, we witness that some Ibadi scholars prefer not to go into any detail about isrâ and mi’râj although they generally accept them in principle. Bayyud’s approach is a good illustration in this regard. The North African Ibadis (Hud and Atfayyish), who deal with the subject exhaustively, focus on the narrative aspect whereas Omani Ibadis read these notions more from juristic and theological points of view. In this context, the issue of abrogation and comparison between smaller or bigger miracles constitute the most remarkable arguments among Omanis. If we specify using Wansbrough’s classification, North African Ibadis read isrâ and mi’râj events from a haggadic perspective (sīrah and tarikh) whereas Omani Ibadis read them from halakhic (fiqh) point of view.

As stated in the introduction of this article, Ibadis do not display a monolithic approach, especially regarding the notion of mi’râj. We saw in Sheikh Jumayyil’s analysis that the hadiths and reports about mi’râj are not authentic, even in the eyes of Sunnis/annahu laysa min al-sahih inda al-qawmi. This is mentioned later by some Omani Ibadis as extra evidence to prove their own stance. In the light of our analysis, it becomes clear this is not correct even if the community (al-qawm) is referred to as Sunnis. It has been observed that scholars and intellectuals, such as Ibn Abi Nabhan and Muharrami, who openly reject mi’râj, use all kinds of arguments and sometimes engage in rational and polemical discussions. Atfayyish, on the other hand, reconstructs almost a new isrâ and mi’râj narrative, re-writes sīrah and uses each report to support these two events to create a pastoral and confessional sīrah text. There are Ibadis who consider these two events (isrâ and mi’râj) as muttafaqun alayh (agreed upon by consensus) or mujma’ alayh (agreed upon) because of the mi’râj narrations that are often mentioned in famous hadith collections. In other words, Ibadis’ perceptions of mi’râj encompass a wide spectrum. As can be seen here, some Ibadi scholars, such as Atfayyish, take a different approach. We wonder if this difference is an Ibadi distinction or a specific feature of Atfayyish himself, which is the subject of another article. However, with a few exceptions, North African Ibadis’ readings of Siyar seems to reflect the general framework.

In the post-Atfayyish period, more cautious and precise explanations are prioritised rather than the details of the narrations, which narrow the rich connotations of isrâ and mi’râj in the eyes of the Ibadis. Nevertheless, we do not see frequent discussions about the importance and usefulness of mi’râj in modern Ibadi circles, which are similar to the philosophical and mystical discussions developed by Muhammad Iqbal (d. 1938) and Said Nursi (d. 1960). In addition, we see that the alternative meaning of the phrase sa-nuriyahu in the first verse of Surah Isrâ does not come to the fore in Ibadi sources. While the first meaning of the verse is “showing Our signs to him (the Prophet)”, the alternative meaning of the verse is to show or introduce him (the Prophet) as one of God’s signs/proofs to the inhabitants of the heavens (Waheed 2018, pp. 99–113), which is not covered in the Ibadi works. Moreover, the discussions about the notion of prophecy, which are built on the alternative meaning, do not enter the agenda of the Ibadis. As Iqbal stated, they do not comment on the Prophet’s heavenly journey (going to the top, sidrat al-muntaha) and coming back to his community out of love and concern for them (Waheed 2018). On the other hand, considering the literal meaning of masjid al-aqsa (the farthest mosque), we do not often come across narrations from Ibadis about the mosque that is the farthest in the Hijaz, rather than in Jerusalem. According to this approach, the farthest mosque is in Ji’rane instead of bayt al-maqdis in Jerusalem, because it is mentioned in the narrations that the Prophet wore the pilgrimage garment (ihram) there (Yılmaz 2016, pp. 33–50). The Ibadis do not engage in such discussions (except for Muharrami’s indirect dealing with some of them), which we can call a modern or Orientalist reading of sīrah. As it is known, there was no specific mosque in Jerusalem during the Prophet’s heavenly journey (isrâ and mi’râj). The famous Indian scholar Muhammad Hamidullah, therefore, understands the expression masjid al-aqsa as a spiritual rather than physical place. We certainly do not see such an argument on the subject in the Ibadis’ writings. Similarly, we do not see the narration and discussions developed in some Shi’ite-leaning sources (as in the history of Yaqubi), such as the building of masjid al-aqsa to replace the Ka’ba (holy shrine) by the Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik b Marwan to prevent Muslims from going on pilgrimage to Mecca, in contemporary Ibadi works (Yılmaz 2016, pp. 33–50). In summary, the Ibadis do not have a single approach to the mi’râj event, as they do to the notion of the return of Jesus, nuzul Isa. It is known that all Ibadis exhibit consensus on the issue of ru’yat Allah. However, the mi’râj incident, in which rich and different perspectives can be seen, is one of the best examples of Ibadi pluralism in sīrah and exegetical traditions. It is also a fact that some Ibadis from Oman, unlike the Ibadis of North Africa, reject the mi’râj narrations altogether, while others accept mi’râj in a general framework without going into detail.