Israa’ & Miraaj
Muhammad’s Miraculous Night Journey and Ascension
The belief
that Mohammed, in the course of his life, once ascended to heaven has for
nearly twelve centuries been considered by Mohammedans as an essential article
of their religion. […] It is therefore well worth while to ascertain on what
evidence the dogma rests.[1]
In February of 2001, the Islamic Awareness team pulled
together such notable net-personalities and cyber-dawagandists as Dr. Muhammad
Saifullah, Robert Squires, Mohamed Ghounem, and others, to defend the Islamic
legend of Muhammad’s journey on flying horse from Makkah (Mecca) to
Jerusalem. These gentlemen set out to defend Islam against a particular
Christian polemic
(put forth by Jochen Katz) that actually brought the story into question! The
article, Prophet
Muhammad's Night Journey To Al-Masjid Al-Aqsâ, has since seen no serious response from the
Answering-Islam team (at Katz’ site) nor from those who support and admire the
team.
The argument put forth by the IA cyber-mujahideen, it
should be conceded, has at least reduced Katz’ challenge to a stalemate. The
bulk of their argument consisted of a linguistic-etymological approach that
basically reduces the meaning of the word masjid to a point that allows
them to banish the argument to the realm of the unfalsifiable. It is our goal
to take another look at this argument for the sake of those who are interested.
The Islamic Awareness team basically fights a defensive
battle, capitalizing on the fact that Jochen Katz could be depicted as the
positive claimant. Their implied argument is (and always has been) that this
legend will be assumed true until proven false. In many respects, their whole
approach over all is riddled with circular argumentation. The Freethought Mecca
would like to tell readers upfront that it is incumbent upon those who claim
this absurd story is true to present evidence; the burden of proof is upon
their shoulders.
Of course, they have no evidence to back up their claim,
save for appeals to dogma and sectarian exegesis. In one attempt to prove that
Muhammad really did fly to Jerusalem over night, the team cites the following
quote from Neal Robinson’s Discovering the Qur’an:
The tradition which
identifies it with the Temple Mount in Jerusalem makes admirable sense in view
of the fact that the 'place of worship' (masjid) whose destruction is
evoked in v. 7 is clearly the Temple.[2]
The issue of Muhammad’s night journey and Neal Robinson’s subsequent
attempt at Qur’anic exegesis has been dealt with elsewhere by the FTMecca. That aside, there
are still numerous problems with the subtle implications of citing Robinson.
First of all, the reason for citing Robinson is made painfully clear when, in
the very next sentence, the team states that “[t]his view is also shared by
many western scholars.” The Islamic Awareness team and its supporters love
using an argument along the lines of “if even the Western kuffaar agree
with us, it must be true!” Such argumentation was seen in our defense of the multiple hands theory when an
IA-supporter made quite a big deal about the fact that even Western scholars
were critical of the writings of Michael Cook and Patricia Crone; such methods
are found all over the net.
While in some cases such an argument may work, it has no
place in a discussion about Muhammad’s night journey. In fact, to cite Robinson
in this respect is to put forth a circular argument; this is apparent once one
takes stock of Robinson’s method. A verse from the Qur’an (Soorat al-Israa’
17:1) makes vague reference to a certain servant who travels from al-Masjid
al-Haraam to al-Masjid al-Aqsa. Traditional Islamic interpretation
then supplies a fantastic narrative that is anchored to this sole verse, and is
supported by traditional hermeneutic approaches to other obscure verses (maybe
we don’t have the proper hikmah). So, the historicity of the elaborate
narrative is brought into question, and the Islamic Awareness team tries to
present one scholar’s regurgitation of the traditional interpretation as
evidence. In reality, all we have done is moved in a circle, as Robinson is
merely parroting the sentiments of traditional Muslims and nothing more!
Furthermore, the Islamic Awareness team’s attempt to present
this as the Western view fails badly when it is realized that Robinson is
himself a practicing Muslim! The point of presenting the “Western” view is to
make an appeal to something we have made reference to before: the Ummah’s
deep inferiority complex vis a vis the dominant Western culture. It
seems that so many Muslims need a Western voice to assuage their self-doubt and
convince them that their choice of deen is actually worthwhile. The
Islamic Awareness team often caters to this sentiment, and that was the point
of showing Robinson’s view. However, this becomes somewhat of a moot point when
it is revealed that at least one member of the team knew that Robinson was a
believing Muslim, yet neglected to mention it. As Dr. Muhammad Saifullah has
said in the past:
Neal Robinson has been a
Muslim for long time but he declared his shahadah in the last Qur'an conference
at School of Oriental & African Studies, London, UK, in front of many
Muslims and non-Muslim scholars.[3]
So, despite the fact that Neal Robinson has a Western name,
he is still a believing Muslim. Is it any surprise that Neal Robinson agrees
that Soorat al-Israa 17:1 is referring to Muhammad’s alleged night
journey? Let it be noted that though Robinson’s book makes for an excellent
introduction to Orthodox[4]
Muslim attitudes toward the Qur’an, it cannot be considered a piece of
historical scholarship. As one review of his book states
'The case for considering
the Qur'an as revelation,’ the author continues, ‘is a very strong one’ (p.
286). We are, then, in the realm not of history or even of literary criticism,
but of theology. […] This is an intelligent, sophisticated, and provocative
book on a perplexing subject written from a faith perspective[.][5]
It is best that we stop here, as so much focus on Robinson
alone is toeing the line of being a red herring. It is now time to consider the
team’s linguistic-etymological approach. This style of argumentation, in one
respect, can be summed up with a single word: flawless. Their argument is
mainly that the word masjid does not necessarily signify a massive
structure with towering minarets. In all actuality, a masjid can be any
and every place on earth; it is simply a place where one prostrates. We can
think of no disagreement that can be raised against this precise point.
What
About Evidence?
At the outset we stated that this argument reduces the
debate to at least a stalemate, and banishes it to the realm of the
unfalsifiable. The reason we state such should be obvious to anyone who wonders
about evidence for the fantastic claims made regarding Muhammad’s night
journey. To try an elucidate this stance and expose the unfalsifiable nature of
the argument, let us first consider the state of the temple mount at the time traditionally
given for Muhammad’s journey. Prior to the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem (which
took place after Muhammad had died), the site was used as a dump for refuse and
human waste. As one scholar describes it:
When 'Umar reached the old ruined gates of
the Temple, says the Muslim historian Mujir al-Din, he was horrified to see the
filth, "which was then all about the holy sanctuary, had settled on the
steps of the gates so that it even came out into the streets in which the gate
opened, and it had accumulated so greatly as almost to reach up the ceiling of
the gateway." The only way to get up to the platform was to crawl on hands
and knees. Sophronius went first and the Muslims struggled up behind. When they
arrived at the top, the Muslims must have gazed appalled at the vast and
desolate expanse of Herod's platform, still covered with piles of fallen
masonry and garbage. The shock of this sad encounter with the holy place whose
fame had reached them in far-off Arabia was never forgotten: Muslims claimed
that they called Anastasis al-qumamah, "the Dungheap," in
retaliation for the impious of the Christians on the Temple Mount. 'Umar does
not seem to have spent any time on this occasion examining the rock, which
would later play such an important part in Islamic piety. Once he had taken stock
of the situation, he threw handfuls of dung and rubble into his cloak and then
hurled it over the city wall into the Valley of Hinnom. Immediately his
followers did the same.[6]
This gives us a picture of the sheer magnitude of the filth
that was piled all over the Temple Mount. Surely Muhammad did not land in that
mess with his flying horse to lead a prayer with Jesus and Adam as the
traditions claim! However, the Muslims, seemingly out of pure obstinacy, hold
on to this legend. The Islamic Awareness team was aware of this fact, but tried
to ignore it, and instead used it as part of a red herring attack on the
Christians (who were the cause of this accumulation of filth). With the above
now before us, let us start going through the argument.
Originally, it was pointed out that there was no structure [7]
present at the time Muhammad lived, which is what motivated the Islamic
Awareness team to write their article. The Islamic Awareness team did quite a
good job of demonstrating that there could be a masjid at that spot
without any sort of structure. However, how would they respond to the above-mentioned
points about the amount of filth on that spot at the time? Surely Muslims are
not allowed to prostrate themselves in human waste! Well the answer then
becomes “maybe al-Masjid al-Aqsa was not precisely on the temple mount,
but somewhere else in Jerusalem.” Thus we have a moving goal-posts sort of
argument.
Indeed, the article in question does hint at such when it
writes:
[O]ne should realize that
verse 17:1 also speaks of "The Sacred Mosque" which is in Makkah
around the Kacbah. Did a building for
the mosque exist there in the time of the Prophet? The answer is that the Kacbah
was there but there was no building for the mosque.
The implication here is that the entire city (Makkah)
could be considered the “Sacred Mosque” (al-Masjid al-Haraam). If this
is not clear to our readers, let it be noted that one member of the Islamic
Awareness team, the esteemed Dr. Muhammad Saifullah, further elaborated on such
sentiments as follows:
The Qur'an
mentions the the Prophet, SAW was taken to al-Masjid al-Aqsa and that its
surrounding are blessed. The question now is what constitutes the boundaries of
al-Masjid al-Aqsa? Does it include only the Temple Mount? Or is it Temple Mount
and its surrounding? Honestly, I do not know the answer. But I can say for sure
that the boundaries of al-Masjid al-Haraam does constitute the whole of Makkah
and is delineated by well-known places outside it.[8]
The point of such a statement is to set an analogy. If al-Masjid
al-Haraam includes Makkah and even some parts outside of it, then by
extension, al-Masjid al-Aqsa could very easily include all of Jerusalem
and even a few parts outside of it! So as long as Muhammad and his flying horse
(as per the traditions) landed somewhere in Jerusalem, he was at al-Masjid
al-Aqsa. It is from here that the Muslims expect the kuffaar to
disprove this legend! It is impossible, as such a claim is wholly
unfalsifiable. The al-Aqsa mosque could’ve been anywhere and anything by these
standards! How can one prove that Muhammad did not ride his flying horse to an
unspecified point in Jerusalem other than to shrug his shoulders and make an
appeal to the sentiment that flying horses don’t exist? It cannot be disproven,
but this is not a problem, as the burden of proof is on the Muslims anyway!
However, what sort of evidence does the Islamic literature
(the source of this legend) provide the Muslims with? This issue of evidence,
as per the traditional biographies of Muhammad, had been raised by the Makkan
pagans. Muhammad allegedly described the caravans (among other things) that he
saw during the journey. The story appears in Ibn Ishaaq’s biography, and it
holds that Muhammad flew in, drank some water that was on the caravan, and then
flew back to Makkah. He then told people about it, and when the caravan
rolled into Makkah, people asked them about the water mentioned in
Muhammad’s story, and the caravan drivers indeed confirmed that some of it (or
all of it?) was gone. There's also a story that he told one of his companions
something about Jerusalem (i.e. a description, but it is not stated what he
said), and the companion confirmed that his descriptions were accurate.
From here some might say, “gosh, how could he have known
those things?” What he mentioned can't be considered evidence, as such
anecdotes are used for every legend, even those present today. Everyone who
believes in psychics has a story about how "when I was there, the psychic
said things that she couldn't possibly have known..." And then, even more related
are those who have the friend who related the anecdote, "my friend went to
an astrologer and he said things he could not have known, thus..." The
same goes for a plethora of other myths, such as big foot, aliens, et cetera. Some
are sincere accounts, some have been affected by hyperbole, and none can be
considered evidence. A relevant link: http://skepdic.com/testimon.html
A Sophomoric-Scientific Approach
While we admit that we cannot disprove the story about
Muhammad riding to Jerusalem and then taking off into heaven, we can raise one
objection: the journey is impossible from a scientific standpoint. The higher
heavens are apparently somewhere outside the boundaries of known space, yet
Muhammad allegedly traversed this distance over night! Let me tell you now that
no matter how fast Muhammad was traveling, he could not have made this journey.
In fact, as we have stated before, even if Muhammad took off going at the speed
of light, he still would not yet have left our galaxy today!
Furthermore, it should be noted that any object with any
measurable mass cannot move at the speed of light. As one approaches the speed
of light, their mass increases (this has been proven experimentally). There is
a simple formula for determining what the object’s mass will be:
m = m0 / (1-[v2/c2])1/2
In this equation, v/c stands for the percentage of the speed
of light (c) that the object is traveling, thus if the velocity (v) is one half
the speed of light, v/c = .5 [or ˝]. So you take the square of the speed, and
subtract it from one (1), and then find the square root of that answer. If you
divide the object’s original mass by that result, you get the precise mass of
the object traveling at that speed. Again, this has been proven experimentally,
and can be found in any college-level intro to physics (though obviously the
early Muslims were not aware of this equation, which originates much later with
the Einstein-Lorentz transformations).
Now, if we plug in Muhammad’s weight (assume any weight for
the sake of argument, such as 70 kg), and place his velocity equal to the speed
of light (v/c = 1), his mass at that speed becomes infinite! Try it for
yourself! So, Muhammad could never reach the speed of light (or go faster)
because his mass would become practically infinite. However, if he were
traveling slower than the speed of light, he wouldn’t have yet finished
traversing the thousands of light years between here and the end of our galaxy!
How’s that for an objection to this myth?!?
Similar formulas could be used to take the time into
account, but that will not be necessary. Present such an argument before the
Muslims, and we promise they still will not be convinced. In fact, such an
exercise will quickly become an exhibition of the Muslim tendency to constantly
put forth wholly unfalsifiable claims. How would the Muslims escape this
response? Easy, by proclaiming that anything is possible for God (i.e. there
may have been a worm hole not mentioned in the Sira). If you meet such
an objection, point out that such sentiments could be the justification for any
wild claim in any wild religion.
NOTES
[1] A. A. Bevan,
“Mohammed’s Ascension to Heaven,” Studien Zur Semitischen Philologie und
Religionsgeschichte Julius Wellhausen, (Beiheft, 1914), p. 51
[2] Neal Robinson,
Discovering The Qur'ân: A Contemporary Approach To A Veiled Text, (SCM
Press, 1996), p. 192
[4] We
definitely mean Orthodox, as Robinson, in one of his book’s appendices, takes a
few swipes at more heterodox strains of Islam, such as the Ahmadiyya.
[5]F.E. Peters, International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 30, 1998, p. 612-613, emphasis is ours.
[6]Karen Armstrong, Jerusalem: One City, Three Faiths, (Ballantine, 1997) pp.229-230
[7] Strangely,
Muhammad ibn Ishaaq claimed that al-Masjid al-Aqsa was “the Temple of
Aelia,” thus implying that the belief in his time was that an actual building
was there.
|