Did the Prophet Muhammad physically ascend to the heavens on this night?

There aren’t that many books he wrote, surely you can remember which one you wanted to read. Was it one of the following?

1. Major Themes of the Quran
2. Islam and Modernity
3. Revival and Reform in Islam

You mean the scholarly consensus of Western academics which is built on the work of Joseph Schacht and Ignaz Goldziher

Yes, I should have qualified my statement.

I think Rahman was more interested in asking Muslims to engage in dialogue with these views of the classical Orientalists, rather than asking them to accept them wholesale.

In the book, Rahman discusses this for several pages. His disagreement boils down to where he thinks Hadith came from (mostly from the practices of the early Islamic community rather than the Prophet) and what should be done about it (an honest appraisal of the historicity of Hadith and understanding its place and importance, rather than rejecting it wholesale.)

he was criticising what he perceived to be the flaws of secularism as a philosophy of truth (as opposed to political secularism

True, but he does think that beliefs like secular humanism, for example, are bad for society. I don’t agree with that. A system of justice, in my opinion, can be established without the necessity of relying on religion or God. But that is a long (and often boring) discussion.

You mean the scholarly consensus of Western academics which is built on the work of Joseph Schacht and Ignaz Goldziher, but which are more difficult to maintain for Western historians of Islam given all the work done since (by “Western” I simply mean academics in western, secular, universities, Muslim or otherwise). There have been Western academics who have started to question this ‘scholarly consensus’ and MM Azami defended Islamic disciplines from the attack by Schacht. Muslims from traditional institutions do not accept such a view, though there have been some criticisms of the way in which Muslims approach the hadith by some Indian and Pakistani scholars (like Amin Islahi). I think Rahman was more interested in asking Muslims to engage in dialogue with these views of the classical Orientalists, rather than asking them to accept them wholesale.

As for secularism, which he calls a ‘corrosive acid’, he was criticising what he perceived to be the flaws of secularism as a philosophy of truth (as opposed to political secularism which gave him shelter from Pakistanis angry with an Urdu translation of Islam). He believed that such a secularist truth eroded the difference between Good and Evil, without which societies do not function. Moreso, this difference was vital to allow justice to be established (he strongly ties in faith in One God with social and economic justice).

The most interesting point about Rahman, from his biography, is that his father was a Deobandi scholar, who was close to leading religious authorities in Indian Islam. For this reason, Rahman had a first hand understanding of traditional Islamic disciplines.

Sufi-ism helped establish good society but, later, it’s followers adopted sufis’ person as their guide than what sufis tought. That led to Bida’at. As a reaction to put the things straight Salfis took birth. Again, later people, instead of following what salfis tought, started following the person of salfi leaders. All this was due to lack of following the spirit of Islam.