Verses 1–18
The aim of the present chapter of the Qurʾan is to emphasize three core doctrines of Islam: The oneness of God in Lordship (rubūbiyya), the Resurrection (maʿād), and prophethood (nubuwwa). It begins by discussing prophethood and confirming the veracity of the revelation that has been sent to the Prophet of Islam and describing it. Then, it turns to the oneness of God, rejecting all idols and partners to Him in the most eloquent and forceful manner, before illustrating the utter dependency of all creation upon Him and His governance thereof, in terms of giving life and death, causing some to laugh and others to weep, enriching some and impoverishing others, dealing out destruction and punishment, and calling humankind to the truth and warning them. God closes this discourse by calling attention to the Resurrection and commanding the audience to bow down and worship.
Based on the context and tone of its verses, this chapter is of Meccan provenance, and no heed should be given to the view that some or all of its verses are Medinan. Some have said that its first verses were a general announcement, which the Prophet recited to both the believers and the idolaters together. Two of the most beautiful verses to be found in this chapter are: And that the terminus is toward your Lord (); And that nothing belongs to man except what he strives for ().
For the purpose of our commentary, we have divided this chapter of the Qurʾan into three tranche of verses. The first of these testifies to the veracity of the revelation that has been sent down to the Prophet and describes it. However, there are numerous narrations from the Imāms of the Prophet’s Household that explicitly state that these verses are not intended as descriptions for the entirety of the revelation, but rather the verbal revelation that God revealed to His Prophet during the Night Journey (al-Miʿrāj). This would make these verses are part of the story of the Night Journey, and this reading appears to be supported by the verses themselves. This is also confirmed by statements that have been narrated from some of the Companions of the Prophet such as Ibn ʿAbbās, Anas, Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī and others. These narrations have influenced the interpretations of the majority of commentators on this chapter, even if there is spirited disagreement between them on the precise meaning of some of the words and phrases to be found therein.
Commentary
وَالنَّجْمِ إِذَا هَوَىٰ ١
(53:1) By the star when it sets
Based on the apparent meaning of the verse, ‘the star’ (al-najm) is intended to refer to any luminous heavenly body. God invokes many created phenomena in the oaths He swears in the Qurʾan, including a number of heavenly bodies, such as the Sun, the Moon, and other planets. Therefore, ‘when it sets’ refers to its descent towards the western horizon.
Some have said that the star refers to the Qurʾan, because it came down as a star. Others have said it refers to the Pleiades. Others have said Sirius. Still others have said that it refers to the shooting star that strikes down the devils of the Jinn when they ascend into the heavens, because the Arabs refer to this as a najm. Equally, for when it sets, commentators assign whatever meaning best suits their understanding of the star. However, none of these interpretations find any support in the wording of the verse.
مَا ضَلَّ صَاحِبُكُمْ وَمَا غَوَىٰ ٢
(53:2) your companion has neither gone astray, nor gone amiss
‘To go astray’ (ḍalāl) means to stray from the right path, ‘to go amiss’ (ghayy) means to act contrary to good sense, which means to hit the mark. Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī says:
‘Ghayy refers to ignorance that stems from false beliefs. This is because a person can be ignorant without believing anything, correct or incorrect, or they can be ignorant because they believe something incorrect. It is this latter variety of ignorance that is known as ghayy, as God says in the verse, your companion has neither gone astray, nor gone amiss.’
The meaning of your companion here is, of course, the Messenger of God.
Therefore, the meaning of the verse is: ‘Your companion has not strayed from the path that will lead him to the desired outcome, nor has he erred in his beliefs or opinions. In other words, it means that he has neither erred in identifying the desired outcome—which is human felicity in the form of serving God—or in the path to attain it.’
وَمَا يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوَىٰ ٣ إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحَىٰ ٤
(53:3–4) Nor does he speak out of desire, it is just a revelation that is revealed
The meaning of desire (hawā) here is the desire of the ego (hawā al-nafs) and its opinions. Now, when God says he (the Prophet) does not ‘speak’ out of desire, the word speak is general and it occurs in the context of a negation, which would suggest that it means to negate him speaking from desire in any capacity. However, because this verse is addressed to the idolaters, who accused him of lying about his divine message, fabricating the parts of the Qurʾan he recited to them, and inventing lies about God, the context indicates that the intended meaning is that he does not speak from his own desire or opinions when it comes to him calling them toward God, or when he recites parts of the Qurʾan to them. On the contrary, all of this is revelation sent down to him by God.
عَلَّمَهُ شَدِيدُ الْقُوَىٰ ٥
(53:5) taught him by One of great powers.
The pronoun ‘him’ in taught him refers to either the Prophet, the Qurʾan insofar as it is a form of revelation (in which case, the translation would become it was taught by One of great powers), or to all the revelation sent down to him (with the same translation). In all cases, the second object of the verb taught is left implicit (because the pronoun refers to either the person being taught or the knowledge being taught to that person). Therefore, the full meaning is: ‘He of great powers taught the revelation to the Prophet’ or ‘…taught the Qurʾan to the Prophet’ or ‘taught the revelation to the Prophet.’
The One of great powers mentioned here—according to what some commentators have said—is the Archangel Gabriel, and God has described him elsewhere as powerful: powerful and eminent with the Lord of the Throne (). Alternatively, some have said that One of great powers refers to God Himself.
ذُو مِرَّةٍ فَاسْتَوَىٰ ٦
(53:6) possessed of sound judgement (dhū mirra). He settled
Mirra can mean severity, judiciousness of intellect, or a kind of traversal. Commentators have applied all three meanings to the present verse, assuming that it refers to Gabriel. Therefore, the meaning is that Gabriel is either severe for the sake of God, or that he is possessed of judicious intellect, or that he traverses the heavens to reach the Prophet.
Some have said that possessed of sound judgement refers to the Prophet, for he is the one who is severe for the sake of God, possessed of judicious intellect, or traversing in the sense that he traversed the heavens on his Night Journey.
He settled: To settle (istiwāʾ) means either to stand or take authority over something. The pronoun ‘he’ here refers to Gabriel, which renders the meaning that Gabriel stood in the original form in which God had created him. This is based on the narrations that state that Gabriel would descend to the Prophet in various forms, but that he only appeared to him in his original form twice. Alternatively, it means that Gabriel used his power to take authority over the affairs he had been made responsible for.
Alternatively, if the pronoun in He settled refers to the Prophet, this means that the Prophet went aright and remained steadfast.
وَهُوَ بِالْأُفُقِ الْأَعْلَىٰ ٧
(53:7) while he was on the highest horizon
A horizon (ufuq) refers to a direction. Some have said that the highest horizon denotes the easternmost part of the heavens, as the eastern horizon appears higher than the western one in terms of the earth’s elevation. However, the problem with such an interpretation is obvious. Instead, the apparent meaning of the highest horizon is the highest horizon of the heavens, regardless of its cardinal direction.
The pronoun he in the verse refers to either Gabriel or the Prophet, and the sentence as a whole is an adverbial qualifier for He settled in the previous verse.
ثُمَّ دَنَا فَتَدَلَّىٰ ٨
(53:8) Then he drew nearer and nearer (thumma danā fa–tadallā)
Danā means to draw near, while tadallā means to cling to something, but it is used figuratively to express extreme nearness. Some have said that tadallā means to extend towards the ground, from dalw (‘to dangle, hang, or suspend’).
Therefore, the meaning of the verse—assuming that both pronouns refer back to Gabriel—is as follows: ‘Then Gabriel approached the Prophet, clung to him, and took him up into the heavens.’ Others have suggested the following: ‘Then Gabriel descended from the highest horizon and approached the Prophet to ascend with him.’
On the other hand—assuming that both pronouns refer to the Prophet—the meaning is then as follows: ‘Then the Prophet drew near to God and increased in nearness to Him.’
فَكَانَ قَابَ قَوْسَيْنِ أَوْ أَدْنَىٰ ٩
(53:9) until he was within two bows’ length (qāb qawsayn) or even nearer
In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī writes that qāb, qīb, qād, and qīd refers to the measure of something. Qaws (‘bow’) is a device for shooting arrows, though in the Ḥijaẓī dialect, one also says qaws to refer to a cubit measure.
Therefore, the meaning of the verse is: ‘The distance was the extent of two bows or of two cubits or even less than that.’
Some commentators have said that a qāb refers to the distance between the grip of a bow and its tip. Therefore, what was actually meant here was ‘the two lengths of the bow’ (qābay qaws; that is, from the grip to each of the tips) but this was reversed to ‘two bow’s lengths’ instead. However, the problem with this is that there would be no difference in meaning between saying two qābs of one bow or the qāb of two bows, so there is no need to reverse the word order.
فَأَوْحَىٰ إِلَىٰ عَبْدِهِ مَا أَوْحَىٰ ١٠
(53:10) whereat he revealed to His servant whatever he revealed
Assuming the pronouns of the two instances of the verb revealed both refer to Gabriel, the meaning of the verse is: ‘Whereat Gabriel revealed to God’s servant—the Prophet—whatever he revealed.’ Others have said that these pronouns refer to God, even though He has not been directly mentioned in the previous verses, because the context makes this obvious. In the event that all three pronouns (he, His, and he) in the verse refer to God, this would render the meaning as follows: ‘Whereat God revealed through Gabriel to His servant what He revealed.’ Alternatively, the first pronoun refers to Gabriel, and the second and third refer to God, in which case the meaning becomes: ‘Whereat Gabriel revealed what God revealed to him to God’s servant.’
Now, if we say that the pronouns in the previous verses actually referred to the Prophet rather than Gabriel, this renders the meaning: ‘God revealed to His servant whatever He revealed.’ This reading is the one that appears to make more sense, rather than the previous one, which does not sound right, even if it appears grammatically valid.
مَا كَذَبَ الْفُؤَادُ مَا رَأَىٰ ١١
(53:11) The heart did not err in (kadhaba) what it saw
The verb kadhaba is derived from kadhb, which is the opposite of honesty (ṣidq). One might say, ‘so-and-so has lied in what he said’ (kadhaba fulān fī ḥadīth-ihi), or, ‘he deceived him by what he said’ (kadhab-uhu al-ḥadīth)—with the verb becoming doubly transitive (taking both the audience and the thing spoken as objects). In addition to speech and statements, one can also apply kadhb to errors of perception. For example: ‘His eyes deceived him’ (kadhabat-hu ʿayn-uhu), meaning that he erred in his vision.
So, when the verb kadhb is used in conjunction in the heart, it must be in this latter most meaning. Therefore, the meaning of the verse is: ‘The heart of the Prophet did not err in what it saw’ or ‘The heart of the Prophet did not deceive him in what it saw.’ In other words, the Prophet’s heart saw things truthfully.
Therefore, the heart in this verse refers to the heart of the Prophet, and the pronoun it (which can also be read as ‘he’) in what it saw refers to the heart.
There is no problem in attributing sight—which is usually the function of the eyes—to the heart, for the human being experiences a kind of interior intuitive vision that is beyond what they perceive through their external senses, while imagination and thought take place through their interior faculties. This is something that all of us can experience, and we can see that this is neither something we see with our eyes, perceive with our sights, or think with our minds. Equally, we can hear, smell, taste, touch, and see that we can imagine and think, but this sight does not take place using our sights or any of our exterior or interior faculties. Equally, we can see that the perceptions of each of these faculties are specific to that faculty, but we can also perceive our own perception of these things, and this perception does not take place using these faculties. Rather this meta-perception takes place using the faculty that we refer to as ‘the heart’ (al-fuʾād).
Now, there is nothing in this verse to suggest that the object of this vision is God, or that God appeared to the Prophet. Instead, what he saw was the highest horizon, drawing nearer, and the act of revelation. It is these things mentioned in the previous verses—all of which are signs of God—that he saw. This reading is supported by the subsequent verse, The gaze did not swerve, nor did it overstep the bounds ().
Now, if we were to say that this vision was, in fact, of God, this would not be problematic, for it is a vision of the heart and the vision of the heart differs from that of physical sight, which perceives objects but can never perceive God. We have already discussed the vision of the heart (ruʾyat al-qalb) in our commentary on Sūrah al-Aʿrāf ().
As for the claim that the pronoun in what it saw actually refers to the Prophet (in which case the phrase should be read as ‘what he saw’), which would render the meaning: ‘The heart of the Prophet did not err concerning what he saw with his sight by saying, “I know you not!” As if it did say this it would have erred, for what appeared in his vision was exactly as he knew it to be in his heart.’ In short, his heart confirmed what his eyes saw.
The same is true of the reading that says the verse means that his heart did not deny what his sight perceived, but rather confirmed it and believed in it. This is supported by the alternate recitation of the verse, in which kadhaba is read with a doubled dhāl (that is, kadhdhaba).
However, the problem with this reading is that the context of the verses indicates that God is confirming the veracity of the Prophet in his claim to have received revelations from God and witnessed His greatest signs. If, as these readings suggest, the pronoun in what it saw was actually referring to the Prophet, then the verses would be arguing for the truthfulness of his vision on the basis of his own belief in it in his heart, which is not the usual approach of the Qurʾan. This is not the case if the pronoun in what it saw refers to the heart (i.e. ‘what the heart saw’), as this would mean that God is confirming the veracity of the Prophet’s heart in what it saw, and this would place the verse in the same vein as the earlier verse, your companion has neither gone astray, nor gone amiss. Nor does he speak out of desire: it is just a revelation that is revealed.
Now, one might try to argue that, in the following verse, Will you then dispute with him about what he saw? (), God does argue for the Prophet’s truthfulness on the basis of his vision. Therefore, there is no difference between this and between arguing for his veracity on the basis of the fact that his heart believed what he saw with his eyes.
To this, I would respond that the following verse, Will you then dispute with him about what he saw?, is not intended to provide an argument for the truthfulness of his vision, but rather to rebuke those who dispute with him concerning something he had witnessed directly and debate with him about it. After all, disputation is only possible in theoretical, doctrinal, or conceptual matters, one cannot dispute something that another person has witnessed directly. Therefore, it is meaningless to debate and dispute about it, for the Prophet is only telling them about something he saw directly, not something he conceived or thought of in his mind.
أَفَتُمَارُونَهُ عَلَىٰ مَا يَرَىٰ ١٢
(53:12) Will you then dispute with him about what he saw?
This is a rhetorical question intended to serve as a rebuke addressed to the idolaters. The pronouns him and he refer to the Prophet and the word used for dispute here (al-mumārāt) means to persistently debate with someone. Therefore, the meaning of the verse is: ‘Will you persist in disputing with the Prophet and trying to convince him of the opposite of what he claims and what he relates to you, while this is something he experienced directly?’
وَلَقَدْ رَآهُ نَزْلَةً أُخْرَىٰ ١٣
(52:13) Certainly he saw it yet another time (nazla)
The word nazla means an instance of descent (nuzūl). This verse indicates that the story of this vision took place during one time of descent, while the previous verses are discussing a different time of descent.
Some commentators have said that the subject of the verb he saw refers to the Prophet and ‘it’ refers to Gabriel. Therefore, the ‘descent’ is that of Gabriel to the Prophet in order to take him up to the highest heavens. Meanwhile, by the Lote Tree of the Ultimate Boundary is an adverb for saw not another time, and this means that he saw Gabriel while he was in his original form.
Therefore, this would render the meaning that Gabriel descended to the Prophet on another occasion, took him to the heavens, then appeared to him at the Lote Tree of the Ultimate Boundary, taking on his original form.
However, from what we have already discussed, it appears that what the Prophet saw was not Gabriel but God and that this was a vision that took place in his heart. Therefore, the meaning of nazla here is the setting down of the Prophet at the Lote Tree of the Ultimate Boundary during his ascent into the heavens. Therefore, the meaning is that the Prophet stopped at the Lote Tree a second time during his Night Journey and saw God with his heart again exactly as he had seen Him on the first occasion.
عِنْدَ سِدْرَةِ الْمُنْتَهَىٰ ١٤ عِنْدَهَا جَنَّةُ الْمَأْوَىٰ ١٥ إِذْ يَغْشَى السِّدْرَةَ مَا يَغْشَىٰ ١٦
(53:14–16) by the Lote Tree of the Ultimate Boundary, near which is the Garden of the Abode, when there covered the Lote Tree what covered it.
A Lote tree (sidra) is a well-known species of tree, while the Ultimate Boundary (muntahā) appears to be the name of a specific place, possibly the utmost limit of the heavens, based on the fact that it is close to paradise and paradise is in the heavens, as per the verse, And in the sky is your provision and what you are promised ().
There is nothing else in the Qurʾan that expounds the nature of this tree. In fact, it is left deliberately ambiguous, for example, when there covered the Lote Tree what covered it. Some narrations have explained that it is a tree that sits above the Seven Heavens to which all the deeds of humanity are delivered. We will look at some of these below.
Near which is the Garden of the Abode: This means that the paradise which the faithful will inhabit is nearby, and this is different from the final paradise, for in the Isthmus (Barzakh) the faithful will inhabit a limited and temporary paradise until the time of the Resurrection. God says: …for them are gardens of the Abode—a hospitality for what they used to do (); When the Greatest Catastrophe befalls… his refuge will indeed be paradise ();
And this exists in the heavens, as per the verse we have already mentioned: And in the sky is your provision and what you are promised ().
It has been said that this is a reference to the paradise of the Isthmus.
When there covered the Lote Tree what covered it: To cover something (ghashyān) is to envelop it completely, therefore the meaning is ‘when there enveloped the Lote Tree what enveloped it.’ What exactly it was that covered the Lote Tree has been left deliberately ambiguous, as we have already highlighted.
مَا زَاغَ الْبَصَرُ وَمَا طَغَىٰ ١٧
(53:17) The gaze did not swerve (zāgh), nor did it overstep the bounds (taghā)
The verb zāgh means to incline away from uprightness, while taghā means to go beyond the limits in one’s behavior. For the gaze to swerve means for it to perceive something in a form other than what it is, while for it to overstep the bounds means for it to perceive something utterly unreal. The gaze in question, of course, is the gaze of the Prophet.
Therefore, the meaning of the verse is that he did not see what he saw in any way other than it truly was, nor did he see anything that was unreal. On the contrary, he saw with flawless perception.
Of course, the perception being discussed here is the perception of the Prophet’s heart, not his eyes. And this perception took place when he saw it yet another time (). This shows that he had already experienced a similar vision the first time around—a vision which was referenced in the earlier verse, The heart did not deny what it saw. Will you then dispute with him about what he saw?! ()
لَقَدْ رَأَىٰ مِنْ آيَاتِ رَبِّهِ الْكُبْرَىٰ ١٨
(53:18) Certainly he saw some of the greatest signs of his Lord.
Note that the verse says he saw some of the greatest signs of his Lord. The meaning is: ‘I swear that he witnessed some of his Lord’s greatest signs.’ This is how he witnessed his Lord through his heart, for one witnesses God in one’s heart by witnessing His signs insofar as they are His signs. This is because every sign points to its referent—it never points to itself, or else it would not be a sign by its very nature.
As for witnessing God’s essence without the mediation of His signs and piercing the divine veil, this is impossible, as evinced by the verse, but they cannot comprehend Him in their knowledge ().
Examining Narrations
- In Tafsīr al-Qummī, concerning the verse, By the star when it sets (), we read: ‘The star is the Messenger of God, when it sets (idhā hawā) is when God took him to the heavens, and he was in the sky (hawī).’
Author’s comments: The Prophet is also identified as the star in a narration that al-Qummī transmits from his father, from al-Ḥusayn b. Khālid, from Imām al-Riḍā, and this is an esoteric interpretation.
- In al-Kāfī, al-Kulaynī narrates from al-Qummī, from his father, from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr, from Muḥammad b. Muslim, who said: ‘I asked Imām al-Bāqir about the ambiguity of the verses, By the night when it envelops () and By the star when it sets. He said, “Surely God Almighty swears by whatever parts of His creation He wishes, but His creations cannot swear except by Him!”’
Author’s comments: A similar narration is found in al-Ṣadūq’s Man lā yaḥḍuruh al-faqīh, narrated from ʿAlī b. Mahziyār, from Imām al-Jawād.
- In Majmaʿ al-bayān, al-Ṭabrisī says that the masses narrate that Imām al-Bāqir said: ‘Surely Muḥammad descended from the Seventh Heaven on the night of his Ascension, and when the chapter of the Qurʾan was revealed, ʿUtba b. Abī Lahab learned of that, came to the Prophet divorced his daughter and spat in his face, saying: “You have disbelieved in the Star and the Lord of the Star!” So the Prophet prayed against him, saying: “O God, give him to one of your beasts!”
ʿUtba set out for Syria and set down along the way. God cast fear into him and he turned to his companions and said: “Let me sleep between you tonight.” They agreed, but then a lion came and seized him from their midst.’
Author’s comments: Al-Ṭabrisī relates verses of poetry from Ḥassān on this subject, and the same story is narrated in al-Durr al-manthūr by various routes.
- In al-Kāfī, al-Kulaynī narrates from Hishām, Ḥammād, and others: ‘We heard Imām al-Ṣādiq say: “My words are the words of my father, my father’s words are the words of my grandfather, my grandfather’s words are the words of al-Ḥusayn, and al-Ḥusayn’s words are the words of al-Ḥasan, and al-Ḥasan’s words are the words of the Commander of the Faithful, and the Commander of the Faithful’s words are the words of the Messenger of God, and the words of the Messenger of God are the words of God.’
- In Tafsīr al-Qummī, it is related via a chain of narrators going back to Ibn Sinān that Imām al-Ṣādiq said: ‘He means that the Prophet is the closest of creatures to God, and that he was in such a position that when Gabriel ascended with him to the heavens, he told him: “Go forth, O Muḥammad! For you have stepped where no nearmost angel nor prophet sent by God hath ever set foot!” And were it not for the fact that his spirit and his soul were of that place, he would not have been able to reach it, and this was from God Almighty. As God says, until he was within two bows’ length or even nearer ()—meaning, in fact, that he was even nearer.’
- In al-Iḥtijāj, in a lengthy tradition narrated from ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn, we read: ‘I am the son of he who ascended to great heights, went beyond the Lote Tree of the Ultimate Boundary and was within two bows’ length or even nearer to His Lord.’
Author’s comments: The same meaning has been expressed in numerous traditions from the Imāms of the Prophet’s Household.
- In al-Durr al-manthūr, Ibn Mundhir and Ibn Mardawayh narrate from Abū al-Saʿīd al-Khudrī: ‘When the Prophet was taken on the Night Journey, he drew near to his Lord until He was within two bows’ length or even nearer… do you not see how close the bow is to the bowstring?’
- In the same source, Ibn Abī Ḥātim, al-Ṭabarānī, and Ibn Mardawayh narrate from Ibn ʿAbbās, concerning the verse, Then he drew nearer and nearer (): ‘That is Muḥammad who drew nearer and nearer to his Lord.’
- In Majmaʿ al-bayān, it is narrated with an incomplete chain from Anas, that the Messenger of God said about the verse, until he was within two bows’ length or even nearer: ‘The length of two cubits or less than two cubits.’
- In Tafsīr al-Qummī, concerning the verse, whereat he revealed to His servant whatever he revealed (), we read: ‘Revelation spoken directly to him.’
- In al-Tawḥīd, al-Ṣadūq narrates via a chain of narrators going back to Muḥammad b. al-Fuḍayl: ‘I asked Abū al-Ḥasan: “Did the Messenger of God see his Lord?” He said: “Yes, he saw Him with his heart. Have you not heard the saying of God Almighty: The heart did not deny what it saw ()? He did not see Him with his sight, but saw Him with his heart instead.”’
- In al-Durr al-manthūr, ʿAbd b. Ḥamīd, Ibn Mundhir, and Ibn Abī Ḥātim narrate from Muḥammad b. Kaʿb al-Quraẓī from one of the Prophet’s Companions, that the people asked him: ‘O Messenger of God, have you seen your Lord?’ He replied: ‘I have not seen Him with my eye, rather I have seen Him twice with my heart.’ Then he recited the verse, Then he drew nearer and nearer.
Author’s comments: Al-Nasāʾī narrates a tradition with the same meaning as the one in al-Durr al-manthūr from Abū Dharr. In it, he says: ‘The Messenger of God saw his Lord with his heart, he did not see Him with his sight.’
- In Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, al-Tirmidhī, and Ibn Mardawayh, it is narrated from Abū Dharr: ‘I asked the Messenger of God: “Have you seen your Lord?” He said: “I have seen Him in a luminous form (nūrānī).”’
Author’s comments: The word nūrānī is derived from nūr (light) in the same way that jismānī (corporeal) is derived from jism (body). The tradition can also be read as, ‘As light, I saw Him’ (nūrun innī arā-hu). This appears to be a scribal error, although it is supported by other narrations.
For example, it is narrated by Muslim in his Ṣaḥīḥ and Ibn Mardawayh from Abū Dharr, that he asked the Messenger of God: ‘Have you seen your Lord?’ He said: ‘I saw Him as light.’
In any case, the meaning of seeing God in these traditions is to see Him with one’s heart rather than with one’s physical sight, and the light mentioned here is not of the variety that is seen with the eye.
- In al-Kāfī, via a chain of narrators going back to Ṣafwān b. Yaḥyā, he said: ‘Abū Qurra the scholar of traditions asked me to take him to see Abū al-Ḥasan al-Riḍā, so I sought his permission for him to visit him, and he granted it, so he came in and asked him about various legal issues… Abū Qurra asked about the verse, Certainly he saw it yet another time (). Imām al-Riḍā responded: ‘What follows this verse indicates what he saw, when God says, The heart did not deny what it saw, meaning that the heart of Muḥammad did not deny what his eyes saw. Then God tells us what he saw, Certainly he saw some of the greatest signs of his Lord (). And the signs of God are not the same as God Himself.’
Author’s comments: It appears that the Imām spoke these words in the context of a debate with Abū Qurra, in which the latter wished to argue for the possibility of seeing God with one’s physical eyes. Therefore, the Imām argues that this vision is only of the signs of God, an the signs of God are not identical with God. Of course, this does not mean that seeing the signs of God is not the same as seeing God, even if they are distinct from His essence, or that this vision takes place in the heart, as has already been discussed in a number of traditions.
- In Tafsīr al-Qummī, ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm narrates from his father, from Ibn Abī ʿUmayr, from Hishām, from Imām al-Ṣādiq that the Prophet said: ‘I reached the Lote Tree of the Ultimate Boundary, and—behold!—one of its leaves was enough to grant shade to an entire nation, and I was within two bows’ length distance or even nearer to my Lord.’
- In al-Durr al-manthūr, Aḥmad and Ibn Jarīr narrate from Anas that the Messenger of God said: ‘I reached the Lote Tree of the Ultimate Boundary, and—behold!—its blossoms were like locusts, its leaves were like the ears of an elephant, and when it was covered by the command of God, it transformed into rubies, emeralds, and the like thereof.’
- In Tafsīr al-Qummī, it is narrated via a chain going back to Ismāʿīl al-Juʿfī, from Imām al-Bāqir, in a lengthy tradition: ‘When he reached the Lote Tree of the Ultimate Boundary, Gabriel hung back. The Messenger of God said, “Will you abandon me at this stage?” Gabriel replied: “Go forth, for by God you have reached a place none of God’s creatures have ever reached before you!” Then a saw the light of my Lord and subḥa separated us.’
The narrator asked: ‘What is subḥa, may I be your ransom?’
He pointed with his face to the ground and with his hand to the heavens, saying: ‘Magnificent is my Lord, magnificent is my Lord’ (jalāl rabbī, jalāl rabbī) three times.
- In the same source, concerning the passage, Certainly he saw it yet another time by the Lote Tree of the Ultimate Boundary: ‘In the Seventh Heaven.’
- In the same source, concerning the verse, when there covered the Lote Tree what covered it (), we read: ‘When He removed the veil between Himself and the Messenger of God, the light of the Lote Tree was covered.’
Author’s comments: There are other narrations with the same meanings as the above, and we have already presented detailed and comprehensive traditions on the Prophet’s Night Journey at the beginning of our commentary on Sūrah al-Isrāʾ (Chapter 17).
There, after looking at these narrations, we discussed the different versions of the Prophet’s ascent into the heavens, whether he was asleep or awake and, if the latter, whether he ascended body and spirit or only spirit. We narrated from Ibn Shahrāshūb that the position of the Imāmiyya is that—based on the verses about the Night Journey—the portion of the journey that was from the Holy Mosque in Mecca to the Farthest Mosque was undertaken in body and spirit together, but that there was disagreement about the journey from the Farthest Mosque into the heavens. Some say that it was undertaken in body and spirit together—something which many Shīʿī authorities agreed upon—but some others have said that it was only undertaken in spirit, and this is the view that some of the later Shīʿī authorities have inclined towards.
And there is no problem in adopting this view given that it is supported by many of the contextual indicators surrounding the verses and narrations on this topic. However, if we do take the view that the journey was purely spiritual, then we must interpret the verse, near which is the Garden of the Abode, as referring to the paradise that is found in the Isthmus via a kind of association, in the same vein as a person’s grave can either become one of the meadow of paradise or one of the pits of hell, or we must read the verse in a way that does not conflict with the idea that the Prophet’s ascent into the heavens was purely spiritual in nature.
As for the idea that the Night Journey took place while he was asleep, we have already discussed in our commentary on Sūrah al-Isrāʾ that this interpretation does not have a strong basis.
As for the idea that the Night Journey was actually a journey through space, in which the Prophet visited other worlds within our solar system, or worlds within solar systems other than our own, or even other galaxies, this is not something that finds any support in the traditions that detail the Night Journey, nor in the contents of the aforementioned verses.