The Virtue of the 15th Night of Sha’ban, A Brief Summary of the Reports From the Salaf — For and Against It

Al-Umm of Al-Shafi’i

Every year, as the 15th night of Sha’ban (referred to as Nisfu Sha’ban after this, literally meaning the “Middle of Sha’ban”) approaches, advocates from both sides of the aisle come forward once again to discuss the age-old question: Is observing it an innovation (i.e., bid’ah, aka “innovation in religion”) or a valid Islamic practice?

This article is not intended to solve the mystery and answer the questiononce and for all (that would be a fool’s endeavour). 1400 years of discussion is not going to be answered in a single article, barely 3000 words. Such an odyssey would require time and patience, perhaps even taking up the life of a single dedicated and consistent scholar.

Rather, this article is intended to list a few reports (called “athars” in Islamic usage) from both advocates and detractors, directly from the early sources of Islamic history, the “Salaf” as commonly called by Muslims. For the sake of brevity, this article will only mention sources and authors on Nisfu Sha’ban from the early 300 Hijrah. Authentication sources are not included as later sources have been far more succint in explaining the status of each narrator.

Authentication of the report (Al-Jarh Wa Ta’dil) will be provided below for each report, allowing readers to examine whether the chain (sanad) and text (matan) of the report are sufficient to be considered as evidence. The answer to which side “won” is up to the reader to decide for themselves. The goal is merely to provide a brief introduction as to why each side believes in what they hold onto, not to deconstruct, analyze, and end this discussion once and for all.

Evidence Against It

In the 3rd Century Hijrah, a book was written by Muhammad bin Waddah Al-Qurtubi (died 287 Hijrah, 900 CE) from Al-Andalus, Spain. The author compiled all the reprehensible bida’ah that were practiced by the people of his time into a single book and argued against their practice. The title of the book gives it away: Al-Bid’a Wa Al-Nahi Anhu (البدع والنهي عنها, The Book of Innovations and Prohibitions Against It). Such a book was designed to prohibit people from following the innovations in religion condemned by the Prophet Muhammad PBUH and guard the laymen from such heresies.

In the chapter “What Has Come Regarding the Night of the Middle of Sha’ban (مَا جَاءَ فِي لَيْلَةِ النِّصْفِ مِنْ شَعْبَانَ), the author records two reports from the early Salaf (the first 3 righteous generations considered by Muslims as an exemplary model to follow) about the dislike of Nisfu Sha’ban:

1)The Report of Abdul Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam (died 182 Hijrah):

حَدَّثَنِي مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ وَضَّاحٍ قَالَ: نا هَارُونُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ قَالَ: نا ابْنُ وَهْبٍ قَالَ: نا عَبْدُ الرَّحْمَنِ بْنُ زَيْدِ بْنِ أَسْلَمَ , قَالَ: «لَمْ أُدْرِكْ أَحَدًا مِنْ مَشْيَخَتِنَا وَلَا فُقَهَائِنَا يَلْتَفِتُونَ إِلَى لَيْلَةِ النِّصْفِ مِنْ شَعْبَانَ , وَلَمْ نُدْرِكْ أَحَدًا مِنْهُمْ يَذْكُرُ حَدِيثَ مَكْحُولٍ , وَلَا يَرَى لَهَا فَضْلًا عَلَى مَا سِوَاهَا مِنَ اللَّيَالِي».

(Muhammad bin Waddah narrated to me: Harun bin Said told us: Ibn Wahb told us: Abdul Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam told us, who said “I did not find any of our elders or jurists paying attention to the night of the middle of Sha’ban, nor did I find any of them mentioning the hadith of Makhul, nor seeing any merit in it over other nights.”)

Some clarification is warranted here:

Muhammad bin Waddah is the author of the book.

Harun bin Sa’id is Harun bin Sa’id bin Al-Haytham bin Abu Ja’far Al-Ayli, who was born in 170 Hijrah and died in 253 Hijrah according to Al-Dhahabi. He is said to be a trustworthy and virtuous narrator according to Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani and a trustworthy scholar of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) according to Al-Dhahabi, both premier hadith scholars in their field.

Ibn Wahb is Abdullah bin Wahb bin Muslim, who was born in 125 Hijrah and died in 197 Hijrah. He is trustworthy, a memorizer of hadith, and a devout worshipper, according to Ibn Hajar. According to Al-Dhahabi, he was a hafiz (an exclusive title given to a hadith memorizer).

Abdul Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam was the freed slave of Umar Al-Khattab, brother of Abdullah bin Zayd bin Aslam and Usamah bin Zayd bin Aslam, both hadith narrators. Ibn Hajar considered him weak, while Al-Dhahabi said the scholars considered him weak and that he had a tafsir book (Quran exegesis).

The disagreement of his report is whether his status as a weak hadith narrator is enough for us to disregard it altogether or not. Advocates of Nisfu Sha’ban will reject this report, while detractors might support his report by including other forms of evidence from various sources. Another angle concerns Ibn Zayd’s statement that he did not find anything from the hadith of Makhul regarding the virtue of the 15th of Sha’ban, and whether that remains to be true is not. Regardless, that is beyond the scope of this article.

2. The Report of Ibn Abi Mulaykah (Died 117 Hijrah):

نَا ابْنُ وَضَّاحٍ قَالَ: نا ابْنُ أَبِي مَرْيَمَ قَالَ: نا نُعَيْمُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ قَالَ: نا عَبْدُ الرَّزَّاقِ , عَنْ مَعْمَرٍ , عَنِ ابْنِ أَبِي مُلَيْكَةَ , قَالَ: قِيلَ لَهُ: إِنَّ زِيَادًا النُّمَيْرِيَّ يَقُولُ: إِنَّ لَيْلَةَ النِّصْفِ مِنْ شَعْبَانَ أَجْرُهَا كَأَجْرِ لَيْلَةِ الْقَدْرِ , فَقَالَ ابْنُ أَبِي مُلَيْكَةَ «لَوْ سَمِعْتُهُ مِنْهُ وَبِيَدِي عَصًا لَضَرَبْتُهُ بِهَا».

(Ibn Waddah narrated to us: Ibn Abi Maryam narrated to us: Nu’aym bin Hammad narrated to us: Abdul Razzaq narrated to us: From Ma’mar, from Ibn Abi Mulaykah who said: It was said to him: That Ziyad al-Numayri said: “The reward for the fifteenth night of Sha’ban is like the reward for the Night of Decree.” Ibn Abi Mulaykah said: “If I had heard him say that, and I had a stick in my hand, I would have struck him with it.”)

This report is also found in Musannaf Abdul Razzaq Al-San’ani (4/314) — Edited by Al A’zami with the same chain starting from Abdul Razzaq but with the addition of narrator, Ayyub, between Ma’mar and Ibn Abi Mulaykah.

Ibn Waddah is Abdullah bin Waddah Al-Qurtubi, the author of the book.

Ibn Abi Maryam is Sa’eed bin Al-Hakam bin Salim, more famously known as Ibn Abi Maryam. He was born in 144 Hijrah and died in 224 Hijrah. Ibn Hajar said he was trustworthy, reliable, a jurist, and one of the senior scholars. Al-Dhahabi said he was a hafiz, jurist, and muhaddith (a senior hadith scholar).

Nu’aym bin Hammad is Nu’aym bin Hammad Al-Marwazi, the Muslim imam said to be strict against heresies in religion and died during the Mihnah (the ordeal of the Quran’s createdness). He died around 227–229 Hijrah. However, there is a disagreement about his status as a hadith narrator. Some have said he is weak, while others said he is trustworthy. According to Ibn Hajar, he was deemed good (a slightly lower status than trustworthy), but he made a lot of mistakes, and he was knowledgeable in fiqh and fara’id (Islamic inheritance). Meanwhile, Al-Dhahabi said he was a hafiz.

Abdul Razzaq is Abdul Razzaq bin Hammam bin Nafi’, more famously known as Abdul Razzaq Al-San’ani, the author of Musannaf Al-San’ani, an early hadith collection before Bukhari and Muslim. He was born in 126 Hijrah and died in 211 Hijrah. It was said he was trustworthy and a hafiz but became blind at the end of his life and he had some Shia leanings as per Ibn Hajar. Some other scholars have also said he was accused of narrating some mursal (disconnected) hadiths and did tadlis (deception to hide defects in hadith), but Ibn Hajar says that may not be true. Al-Dhahabi says he was a hafiz and one of the most prominent scholars.

Ma’mar is Ma’mar bin Rashid, who died around 150–155 Hijrah. Ibn Hajar calls him trustworthy, reliable, and virtuous, except that there is something in his narration from Thabit, al-A’mash, ‘Asim ibn Abi al-Najud, and Hisham ibn ‘Urwa, and likewise in what he narrated in Basra from the seniors of the seventh generation. Al-Dhahabi says he was the scholar of Yemen. Ahmad said, “Do not associate Ma’mar with anyone without finding him surpassing them. He was among the most diligent seekers of knowledge of his time.” Abdul Razzaq said, “I heard ten thousand hadiths from him.”

Ibn Abi Mulaykah is Abdullah bin Ubaydallah bin Abi Mulakyah who died in 117 or 118 Hijrah. Ibn Hajar said he met 30 companions of the Prophet PBUH, and is trustworthy and a jurist. Al-Dhahabi said he met Aisha, the wife of the Prophet PBUH, Ibn Abbas, and was a muezzin (caller to prayer) and jurist.

Ziyad Al-Numayri is Ziyad bin Abdullah, who died between 121 Hijrah and 130 Hijrah. Ibn Hajar considered him weak, as did Al-Dhahabi.

The first disagreement lies with the chain of narration. Advocates of Nisfu Sha’ban will say it is weak due to the Nu’aym bin Hammad and Abdul Razzaq Al-San’ani, and vice versa for detractors. Second is the understanding of the text (matan). Did Ibn Abi Mulaykah critique Ziyad simply for his observance of Nisfu Sha’ban, or did he critique him due to Ziyad’s belief that the reward of that night is the same as the Night of Qadr (Laylatul Qadr)? Claiming the reward of the 15th night of Sha’ban is the same as the Night of Qadr has no basis, as far as I know. Was it because of the practice itself or attaching something to it?

Thus, these are the only two reports I know of that either directly or indirectly advocate against the observance of Nisfu Sha’ban. Onto the evidence for it,

Evidence For It

In contrast to the only two reports from a single book, two early famous books mention chapters with multiple reports on Nisfu Sha’ban. They are Musannaf Abdul Razzaq Al-San’ani (already mentioned above) and Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah (died 235 Hijrah), both early hadith collections before Bukhari and Muslim. Ibn Abi Shaybah titled his chapter as “What They Have Said: On the Night of the Middle of Sha’ban and What is Forgiven On It From the Sins (ما قالوا: في ليلة النصف من شعبان وما يغفر فيها من الذنوب)” while Al-San’ani’s chapter is titled “Chapter on the Middle of Sha’ban (بَابُ النِّصْفِ مِنْ شَعْبَانَ)”. Out of all the reports mentioned in both books, this article is only interested in one specific report as listed below.

Other non-hadith books also either have a specific chapter dedicated to the observance of Nisfu Sha’ban or a report and statement from the author themselves. We begin with such books starting from the latest to the earliest:

1)The Statement of Al-Fakihi (Died 275 Hijrah)

Abu Abdullah Muhammad bin Ishaq Al-Fakihi (referred to as only Al-Fakihi for simplicity) was an early Islamic historian from the 3rd century Hijrah. His famous book, Akhbar Makkah Fi Qadim Dahrihi Wa Hadithuhu (أخبار مكة في قديم الدهر وحديثه) or the “News of Mecca In Ancient and Modern Times” is a record of the history, specifications, and cultural norms in the Holy City of Mecca during his time, giving us a glimpse into the daily life of the holiest place in Islam. In contrast to other sources in this article, his work concerns only the study of Islamic history and his recording. Yet, is in this work we find a curious chapter dedicated to the practice in Nisfu Sha’ban among the inhabitants of the holy city.

ذكرعمل أهل مكة ليلة النصف من شعبان واجتهادهم فيها لفضلها

وأهل مكة فيما مضى إلى اليوم إذا كان ليلة النصف من شعبان، خرج عامة الرجال والنساء إلى المسجد، فصلّوا وطافوا وأحيوا ليلتهم حتى الصباح بالقراءة في المسجد الحرام، حتى يختموا القرآن كلّه، ويصلوا، ومن صلى منهم تلك الليلة مائة ركعة يقرأ في كل ركعة ب‍ الحمد وقل هو الله أحد عشر مرات، وأخذوا من ماء زمزم تلك الليلة فشربوه، واغتسلوا به، وخبّؤوه عندهم للمرضى، يبتغون بذلك البركة في هذه الليلة، ويروى فيه أحاديث كثيرة.

(“Mentioning the Practices of the People of Mecca on the night of the 15th of Sha’ban and their Diligence in Worship Because of Its Virtue.

In the past, and up to the present day, on the night of the middle of Sha’ban, the people of Mecca, both men and women, would go out to the mosque, pray, circumambulate, and spend the night until morning reading in the Grand Mosque. So that they might complete the entire Quran and pray. Whoever among them prayed one hundred rak’ahs that night, reciting in each rak’ah Al-Fatiha and Surah Al-Ikhlas eleven times, and they took some Zamzam water that night and drank it, and bathed with it, and stored some for the sick, seeking blessings on that night. Many hadiths are narrated about this.”)

Source: Akbar Makkah (3/84), Al-Fakihi, Fourth Edition

Thus, Al-Fakihi’s record is the earliest historical account (as of now) of this practice taking root among the residents and inhabitants of Mecca in the Arabian Peninsula, even from the early history of Islam. Whether such a widespread was accepted by all the scholars and citizens of the city, how widespread was this practice, and whether there were any detractors during this time remains unknown.

2. The Statement of Al-Shafi’i (Died 204 Hijrah)

Transitioning from the account of an early Islamic historian, we arrive at the statement of an early Islamic jurist and scholar. Muhammad bin Idris bin Al-Abbas Al-Shafi’i was one of the preeminent jurists of his time, a master in Islamic jurisprudence to the point he is the founder of the Shafi’i Mazhab (school of Islamic jurisprudence), mainly practiced by the Muslims of Southeast Asia and the Horn of Africa. Only a few works of his original encyclopedic compendium of works have survived till this very day. It is in one of these surviving works, Al-Umm (The Exemplar), his work on Islamic jurisprudence do we find this statement:

وَبَلَغَنَا أَنَّهُ كَانَ يُقَالُ: إنَّ الدُّعَاءَ يُسْتَجَابُ فِي خَمْسِ لَيَالٍ فِي لَيْلَةِ الْجُمُعَةِ، وَلَيْلَةِ الْأَضْحَى، وَلَيْلَةِ الْفِطْرِ، وَأَوَّلِ لَيْلَةٍ مِنْ رَجَبٍ، وَلَيْلَةِ النِّصْفِ مِنْ شَعْبَانَ

(“And it has reached us that it is said: That supplication (du’a) is accepted on five nights, the night of Friday, the night of Eid Al-Adha, the night of Eid Al-Fitr, the first night of Rajab, and the night of the middle of Sha’ban.”)

According to Al-Shafi’i, these five nights are unique for a certain reason. Unlike other nights throughout the year, god will accept supplications made on these nights without any barriers or hindrance, thus affirming the “specialty” of Nisfu Sha’ban. Detractors may argue that the statement “that it is said” infers Al-Shafi’i was only narrating the opinions of others during his time, rather than this being his own statement. Advocates might reply that the inclusion of such a phrase into his own work on jurisprudence implies Al-Shafi’i accepted such a statement. That is not the purpose of this article here.

3. The Report of Kathir bin Murra (Died Around 71–80 Hijrah)

عَنْ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ رَاشِدٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا مَكْحُولٌ، عَنْ كَثِيرِ بْنِ مُرَّةَ «أَنَّ اللَّهَ يَطَّلِعُ لَيْلَةَ النِّصْفِ مِنْ شَعْبَانَ إِلَى الْعِبَادِ، فَيَغْفِرُ لِأَهْلِ الْأَرْضِ إِلَّا رَجُلًا مُشْرِكًا أَوْ مُشَاحِنًا»

(From Muhammad bin Rashid: Makhul narrated to us, from Kathir bin Murrah: “God looks upon His servants on the night of the middle of Sha’ban and forgives the people of the earth except for a man who is a polytheist or a hater.”)

Source: Musannaf Abdul Razzaq Al-San’ani, Al-San’ani (4/316), Edited by Al-A’zami

Muhammad bin Rashid is Muhammad bin Rashid Al-Makhuli Al-Dimashqi who died in 160 Hijrah. He was said to be a muhaddith by Al-Dhahabi, considered trustworthy by Ahmad bin Hanbal and good by Abu Hatim Al-Razi. However, Al-Nasa’i considered him weak, while Shu’bah bin Al-Hajjaj considered him good but he was a Shi’ite Qadari.

Makhul is Makhul bin Abi Muslim. His real name Shahrab bin Shadhil bin Sand bin Shirwan and died around 112–118 Hijrah. He was said to be a great scholar in the Levant and was considered a famous follower (Tabi’een) of the companions of the Prophet PBUH. Ibn Hajar recorded it was said he used to practice tadlis but only found it from the statements of Ibn Hibban. Al-Dhahabi said he was the jurist of Syria and narrated from Aishah and Ibn Hibban in mursal (disconnected) form.

Kathir bin Murra is Kathir bin Murra Al-A’raj died around 71–80 Hijrah. Some have said he was an actual companion of the Prophet PBUH, others have said he was a follower of the companions, while others have said he was a Mukhadram Follower (a person who lived during the lifetime of the Prophet PBUH but didn’t meet him and became a Muslim after the Prophet PBUH died). Al-Nasa’i said there was nothing wrong with him as mentioned by Al-Dhahabi. Ibn Hajar assessed him as trustworthy.

Thus, there are no problems with the chain of narrators. All are trustworthy however, another problem remains. Was this really the statement of Kathir or actually a hadith from the Prophet PBUH? A similar statement is recorded in Sunan Ibn Majah (1390) and it is graded as weak. Further evidence points to the fact Kathir never said قال (he said). The athar goes straight to the text without addressing whether Kathir himself said it or it was attributed to him. Advocates of Nisfu Sha’ban might say this report is authentic due to the narrators all being trustworthy. Detractors might say the text of the report is problematic and is actually the same as the one in Sunan Ibn Majah.

Whether the evidence on both sides is strong enough to conclude a decisive ruling on this practice remains to be seen…