Editorial standards.

Who prepared the lesson

An original article, lesson summary, translation, recorded lesson, and practice should be identified clearly. The source teacher or author and the person who prepared Halaqa’s version have different roles.

Summarising a teacher’s talk does not mean that the teacher wrote or approved the summary. We will name a reviewer only when that person has reviewed the exact version and agreed to the attribution.

Sources you can follow

Quotations should match their original sources. Paraphrases and editorial explanations should be distinguishable from direct quotations.

Quran passages need surah and ayah references and an identified translation source. Hadith references need a collection and a usable locator; any grading stated needs its source. Scholarly books and recordings need page, section, or timestamp references where relevant.

Historical, numerical, and interpretive claims need evidence supporting the wording used. A qualified statement or one scholar’s view must not become an unsupported universal claim.

Arabic and its meaning

Arabic wording and diacritics should be checked against the identified source. Arabic, transliteration, the translation of its meaning, and its reference should remain distinct.

Transliteration is a reading aid. A recall exercise is optional and does not establish correct recitation, memorisation mastery, or religious merit from a repetition count.

What review involves

Preparation is followed by source checking, appropriate subject review, copy editing, and a check of the reading experience on mobile.

New doctrinal explanations, religious rulings, hadith grading, and disputed interpretations require a reviewer suitable for the subject. Copy editing and source matching do not replace that review.

The review record should identify who checked the material, what they checked, and which version they reviewed. Relevant scholarly differences should be acknowledged when they affect the lesson. Individual questions requiring a ruling should be taken to an appropriate qualified teacher.

Review records

Publication and review are separate. A published page does not by itself establish that editorial or scholarly checks have been completed.

A reviewed designation requires a completed record identifying the exact version, the checks made and the people responsible. Review records should stay connected to the version they describe.

Tools and media

Digital tools may support writing and copy editing. A responsible human must check claims, quotations, citations, translations, and attribution against their sources. Automated output is not religious evidence or scholarly review.

Substantial use of automated tools should be recorded and disclosed when it affects how readers understand the preparation of a lesson. Generated illustrations must not be presented as photographs of a named scholar, event, or documented place.

Reproduced text, images, and recordings need an appropriate permission or licence record. Source credit alone does not document permission.

Corrections and updates

A correction report should include the page link, relevant passage, and supporting source. Material corrections should receive a visible dated note explaining what changed, while the original publication date remains clear.

Serious errors that could mislead readers require an editorial decision about suspending the affected content at its existing URL while the issue is resolved.