Editorial policy and content sources

1. What this site is, and what it is not

Ummah Connect publishes Quranic passages with their surah and ayah, hadith with their collection and number, retellings of the Seerah and the Prophets, guides to acts of worship, and pages on rights and character.

It is not a place to get a ruling on your own situation, and it does not pretend to be. It is a place to find out where a question starts — which verse, which hadith, what the scholars have said, and where they disagree.

2. Where the content comes from

Quranic passages are given with the surah and ayah beneath them, and are renderings of the meaning rather than a claim to be one fixed translation.

The hadith collection on this site is 36,544 narrations across ten collections, taken from the open hadith-api dataset released under The Unlicense. The licence was read before use.

The duas and some app guides come from the Ummah Connect Android app's own data and source. The wudu, salah, fasting and zakat guides are written for this site with Qur'an and hadith references on each page. Prayer times are a line-for-line port of the app's own calculator.

The long stories and the pages on rights were written for this site, by hand, with the reference for each passage given underneath it.

3. When a hadith is called sahih here

Only when it is in Sahih al-Bukhari or Sahih Muslim, or when recognised scholars have graded it sound and the page says which collection it is actually in.

Several very well-known hadith are routinely quoted as being from Bukhari when they are not. Where that happens, the page says so — for example the hadith about paying a worker before his sweat dries, which is Sunan Ibn Majah 2443 and not Bukhari. Correcting the attribution is not a technicality; a reader who repeats a wrong attribution has been failed by us, not by themselves.

Where a narration is well known but weak, it is named and placed rather than silently dropped. A reader who has heard the spider at the mouth of the cave all their life is better served by being told where it comes from than by its absence.

4. Where the scholars differ

The difference is stated. No consensus is invented, and nothing is called forbidden without evidence named for it.

Where a subject has a long-standing difference between the schools — housework, the detail of maintenance, custody, a father's claim on a son's property — the page says that the scholars differ and tells you to ask a mufti, instead of picking one view and presenting it as the religion.

5. What is refused

Content with no verifiable source. The seeding tool refuses any entry with an empty source field; this is enforced by the code and not left to memory.

A fabricated or misattributed hadith. A story presented as authentic history when it is not. A ruling with no evidence. A scholar's name attached to something they did not say.

Emotional stories written to move people, presented as Islamic history. Sensational religious headlines. Anything written to be shared rather than to be true.

One example of a refusal, because it is concrete: a 500-entry dua dataset was offered for this site and rejected. It held six distinct Arabic texts repeated across 500 entries, each copy filed under a different heading and credited to a different collection — the same text attributed in turn to Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Abu Dawud and Ibn Majah. Those attributions were fabricated. The twenty duas on this site come from the app's own data, with real references.

6. Corrections

If a reference on this site is wrong — a wrong number, a wrong grading, a passage attributed to the wrong collection, a translation that changes the meaning — that is the most important thing you can report, and it will be treated as such.

Send the page, the text as it appears, and what it should say. Where you can, name the source you are relying on: it makes the correction checkable rather than a matter of two opinions.

7. Who writes this

These pages are written and checked by the people who build Ummah Connect. No scholar's name is attached to them, because attaching one that had not reviewed the page would be exactly the kind of false authority this policy exists to prevent.

What is offered instead is the evidence itself, in the open, page by page, so that anybody who does have that training can check it — and so that you can.