PROOF COVER SHEET

Author(s): Steven J. McMichael

Article Title: The Night Journey (al-isrāʾ) and Ascent (al-miʿrāj) of Muhammad in medieval Muslim and
Christian perspectives

Aritcle No: CICM586510

Enclosures: 1) Query sheet
2) Article proofs

Dear Author,

1. Please check these proofs carefully. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to check
these and approve or amend them. A second proof is not normally provided. Taylor & Francis
cannot be held responsible for uncorrected errors, even if introduced during the production process.
Once your corrections have been added to the article, it will be considered ready for publication.

For detailed guidance on how to check your proofs, please see

http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/production/checkingproofs.asp.

2. Please review the table of contributors below and confirm that the first and last names are
structured correctly and that the authors are listed in the correct order of contribution. This
check is to ensure that your name will appear correctly online and when the article is indexed.

Sequence Prefix Given name(s) Surname Suffix

1 Steven J. Mcmichael
Queries are marked in the margins of the proofs. Unless advised otherwise, submit all corrections
and answers to the queries using the CATS online correction form, and then press the “Submit All
Corrections” button.

AUTHOR QUERIES

General query: You have warranted that you have secured the necessary written permission from the
appropriate copyright owner for the reproduction of any text, illustration, or other material in your
article. (Please see http://journalauthors.tandf.co.uk/preparation/permission.asp.) Please check that
any required acknowledgements have been included to reflect this.

QUERY NO. QUERY DETAILS

AQ1 de Fabrizio 1907, no page numbers – but page numbers are given in the reference
AQ2 obtain the dignity - obtain the respect? achieve the standing?
AQ3 Ali, Abdullah Yusuf, trans. 2000 – this is given below as Yusuf Ali, Abdullah, trans.
2000, also cited as Yusuf Ali so this entry deleted, ok?
AQ4 Here and below, where titles are included in italicised book titles should they be given
in roman (where they would within roman text be given in italic) or quote marks?
AQ5 Saewulf. 1988 name complete?
 CICM586510 Techset Composition Ltd, Salisbury, U.K. 6/6/2011

Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations

Vol. 22, No. 3, July 2011, 293–309

The Night Journey (al-isrāʾ) and Ascent (al-miʿrāj) of Muhammad in

5 medieval Muslim and Christian perspectives
Steven J. McMichael*

Theology Department, University of Saint Thomas, Saint Paul, MN, USA

10 The miʿrāj (Ascent) of the Prophet Muhammad was a foundational event in his life that
established him as a major prophet who not only met the major previous prophets who had
come before him but also arrived at the very throne of God. This article presents this
narrative in the development of Islamic spirituality in the Middle Ages and how medieval
Muslims interpreted it in relation to Muhammad’s prophethood and his derived insight into
the heavenly world (Paradise) that awaits the faithful. The main contribution of the article is
to show how medieval Christians, especially those of the fifteenth century (Alonso de
15
Espina, Pope Pius II, and Roberto da Lecce), viewed this narrative in light of Christian
teaching. These Christian authors knew that this event in the life of Muhammad gave him
religious authority and they therefore discredited it in their polemical works. Their
polemical attack was not simply about the differences between the Muslim and Christian
visions of Paradise, but also about the person and mission of Muhammad, the vision of
God, other basic theological beliefs, and the role of spirituality, especially prayer, in religion.
20
Keywords: Muhammad; Night Journey; miʿraj; heaven; prophet; angel; paradise; Qur’an;
prayer; polemic; eschatology; Jesus

As early as the ninth century, Spanish Christian writers and artists were engaged in a number of
25 theological arguments against the Muslim community. One category of arguments is called
‘polemical eschatology’ because of their focus on issues related to the end times and ultimate sal-
vation. Christians who engaged in polemical eschatology called Muhammad a pseudo-prophet,
heresiarch, and a precursor to Antichrist (praecursor antichristi) and criticized the Islamic rep-
resentation of the afterlife (heaven) in a polemical response to Muslim teachings about the
founder and the religion of Islam. Much was at stake here because Muslims claimed a divine rev-
30
elatory status for the text of the Qur’an and a special status for Muhammad as the messenger
(rasūl) of this extraordinary revelation. These Islamic beliefs posed a most serious challenge to
Christians: ‘To accept the image of the celestial spheres recorded in the Qur’an, hadīths, and
other Islamic writings would not only verify his elect status in the eyes of God – confirming
his prophethood – it would also invalidate the redemptive value of Christian belief, based
35 upon its perceived monopoly on veridical knowledge of the divine’ (Coffey 2010, 102). This con-
fronted Christians in their own truth claims: the Trinitarian nature of God, the ‘Revelation event’
in the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus, the vision of the afterlife (heaven, hell, and purga-
tory), and Jesus’ role as final judge at the end of time. Since the miʿrāj narrative was developing in
the Islamic world during the early centuries of the Muslim presence in Spain (they entered Spain
in 711 CE), Spanish Christians not only became aware of this story but also felt challenged to
40
attack this image because so much was at stake.
This threat endured through the Middle Ages and well into the fifteenth century not only in
Spain, but also throughout Western Europe. The aim of this article is to show theologically what

45 *Email: sjmcmichael@stthomas.edu

ISSN 0959-6410 print/ISSN 1469-9311 online

© 2011 University of Birmingham
DOI: 10.1080/09596410.2011.586510
http://www.informaworld.com
 294 S.J. McMichael

was at stake when fifteenth-century Christians reflected upon the miʿrāj narrative. They knew that
the tale confirmed for Muslims a special revelatory role for Muhammad and confirmed (and
supplemented) the vision of the world of the afterlife (paradise and hell) found in the Qur’an
and Hadith. We will first look at what Muslims believed about the miʿrāj and then present
50
the Christian understanding of what Muslims held about this narrative and their theological
response to it.

The miʿrāj in the medieval Islamic tradition

According to the Islamic tradition, sometime before the Hijra (622 CE), Muhammad ascended
55
into heaven (miʿrāj) where he met all the previous prophets, specifically Abraham, Moses, and
Jesus. This event is based on Q 17.1,
Glory to Allah, Who took His Servant for a Journey at night from the Sacred Mosque to the Farthest
Mosque, whose precincts We did bless, – in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He
is the One Who bears and sees (all things).1
60
The most primitive version of the miʿrāj is attributed to the qur’an exegete Ibn ʿAbbās (d. 687 CE)
and it is recounted in the earliest biography of Muhammad, the Sīrat Rasūl Allāh by the Muslim
historian/hagiographer Ibn Ish.āq (704–767 CE) (Guillaume 1955, 181–2). The story of the miʿrāj
went through a number of revisions in the course of the Middle Ages.2
The miʿrāj is linked in the Islamic tradition with the ‘night journey’ (isrāʾ) in which Muham-
65 mad is said to have traveled from Mecca to Jerusalem (the distant shrine, al-masjid al-aqs.ā), led
the prayer with the prophets (Abraham, Moses, and Jesus) on the Temple Mount, then ascended
(miʿrāj meaning ‘ladder’) to meet all the major prophets in the seven heavens. According to many
Muslims, not only did he see the Throne of God but he also had an encounter with God in which
he spoke directly with Allah. The Ascension is seen as ‘Muhammad’s rite of initiation, part of
70 which was the opening of his breast and the washing of his heart (cf. Qur’an 94:1)’ (Roggema
2001, 68). The early Islamic tradition focused much attention on Muhammad’s association
with the previous prophets (Jesus, John, Joseph, Idris, Aaron, Moses, Abraham), his vision of
evil being enclosed in Hell, and his mission to announce to Muslims that they were to pray
five times a day (the number having been reduced from 50 times in a dialogue between Muham-
mad and Allah). Ibn Ish.āq explains the purpose of the experience:
75
The matter of place (or time, masra) of the journey and what was said about it is a searching test and a
matter of God’s power and authority wherein is a lesson for the intelligent; and guidance and mercy
and strengthening to those who believe. It was certainly an act of God by which He took him by night
in what way He pleased to show him His signs which He willed him to see so that he witnessed His
mighty sovereignty and power by which He does what He wills to do. (Guillaume 1955, 181–2)
80 This is important for Muslims, therefore, in terms of the establishment of s.alāt, and it also serves
‘to verify both the role of the Prophet as the chosen one and the reality of the future abodes’
(Smith and Haddad 2002, 10). This journey shows that Muhammad is a type of superhuman
being or hero, who is able to pass all the tests of the journey: ‘Not only does Muhammad over-
come the trial by the voices on the road and the test of the appropriate cup from which to drink, but
85 he also overcomes the terror that threatens to destroy him at multiple stages of his journey’ (Colby
2009, 173). The miʿrāj testifies to Muhammad’s superiority over all other prophets in that he
spoke to God in an I–Thou relationship. It establishes the true consecration of the Prophet and
seals his role as an intercessor for his followers on the day of resurrection and judgment: ‘The
concept of intercession suggests to the listener or reader, Muslim or non-Muslim, that one
must embrace Muhammad and his prophetic message if one wishes to avoid burning in hellfire
90 for all eternity’ (ibid.; cf. Schimmel 1985, 164).
 Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 295

Within the Islamic tradition, a major question arose concerning whether this was a journey of
the body – a real physical journey – or only of the spirit, based on Q 17.60 (‘We granted the Vision
which We showed thee, but as a trial for men’).3 (Two further questions arose concerning the
divine encounter in the miʿrāj: Did Muhammad actually see God or an angel (Gabriel), and did
95
he see God seated on the throne of glory or ‘standing on the horizon’ [Q 53.7]? [van Ess
2006, 45–77].4) Even though some followers abandoned the Prophet after he told the community
of the miʿrāj, the experience gave him the authority and encouragement to spread the message of
Allah. This, in their own telling of the story, gave subsequent Muslims similar vigor and spiritual/
moral insight (Younis 1967, 9). The acceptance of the miʿrāj and its full meaning, which gives
legitimacy to Muhammad as God’s true prophet, was seen as a real test of faith in the Islamic tra-
100 dition, especially in the Middle Ages.5 But, as we shall see shortly, what was seen as a test of faith
for Muslims was seen by Christians as apostasy, the worst sin a person could commit, along with
heresy, according to medieval Christians.
According to Muslims, what Muhammad experienced in the miʿrāj was a foretelling of what
faithful human beings would experience in the life to come. As Ibn Ish.āq states:
105 A trustworthy person has reported to me from Abu Sa’id that he had heard Muhammad tell: ‘After I
had done the necessary in Jerusalem I was brought a ladder (miʿrāj), and I never saw a more beautiful
one. It was the one upon which the dead turn their glances at the resurrection. My friend [Gabriel]
made me climb until we reached one of the heavenly gates, which is called the Gate of the Guard.
There twelve hundred angels were acting as guardians. (Schimmel 1985, 160)

110 Another significant feature of the miʿrāj is that it became a paradigm for the mystical journey,
especially among Muslim mystics, Persian poets, and the Sufis.6 For example, The Miʿrāj of
Bistami (d. 875 CE) tells of the mystic journey through the seven heavens to the very Throne
of God (‘the royal throne of the Compassionate’) and meeting all the previous prophets, conclud-
ing with Muhammad Sells 1986, 242–50, here 248). Ibn ʿArabī (1165–1240 CE) used this experi-
ence as a model for the spiritual journey that culminates in union with God and the mystic’s status
115 as ‘the Seal of the Saints, the qut.b [pole], and the Inheritor of the Light of Muhammad’ (Vuckovic
2005, 133). The subtleties of the Ascension by Al-Sulamī (d. 1021 CE) also illustrates the impor-
tance of the miʿrāj of Muhammad for the Sufi mystics (see Sulamī 2006). Especially important in
this last work is the notion that Muhammad ascended without being accompanied by the other
prophets (not even Gabriel could undertake the last stages of the journey) because of his
120 unique role and position as intercessor on the day of resurrection (ibid., 103–4, 118–19).7 This
role is confirmed in a number of Hadiths and is part of Muslim popular belief.8
The miʿrāj is therefore important in the Islamic tradition because it establishes Muhammad as
the seal of prophets. He even goes beyond Abraham (the friend of God) and Moses (who spoke
with God) to the very Throne of God in a direct religious encounter. As Anne Marie Schimmel
states:
125
Beginning with Adam, the Prophet is now introduced by all the messengers of God into the mysteries
of God’s beauty and majesty, for every prophet experiences the Divine Essence in a different way;
Muhammad alone is granted knowledge of it in its fullness. (Schimmel 1985, 167)
Muhammad becomes the standard-bearer of prayer, and his experience is the blueprint for all
130 Muslim prayer as the auxiliary name for s.alāt reveals ‘the miʿrāj of the faithful’. He is also
given the duty of intercession, which is often seen as the chief result of his dialogue with God.
The ascension of Muhammad also reveals to Muslims the correct placement of Jesus within
the prophetic tradition. He is located in the second or fourth heaven along with John the Baptist,
well below the heavens that contain Abraham and Moses.9 Abraham is positioned in the highest
place because of ‘his very special position in the Islamic tradition both as the ancestor of the Arabs
135 through Isma’il and as builder of the Ka’ba, and as a spiritual hero who smashed the idols’ (ibid.,
 296 S.J. McMichael

160). But Jesus is more important than Abraham and Moses in one respect: he is the ‘sign of the
Hour’ (Q 43.61), because he has special knowledge concerning the last days. This is good news
for Muslims:
Jesus’ return is directly related to the triumph of Islam, which is portrayed as the natural extension of
140 the Christian religion. Thus, the early Muslim community is claiming Jesus as its own; he will not
return to relieve the Christian community but the Muslim one, thus confirming the importance and
separateness of Muhammad and his community in the end of days. Certainly, at least this variation
of the miʿrāj reflects and reinforces this strain of theology and emphasizes how the previous prophets
came to be subsumed under the umbrella of Muhammad’s faith. (Vuckovic 2005, 60)
The story of the miʿrāj in the Islamic tradition therefore has a polemical edge to it and serves to
145 show Muslims that Jesus’ return onto the world stage to defeat the Antichrist will be for the
purpose of their salvation and no other.10 The ascension of Muhammad provides Christians
with a corrective to their false sense of hope in Jesus’ alleged resurrection in the past and also
shows them what his true role will be at the end time and on the Day of Judgment. On the
basis of Q 4.157, Muslims believe that Jesus was not raised from the dead because he did not
150
die on the cross; it only appeared to be so to his contemporaries. Certain Muslims believe that
Jesus will appear to his followers on the Day of Judgment so that they may have one last
chance to ‘cleanse themselves’ of their erroneous beliefs in his partnership with God and his divi-
nity. Jesus thus acts as an intercessor for Christians on that day.

155 The miʿrāj in the Christian polemical tradition of the fifteenth century
In the fifteenth century, a number of Christian authors wrote polemical tracts against Islam: Pedro
de la Cavalleria, Jean German, Juan de Torquemada, Juan de Segovia, Nicholas of Cusa, and
Alonso de Espina.11 All of these texts have certain things in common: they attack Muhammad
directly as a false prophet, a heretic, a sexual deviant (polygamist), a drunkard, a violent and ambi-
160 tious person, and the Antichrist.12 They point out the errors concerning Christianity that are found
in the Qur’an, especially with regard to the essential doctrines of Trinity and Incarnation. They
show inherent contradictions found within the qur’anic text, which prove that it cannot be
from a divine source. As we shall see, the story of the miʿrāj (usually entitled the Liber scalae
or Libro della scala) provoked many different types of theological/spiritual responses from fif-
teenth-century polemical Christian authors.
165
From the time in which this story became known in the thirteenth century, medieval Christian
readers of this tale were quite critical of it. There are a number of editions of the story of miʿrāj in
Western Europe (Spain and France) from the thirteenth century and various forms of the narrative
were transmitted by fourteenth- and fifteenth-century writers. The story of Muhammad’s ascent
into heaven appears in a number of fifteenth-century polemical texts, including Pope Pius II’s
170 Letter to Mehmed II (1461), the Fortalitium fidei by Alonso de Espina (c. 1464), the Contra prin-
cipales errores perfidi Machometi by Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (1465), an anonymous Defen-
sorium fidei (c. 1473), and an Italian sermon by Roberto da Lecce from his series of sermons entitled
the Specchio della fede (c. 1480). In this article, we shall primarily look at the works of Alonso de
Espina, Pius II, and Roberto da Lecce in order to consider the fifteenth-century approach to the
175
miʿrāj of Muhammad. These three authors provide us with the most thorough presentations of
the miʿrāj narrative as seen from a late medieval Christian perspective.

Alonso de Espina
Christians became aware of the miʿrāj of Muhammad in the early Middle Ages, and it became a
180 major focus in subsequent polemical writings. For example, the Spaniard Franciscan Alonso de
 Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 297

Espina (d. ca. 1464), on a number of folio pages of Book Four (‘On the war against Muhammad’)
in his Fortalitium fidei, presents a very complete account of what happened to Muhammad in each
of the eight heavens.13 The placement of this story (entitled the Scala Machometi) in his polemical
attack against Muhammad is significant: his account and critique of the miʿrāj appears in a section
185
on the quality of the teaching and law of Muhammad. The miʿrāj is simply a good illustration of
the fact that the Lex Machometi is full of theological errors, fables, untruths, beastly and filthy
things, and clearly is the law of the devil and not of God.
His account includes much of the detail about the journey that appears in Islamic literature and
earlier Christian versions of the miʿrāj, including the heavens, the angels, and the prophets that
Muhammad supposedly encountered.14 Alonso concludes his presentation with harsh words
190 about the miʿrāj, claiming that 60,000 people withdrew from Muhammad on hearing this story,
believing it to be a total fabrication.15 These people told Muhammad to go up to heaven by
day so that they could see and watch the angels meeting him. He responded: ‘Praise to my
God. I am nothing more than a man and an apostle [nuncios].’ Alonso then states that this con-
fession should be enough to convince anyone that the account is nothing but a fictitious tale.
195 Alonso claims that the Holy Spirit allowed Muhammad to be deceived in this way so that
others might more easily see his falseness. In the mind of Alonso, Muhammad was a full-
fledged heretic or anti-saint.16 His spuriousness is clear not only to theologians but also to
natural philosophers, who hold that it is not human beings but animals that live in willful blind-
ness and the pleasures of the flesh. Human beings who live like that follow the quick route to
damnation. Alonso is exasperated by the way Muhammad has caused so many souls to be
200
damned, how the madness of desire and abuse of luxuries deceived him, and how he deceived
others. Such ‘animals’ as would openly follow these lies would also adhere to them all the
way to death (see fol. 198vb).
Alonso then asks how it is possible that Muhammad, during the miʿrāj, could have had a
vision of so many angels in heaven and yet, when one appeared on earth (Gabriel), Muhammad
205 would fall to the ground shaking, with hands and feet drawn together. Alonso also dismisses
Muhammad’s claim that he was ‘taken up’, like the Apostle Paul, body and soul. Muhammad’s
sign of verification for this was that God touched him with his hand and he felt coldness between
his shoulders and also in his heart. In this portrayal, God and angels were given bodily dimen-
sions, which Alonso claims is a heretical belief.17
Positively, Alonso de Espina appears to know many of the basic details of the Islamic tradition
210
concerning the miʿrāj. But he does not seem to know that the story as he had it did not come
directly from the Qur’an but from various texts of the early and medieval Islamic tradition, includ-
ing the Hadith. His purpose in including the Libro della scala in his text is to show how false and
deceiving Muhammad was in telling this fictitious tale of the miʿrāj. Alonso wants to demonstrate
that Muhammad was a false prophet and heretic. He also wants to prove that the foundation of
215 Muslim prayer is false. By retelling the story, he intends to prove that there is no spiritual foun-
dation for this alleged experience.

Roberto Caracciolo da Lecce

220 Roberto Caracciolo da Lecce (d. 1495), a famous Italian Franciscan preacher of the second half of
the fifteenth century (he was called ‘a second Bernardino da Siena’ in his own day), dedicated at
least two sermons to Muhammad and Islam, one in Italian in the ‘primo mistero’ section of the
Specchio della fede (Venice: J. Rubeus, 1495) and another in Latin within his Lenten sermons
on penance (the Sermones quadragesimales de penitentia).18 Roberto da Lecce treated many
aspects of Christian life (e.g., sin, vices and virtues, conversion, the grace of God, the sacraments,
225 and the last judgment) in these sermons, which were mostly devoted to penitential themes that
 298 S.J. McMichael

were intended to move his Christian audience to an ongoing conversion from worldly pride and
corruption to a humble and obedient submission to God and service to their neighbor.
Roberto spoke not only on Christian themes to his Christian audience, but also preached
against Jews and other unbelievers, and corrupt and worldly Christians who were perceived to
230
be threatening not only Italy but all of Christendom. Since the major external threat to Christen-
dom was the Ottoman Empire, Roberto composed these two sermons on Muhammad and Islam.
Roberto considered Muslims to be an external enemy, but also an internal enemy in the sense of
their being heretics and deceivers of others, especially Christians. None of the content of these
two sermons appears to be original. Roberto borrowed previous Christian anti-Muslim polemical
literature and transformed it by putting it into sermon form; nevertheless, these sermons are sig-
235 nificant inasmuch as they recast previous polemical literature, which was read only by a select
group of Christian readers, into sermons for the general populace. The sermons were written
down and made available to other preachers and thus became public knowledge through the
preaching of Roberto and others to the masses in fifteenth-century Italy.
Roberto presents the miʿrāj of the Last Prophet in the first part of the Italian sermon on
240 Muhammad and the Muslims (he does not mention it in his Latin sermon) (see de Fabrizio
1907, no page numbers). Before he narrates the miʿrāj tale, which he calls an imaginary tale ( fic- Q1
tione), he states that he is taking the story from an Arabic text entitled Helmacrich, which means
in alto salire (‘to ascend on high’) or, as it is in volgare (the Italian language of his day), la scala di
Macometh. He says that this tale expounds upon (si exponeno) the words of Muhammad in Q
17.1. Muhammad’s praise is to God who allowed his servant to journey during one evening
245
from the oratory of Hellaharan, which he claims is a house in Mecca, to the remote oratory
which is the holy house (la casa santa) in Jerusalem. Roberto describes the journey as Muham-
mad’s ‘initiation rite’, in which he encounters Gabriel and his steed Buraq (Alborach) preparing
for the night journey to the Temple in Jerusalem. Roberto calls this building the Temple of
Solomon (tempio di Salomone), which is the name the first crusaders gave to the Dome of the
250 Rock since they did not know that it was an Islamic edifice.19 When Muhammad arrives there,
he is introduced to all the prophets who were in the Temple, who embrace him and put on a
major feast for him. He is then shown the ladder (scala) that reaches from the Temple to the
first heaven. Roberto then speaks of the various angels that Muhammad encounters on his
journey into the heavens. There are only five heavens in this presentation, along with principal
angels and the choir of angelic hosts.20 Each of the first four heavens is symbolized by a particular
255
substance. The first heaven is symbolized by iron; the second silver; the third gold; and the fourth
pearls.21 The fifth heaven is where Muhammad encounters God, where he obtains the law, and
from where he returns by means of the same ladder (medesima scala) by which he ascended.
Roberto’s conclusion is the same as Alonso’s: ‘Everyone with a sane mind, therefore, can under-
stand how many bestial and senseless things, things without a natural cause or a cause in the faith,
260 were contained in the above-mentioned fiction.’22
There are a number of problems in this sermon. Many of the essential elements of the Muslim
recounting of the miʿrāj experience are missing. This is evidenced by comparing Roberto’s
sermon not only with Muslim versions of the miʿrāj but also with Christian polemical works
by the Dominican Ricoldo da Montecroce (1243–1320) and Roberto’s contemporary Alonso
265 de Espina. Especially important elements missing from Roberto’s narration are the two or three
further heavens and the prophets who inhabited each of them. Were these omissions the result
of the sermon form itself, which calls for a shorter, easier to understand presentation than polem-
ical texts? Or was his abbreviated sermon based on an equally deficient source? A comparison
between the thirteenth-century Libro della scala di Maometto and Roberto’s account shows
that Roberto might have borrowed from this earlier text because both of them are brief and
270 contain the same elements of the miʿrāj. However, he may have edited out a number of elements
 Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 299

of a longer version of the miʿrāj because of the Christian audience before whom he was preaching.
It is also possible, of course, that he gleaned his information from a text that was already a sim-
plified version of the story.23 We know there are various versions of the miʿrāj story within the
literary world of medieval Christianity (and Islam).24
275
Roberto ignores what, for Muslims, would be the most important substance of the story. He
simply presents Muhammad as experiencing a vision of the divine represented by angels, and he
briefly mentions the prophets. Such a presentation of the miʿrāj is misleading to a Christian audi-
ence of his time. The lack of substance in his sermon gives his listeners a wrong impression of
what Muslims believe about this narrative and also deprives them of any information that
would help them understand what significance the miʿrāj account has for Muslims. This
280 happens quite often in polemical literature – details are left out so that it appears that it is the
members of the religion with whom one is debating who are themselves falsifying their religion
– not the polemicist. The recounting of the miʿrāj thus serves Roberto’s overall purpose of
showing Muhammad as the creator of a false religion that is based upon dangerous fantasies
and lies.
285

Pius II
Pope Pius II (Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, 1405–1464, who reigned as pope from 1458 to 1464)
wrote a letter in 1461 to the Ottoman Turkish leader, Mehmed II, conqueror of Constantinople (29
May 1453) (Baca 1990, 57).25 The letter is important in that it tries to convert the Sultan to Chris-
290
tian truth. It follows the pattern of contemporary polemical texts and its main focus is on the
Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. In this letter, a discussion of the miʿrāj
appears in chapter 16 entitled ‘The fantastic tales of Muhammad are unworthy of consideration
by serious people’. The Pope introduces it in the following way:
But your prophet not only lies, but does so with levity, with ignorance, with recklessness, with stu-
295 pidity, contradicting himself as he does so. Anyone who examines his law a little can clearly see
how innumerable are its errors, its old women’s tales, and its [childlike] puerile prattlings. It may
be permitted to cite here a few which are representative of the others. (ibid., 90)
He then cites the qur’anic verse (Q 17.1) in which Muhammad mounts an ox named ‘Elherahil’
that could speak with a human voice. They journey to Jerusalem where Gabriel takes him up
300 through the seven heavens where he encounters angels of enormous proportions. He finally
comes into the presence of God and his tribunal. Muhammad states: ‘God touched me with his
hand between the shoulders and the chill of His hand penetrated deep into the marrow of my
back.’ Pius II attacks certain elements of this tale. He criticizes the claim that an ox (with a
non-beatified body) could travel in an hour a journey that would take 50,000 years and he ques-
tions the dimensions of the spheres and the distances of the spheres from one another. He makes a
305 final point:
He [Muhammad] affirms he saw angels bigger than the terrestrial universe and that these angels had
bodies. If angels are bigger than the terrestrial universe, it must be that some part of them lies outside
it. But the philosophers say that everything is contained within the confines of the terrestrial universe
and nothing lies outside. (Ibid., 95)
310 Since this depiction of angels would sound so strange to a medieval reader, Pius then explains
how this vision of Muhammad came about:
Your prophet drank something he was not used to and fell into a deep sleep; whatever he dreamed he
reported as true, and he thought that through him all things were allowed. Beginning with this mis-
taken assumption, he said that angels are corporeal, that they sin, need forgiveness, and that he
prayed for them. In a like dream he affirms he was touched on his shoulder by the hand of God
315 and that a chill penetrated deep into the marrow of his back. (Ibid., 95–6)
 300 S.J. McMichael

Pius II believed, therefore, that the miʿrāj of Muhammad was simply a dream or fantasy. From this
fantasy originated all the theological errors or heretical statements about angels and the nature of
God, especially the error that Muslims hold to a doctrine of anthropomorphism. As with other
polemical authors, the miʿrāj for Pius II was representative of the entire erroneous nature of
320
Muhammad and his religion that he created.

The late medieval Christian theological response to the miʿrāj

Now that we have seen three representative presentations of the Christian version of the miʿrāj, we
will look at many of the issues that this story raised in late medieval critiques of Islam and its
325
teachings about Muhammad and his religion.26 The miʿrāj was never the major issue in Christian
anti-Islamic polemical literature, as many other themes, such as Christology (Incarnation) and the
Trinity, took pride of place in these writings, but it does constitute a significant issue, as is evident
from the numerous times that it appears in this polemical literature and because of its association
with so many other major fallacies of Islam as perceived by medieval Christians. What follows are
the theological issues that the miʿrāj raised in the awareness of medieval Christians as they heard
330 this account of Muhammad’s supposed ascension into the heavenly world.

Discrediting of the very foundation of Islam: Muhammad

What is very obvious to an observer of the Christian anti- miʿrāj tradition is the attempt on the part
of Christian polemicists to discredit the founder of Islam, which would challenge and destroy the
335 very foundation of Islamic belief (Hyatte 1997, 1). It is clear that these medieval writers thought
that Muhammad fabricated this new religion by deliberately falsifying Christianity, and thus
proved himself to be a Christian heretic. Thus they had to attack and discredit him, not only to
preserve the truth of Christianity but also to point out the errors of its founder to their respective
audiences.
340 Roberto da Lecce, for example, presents three possible influences on Muhammad that reveal
the heretical beginnings of Islam. The first scenario has Muhammad seek the consultation and
assistance of certain wise Jews on the law from which he derived his teachings.27 The second
is the story of a certain cleric who was not able to obtain the dignity he wanted in Rome and Q2
so traveled in a fit of pique to that part of Arabia (Mecca) and introduced a certain error and
scandal into the church, by which Muhammad was influenced. The third scenario presents a
345
monk by the name of Sergius who, after having been expelled from his monastery because he
was declared a heretic, taught Muhammad and infected him with the Nestorian heresy. The
two last scenarios were very common in previous medieval polemical literature.28 Here
Roberto is combining Christian and Jewish influences on Muhammad to show how they infected
him with Nestorianism (which denies the hypostatic union of the divine and human natures in
350 Christ), a form of Christological heresy present in early Christianity. Pius II linked Muhammad
with not only the Nestorian heresy, but other heresies as well:
It was not Muhammad who originated this error, but the madmen Arius, Nestorius, and Macedonius,
who were condemned by holy councils of the church fathers. Their virus lurked hidden for a long time
among the Egyptians and Arabs; Mohammed discovered it with the help of his teacher, Sergius, and
diffused it widely. (Baca 1990, 47)
355
By discrediting the ascension of Muhammad, Christian polemicists were striking at the very
foundation of Islam, which they thought was the character and authority of the founder of Islam.
Because this story involved many other elements of Islamic belief (including Muhammad as a true
prophet, conceptions of God and angels, the origin and foundation of the daily ritual of prayer,
and Jerusalem [Al-Quds] as the third holy city), Christians deemed it right to ridicule Muhammad
360 personally in their presentation of the miʿrāj.
 Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 301

The vision of God

The claim made by many Muslims was that Muhammad had a direct experience of God. This
‘was proof of Muhammad’s superiority over all other prophets that in this extreme proximity
“his eye neither swerved nor was turned away”’ (Schimmel 1985, 163). Muhammad goes
365 beyond Moses, therefore, who swooned, according to the Qur’an, in ‘the sober attitude of the
Prophet, who experienced God’s presence in full consciousness’ (ibid.). The proof was Q 53,
which certain Muslims interpret as referring to Muhammad’s ascension:
And, indeed, he saw him a second time by the lote-tree of the farthest limit, near unto the garden of
promise, with the lote-tree veiled in a veil of nameless splendour, [And withal] the eye did not waver,
nor yet did it stray: truly did he see some of the most profound of his Sustainers’ symbols. (Q 53.13–
370 18)
As was previously mentioned, one of the questions that arose in the Middle Ages among Muslims
themselves was whether Muhammad actually saw God or an angel (Gabriel) because of the
ambiguous ‘he’ that appears numerous times in Q 53. There are two basic answers to this
question:
375
The cautious explanations that Muslims give in many scholarly commentaries and sound (s.ah.īh.)
h.adīth reports about this elusive verse tend to understand it as saying either Muhammad was
granted a vision of Gabriel in his true form or saying that during his journey he was told of the
Muslim duty to perform the ritual prayer (s.alāt) a set number of times per day. Muslim storytellers
and more daring exegetes, on the other hand, explain that the vague language in this verse conceals
the fact that Muhammad had enjoyed a vision and conversation with God. (Colby 2009, 19)
380
Medieval Christians thought that Muslims primarily held the second position and that this direct
encounter with God meant that Muhammad had experienced a visio Dei (or ‘beatific vision’), a
privilege reserved to the holy ones, who would experience it only after death. The question of
Muhammad’s vision of God as presented in the many accounts of his miʿrāj experience, which
was memorialized in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, therefore should be seen in the
385 context not only of medieval mystical literature but also of the discussions about the visio Dei
in scholastic and mystical circles of the later Middle Ages.29
The foundation of any visionary experience for medieval Christians was a dynamic relation-
ship with God through the means of divine grace that were instituted by Christ and came from the
gift of the Holy Spirit. In order to have an authentic vision of God, as many of the medieval saints
390 experienced, one was required to be in a proper relationship with the Triune God. These visions
were given only to the saints whose writings and life experiences of holiness explicate these
visions. These visions or mystical experiences were used by authors of hagiographical works
(vita) to emphasize ‘the sanctity of the seers and the importance of their message’ (McGinn
2007, 20). For example, the stigmata experience of St Francis of Assisi illustrates not only his
own holiness but also his prophetic witness to the reality of Christ’s death on the cross and his
395
resurrection. According to medieval Christians, not only did Muhammad lack sanctity but also
his message was considered to be heretical, and therefore he could never be credited with
having an authentic vision of God such as the miʿrāj purported to be.
Another factor that caused medieval Christians much difficulty when they heard about
Muhammad’s miʿrāj experience was that they viewed it as an ‘ascension experience’ that only
400 the saints and other holy people were able to enjoy. Medieval authors would have been aware
of St Paul’s reference to an ascension-type experience30 and to St Augustine’s experience with
his mother Monica at Ostia (Augustine, The Confessions, Book IX, 9). Certainly the Franciscans
Alonso de Espina and Roberto da Lecce knew that St Francis was led away by God to a high place
(Mount La Verna) to be ‘borne aloft into God’ where the Seraph with the crucified image in its
wings appeared to him.31 Other medieval mystics are viewed by their contemporaries as having
405
 302 S.J. McMichael

ascent-type experiences by which they are gifted with a vision or encounter with the living God
(see McGinn 1998). These experiences only happen to those who have been prepared by God to
have them, which would exclude anyone outside the Christian fold, especially a so-called heretic
and morally lax person such as Muhammad. In the medieval view, this would only happen to
410
someone who lived the ascetic life. Only those who performed acts of purgation were allowed
to enter into the subsequent stages of illumination and union with God in the mystic path. Muham-
mad, in their view, would not be deserving of a valid ascension experience because he lived such a
worldly life, which Christians highlighted in their presentation of Muhammad’s relaxed way of
fasting, his allowance of polygamy, unnatural intercourse of spouses, other sexual acts of licen-
tiousness and depravity, etc. (see Daniel 1997, 158–85).
415

Muhammad as a prophet greater than Jesus

Muslims have always believed in Jesus as one of the great messengers (rusul; sing. rasūl) and
prophets (anbiyāʾ; sing. nabī) of God. They deny that Jesus was the Son of God or equal to
God in terms of possessing a divine nature, since God cannot have a partner. Even though
420 Jesus is mentioned more often than Muhammad in the Qur’an, the role of Muhammad as the
last prophet and the messenger of God (because this sacred message, the Qur’an, was revealed
to him), the seventh-century prophet has much more importance than Jesus in the Islamic tra-
dition. The miʿrāj is so important because the medieval Christians certainly did know that this
ascension experience, if real, would prove that Muhammad was ‘the prophet of all prophets’,
425 since he ascended even beyond Abraham to the very throne of God.
The issue of the prophethood of Muhammad was a simple one for medieval theologians and
polemicists. One of the primary roles of the prophets of ancient Israel was to predict the coming of
the Messiah, which Christians believed was fulfilled in the person and ministry of Jesus Christ.
For medieval Christians, the age of prophecy (special revelation) had come to an end with the
death of the last apostles (c. 100 CE). Since Muhammad lived some 500 years after the apostolic
430
age had ended (570–632 CE), there is no way that Muhammad could be recognized as a true
prophet of God. Therefore, the ascension of Muhammad that so dramatically proves his prophet-
hood in the Islamic tradition had to be, according to Christians, a fabricated tale.
With regard to prophecy, medieval Christians also attacked Muhammad because he did not
show the signs of being a true prophet, pointing out especially that he did not perform miracles
435 that would validate his prophethood. Prophecy also comes into play in the Islamic tradition early
on, when Muslims recognized that the Qur’an itself states that Jesus predicted the coming of
Muhammad (Q 61.6; 7.157). The fourteenth-century writer Ramon Llull believed that
According to the flowers of the trees and their conditions, it follows that God did not send one prophet
to oppose the other, nor for one to deny or disbelieve what the other had prophesied about God. Thus,
since the Christian religion and yours are contrary to one another, it is impossible that both be God-
440
given. (Bonner 1993, 143)32
This reasoning proves that Muhammad cannot be considered greater than Jesus, who is not only
the greatest prophet, but also the Son of God.

Muhammad as intercessor before God

445
According to the Christian tradition, because of Jesus’ unique relationship with God the Father,
only Jesus and some significant others (Mary and the saints) had this role of intercessor (or
mediator) before God. This belief was based on the doctrines of the union of the human and
divine natures in the person of Jesus and the communion of saints. Since Muhammad did not
believe in either of these standard doctrines of faith, he was deemed an ‘anti-saint’ by medieval
450 theologians and polemicists, and could therefore never be considered an intercessor before God.
 Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 303

To many of the Muslim commentators on the ascension of the Prophet, the role of intercessor
was especially associated with his role on the day of resurrection. For example, Abū ʿAbd al-
Rah.mān al-Sulamī asked the question,
Why was the Prophet caused to ascend without the rest of the prophets? He [Abū Bakr ibn T.āhir]
455 responded, ‘For several reasons. First, because he is master of intercession on the day of resurrection.
He was made to mediate by night before that [last day], so that the bashfulness of surprise would befall
him [in advance], as it will befall the other prophets.’ (Sulamī 2006, 123)33
The belief that Muhammad has the role of intercession on the day of resurrection was completely
rejected by medieval Christians since, according to the Apostle’s Creed, Jesus Christ will have
this role. Christ, who has already been raised at his resurrection after three days in the tomb,
460
now sits on the very Throne of God so that he might lead human beings to him through their
own resurrection by virtue of the power of his resurrection. Christ is there to intercede for all
human beings who hope in the resurrection, where he also draws the hearts of all to himself.34

The issue of empowerment

465
According to Colby’s recent book on the role of miʿraj in the Islamic tradition, the miʿrāj texts
were written, copied, edited, and disseminated in the Middle Ages because they had to do with
empowering those who were in many cases formerly disempowered in the social and religious
world in which they lived:
470 The night journey and the ascension discourse became widely circulated and discussed partially
because it was an entertaining tale, but also partially because of what was at stake, namely the empow-
erment that one gains by controlling the content of otherworldly secrets. Nearly every act of telling of
the story of Muhammad’s night journey involves the implicit claims to reveal the truth about what the
Prophet experienced on that special night. Beyond that, however, each telling implicitly reflects the
position of its author, editor, or transmitter regarding the narrative’s limits: its scope, its form, its
style, and its content. The role of narrating Muhammad’s night journey was a position of power
475 and authority, for the narrator arrogated to him or herself the right to determine exactly what
message God communicated to Muhammad on that night, and its ultimate significance. (Colby
2009, 166–7)
Not only were theological and political power at stake in the Muslim umma (community) but they
also came into play when the story of the miʿrāj was told outside the Muslim community,
480 especially to a Christian audience.
In contrast to this role of the miʿrāj in the Islamic tradition, Christians narrated the story of the
miʿrāj in order to discredit it. The tale appeared to be so preposterous that Christians in many cases
did not deem it important to get the story right, which could explain Roberto da Lecce’s omission
of many of the essential details of the full story in his sermon. The main intent of Christian
polemicists was not only to discredit the Muslims who believed in the tale of the miʿrāj, but
485 also to disempower them. Already by the thirteenth century Christian rulers and writers had
come to recognize that Muhammad was a false prophet and because ‘he fabricated a false religion
“as an insult to God” there can be no political legitimacy under Muslim rule, and Muslims must
recognize the political superiority of Christian rulers’ (Tolan 2002, 193). This theological/political
ideology is what Pope Pius II was advocating in his letter to Mehmed II. Since the three authors
490 mentioned above were writing in the context of the Ottoman threat to Western Europe in the fif-
teenth century, the issue of disempowerment was very important indeed.

Prayer
For most Muslims, the importance of the ascension of Muhammad is centered on the life of prayer –
495 the five-times-daily s.alāt – that this story established early on in the Islamic tradition:
 304 S.J. McMichael

The official ascension narratives do depict Muhammad conversing with God – or at least a mysterious
voice from above speaking on behalf of the divinity – in the Prophet’s intercessory role, pleading for
the reduction of the number of daily prayers [then 50] to five. (Sulamī 2006, 45)
For medieval Christians, the presupposition of authentic prayer is that one was in a right relation-
500
ship with God by means of correct belief and religious practice. Since Muslims possessed neither
of these, the prayer life that the miʿrāj established for the Muslim community must be invalid
since the miʿrāj experience of Muhammad was itself theologically/spiritually groundless.35

The vision of the afterlife

505 Since one of the benefits of the ascension of Muhammad story was to give humankind a vision of
the afterlife, the story of the miʿrāj was important for Muslims because it told them much about the
features of Heaven and Hell. Medieval Christians did not understand how ‘spiritual’ this story
revealed heaven to be to Muslims. Therefore, without taking into consideration the vision of
heaven in the miʿrāj story, medieval Christians contrasted the true believers who envisioned ‘a
purely spiritual apprehension of God, the Beatific Vision of Christian tradition’ and the carnal
510 ‘eternity of eating, drinking and copulating’ of the Islamic tradition (Daniel 1997, 172–6). As
Roberto imagined it, for example, the law of Muhammad promises to those observing it a paradise
of delights in which they will experience neither extreme hot or cold temperatures nor other penal-
ties; they will wear beautiful clothes and enjoy streams of milk, honey, and aromatic wines. They
will be in the company of the most beautiful young girls with whom they will mate (the houris),
515 and they will be in the presence of angels who will serve them in gold and silver vessels. But to
those not believing in fundamental Islamic beliefs and observing the law of Allah, it promises
eternal punishment without end.
What medieval Christians did not realize was that this presentation of the afterlife was not the
vision of Paradise that Muslims themselves envisioned in the miʿrāj narrative. Since Christians
were not able to read what Muslims themselves thought about the miʿrāj, they had to rely on
520
non-qur’anic Islamic literature and above all their own polemical texts. As Muslims saw it,
each of the heavens in most of these miʿrāj narratives has an angel or angels along with prophets,
which reveals the spiritual nature of the afterlife. Particularly important here is the description of
Hell because it depicts terror for those who have not helped ‘the disenfranchised, the poor, the
needy, the traveler, and always, always, the orphan’ (Safi 2009, 177). Further, Muhammad
525
sees the punishment of those who grew rich through usury on earth, and of those who chased after
illicit sexual relations and betrayed the good partners God had given them. In each case, God had pro-
vided a way that was good and beautiful but some chose to pursue their own passions. In Hell the very
thing that they pursued is transformed into a hideous punishment they must literally devour. Lastly,
Muhammad also witnesses the punishment of those who transgressed against the bonds of familial
relations. (Ibid., 177–8)
530
This story, therefore, had a strong moral component to it for Muslims because of its focus on
reward and punishment. The Muslims who commented and expanded on the miʿrāj had a particu-
lar moral agenda:
The medieval scholars ingeniously take familiar Qur’anic themes and create from them vivid, didactic
tales to construct and confirm a communal morality. Through heaven’s pleasures and hell’s torments,
535 the elite medieval scholars achieve three important functions. First, they highlight those behaviors that
are worthy of upright believers and condemn those that are undesirable. Second, by linking these
stories to the Qur’an, they continue to create coherence between the early history and life of the
Prophet and their sacred scriptures. Finally, they participate in the on-going political debates of
their time. (Vuckovic 2005, 120)
Had medieval Christians actually focused on this aspect of the story, they may have found that
540 Muslim belief and their own Christian belief – at least in this vision of Hell – would have
 Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 305

given them the opportunity to see that Muslims and Christians do have some beliefs in common.
And certainly they missed the point of the story: Muslims were called to acts of social justice in
the world – just as were Christians, as evidenced in the Last Judgment scene in the twenty-fifth
chapter of the Gospel of Matthew.
545
Because almost no Christians could read the Qur’an in its original Arabic and did not possess a
good Latin or vernacular translation of it, they had to rely on what they read in polemical literature
to understand what Muslims believed about Heaven and Hell. Had they been able to read the
Qur’an, they would have been able to see – as Muslims did – that Islamic cosmology expressed
significant theological and moral/ethical concerns. The qur’anic verses that speak of the Garden
(Heaven) and the Fire (Hell) are concerned with showing ‘God’s providence over the affairs of
550 the world and human responsibility with it’ (Smith and Haddad 2002, 9). The descriptions
of the seven layers of the Garden and the Fire are intended to show not only God’s guidance of
the world – in almost fatalistic language – but also human responsibility in the world. The righteous
will be rewarded in paradise because of their faith and righteous deeds here and now, while the
damned will suffer for all eternity for what deeds they have done and what they have not done
555 (sins of commission and omission). In the polemical literature of the Middle Ages, this focus on
human beings’ responsibility for their fate in the afterlife was never an issue.

Conclusion
As we have seen, the miʿrāj narrative was instrumental in bringing out many theological issues
560
between Muslims and Christians. The issues strike at the heart of what divided these two faith
communities. It was not simply about the differences between their respective visions of Paradise,
but also about the person and mission of Muhammad, the vision of God, other basic theological
beliefs, and the role of spirituality in religion (especially prayer). For Muslims, the ascension of
Muhammad was a multifaceted narrative that conveyed many truths about the Prophet and
565 Islamic faith. In a chapter about the miʿrāj, Omid Safi, a contemporary scholar, states: ‘One of
the characteristic features of Islam is the way it intertwines theology and history, mystical
insight and biography’ (2009, 173). In the development of the story throughout the Middle
Ages, the miʿrāj was transformed by all these four aspects into a narrative that told Muslims
much about their basic beliefs about Muhammad, God, the afterlife, and how to attain Paradise.
570
The miʿrāj was for medieval Christian polemicists a fictitious tale that they needed to present
and attack, since they recognized what this narrative might mean not only to Muslims but also to
Christians, who might be seduced by its contents. Even though Christian writers themselves were
also ‘intertwining’ theology and history, mystical insight and biography in their own Christian
spiritual reflection and works, it is certainly the case that Christian authors did not at all appreciate
the way in which Muslims engaged in the linking of these elements in their telling of the miʿrāj
575 narrative. In order to protect their own theological truths about God, Christ, and eternal life, med-
ieval Christians believed they had to debunk this tale because heaven itself depended on it.

Notes
580 1. Other verses are Q 53.1–18; 81.19–25; 17.60; 94.1. All qur’anic texts cited in this article are quoted in
the translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali (Yusuf Ali 2000).
2. Several books have been written in the last decade devoted to the theme of the miʿrāj, including Vucko-
vic (2005); Sulamī (2006); Colby (2009); Gruber and Colby (2010); and Gruber (2010).
3. As Barbara Roggema reports: ‘A tradition on the authority of ‘A’isha made clear that Muhammad’s body
remained where it was during the events’ (2001, 68).
4. Barbara Roggema comments that Q 53.9 and Q 59.1–18 were problematic texts for Muslims: ‘Who
585 forms the subject of verses 5–11? It was God, says the early tradition. But this was a problem for
 306 S.J. McMichael

most of the theologians because it implied a corporeal God, and so the view that it had been Gabriel,
became dominant. (The Qur’anic verses 81.19 and 23 may, in fact, be a rectification of the suggestion
that it was God.) However, verse 53.9 was at the same time incorporated in the Night Journey traditions,
where it meant that Muhammad was at that distance from God. In the Book of Muhammad’s Ladder the
phrase occurs twice and implies in both instances the distance between God and Muhammad’ (Roggema
590 2001, 69).
5. Brooke Olson Vuckovic provides an entire chapter on the communal reaction to the report of the miʿrāj
(2005, 75–95). Barbara Roggema comments: ‘What makes the story a particularly easy target for a
polemical retelling is first of all the fact that the story records the disbelief of the Muslims. It is not
Muhammad’s opponents who distrust Muhammad’s claim of having traveled to Jerusalem and
heaven in one night, but the believers. Abū Bakr believed it was consequently called al-S.iddīq but it
is stated explicitly that many apostatized at the time. The fact that Muhammad proved his claim after-
595 wards by describing Jerusalem is also a key point: the proof of his claim supposedly comes from a much
less miraculous version of the story, in which Muhammad does not himself move. Although it is possible
that this is the only form in which the redactor of the legend knew the story, it is more likely that this
composite version was chosen specifically to make that point’ (Roggema 2001, 68–9).
6. Schimmel highlights this (1985, 161).
7. Jalāl ad-Dīn Muhammad Balkhī (Rumi) (1207–1273) likewise highlights Muhammad’s superiority over
_
all the previous prophets and the angel Gabriel himself in the miʿrāj experience. On Rumi on the miʿrāj
600
and how it relates to Muhammad and the mystic journey, see Renard (2001, 139–41).
8. Frederick Colby, the translator, points out that ‘the Prophet Muhammad’s superiority to other prophets
comes to the fore as the main theme of this anonymous saying. On the day of resurrection (al-qiyāma),
Muhammad’s prior experience of the divine presence during the ascension and the assurances that he
received while at that station will mean that he will be made cheerful (inbasaţa) rather than distressed
(inqabad.a) that day. The other prophets, who never had the advantage of such an experience, will be
605 overwhelmed and terrified. Thus they will be unable to intercede on behalf of their communities in
the way that Muhammad will intercede on behalf of the Muslims’ (Sulamī 2006, 103).
9. According to The book of Muhammad’s ladder, Jesus and John the Baptist are located in the first heaven
(preceding Joseph, Enoch and Elijah, Aaron, Moses, Abraham, and Adam). The Hadith report lists
Adam, Jesus and John the Baptist, Joseph, Enoch, Aaron, Moses, and Abraham, as recorded by al-
Sulamī (2006, 5–6).
610 10. Certain Muslim commentators hold that, when Jesus appears at the end times, all unbelievers will be
killed by Allah (see Vuckovic 2005, 60).
11. On these authors, see Echevarria (1999).
12. The identification of Muhammad with Antichrist has its root in early medieval Spain. Bernard McGinn
points out that this originates in the Christian response to events happening in ninth-century Spain. They
saw Islam as the ‘last and worst of all heresies. Because heretics have long been associated with antic-
hrists and Antichrist, it was an easy move to interpret the rise of Islam as a sign of Antichrist’s coming
615 and see its founder, Muhammad, as a type of the Final Enemy’ (McGinn 1994, 85). Paulus Alvarus, with
his Illuminated instructions, was very instrumental in making this connection between Muhammad and
Antichrist (on Paulus, see ibid., 86). This apocalyptic literature may have played a significant role in the
development of the medieval view of Muhammad as the anti-saint (see also Tolan 1996). What is sur-
prising is that fifteenth-century writers did not make the charge that Muhammad was Antichrist or the
precursor of Antichrist more of an issue. For example, Alonso de Espina does speak in terms of Antic-
620 hrist in relation to Muhammad, but his aim is more to associate Muhammad with the Devil than with a
full blown apocalyptic scenario (see fol. 121vb of the Nuremberg 1494 MS).
13. Two editions of the Fortalitium fidei (Lyon 1487; Nuremberg 1494) can be found online at http://www.
cervantesvirtual.com. On Alonso and the miʿrāj, see Echevarria (1994, 2006).
14. Alonso states that Muhammad met the most important prophets during this journey: John and Jesus,
Joseph, Enoch and Elijah, Aaron, Moses, and Abraham, in that order.
15. Based on the writings of Riccoldo of Montecroce, Refutation of the law set down by Muhammad for the
625 Saracens, ch. 14. For an Italian edition of the text, see Rizzardi (1992).
16. The incorporation of the miʿrāj story into the Latin West via the biography had the following intent,
according to Ana Echevarria: ‘Muhammad is presented as the prototypical anti-saint, based in distorted
Islamic traditions, and in an anti-hagiographic style whose conventions are intricately intertwined with
contemporary Christian hagiographies and of narratives of saints’ lives. This, of course, contrasts
sharply with the apologetic scope of Islamic lives of the Prophet’ (Echevarria 2005, 138; see also
630 idem 1999, 164–70).
 Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 307

17. Alonso points out that he has already presented this heresy in Book Three, ‘On the Jews’, of the For-
talitium fidei. But even though Alonso mentions this error – one of 14 he lists – earlier in Book Four, ‘On
the war of the Muslims’, it appears that he was not fully aware of how important this text was in his
polemic against Muslims (see fol. 300vb).
18. Several collections of Roberto da Lecce’s sermons have been edited and published, including the Latin
635 series from the Lent of 1455 in Padua (Quaresimale Padovano), the vernacular sermons he preached in
Venice in 1474 (Quaresimale in volgare), and his collection of sermons entitled Specchio della fede. The
editions of the Specchio della fede (1485) and the Sermones quadragesimales de penitentia in (1479)
that I have consulted for this article are found in the special collection library at Saint Bonaventure Uni-
versity in New York (see McMichael 2012).
19. With the success of the First Crusade and the capture of Jerusalem by the Christians in 1099, the
meaning of the Dome of the Rock changed. It was despoiled of its wealth (as reported by Ibn al-
640 Athīr) and became known as the Templum Domini or Templum Solomonis or ‘The Holy of Holies’. It
appears that Christian pilgrims did not realize that the Dome of the Rock had been a Muslim holy
place. For example, the pilgrim Saewulf, in 1102, identified it as the Temple of Solomon, which in
turn was associated with the dream of Jacob and the ladder. Seventh-century Syrian Christians also
associated this recently-built structure with the New Temple. The Al-Aqs.ā mosque, part of the
Temple Mount complex, was called ‘Solomon’s Palace’ or Palatium by the crusaders, because they
645 believed Solomon had built it. Saewulf associated a number of events in the life of Jesus with this
place, including the observation that ‘there the footprints of the Lord still appear in the rock when he
hid himself and left the Temple (John 8:59)’ (Saewulf 1988, 105). Saewulf did not realize that these foot-
prints were actually the footprints of Muhammad, not those of Jesus. These footprints were and continue
to be a ‘relic’ of Muslim devotion located inside the Dome of the Rock. Inside the Dome of the Rock is
the foundation stone that is the very place on which Muhammad ascended during the miʿrāj. Popular
Muslim devotion has it that on the rock itself in the mark of the heel of the prophet (qadam al-Nabī)
650 or the heel of the noble one (qadam al-Sharīf). The very rock wanted to ascend with Muhammad but
it was held back from doing so by Gabriel. Gabriel’s fingerprints are believed to be visible on the
western edge of the platform.
20. There are eight heavens in the anonymous 1264 version of The Book of Muhammad’s ladder (Le livre de
l’eschiele Mahomet) (see Hyatte 1997, 115–25).
21. In the earlier thirteenth-century Book of Muhammad’s ladder, the first heaven is symbolized by iron; the
655 second by copper; the third by silver; the fourth by pure gold; the fifth by a single pearl; the sixth by an
emerald; the seventh by a ruby; and the eighth by a topaz, which is where Muhammad encounters God
(see Hyatte 1997, 115–27).
22. The Italian text reads: ‘Ogni homo donque di sana mente pò pensare quante cose bestiale e senza alcuna
rasone nè naturale nè fidele se contienìeno in la sopradicta fictione.’ I wish to thank Alessandro Vettori of
Rutgers University for his help with this translation.
23. He could have borrowed from the Refutation of the law set down by Muhammad for the Saracens by the
660 Dominican Ricoldo da Montecroce (1243–1320) (see Rizzardi 1992).
24. Readers of Dante will certainly ask whether this Italian poet could be the source of Roberto’s presen-
tation of the Libro della scala. Alessandro Vettori of Rutgers University, a Dante expert, has stated in
private correspondence with me that ‘It is hard to see possible connections with Dante’s Divine
comedy, other than the general background of a visit to the otherworld. The link of metal and jewels
with the different sections of heaven is done very differently than in Dante’s heaven, where the gems
665 represent the various theological/philosophical qualities of the different heavens – a connection I
don’t find in Roberto’s text. All the hyperbolic language (settanta mila, mille ore, etc.) is also typical
of texts that deal with ineffable things, such as God and all things divine. Of course, being Italian,
Roberto da Lecce would have had some kind of knowledge of Dante’s text and, even if the possibility
that he hadn’t read it is quite remote, he would have known about it and would have known its structure,
which may somehow (but very indirectly) have influenced him.’ Alessandro then raised the question of
whether Roberto had read Dante’s Divine comedy, which seems very likely.
670 25. See also the modern Italian edition (D’Ascia 2001).
26. On most of the issues that will be dealt with in the ensuing pages, see Echevarria (1999, 137–70).
27. The association with Muhammad and the Jews has a long history. Certainly by the time of Peter the
Venerable (1122–1156) this connection was clear. As Peter states: ‘And in order that the whole fullness
of iniquity should come together in Mohammed, and that nothing should be lacking for his damnation
and that of others, Jews were joined to the heretic. And lest [Mohammed] become a true Christian, the
675 Jews, craftily providing for this man eager for novelties, whispered to Mohammed not the truth of the
 308 S.J. McMichael

scriptures, but their own fables in which they abound even now’ (Kritzeck 1964, 131; Latin text: 131,
n. 76).
28. Norman Daniel presents William of Auvergne’s version of the story of Sergius (Daniel 1997, 105; see
also Echevarria 1999, 125; Tolan 2002, 62–3).
29. The question of what sort of vision of God was possible was a major controversy in the Middle Ages (see
680 McGinn 2007). McGinn speaks of three types of vision: corporeal (senses), veiled (images that appear
based on a faith experience), and comprehensive (the vision of God that will only happen in heaven).
The latter two are the most important in terms of ‘seeing God’ and these would be denied to Muhammad,
according to medieval Christian writers. Two questions are important for this issue of Muhammad’s
vision of God: is it possible to have a direct vision of God in this life or is this reserved for life in
heaven? What is the relationship between an earthly vision of God (mystical experience) and the
direct vision of God in heaven (the beatific vision)?
685 30. 2 Corinthians 12.1–5: ‘If I must glory (it is not expedient indeed) but I will come to visions and revel-
ations of the Lord know a man in Christ: above fourteen years ago (whether in the body, I know not, or
out of the body, I know not: God knows), such a one caught up to the third heaven. And I know such a
man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I know not: God knows).That he was caught up into para-
dise and heard secret words which it is not granted to man to utter. For such a one I will glory: but for
myself I will glory nothing but in my infirmities.’ The members of the Pauline school believed that only
690 the believers in Christ (the dead in Christ) would rise to meet Christ on the day of the coming of the Lord
(1 Thessalonians 4.14–17).
31. Franciscans would read this account every year during the Octave of the Feast of Francis beginning on 4
October.
32. John Tolan (2002, 266) interprets Llull as saying, ‘God could not send a prophet to contradict another
prophet, so that if (as the Koran affirms) Moses and Jesus were prophets, Muhammad cannot be one.’
33. This author then states that Muhammad was caused to rise above the other prophets because he is the
695 master of the praised station (Sulamī 2006, 124).
34. On the ascension of Christ in Thomas Aquinas, see the Summa Theologica, Third Part, Question 57 and
his ‘Collationes Credo in Deum’ (Ayo 1988, 95–101). On the issue of the ascension and resurrection of
Christ in medieval polemical literature, see McMichael (2010).
35. On the issue of prayer in the medieval polemical context, see McMichael (2007).

700

References Q3
Ayo, Nicholas. trans. 1988. The sermon-conferences of St Thomas Aquinas on the Apostles’ Creed. Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Baca, Albert R., ed. and trans. 1990. Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini: Epistola ad Mahomatem II (Epistle to
705 Mohammad II). New York: Peter Lang. Q4
Bonner, Anthony, ed. and trans. 1993. Doctor illuminatus: a Ramon Llull reader. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Coffey, Heather M. 2010. Contesting the eschaton in medieval Iberia: the polemical intersection of Beatus of
Liébana’s commentary on the Apocalypse and the Prophet’s Mi‘rājnāma. In The Prophet’s ascension:
cross-cultural encounters with the Islamic mi’rāj tales, ed. Christiane Gruber and Frederick Colby,
97–137. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
710 Colby, Frederick S. 2009. Narrating Muhammad’s night journey: tracing the development of the Ibn ʿAbbas
ascension discourse. New York: State University of New York Press.
Daniel, Norman. 1997. Islam and the West: the making of an image. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
D’Ascia, Luca. trans. 2001. Il Corano e la tiara: l’epistola a Mometto di Enea Silvio Piccolomini. Bolonia:
Pendragon.
De Fabrizio, Angelo. 1907. Il ‘Mirag’ di Maometto esposto da un frate salentino del sec. XV. Giornale
715 Storico della Letteratura Italiana 49: 299–309.
Echevarria, Ana. 1994. El Mi‘radj en la literatura castellana del siglo XV. Mediaevalia. Textos e Estudos 5/6:
231–47.
Echevarria, Ana. 1999. The fortress of faith: the attitude toward Muslims in fifteenth-century Spain. Leiden:
Brill.
Echevarria, Ana. 2005. Eschatology or biography: Alfonso X, Muhammad’s ladder and a Jewish go-
between. Under the influence: questioning the comparative in medieval Castile, ed. Cynthia
720 Robinson and Leyla Rouhi, 133–52. Leiden: Brill.
 Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 309

Echevarria, Ana. 2006. La reescritura del Libro de la escala de Mahoma con fines polémicos (ss. XIII–XV).
Cahiers d’études hispaniques médiévales 29: 173–99.
Guillaume, Alfred, trans. 1955. The Life of Muhammad: a translation of Ishaq’s ‘Sirat Rasul Allah’. London:
Oxford University Press.
Gruber, Christiane. 2010. The Ilkhanid Book of ascension: a Persian-Sunni devotional tale. London and
725 New York: I.B. Tauris.
Gruber, Christiane, and Frederick Colby, eds. 2010. The Prophet’s ascension: cross-cultural encounters with
the Islamic mi’rāj tales. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Hyatte, Reginald. 1997. The Prophet of Islam in Old French: The romance of Muhammad (1258) and The
book of Muhammad’s ladder (1264). Leiden: Brill.
Kritzeck, James. 1964. Peter the Venerable and Islam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
McGinn, Bernard. 1994. Antichrist: two thousand years of the human fascination with evil. San Francisco,
730 CA: HarperCollins.
McGinn, Bernard. 1998. The presence of God: a history of Western Christian mysticism. Vol. 3: The flower-
ing of mysticism: men and women in the new mysticism – 1200–1550. New York: Crossroad.
McGinn, Bernard. 2007. Visio Dei: seeing God in medieval theology and mysticism. In Envisaging heaven
in the Middle Ages, ed. Carolyn Muessig and Ad Putter, 15–33. London: Routledge.
McMichael, Steven J. 2007. Friar Alonso de Espina: prayer, and medieval Jewish, Muslim and Christian
735 polemical literature. Medieval Franciscan prayer, ed. Timothy Johnson, 271–304. Leiden: Brill.
McMichael, Steven J. 2010. The death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus in medieval Christian anti-
Muslim religious polemics. Islam and Christian–Muslim Relations 21, no. 2: 157–73.
McMichael, Steven J. 2012, forthcoming. Roberto Caracciolo da Lecce and his sermons on Muhammad and
the Muslims (c. 1480). In Medieval Franciscan preaching, ed. Timothy J. Johnson. Leiden: Brill.
Renard, John. 2001. All the king’s falcons: Rumi on prophets and revelation. Lahore: Suhail Academy.
Rizzardi, Guiseppe, ed. 1992. Ricoldo da Montecroce: I Saraceni. Florence: Nardini Editore.
740 Roggema, Barbara. 2001. A Christian reading of the Qur’an: the legend of Sergius-Bahīrā and its use of
Qur’an and Sīra. Syrian Christians under Islam: the first thousand years, ed. David Thomas, 57–
73. Leiden: Brill.
Saewulf. 1988. Jerusalem pilgrimage 1099–1185, ed. and trans. John Wilkinson, Joyce Hill, and W.F. Ryan.
London: Hakluyt Society. Q5
Safi, Omid. 2009. Memories of Muhammad: why the Prophet matters. New York: HarperCollins.
745 Schimmel, Annemarie. 1985. And Muhammad is his messenger: the veneration of the Prophet in Islamic
piety. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press.
Sells, Michael A. trans. 1986. Early Islamic mysticism: Sufi, Qur’an, Mi’raj, poetic and theological writings.
New York: Paulist Press.
Smith, Jane Idleman, and Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad. 2002. The Islamic understanding of death and resurrec-
tion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sulamī, Abū ʿAbd al-Rah.mān al-. 2006. The subtleties of the ascension: early mystical sayings on
750 Muhammad’s heavenly journey, trans. Frederick S. Colby. Louisville, KY: Fons Vitae.
Tolan, John V. 1996. Anti-hagiography: Embrico of Mainz’s. Vita Mahumeti. Journal of Medieval History
22: 25–41.
Tolan, John V. 2002. Saracens: Islam in the medieval European imagination. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Van Ess, Josef. 2006. The flowering of Muslim theology, trans. Jane Marie Todd. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
755 University Press.
Vuckovic, Brooke Olson. 2005. Heavenly journeys, earthly concerns: the legacy of the mi’raj in the for-
mation of Islam. New York: Routledge.
Younis, Abdel Moneim. 1967. The religious significance of Mi’raj. Majallat al-Azhar (November).
Yusuf Ali, Abdullah, trans. 2000. The Holy Qur’an. Ware, UK: Wordsworth Editions.

760

765