Muslim

Hadith Commentary:
That on that night I was prostrating in water and mud.
The translation of the chapter is derived from here, that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) performed prostration on his forehead and nose.
Humaydi took evidence from this hadith that if soil adheres to the forehead and nose during prayer, one should not wipe it off.
The purpose of Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) in this chapter is to show that it is necessary to place the nose on the ground during prostration, because the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) placed his nose on the ground despite the earth being wet, and did not care about the mud.
(sallallahu alayhi wa sallam)

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
The purpose of Imam Bukhari rahimahullah in narrating this lengthy hadith is to show that placing the nose on the ground during prostration (sujud) is necessary, because the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam placed his nose on the ground despite the earth being muddy, and he did not care about the mud or anything similar. Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah writes that in the previous chapter, there was some generality regarding prostrating on the nose, but in this chapter, that generality has been specified. It is as if he has indicated that prostrating on the nose is an emphasized matter, because the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam did not abandon it even with a valid excuse, but rather took care to prostrate on the nose. The position of those who, based on this hadith, consider prostrating on the nose alone to be sufficient is not correct, because the context of the hadith shows that the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam prostrated on both the forehead and the nose. This means that during prostration, it is necessary to place both the forehead and the nose on the ground. If there had been any concession in this, the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam would not have allowed his forehead and nose to become soiled with mud, at the very least.

(2)
It is also understood from this hadith that if, during prayer, dust or dirt gets on the worshipper’s forehead, one should not try to clean it during the prayer itself. (Fath al-Bari: 2/386)

(3)
Other related discussions regarding this hadith will be mentioned in the Book of the Virtue of Laylat al-Qadr (Hadith: 2016), inshaAllah.

Hadith Commentary:
There is much disagreement regarding the determination of Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of Decree).
In this hadith, the twenty-first night is mentioned.
It is possible that in that particular year, Laylat al-Qadr occurred on the twenty-first night, but this does not establish that it will always occur on the twenty-first night.
In any case, one should seek it in the odd nights of the last ten (nights).
The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not specify this night definitively and with certainty.
Nevertheless, the only purpose of Imam Bukhari (rahimahullah) in citing this hadith is to show that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) performed i'tikaf (spiritual retreat) in the mosque, and all the events mentioned in the hadith took place in the mosque.
And Allah knows best.

I‘tikaf is Permissible in All Mosques

A question was posed to the hadith scholar of the era, Shaykh Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai rahimahullah: “Is it permissible to perform i‘tikaf in mosques other than the three: Masjid al-Haram, Masjid al-Nabawi, and Masjid al-Aqsa?”

The answer by Shaykh Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai rahimahullah:

Allah the Exalted says:

«وَلَا تُبَاشِرُوْهُنَّ وَاَنْتُمْ عٰكِفُوْنَ فِي الْمَسٰجِدِ»

And do not approach your wives while you are in i‘tikaf in the mosques.

[البقرة: 187]

From this noble verse, it is understood that i‘tikaf is permissible in every mosque. The majority of scholars have deduced from this verse that i‘tikaf is permissible in every mosque. See: [شرح السنة للبغوي ج 6 ص 394 مرعاة المفاتيح ج 7 ص 165]

In contrast, some people hold the view that i‘tikaf is only permissible in three mosques: Masjid al-Haram, Masjid al-Nabawi, and Masjid al-Aqsa!

According to them, i‘tikaf is not permissible in other mosques.

These people present a narration in support of their claim:

«سُفْيَانُ بْنُ عُيَيْنَةَ، عَنْ جَامِعِ بْنِ أَبِيْ رَاشِدٍ، عَنْ أَبِيْ وَائِلٍ قَالَ: قَالَ حُذَيْفَةُ لِعَبْدِاللهِ: عُكُوفٌ بَيْنَ دَارِكَ وَدَارِ أَبِيْ مُوسَي لَاتُغَيِّرُ، وَقَدْ عَلِمْتَ أَنَّ رَسُوْلَ اللهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ: لَا اعْتِكَافَ إِلَّا فِي الْمَسَاجِدِ الثَّلَاثَةِ»

It is narrated from the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam that he said: There is no i‘tikaf except in the three mosques.

[المعجم للاسماعيلي 2/3/ 720 ح 336 واللفظ له، سير اعلام النبلاء للذهبي 15/ 81، وقال: ’’صحيح غريب عال‘‘ السنن الكبريٰ للبيهقي 4/ 316، مشكل الآثار 4/ 20، المحليٰ لا بن حزم 5/ 194، مسئله: 633]

This narration is weak in terms of its chain of transmission.
In all its chains, the narrator Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah is present, who narrates with ‘an‘anah.
In none of the chains is there an explicit statement of his having heard it; Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah rahimahullah was a trustworthy hafiz and a well-known mudallis (one who practices tadlis).

Hafiz Ibn Hibban writes:

«وهذا ليس فى الدنيا إلا لسفيان بن عيينة وحده فإنه كان يدلس ولا يدلس إلا عن ثقة متقن»

There is only one example of this in the world, and that is Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah alone, because he used to practice tadlis, but he would not do tadlis except from a trustworthy, precise narrator.

[الاحسان بترتيب صحيح ابن حبان ج 1 ص 90، دوسرا نسخه ج 1 ص 161]

The same opinion is held by Imam Ibn Hibban’s student, Imam Daraqutni, and others. See: [سوالات الحاكم للدارقطني ص 175]

Imam Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah also practiced tadlis from the following trustworthy narrators:

1) ‘Ali ibn al-Madini,
2) Abu ‘Asim, and
3) Ibn Jurayj

[الكفاية فى علم الروايه للخطيب ص 362، نعمت الاثاثه لتخصيص الاعتكاف بالمساجد الثلاثه ص 79]

Once, Sufyan (ibn ‘Uyaynah) narrated a hadith from (Imam) al-Zuhri, and later told those who asked that he had not heard it from al-Zuhri, nor from anyone who had heard it from al-Zuhri.

«لَمْ أَسْمَعْهُ مِنَ الزُّهْرِيِّ وَلَا مِمَّنْ سَمِعَهُ مِنَ الزُّهْرِيِّ، حَدَّثَنِيْ عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ عَنِ الزُّهْرِيِّ»

‘Abd al-Razzaq narrated this hadith to me from Ma‘mar from al-Zuhri.

[علوم الحديث للحاكم ص 105، الكفايه ص 359، مقدمه ابن الصلاح ص 95، 96، اختصار علوم الحديث ص 51، تدريب الراوي ج 1 ص 224، فتح المغيث ج 1 ص 183]

Note: The chain of this narration is weak due to Ibrahim ibn Muhammad al-Sakuni al-Sukkari being of unknown status.

Once, he narrated a hadith from ‘Amr ibn Dinar (trustworthy). When asked, he said:

«حَدَّثَنِيْ عَلِيُّ بْنُ الْمَدِينِيِّ عَنِ الضَّحَّاكِ بْنِ مَخْلَدٍ عَنِ ابْنِ جُرَيْجٍ عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ دِينَارٍ»

‘Ali ibn al-Madini narrated this hadith to me from al-Dahhak ibn Makhlad from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Amr ibn Dinar.

[فتح المغيث 1 ص 184]

[یہ روایت صحیح سند کے ساتھ الکفایہ ص 359۔ 360 میں مطولاً موجود ہے۔]

Even students of hadith and the principles of hadith know that this chain is weak due to the ‘an‘anah of Ibn Jurayj. Ibn Jurayj’s tadlis from weak narrators is very well known. See: [الفتح المبين فى تحقيق طبقات المدلسين ص 55، 56]

From this, it is also clear that among the trustworthy shaykhs from whom Ibn ‘Uyaynah practiced tadlis, some were themselves mudallis, such as Ibn Jurayj and others. Among Ibn ‘Uyaynah’s teachers, Imam al-Zuhri, Muhammad ibn ‘Ajlan, and Sufyan al-Thawri and others practiced tadlis, so the ‘an‘anah of Imam Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah is questionable. As for the claim that he only practiced tadlis from trustworthy narrators, this is open to scrutiny.

Sufyan (ibn ‘Uyaynah) narrated from Imam al-Zuhri a statement about Muhammad ibn Ishaq, saying:

«أما إِنَّه لَايزَال فِي النَّاس علم مَا بقي هَذَا» «»

Knowledge will remain among the people as long as this (Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar) is alive.

[تاريخ يحييٰ بن معين ج 1 ص 504، دوسرانسخه 157 ت 979 من زوائد عباس الدوري، الكامل ابن عدي ج 6 ص 2119، ميزان الاعتدال ج 3 ص 472]

In this narration, there is no explicit statement of Sufyan’s having heard it.

Sufyan had heard this statement from Abu Bakr al-Hudhali. [الجرح والتعديل ج 7 ص 191]

Therefore, it is established that Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah practiced tadlis from al-Hudhali.

This al-Hudhali is abandoned in hadith. See: [تقريب التهذيب 397]

Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah also practiced tadlis from Hasan ibn ‘Ammarah (abandoned / Taqrib al-Tahdhib p. 71), as will be mentioned ahead. [ص 151]

In summary, the claim that Imam Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah only practiced tadlis from trustworthy narrators is open to scrutiny; it may be a general rule but cannot be considered absolute.

The noble hadith scholars have rejected the mursal narration of a trustworthy tabi‘i due to the possibility that he may have heard it from a non-Sahabi. If he heard it from a non-Sahabi (i.e., a tabi‘i or otherwise), then it is possible that the narrator is trustworthy or weak, thus the mursal narration is weak. In exactly the same way, the “la i‘tikaf” narration is weak for two reasons:

1) It is possible that Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah heard this narration from a trustworthy narrator or from a non-trustworthy one. If he heard it from a non-trustworthy narrator, it is rejected.

2) If he heard it from a trustworthy narrator, it is possible that this trustworthy narrator was himself a mudallis, as has been clarified above. When Sufyan’s teacher is himself a mudallis, what proof is there that he necessarily heard the narration from his own teacher? When it is impossible to ascertain his hearing, there is a strong possibility that the narration he reported is weak due to his weak teacher. Therefore, to call this narration, as Shaykh Abu ‘Umar ‘Abd al-‘Aziz Nuristani hafizahullah did following Hafiz al-Dhahabi, «صحيح عندي» is not correct, but is entirely against the principles of hadith.

The undersigned wrote a letter in Urdu to Mr. Nuristani and Mr. Najmullah Salafi hafizahumallah, to which a reply was received after a long time in Arabic, etc.

Upon receiving this reply, the undersigned wrote a response in Urdu and sent it to Mr. Nuristani, Mr. Najmullah, and by correspondence to Dr. Shuja‘ullah (Lahori).

Later, Shaykh Nuristani’s book “Ni‘mat al-Athathah li-Takhssis al-I‘tikaf bi’l-Masajid al-Thalathah” was received, in which my first letter was translated into broken Arabic and published with a reply, but my second (latest) letter is missing from this book.

I had written:

«بسم الله الرحمان الرحيم السلام عليكم ورحمة الله وبركاته، اما بعد:»

To Mr. Nuristani and Mr. Najmullah!

Your reply has been received; in this regard, I present a few points for your consideration:

1- You have not been able to establish an explicit statement of hearing (sima‘) from Imam Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah rahimahullah in your relied-upon chain, nor have you presented any corroboration.

2- Imam Ibn ‘Uyaynah rahimahullah also practiced tadlis from trustworthy mudallis narrators such as Imam Ibn Jurayj rahimahullah, etc., so his ‘an‘anah is questionable. Neither of you has answered this.

3- Regarding Abu Bakr al-Hudhali, you have tried to show that Imam Ibn ‘Uyaynah rahimahullah heard Imam al-Zuhri’s statement from al-Hudhali as well as from Imam al-Zuhri himself. However, it is not established from al-Jarh wa’l-Ta‘dil or any book that he himself heard this statement from Imam al-Zuhri.

In the case of al-Hudhali, keep the following points in mind:

1) Sufyan saw Muhammad ibn Ishaq with al-Zuhri.

2) Ibn Ishaq complained to al-Zuhri about his doorkeeper.

3) Al-Zuhri called the doorkeeper and advised him.

4) Al-Hudhali narrated al-Zuhri’s statement to Sufyan: “Knowledge will remain in Madinah…” etc.

In the first three points, Sufyan’s hearing is established; in the last point, it is not. Therefore, your inference from the brevity of some narrators is not correct.

Apart from Abu Qilabah al-Ruqashi, the narration “a‘lam bi-ghaza” is different, «لايزال بالمدينه لايزال بالمدينه» is another, and it is not correct to understand it from “al-Mazid fi Muttasil al-Asanid.”

Please review the referenced pages of my previous letter...

Regarding Abu Qilabah ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Muhammad al-Ruqashi, the preferred view is that he was hasan al-hadith because the majority of hadith scholars have declared him trustworthy. In the mentioned narration, the authentication of Muhammad ibn Ja‘far ibn Yazid and Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Muzani is required.

A few more benefits regarding the tadlis of Imam Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah rahimahullah are presented:

1- Abu Hatim al-Razi said regarding a narration of Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah “from Ibn Abi ‘Arubah”: If this (narration) were authentic, it would be found in the books of Ibn Abi ‘Arubah, and Ibn ‘Uyaynah did not explicitly state hearing in this hadith, and this makes it weak. [علل الحديث 1/ 32 ح 60، الفتح المبين ص 41]

2- Ibn Turkmani al-Hanafi said: “Then indeed Ibn ‘Uyaynah is a mudallis and he has narrated with ‘an‘anah in the chain.” [الجوهر النقي 2/ 138]

Also see: [المستدرك للحاكم 2/ 539 ح 3985]

4- Mr. Najmullah’s criticism of the Sahihayn that “even if the conditions of hearing are not met, the narration will be rejected” is wrong and rejected.

The Sahihayn have been accepted by the ummah (talaqqi bi’l-qubul), and there is consensus on their authenticity. This alone is sufficient proof that the narrations of mudallis narrators in the Sahihayn are to be understood as being based on hearing or corroboration.

5- The mu‘an‘an narration of Imam Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah is weak in terms of chain and its text is munkar; therefore, to call it «صحيح عندي» is incorrect.

6- I request both of you not to spread this weak and defective narration among the people and cause discord in the ummah. Our duty is only to convey (the truth). Zubair Ali Zai, 99.10.14

No reply has been received to this letter to this day.

In short, the narration reported by Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah: «لَا اعْتِكَافَ إِلَّا فِي الْمَسَاجِدِ الثَّلَاثَةِ» is weak in terms of its chain.

There are many other defects in it as well.
For example, there is disagreement and contradiction in its text, and there is also disagreement as to whether it is mawquf or marfu‘.
The basis of this disagreement is the unknown person who narrated this hadith to Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah. Some of the objections of the majority of the scholars of Islam are also present in the book “Ni‘mat al-Athathah.” The learned author has tried to give unsuccessful answers to these objections, but the truth is what the majority of the scholars of Islam have understood from the noble verse of the Qur’an: ﴿وَأَنْتُمْ عَاكِفُونَ فِي الْمَسَاجِدِ﴾.

Here, as a point, it should be mentioned that restricting “al-masajid” to the three mosques (Masjid al-Haram, Masjid al-Nabawi, Masjid al-Aqsa) is also historically incorrect.

There is no evidence that Muslims performed i‘tikaf in Masjid al-Aqsa during the time of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam; rather, Bayt al-Maqdis (where Masjid al-Aqsa is located) was under the control of the Crusader Pauline Christians at that time. It was conquered by Amir al-Mu’minin ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab radi Allahu anhu in 15 AH. See: [البدايه والنهايه ج 7 ص 56 وغيره]

Therefore, in the context of the revelation of this noble verse, along with Masjid al-Haram and Masjid al-Nabawi, all the mosques that existed in the Prophetic era are included. The word “masajid” comprises at least three (or more) mosques.

The exclusion of Masjid al-Aqsa at the time of revelation itself proves that performing i‘tikaf is permissible in all mosques of the world, including the three mosques. [شهادت، جنوري 2000ء]

The narration «لا اعتكاف» is weak:

Question: What is your research regarding i‘tikaf? (A questioner)

Answer:

Imam Abu Hatim al-Razi declared the narration “la i‘tikaf” weak due to the fact that the narrator, Imam Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah, did not explicitly state hearing in one of his hadiths. [علل الحديث ج 1 ص 32 ح 60 والمخطوطه 18، وفوائد فى كتاب العلل بقلم المعلمي ص 29]

Shaykh Nasir ibn Hamad al-Fahd has written:

«وهذا يفيد أن ابن عيينة أحيانًا يدلس عن الضعفاء»

And this indicates that Ibn ‘Uyaynah sometimes practiced tadlis from weak narrators.

[منهج المتقد مين فى التدليس ص 36]

The famous Saudi scholar Shaykh ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Sa‘d hafizahullah wrote the introduction to this book.

From these two recent references, it is also established that the hadith «لَا اعْتِكَافَ إِلَّا فِي الْمَسَاجِدِ الثَّلَاثَةِ» (“There is no i‘tikaf except in the three mosques”) is weak. [شهادت، جنوري 2003ء]

……………… Original Article ………………

For the original article, see Fatawa ‘Ilmiyyah, known as Tawdhih al-Ahkam (vol. 2, pp. 147–154) by Shaykh Hafiz Zubair Ali Zai rahimahullah.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
In one narration, it is mentioned that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) performed i'tikaf (spiritual retreat) in search of Laylat al-Qadr during the first ten days. Jibril (alayhis salam) came to him and said: "That which you are seeking is ahead." Then he performed i'tikaf during the second ten days, and again Jibril (alayhis salam) came to him and said: "That which you are seeking is ahead of this." Finally, he planned to perform i'tikaf during the last ten days.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, al-Adhan, Hadith: 813)

(2)
From the aforementioned narration of Sahih al-Bukhari, it is understood that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) came out in the morning of the twentieth day and delivered a sermon at that time. After this, he began his i'tikaf from the night of the twenty-first. However, from the narration of al-Muwatta of Imam Malik, it is understood that the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) came out in the morning of the twenty-first night and delivered a sermon, and then began the i'tikaf of the last ten days on the night of the twenty-second.
(al-Muwatta’ of Imam Malik, al-I'tikaf, Hadith: 715)

The narration of Imam Malik is less preferred (marjuh), because in one narration of Sahih al-Bukhari it is explicitly stated that when the twentieth night had passed and the twenty-first was approaching, at that time the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) returned to his place of i'tikaf. This position is also supported by another narration in which the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said: "Whoever was performing i'tikaf with me should return and perform i'tikaf with me during the last ten days." And the last ten days begin from the night of the twenty-first. On this basis, the narration of Imam Malik is less preferred (marjuh).
(Fath al-Bari: 4/327)

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
In Sahih Muslim, this hadith is narrated with these words: The Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) said:
“I observed i‘tikaf (spiritual retreat) in search of that night during the first ten days, then I observed i‘tikaf during the middle ten days, then whenever I came for i‘tikaf, it was said to me that the night is in the last ten (nights), so whoever among you wishes to observe i‘tikaf should do so (in the last ten).”
After this, people observed i‘tikaf with him.
(Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Siyam, Hadith: 2769(1167))

(2)
There is no fixed maximum or minimum duration for i‘tikaf (spiritual retreat).
Some scholars are of the opinion that along with the i‘tikaf of the night, it is also necessary to observe i‘tikaf during the day, but from this hadith it is evident that this restriction is not necessary. However, the statement that when one comes to pray, one should make the intention of i‘tikaf, has no basis.
This is an unfounded claim.

(3)
Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) has written:
Whoever intends to observe i‘tikaf for the night should begin the i‘tikaf before sunset and continue it until the break of dawn.
Whoever intends to observe i‘tikaf only for the day should begin it before the break of dawn and end it after sunset. And whoever intends to observe i‘tikaf for both the night and the day should begin it before sunset and leave after sunset the next day.
(Fath al-Bari: 4/358)
And Allah knows best.

Hadith Commentary:
(1)
According to this hadith, in that year the Night of Qadr (Laylat al-Qadr) was on the twenty-first date.
(2)
Other hadiths indicate that the twenty-seventh night is the Night of Qadr.
It is quite possible that in the year when the noble Companions (radi Allahu anhum) became aware of this night, that very night was the Night of Qadr, but it is by no means the case that it will always be the same night.
There are many statements from the scholars of the ummah regarding the determination of this night.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) has written about this in detail.
He has cited 46 opinions in this regard.
In the end, he gave his verdict in these words:
Among all these, the preferred opinion is that this blessed night occurs in the odd nights of the last ten days of Ramadan, and it continues to shift every year.
The Shafi'is have considered the twenty-first night to be the Night of Qadr, and the majority give preference to the twenty-seventh night, but the correct view is that it cannot be determined with a specific date for every year. Moreover, it is a hidden night, and the wisdom in its being concealed is so that effort to seek it continues.
If it had been specified, then people would have sufficed with only that night.
(Fath al-Bari: 4/338)
And Allah knows best.

Hadith Commentary:
When Imam Malik narrated this tradition, he mentioned it in these words:
We spent a year in i‘tikaf (spiritual retreat) with the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam). When the twenty-first night came, on the morning of which you exited the place of i‘tikaf...
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Kitab al-I‘tikaf, Hadith: 2018)
Hafiz Ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) says:
By “the morning of the twenty-first night” is meant the morning of the twentieth day, that is, the morning of the twentieth fast, after which the coming night was the twenty-first.
Sometimes, the thing that precedes something is attributed to it.
This style is also used in the speech of the Arabs.
(Fath al-Bari: 4/356)

Hadith Commentary:

Benefits and Issues:
➊ If the counting of the nights of the last ten (days) is done from the end of the month and the month consists of thirty days, then the interpretation given by Abu Sa'id radi Allahu anhu is correct.
➋ However, if the counting is started from the beginning of the last ten (days), then what is meant are the twenty-first, twenty-third, and twenty-fifth nights. According to the narration of Abu Sa'id radi Allahu anhu, in that year Laylat al-Qadr was on the twenty-first night, and the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam also commanded that Laylat al-Qadr should be sought in the odd nights.
➌ Similarly, according to the narration of Abdullah bin Unais radi Allahu anhu, this night was the twenty-third.
➍ Therefore, the meaning of this narration of Abu Sa'id radi Allahu anhu will be: the night after the ninth (i.e., the twenty-first), the night after the seventh (i.e., the twenty-third), and the night after the fifth (i.e., the twenty-fifth). Otherwise, the twenty-second, twenty-fourth, and twenty-sixth are not odd nights.

1357. Commentary:
➊ In a dream, the specific night of Laylat al-Qadr was shown to the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, but according to other narrations, due to the quarrel of some people, it was made to slip from his mind. Only the sign remained in his memory: that he was prostrating in mud. However, remember that this sign was only for that particular year, not for all times, because on some other occasions the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam has mentioned other signs as well. Also, this night changes every year, but it is always among the odd nights of the last ten nights.

➋ After finishing the prayer, one should wipe the forehead and so on, so that if any straw or soil has stuck during prostration, it may be cleaned. In this way, there is no risk of ostentation. In the above narrations, the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam had just given the salutation (taslim).

Benefits and Issues:
➊
Laylat al-Qadr (the Night of Decree) is the most virtuous night of the year. Worship during this one night is more virtuous than worship of a thousand months ().

➋
It is Sunnah to perform i'tikaf (spiritual retreat) in order to attain the virtue of Laylat al-Qadr. However, even if someone is unable to perform i'tikaf, he should still strive to spend the nights in worship.

➌
The meaning of Laylat al-Qadr being forgotten is that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) did not remember which night of that year was Laylat al-Qadr. It is not necessary that it occurs on the same night every year.

➍
Laylat al-Qadr is one of the odd nights of the last ten nights. Therefore, whoever is unable to worship during all ten nights should at least spend these five nights in worship, recitation, and remembrance, so that he is not deprived of the great blessing of Laylat al-Qadr.

➎
Although the scholars have mentioned some signs of Laylat al-Qadr, the reward does not depend on whether the worshipper comes to know of this night or not. Therefore, one should not be distressed if he does not feel any of the particular signs.