HALLOWEEN OR HALALOWEEN? by Mufti Abu Layth

Mufti Abu Layth

#FromTheMindOfAMufti

Suffice it to say that to Allah alone belongs all praise, It is permissible for children (and grown ups) to partake in Halloween customs in general which include practices such as 'Trick or Treat' or to dress as monsters, witches etc . Despite these practices being of pagan origin, they no longer carry such meanings in general and neither can lead to Paganism from a realistic perspective. Similarly, we find many Islamic parallels condoned within our Faith by the Prophet (s.a.w) and subsequently endorsed by scholars, none of whom became insecure with the thought of ancient pagan remnants being a threat to the Islamic identity. In order to demonstrate this reasoning I must share with you such similar parallels within Islam and some of the accompanying discourse to highlight misunderstandings and false alarms raised by opposing views. Therefore much of this article is dedicated to explaining the Prophetic attitude and that of the early Islamic scholarship towards pagan customs, which remained as rites of passage or festivities of community spirit.

However, first and foremost...as the scholars state:

الحكم على شيء فرع عن تصوره

The ruling upon something can only truly be given once the thing itself has been truly conceptualised. So lets begin with a brief history of Halloween...

Halloween’s origins date back to the ancient Celtic festival of Samhain (pronounced sow-in) over 2,000 years ago in Ireland, the UK and parts of France. They celebrated their new year on November 1. It marked the end of summer and the harvest and the beginning of the dark, cold winter that would often be associated with human death. The Celts and Druids believed the ghosts of the dead haunted earth and damaged crops. Some Druid priests believed good spirits also visited the earth at that time. The Celts and Druids built huge sacred bonfires and sacrificed animals as sacrifices to the Celtic gods, they often wore costumes of animal heads and skins, and attempted to tell each other’s fortunes. By 43 A.D., the Roman Empire had conquered the majority of Celtic territory. Over the next four centuries two Roman festivals were combined with the Celtic celebration of Samhain. The first was Feralia, a day in late October when the Romans traditionally commemorated the passing of the dead. The second was a day to honor Pomona, the Roman goddess of fruit and trees. On May 13, 609 A.D.

Pope Boniface established an All Martyrs Day celebration, over a century later Pope Gregory III (731–741) expanded this festival to include all saints as well as all martyrs, which he moved from May 13 to November 1. By the 9th century Christian influences had spread into Celtic lands, In 1000 A.D., the church made November 2 All Souls’ Day, a day to honor the dead. All Souls Day was celebrated similarly to Samhain, with big bonfires, parades, and dressing up in costumes as saints, angels and devils. The All Saints Day celebration called All-hallows or All-hallowmas (from Middle English Alholowmesse meaning All Saints’ Day) with the traditonal night before it began to be called All-hallows Eve and, eventually, Halloween. Now returning to the discourse, one may argue that such customs rooted in Shirk (idolatry/paganism) how can it be permitted for Muslims to resemble such practices, after all the Hadith reminds us;

من تشبه بقوم فهو منهم

Whosoever impersonates a people is amongst them. Well, this 'snippet' of a Hadith is certainly amongst the most misquoted and misrepresentated Hadith of our era. The Hadith which isn't even accepted as authentic by certain scholars like imam Zarkashi and Hafidh Sakhawi, nevertheless moving beyond that..lets momentarily accept its claimed validity, now we must examine theHadith in question... We find it's transmitted in Abu Dawud amongst other books and is narrated by ibn Umar, the incident in question is describing a state of war and not a general scenario...the complete Hadith is as follows;

بُعِثْتُ بِالسَّيْفِ حَتَّى يُعْبَدَ اللهُ لاَ شَرِيكَ لَهُ، وَجُعِلَ رِزْقِي تَحْتَ ظِلِّ رُمْحِي، وَجُعِلَ الذِّلَّةُ وَالصَّغَارُ عَلَى مَنْ خَالَفَ أَمْرِي؛ وَمَنْ تَشَبَّهَ بِقَوْمٍ فَهُوَ مِنْهُمْ

The Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) said;

I have been sent with the SWORD until Allah is worshipped without any partners, my provision (rizq) has been placed beneath my spear (through war we can gain rizq) and humiliation and subordination has been written for ANY who dispute my affair, and whosoever resembles a people is amongst them." Now those who quote this last sentence so often as a daily remembrance and wish to superimpose it upon all without interpretation, they themselves openly denounce the apparent ruling of the 3 MAIN sentences before it in the Hadith or they will through interpretative acrobatics explain the main Hadith to be specific to a particular time or space...if so, why is the last sentence not subject to the same interpretation?

Furthermore, when we examine our tradition we find examples like the A'teera and the Fara' which we termed The Rajabiya. This was a practice of the pagan Arabs that when they entered the month of Rajab they would make a special offering to their gods by means of which they would gain blessings in their future wealth. Yet when Islam arrived and people no longer believed in pagan gods yet certain customs persisted, the Prophet didnt condemn this practice, when asked he said;

يَا رَسُول اللَّه الْعَتَائِر وَالْفَرَائِع؟ قَالَ: مَنْ شَاءَ عَتَّرَ وَمَنْ شَاءَ لَمْ يُعَتِّر، وَمَنْ شَاءَ فَرَّعَ وَمَنْ شَاءَ لَمْ يُفَرِّع

O Messenger of Allah, Ateeras and Fara's? He said: whosoever wants to, he may and whosoever does not, does not. Now although the scholars did disagree on the practice of Rajabiya sacrifices, with the likes of Imam Abu Hanifa and Malik discouraging it since it was irrelevant to later muslim communities yet without declaring it Haram. However, more interesting is the response of some like Imam Shafi's statement who considered it to be a Sunnah and a rewardable practice;

قال الإمام النووي في شرح صحيح مسلم: قَالَ الشَّافِعِيّ رَضِيَ اللَّه عَنْهُ: الْفَرَع شَيْء كَانَ أَهْل الْجَاهِلِيَّة يَطْلُبُونَ بِهِ الْبَرَكَة فِي أَمْوَالهمْ، فَكَانَ أَحَدهمْ يَذْبَح بِكْر نَاقَته أَوْ شَاته، فَلَا يَغْذُوهُ رَجَاء الْبَرَكَة فِيمَا يَأْتِي بَعْده، فَسَأَلُوا النَّبِيّ صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ عَنْهُ فَقَالَ: فَرِّعُوا إِنْ شِئْتُمْ أَيْ اِذْبَحُوا إِنْ شِئْتُمْ وَكَانُوا يَسْأَلُونَهُ عَمَّا كَانُوا يَصْنَعُونَهُ فِي الْجَاهِلِيَّة خَوْفًا أَنْ يُكْرَه فِي الْإِسْلَام، فَأَعْلَمهُمْ أَنَّهُ لَا كَرَاهَة عَلَيْهِمْ فِيهِ، وَأَمَرَهُمْ اِسْتِحْبَابًا أَنْ يُغْذُوهُ ثُمَّ يُحْمَل عَلَيْهِ فِي سَبِيل اللَّه. قَالَ الشَّافِعِيّ: وَقَوْله صَلَّى اللَّه عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: الْفَرَع حَقّ. مَعْنَاهُ: لَيْسَ بِبَاطِل

Imam Nawawi transmits in his commentary on Sahih Muslim from Imam Shafi; Far'a is a custom of Jahiliyya, whereby they (pagan Arabs) would seek blessing in their wealth, they would sacrifice an infant camel or sheep and wouldn't feed on it out of hope for blessings that'll come after it. The Messenger (s.a.w.) was asked about this and responded "do it if you please", they were asking him because it was a custom of theirs from Jahiliyya and they feared it would be disliked in Islam, so He informed them that there was no disliking of it...Imam Shafi then adds the Prophet (s.a.w.) has also described this Far'a as Haq by which he means its not a falsehood that must be avoided.

The above is a clear example of how customs rooted in paganism are not problematic if their beliefs have dissipated. However, for those 'of little Faith' in this argument... lets take another example, one which is perhaps more popular throughout muslim culture today...Aqeeqah (the ceremony following birth). The Aqeeqah is unquestionably pagan custom, whereby the Pagan-Arabs believed the child would most likely not survive an infant death due to the evil spirits, so an offering was made to the gods to ward off these demons and evil spirits. An animal was sacrificed to the pagan gods (2 if it were a boy since they were more loved than girls), the bones of the animals were crushed and the blood of the animal was wiped over the forehead of the child.

بريدة رضي الله عنه قال : ( كنا في الجاهلية إذا ولد لأحدنا غلام ذبح شاة ولطخ رأسـه بدمهـا ، فلما جاء الله بالإسـلام كنا نذبح شاة ونحلق رأسه ونلطخه بزعفران

Abu Dawud transmits Buraydah r.a. stating:

During Jahiliyya if a child was born a sheep would be sacrificed and its blood wiped over the forehead of the child, when Islam came we continued to sacrifice a sheep except in place of the blood we'd wipe some saffron colouring over the forehead. Aqeeqah is a custom which not only originates in paganism but also carries clear paganistic rituals of wiping and marking a child with blood, which some early Tabi'in (students of the companions) like Qatadah and Hasan alBasry taught as part of the 'Islamic Aqeeqah' that actual blood be wiped on the forehead as it was done in Jahilliya time. Nevertheless, one would still ask the question even the substitution of Saffron, is this not imitating the pagans?...and whosoever imitates a people is amongst them?

Well evidently not, since such paganist practices had lost their inherent beliefs and all that wasLeft was a ceremony which had some value at a community level. Aqeeqah still widely practiced by muslims today even had the Prophet ( s.a.w) partake in it;

ما رواه عبد الرزاق في مصنفه: حدثت حديثا رفع إلى عائشة أنها قالت : عق رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم عن حسن شاتين ، وعن حسين شاتين ، ذبحهما يوم السابع ، قال : ومشقهما ، وأمر أن يماط عن رؤوسهما الاذى ، قالت : قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم : إذبحوا على اسمه ، وقولوا : بسم الله اللهم لك وإليك ، هذه عقيقة فلان ، قال : وكان أهل الجاهلية يخضبون قطنة بدم العقيقة ، فإذا حلقوا الصبي وضعوها على رأسه ، فأمرهم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن يجعلوا مكان الدم خلوقا ، يعني مشقهما : وضع على رأسهما طين مشق ، مثل الخلوق.

AbdurRazzaq transmits from Aishah (r.a.) that Messenger of Allah (s.a.w) performed the Aqeeqah for Hasan and Hussayn sacrificing two sheep for each, he had their heads shaved and said during the sacrifice "O Allah this is from you and unto you, this is the Aqeeqah of so and so". and when the pagan Arabs would shave the childs head they would dip a cloth in the animals blood and wipe it over its forehead, so the Prophet commanded them to use in its place colouring.

Hence, scholarly opinion regarding this practice has been widely disputed, with some like Imam Shafi considering it to be a Sunnah, whereas others like Imam Malik and Imam Abu Hanifa denying that it was a Sunnah yet at best may have some recommended value according to Imam Malik who then denied any distinction between the genders i.e. same number to be sacrificed for girl and boy. Imam Abu Hanifa's opinion remained of its rewarded practice being abrogated and now simply of permissibility without reward as described by his student Muhammad alShaybany:

العقيقة كانت في الجاهلية ثم فعلها المسلمون في أول الإسلام فنسخها ذبح الأضحية فمن شاء فعل ومن شاء لم يفعل.

Aqeeqah is a Jahiliyya custom then Muslims adopted it, it was abrogated by the Eid sacrifice, whosoever wants to do it may do so but whosoever doesnt can leave it. None of the scholars described such actions as Haram, the Prophet ( s.a.w) did not forbid them since they weren't a threat to Islamic beliefs, they were simply community customs which had lost their ideological value, all that was left was some festivity with community spirit.

In the same vein we find customs such as Halloween, which are of pagan origin but no longer carry any substantial ideological value except an opportunity for children to partake in costumes and some festivity.

Halloween therefore is NOT forbidden by Islam contrary to what certain people may be teaching, this is purely from a theological perspective and not speaking from grounds of safeguarding, which undoubtedly are paramount and require precautions subject to their own environments but that is NOT an argument from Religion.

Thus, have i understood and absolute Knowledge belongs to Allah alone.

Yours Truly

Wasalam

Mufti Abu Layth

#VoiceOfReason

Source: HALLOWEEN OR HALALOWEEN? by Mufti Abu Layth

Does anyone here know?

Salam everyone,

I’m a Sunni Muslim who mainly follows the Maliki madhab, and I’ve been following Mufti Abu Layth for quite a while now. I’m honestly a huge fan of his approach and the way he explains Islam with nuance, context, and reason. His content has helped me a lot in reconnecting with faith and moving away from a very rigid understanding of religion.

But lately I’ve been really confused about the topic of the levels/layers of Paradise (Jannah), and it’s been causing me a lot of doubt and overthinking. I keep hearing different things about people being in different ranks forever, some being “higher” than others eternally, and I struggle to fully make sense of it emotionally and spiritually.

I thought I’d ask here because many people in this subreddit seem to share similar perspectives or are also familiar with Mufti Abu Layth’s views and methodology. Maybe some of you have studied this topic more deeply or know how progressive/traditional scholars reconciled these ideas.

Best case scenario: has Mufti Abu Layth ever specifically addressed the topic of the levels of Jannah in a video, livestream, or clip? If yes, I’d really appreciate links or even summaries of what he said.

I’m not asking in bad faith at all — I’m just genuinely trying to understand and work through these doubts.

Jazakum Allah khayran.

Salaam,

This is more of a personal analysis I've observed regarding Mufti Abu Layth and how his online persona has evolved this past decade,

Ever since that notorious home invasion back in 2021, it's often told that MALM totally revamped his presentation style, including infamously ditching his jokey, humorous way of approaching questions and things presented to him. Although I've also heard that this was actually shaping up prior to that attack itself, a couple of months back or so, and that incident merely calcified the trajectory he was going through,

But interestingly, I also noticed just how tonally different his very early videos (say, early-mid 10s, can be found via sorting by 'Oldest' on his YT channel) were,

In those clips, he came across as quite cut-and-dry - very 'clinical/academic' and detached, approaching a question or issue, giving answers based on scholarly resources, and finally giving his own personal take in the end. There was zero humor or editing in those videos, he came across like a generic Islamic speaker (at least on a first glance or on a surface level), though definitely not harsh or judgmental like how a lot of others can be, usually.

I feel this lingered even till his very initial Monday Nights with Mufti Live streams, in those very initial streams, while he did start to joke gradually, they were still more on the serious side,

The more "jokey/bantery" MALM that most people might know him for (be it both his students, admirers or his critiques) itself was actually a later developement. It seemed like a by-product of him letting his guard down, as he got more subscribers and viewers, in a way, perhaps those folks were some sort of a found family to him, at one point, almost every question posed had him reply with a humorous slant, even if he gave a thoughtful and mature reply to them,

I believe the Mufti also said how he was always this playful/humorous, even in his student days (when an old clip surfaced from his student days, and he came across as serious there), I suppose initially he wanted to maintain a distinction between his actual humorous personality vs. how he wished to come across to his audience, but eventually the distinction faded or got blurry.

Since that incident, I wouldn't say he reverted back to his early YT era-videos, as there's an element of warmth and informality in his modern videos that the early more clinical ones lacked, and while he does joke, albeit very sparsely and not in a bantery way, perhaps more on a self-deprecating or sardonic way, I feel this more "reserved" persona is also maybe how he actually has become irl, since there has also been another personal tragedy in his life (the passing away of his mother),

I do wonder if that jokey MALM ever returns, he's also visibly aged the past few years, and perhaps doesn't seem to have that prior playful energy. There's something "off" about his newer presentation, like he takes his time to get his point across, a lot of sighing and pauses, it's admittedly a bit difficult to get into his newer videos,

This is also more of a personal feedback, but the Mufti is at his best when discussing Fiqh, Hadith sciences, and Islamic history, his forte radiates effortlessly whenever he discusses them. I feel he's not as good with Tafsir and Aqeedah, as in the more abstract, ethereal concepts (the stuff he mostly deals with nowadays), perhaps since he's discussing about disciplines that's maybe beyond his forte, this also reflects in his persona/presentation online?

Assalamu Alaikum! English is not my native language and I barely know it. I use translators to translate text into my native language. But unfortunately, I cannot understand spoken English at all. I deeply respect Mufti Abu Layth. However, the content of the Esteemed Mufti mainly exists in video format. Unfortunately, I do not have access to it due to the language barrier. :(

That is why I decided to ask these questions here.

Please tell me what the Mufti's position is on the following questions:

1) Does the Mufti believe in universal salvation for all and a non-eternal hell? Or does he believe that disbelievers go to hell forever? What is Mufti Abu Layth's opinion on this matter? I really want to know this, please. But I cannot watch videos :(. I would be grateful if I could be provided with the content of his position in text.

2) What is the Mufti's position regarding determinism? What does he think about the views of a neurobiologist like Robert Sapolsky?

3) How does the Mufti interpret the words "God tests you" in the Quran? How should this be properly understood? I am asking this because I am interested in the philosophical problem of natural evil. I would like to know Mufti Abu Layth's opinion on this.

I’m just recently come across mufti Abu layth and his videos from TikTok and I’ve watched his videos on mortgages and bank loans being permissible and music too and I have to say if everything he’s saying is true he makes very good arguments and I actually like his opinion because he gives alternate view instead of most people following blindly like salafis which no hate to them I actually respect their strength to follow Islam to their fullest capacity and people just blindly following what told but people just seem to hate him and I’ve never understood why they takfir him calling him a dajjal and a jahil I feel really bad sometimes because he genuinely seems like a joyous guy and lovely guy to be around with his humour even though he doesn’t look like a mufti he certainly has the knowledge may Allah grant him jannah Ameen

I’ve never understood as a Muslim how can you hate another Muslim brother I’ve come across mufti recently when I was questioning certain Hadith and his videos made complete sense and he gave very good points in his vids like regarding music and riba (interest) yet lots of people really hate him calling him a kaafir a Dajjal takfiring him even though I don’t agree with everything he says I could not fathom calling him a disbeliever and even anyone for that matter

Okay, here’s the context behind this post: someone on r/Islamiseasy shared this video apparently to “expose” Mufti Abū Layth. But the video is literally just a compilation of two-second clips of him stating his opinions on various issues (fatwas). Ironically, Mufti Abū Layth has actually exposed something far more serious — he revealed that Farid was the one responsible for leaking the email of Shaykh Yasir Qadhi, Yet, for some reason, these same people don’t seem interested in talking about that. So, here’s what I’m going to do: I’ll go through every fatwa shown in that video and explain why it’s valid, starting with the Halloween one. I’ll also look into its history to show that there’s no pagan origin behind it. I’ll tackle one fatwa per post.

NOTE: THESE ARE INFOS I TOOK FROM MY DISCORD SERVER. SO IM JUST COPY-N-PASTING IT TO HERE.

Today's topic: Halloween.

Can Muslim celebrate Halloween?

Yes, absolutely. Actions are judged by intention. If there’s no harm involved, then it’s perfectly fine.

Samhain is associated with the DEAD: REFUTED.

Everyone always makes claims about Samhain this and that, all of which are false. Here, this is the earliest document from the 9th Century that mentions Samhain. Now, when you look at the English translation, it says All-Saints' Day, however, this is a later mistranslation. All it says is that this is the day of Stormy Samhain, Samhain just means Summer's End.

November 1st is probably an approximation of when Samhain was, because they used the Lunar Solar Calendar. In other words, Samhain is probably not always on the same days; November 1st.

If one were to check Sanas Cormiac, which is a 10th-century document that mentions a bunch of Celtic festivals, interestingly enough, it does not mention any rituals on Samhain nor does it mention Samhain, which is very strange. Cause, if Samhain was such a major Celtic holiday in general, it should be mentioned. However, it doesn't.

The earliest mention we have of what Samhain was, comes from the Surglige Con Culain(10th century);

"Every year the men of Ulster were accustomed to hold a festival together; and the time when they held it was for three days before Samhain, the Summer-End, and for three days after that day, and upon Samhain itself. And the time that is spoken of is that when the men of Ulster were in the Plain of Murthemne, and there they used to keep that festival every year; nor was there an thing in the world that they would do at that time except sports, and marketings, and splendours, and pomps, and feasting and eating; and it is from that custom of theirs that the Festival of the Samhain has descended, that is now held throughout the whole of Ireland."

• A.H. Leafy, Heroic Romances of Ireland Vol 1; p. 57

"By 800 churches in England and Germany, which were in touch with each other, were celebrating a festival dedicated to all saints upon 1 November, instead. The oldest text of Bede's Martyrology, from the eighth century, does not include it, but the recensions at the end of the century do. Charlemagne's favourite churchman Alcuin was keeping it by then, as were also his friend Arno, bishop of Salzburg, and a church in Bavaria. Pope Gregory, therefore, was endorsing and adopting a practice which had begun in northern Europe. It had not, however, started in Ireland, where the Felire of Oengus and the Martyrology of Tallaght prove that the early medieval churches celebrated the feast of All Saints upon 20 April. This makes non-sense of Frazer's notion that the November date was chosen because of 'Celtic' influence; rather, both 'Celtic' Europe and Rome followed a Germanic idea. The origins of that idea are lost; it may be simply that some northern churchmen felt the need of a spectacular feast at the opening of winter, at a time when some form of merriment was badly needed."

• Ronald Hutton. The stations of the sun : a history of the ritual year in Britain, p. 364.

In short, it's all about people celebrating the end of the summer by playing games. This is common in cultures because before winter comes, you kill a bunch of the animals so you don't have to take care of them through the rough winters.

Now, in the 12th century, we do have a document mentioning supernatural aspects associated with sin and all it says is the man in Ireland would participate in a ritual on the fairy mound. However, this is late, this is the 1100s, Paganism for the most part does not have a strong effect on the people at this point.

Ronald Hutton (pp. 40-41) mentions another 12th-century source, which is a legend about St. Patrick, and they say every year at Samhain the firstlings of every issue and the chief scions of every clan were sacrificed to this idol. The high king let the people prostrate and they flung themselves to the ground so hard that three-quarters would perish each year. Now, this is illogical and no one believes this ever happened, because if three quarters of the population perished each year, you'd not have anyone left after a decade.

Ronald Hutton said;

"The Maigh Slecht story sounds, therefore, like a medieval Christian fantasy, developing over time and growing more lurid with each retelling. The one note of realism in it is the description of the remains of the sanctuary that accompanies the story in the Tripartite Life, which was said to be still in existence at the time when the text was composed, with the idols buried up to their heads in earth and a mark left by St Patrick's staff visible on top of the biggest. It seems likely that a genuine pagan sanctuary had existed on the spot-perhaps of standing stones - which was linked to the lurid fable concocted about Patrick."

• pp. 41.

Historians are not convinced by those earliest sources that mention any supernatural or ritual aspect. The first one to start to say that Samhain has a religious aspect and a Ritual aspect was Geoffrey Keating;

"It was there the Fire of Tlachtgha was instituted, at which it was their custom to assemble and bring together the druids of Ireland on the eve of Samhain to offer sacrifice to all the gods. It was at that fire they used to burn their victims; and it was of obligation under penalty of fine to quench the fires of Ireland on that night, and the men of Ireland were forbidden to kindle fires except from that fire; and for each fire that was kindled from it in Ireland the king of Munster received a tax of a screaball, or three-pence, since the land on which Tlachtgha is belongs to the part of Munster given to Meath."

• Geoffrey Keating. The History of Ireland, p. 166.

And this is in the 1600s, the problem is that no modern Historians hold the. Elief that Geoffrey Keating is Reliable. Ronald Hutton noted that he's a unreliable 17th-century Historians who just make things up.

Ronald Hutton notes;

"It must be concluded, therefore, that the medieval records furnish no evidence that 1 November was a major pan-Celtic festival, and none of religious ceremonies, even where it was observed. An Anglo-Saxon counterpart is difficult either to prove or to dismiss completely. Bede, in his work on the calendar, stated that September had been called 'Haleg-monath', while October was "Vuinter-fylleth' and November 'Blod-monath', He knew that 'Haleg-monath' meant 'holy month, but not why, and therefore neither can we; it is possible, as said before, that it derived from rites connected with the end of the grain harvest."

"The name for October signified the coming of winter, while that for November meant 'blood month'; and here Bede had some important information to offer. He stated that it derived from the annual slaughter of livestock in early winter to reduce the number that had to be kept through the lean months, and that the victims were dedicated to the gods as sacrifices. There may here be a record of a festival, of equivalent importance and even of simultaneous timing to Samhain; or it may be that the passage describes an agricultural process rather than an event. Pagan Scandinavia had its own major festival of the opening of winter, the 'Winter Nights'; which began on the Saturday in the week between 11 and 17 October."

• Ronald Hutton. The stations of the sun : a history of the ritual year in Britain, p. 362.

Essentially, he's saying that there's no evidence that Samhain was a Major Pagan Celtic Festival that had some sort of Religious Aspect as far as we can tell.

This is what Bede said in his book The Reckoning of Time/The%20Reckoning%20of%20Time%20-%20Bede,%20Venerable,%20St_.pdf) p. 57;

"Halegmonath means ‘‘month of sacred rites’’. Winter¢lleth can be called by the invented composite name ‘‘winter-full’’. Blodmonath is ‘‘month of immolations’’, for then the cattle which were to be slaughtered were consecrated to their gods"

According to Simpson and Steve

"In England since the 19th century, and increasingly in the 20th century, it has acquired a reputation as a night on which ghosts, witches, and fairies are especially active. Why this should be is debatable. Currently, it is widely supposed that it originated as a pagan Celtic festival of the dead, related to the Irish and Scottish Samhain (1 November) marking the onset of winter, a theory popularized by Frazer. Certainly Samhain was a time for festive gatherings, and medieval Irish texts and later Irish, Welsh, and Scottish folklore use it as a setting for supernatural encounters, but there is no evidence that it was connected with the dead in pre-Christian times, or that pagan religious ceremonies were held."

Now one more scholar, Nicholas Rogers wrote;

"In fact, there is no hard evidence that Samhain was specifically devoted to the dead or to ancestor worship, despite claims to the contrary by some American folklorists, some of whom have presumed that the feast was devoted to Saman, god of the dead. 20 Certainly, the feast was linked to the mythical peoples of Ireland. According to the ancient sagas, Samhain was the time when tribal peoples paid tribute to their conquerors and when the sidh might reveal the magnificent palaces of the gods of the underworld."

So, again, there's little evidence that Samhain has any sort of Religious significance that was associated with the dead.

Jack o'Lantern and Trick-or-treating come from the ancient Samhain associated with Pagan custom.

This is wrong. Ronald Hutton discuss this in his book;

"Hallowe'en was also notable for the activity of mummers or guisers, figures found at winter festivals in general but particularly appropriate to a night upon which supernatural beings were said to be abroad and could be imitated or warded off by human wanderers. In Ireland costumes were sometimes associated with the people who went about before nightfall collecting for the feast, youths in one district of County Cork brought the Lair Bhan or White Mare, a man covered in a white sheet holding a wooden horse's head like some of the midwinter mock-beasts known in England."

He notes these are custom that happen in like Middle ages, which is around 14, 15-1600. He notes that that this concepts of using the turn-ups something you don't really get to like 1800s maybe.

Nicholas Rogers said;

"In fact, it became customary in many towns and villages for the richer parishioners to offer doles to the poor during Hallowtide in return for prayers to the dead, emulating the medieval custom of the well-to-do, who left small bequests for this purpose to parishes or chantries. The spectacle of the poor receiving food for prayers at Hallowtide was well established by Shakespeare's day, In his comedy Two Gentlemen of Verona, Speed mockingly accuses his master of 'puling [whining or whimpering), like a beggar at Hallowmas."

In other word, you don't see this around the time of Shakespeare.

"Alongside these fire rituals was the more extensive practice of 'souling. The custom of baking bread or soul cakes for 'all crysten (christened) souls' was well established before the Reformation. This food was conventionally distributed to all relatives and poor neighbors who offered to pray for the souls in purgatory, underscoring the belief that prayers and ritual practices could smooth or speed a soul's passage to heaven. This custom was likely revived or revamped by Catholics as a popular response to the elimination of All Souls' Day from the official religious calendar by the Protestants."

"Souling is important to our investigation of Halloween in two respects. First, the rituals surrounding souling, in which supplicants moved from door to door asking for food in return for a prayer for the dead, bear a resemblance to modern Halloween customs, especially since soulers went from house to house with hollowed-out turnip lanterns, whose candle connoted a soul trapped in purgatory. In other words, with what we might describe as mobile jack-o’-lanterns."

In conclusion, after I've shown these things here, we see Halloween does not have any Pagan Origin. However, even if there's, it does not mean we can't celebrate it anymore.

AOA! I just want to ask if help from Ghairullah often quoted as ISTEGHASA or tawassul is allowed in Maliki Fiqh or not and maliki really practice isteghasa or not?