A critique of the chain-only method ( ‫فصل المقال في علم‬

‫)الرجال‬
Note: we do not oppose ‘rijāl qua rijāl’, but merely oppose the ‘sole’ usage of rijāl
without incorporating other indicators. For a detailed discussion on the indicator
method, see my article here:
https://www.facebook.com/SyedAsdaqNaqvi/posts/pfbid0KJnYRz58vxoR2Z7YFBh985AThHTFw
RnYL6dRFptwuEvTCydy68GsL9BvwnJud6Gal

While much can be said about the method of ʿIlm al-Rijāl, the focus of this article will be
on the usage of rijāl-alone or the chain-alone method (‫ )المنهج السندي‬in evaluating ḥadīth.
We will bring some arguments to show why the chain-alone method is not conclusive
and is not the correct method to utilize when evaluating the Shīʿī ḥadīth corpus.

The chain-alone method is a method whereby a person looks at the chain (sanad/isnād)
of the report and checks the trustworthiness (‫ )وثاقة‬of each narrator, as well as the
connectivity (‫ )اتصال‬of the chain. If the narrators are reliable and the chain is connected,
the report is deemed sound and is accepted, unless of course there is something in the
text (‫ )متن‬which is questionable or objectionable. In that case, the report is interpreted
or discarded. However, the default for a ḥadīth with a sound chain is that it is to be
accepted. On the contrary, if a ḥadīth has a weak chain, it cannot be utilized or
considered authoritative, especially if the narrator is a liar or fabricator of ḥadīth. In
between, we have the categories of good (ḥasan) and reliable (muwathtaq) based on
the reliability or sectarian leanings of the narrator. After explaining the chain-alone
method in short. We will now discuss a few problems that arise with this method.

The chain-alone method is subjective

One of the first issues that arise from the chain-alone method of rijāl is that the whole
epistemic base is founded on speculation and it is extremely subjective. One of the main
reasons for this is how we know whether a certain narrator is reliable, given that most
texts regarding those narrators were compiled centuries after they died. Even if
someone was a contemporary and met the person, that still does not entail that his
assessment of the person is accurate. This is because one person can have a good view
of a person while another can have a negative view of him. We do not need to go far,
even for people who lived less than a century ago such as Ayatollah Khomeini, you will
find people who were contemporary to him and met him, and indeed people who live
today as well, who differ vastly and have strong positive or negative views about him.
Therefore, we highlight two problems here. (1) The books evaluating these people were
written centuries later. (2) Even if they were contemporaries and met them, that still
does not entail that their judgment was accurate.

Moreover, we know that sometimes experts would judge a person based on the reports
narrated by them and deem them to be ghulāt. However, when one examines the
reports, one finds that they were merely about the virtues and miracles of the Ahl al-
Bayt (‫ )عليهم السالم‬and that the term ghulū itself is subjective and can mean different
things to different people. We have subjectivism compounded together at every level of
the discourse in the rijāl system.

The chain-alone method is speculative

Even if we set aside the subjective element of the evaluations of narrators, we are still
left with the issue of the speculative nature of the judgments. Even if we have a report
with a sound chain according to the chain-only method, that would still only mean that
the report is speculative in nature, and we have been forbidden from following ẓann or
speculation, as He says:

﴾٢٨ :‫ش ْيئًا ﴿النجم‬ ِ ‫ظ َّن ََّل يُ ْغنِي مِنَ ْال َح‬
َ ‫ق‬ َّ ‫مِن ع ِْل ٍم إِن يَتَّبِ ُعونَ إِ ََّّل ال‬
َّ ‫ظ َّن َوإِ َّن ال‬ ْ ‫َو َما لَ ُهم بِ ِه‬

And they have no knowledge of it. They merely follow speculation, and speculation
does not avail anything against the truth. [53:28]

Many other verses can be cited condemning speculation, but we will suffice with this
much. Given that the whole structure of the chain-alone method is human, it is bound
to be fallible and based on many assumptions that cannot be sustained. We need
certainty about the issuance of a report from the infallible (‫)عليه السالم‬, but the chain-only
method is not enough to provide such certainty since it is not as historically rigorous as
other historical methods of textual criticism.

This is not the mention the work which the orientalists have done in critiquing the chain-
alone method and showing its frailty.

The books of ‘rijāl’ are books of fihrist (indexes)

The go-to books for those who use the rijāl method are primarily Rijāl al-Najāshī by al-
Najāshī (‫ )رحمه هللا‬who died in 450 AH, and Fihrist al-Ṭūsī by al-Ṭūsī (‫ )نور هللا مرقده‬who died
in 460 AH. However, the real name of the book Rijāl al-Najāshī is Fihrist Asmāʾ Muṣannifi
al-Shīʿa or ‘a list of the names of Shīʿa authors.’ This was primarily a book indexing Shīʿas
who had authored books. Thus, it was not a book of ‘rijāl’ but a book of Fihrist. Another
book used is Rijāl al-Kashshī by al-Kashshī (‫)رضوان هللا عليه‬. The real name of this book was
Maʿrifat al-Rijāl or Maʿrifat al-Nāqilīn. It was just focused on collecting reports about the
narrators and companions of the Imāms (‫)عليهم السالم‬. al-Kashshī rarely gives his
comments on the narrators, instead choosing on reporting sayings from the Imāms (and
sometimes from other companions of the Imāms, ‫ )عليهم السالم‬about various narrators.
The book’s primary goal is not to weaken or strengthen narrators, but rather to mention
what the Imāms (‫ )عليهم السالم‬have said about these narrators.

The same is the case of Rijāl al-Barqī attributed to al-Barqī (‫ )عليه الرحمة‬and Rijāl al-Ṭūsī by
al-Ṭūsī (‫ )رضي هللا عنه‬which can be more accurately categorized as books of Ṭabaqāt, or
the levels of narrators narrating from the Imāms (‫)عليهم السالم‬. The only book on al-jarḥ
wa al-taʿdīl left is Rijāl Ibn al-Ghadāʾirī, whose authorship itself is disputed, and it has
been rejected by the main proponents of the chain-only method. One can refer to the
works of al-Khūʾī (‫ )رحمه هللا‬and al-Muḥsinī for details of this matter.

Thus, we do not have any truly ‘rijāl qua rijāl’ works. What we have are indexes and
books on the ṭabaqāt. This is not to mention the contradictions in grading certain
narrators that exist within these works.

The transmission of Shīʿa ḥadīth books

While much can be said about this matter, we will suffice by saying that the Shīʿa ḥadīth
were not transmitted merely by audition (‫)السماع‬, but rather they were written down and
transmitted by text. The scholars thus had many chains back to the texts, and the ḥadīth
which they were citing were from texts that were present in front of them. This is why
al-Ṣadūq (‫ )قدس هللا روحه‬mentions in the preface of al-Faqīh that he is quoting from
certain famous and relied-upon works. This is also why al-Mufid and al-Sharīf al-
Murtaḍā (‫ )رحمهما هللا‬and others said that they only accepted mutawātir reports - because
most Shīʿa ḥadīth circulating at the time had many chains and various paths of
transmission, and those that did not were supported by many qarāʾin. Therefore, we do
not need to look at the chains for most of the ḥadīth, although that does not mean we
do not have to look at the content of the report and blindly accept it.

Moreover, many people cite al-Majlisī (‫ )عليه الرضوان‬and his gradings of al-Kāfī and al-
Tahdhīb in Mirāʾat al-ʿUqūl and Milādh al-Akhyār respectively, but many fail to realize
that al-Majlisī himself did not align with the chain-only method, as is evident from these
very books. See what al-Majlisī (‫ )رحمه هللا‬says in Mirāʾat al-ʿUqūl:

‫ أن وجود الخبر في أمثال تلك األصول المعتبرة مما يورث جواز العمل‬:‫وخالصة القول في ذلك والحق عندي فيه‬
‫ فان كون جميعها معتبرا َّل ينافي‬،‫ لكن َّلبد من الرجوع إلى األسانيد لترجيح تبعضها على بعض عند التعارض‬،‫به‬
‫كون بعضها أقوى‬
And the summary of the verdict about it and the truth in my view is that the existence
of the report in reliable primary sources such as these is what necessitates acting upon
it. However, we must refer to the chains in giving preference to one over the other in
case of a conflict, because all of them being reliable does not go against some of them
being stronger.

⁃ Mirāʾat al-ʿUqūl, 1/22

Moreover, he writes in Milādh al-Akhyār:

‫ هو أن جميع األخبار الموردة في تلك األصول األربعة‬،‫والذي يقوى عندي وأوردت دَّلئله في الكتاب الكبير‬
‫ من األصول‬-‫ بحمد هللا‬-‫ وما تيسر لنا‬،‫وغيرها من تأليفات الصدوق والبرقي والصفار والحميري والشيخ والمفيد‬
‫ وأقوى من األصول‬،‫ وقد أدخلت أخبارها في كتاب البحار كلها مورد العمل‬،‫المعتبرة المذكورة في كتب الرجال‬
‫ لكن َّل بد من رعاية أحوال الرجال‬.‫العقلية واَّلستحسانات والقياسات المتداولة بين بعض المتأخرين من األصحاب‬
.‫ وتفصيل القول في أمثال ذلك موكول إلى الكتاب الكبير‬،‫عند الجمع بين األخبار والتعارض بينها‬

And that which is strong in my view and the arguments for which I have brought in the
big book (i.e., Biḥār al-Anwār) is that all of the reports narrated in those four books
and the rest of the writings of al-Ṣadūq, al-Barqī, al-Ṣaffār, al-Ḥimyarī, the Shaykh (i.e.,
al-Ṭūsī), al-Mufīd, and what has been available us, by the praise of God, from the
aforementioned reliable primary sources in the books of rijāl. And I have mentioned
their reports in the book ‘al-Biḥār.’ All of them (i.e., the reports) are to be acted upon
and are more reliable than the rational principles and the istiḥsānāt and analogies that
are present among some of the latter-day scholars from our companions. However,
one must look at the states of the narrators when one needs to reconcile reports and
when there is a conflict between them. And the detail of the verdict of matters such as
these is to be referred to in the big book.

⁃ Milādh al-Akhyār, 1/27

We agree with al-Majlisī (‫ )قدس هللا سره‬that we do need to refer to the narrators to give
preference to reports, just as we need to refer to other indicators in such a case and
prefer one report over the other in the case that one has sounder and stronger
indicators in its favour as opposed to another. al-Majlisī (‫ )رحمه هللا‬also further writes in
his Kitāb al-Arbaʿīn:

‫فإننا َّل نحتاج إلى سند لهذه األصول األربعة وإذا أوردنا سنداً فليس إَّل للتيمن والبركة واإلقتداء بسنة السلف‬
We do not need the chain for these four primary sources. And when we bring the
chain, then it is merely for benediction and blessing, and to follow the custom of the
predecessors.

⁃ Kitāb al-Arbaʿīn by al-Majlisī, below ḥadīth no. 35

One should keep this in mind when they are quoting gradings from al-Majlisī (‫)قدس سره‬
on al-Kāfī and al-Tahdhīb. Something similar has been said by the akhbārī scholar Shaykh
al-Ḥurr al-ʿĀmilī (‫)رحمة هللا عليه‬:

.‫ َّل لتوقف العمل عليه‬،‫ باتصال السلسلة بأصحاب العصمة عليهم السالم‬،ً‫ وتبركا‬،‫وإنما ذكرنا ذلك تيمنا‬

And we only mention that (i.e., the chain) for benediction and blessings, due to the
connection of the chain to those of infallibility, peace be upon them, and not due to
acting (on the content of the report) being contingent on it (i.e., the chain).

⁃ Wasāʾil al-Shīʿah, 30/169

One may refer to the last volume of Wasāʾil al-Shīʿah for a detailed exposition of the
indicator method. One may also further see the Ending of Mustadrak al-Wasāʾil ( ‫خاتمة‬
‫ )مستدرك الوسائل‬for other relevant details.

An example is that al-Ṣadūq (‫ )رحمه هللا‬was so certain of the reports in his book Man Lā
Yaḥḍuruhu al-Faqīh (as he mentions in the preface), that they did not mention the
chains, but only mentioned the text, sometimes even narrating in mursal form. He does
mention some chains to the books he narrated from at the end, but that does not mean
he mentioned ‘all’ of the chains he had for those books since we have evidence of
reports in al-Faqīh narrated from one chain which have a different chain in another
book by al-Ṣadūq (‫)قدس سره‬. Thus, the books had many chains, but the authors only
rarely mentioned more than one chain they had for these books since they saw no need
to do so, and instead chose to focus on the content of the reports.

Claims of Shīʿa authors about their books

Certain Sunnī authors, when they compiled their books, claimed to have collected
reports that only had sound and authentic chains. While we do not have early Shīʿa
authors collecting ‘Ṣaḥīḥ’ chains only, we do find them stating that they are collecting
‘Ṣaḥīḥ’ or reliable reports. This is because their methodology differed from the ‘chain’
method. Not even the salaf would ask about chains before a certain time as Ibn Sīrīn has
been quoted in the preface of Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim (refer to Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, no. 27). Thus, we
find the Shīʿa authors claiming to have collected authentic reports, which has lead to
certain akhbārī scholars adopting the view that all of the reports found in the four books
at least are authentic. al-Kulaynī (‫ )أعلى هللا مقامه‬writes in the preface of al-Kāfī:

‫ويأخذ منه من يريد علم الدين والعمل به باآلثار الصحيحة عن الصادقين عليهم السالم والسنن القائمة التي عليها‬
‫ وبها يؤدي فرض هللا عز وجل وسنة نبيه صلى هللا عليه وآله‬،‫العمل‬

And the one who wants the knowledge of the religion and to act according to the
correct reports from the Truthful Imāms (‫ )عليهم السالم‬and the established traditions
which are acted upon, and with it, he will fulfill the obligation of Allah, mighty and
majestic, and the Sunnah of His Prophet (‫ )صلى هللا عليه وآله وسلم‬will take from it (i.e.,
from this book).

⁃ al-Kāfī, 1/8

Many akhbārīs take this to mean that all reports found in al-Kāfī are conclusive in their
issuance (‫ )قطعي الصدور‬from the Infallible. We do not take this view, since we have the
indicator method. However, the author making such a claim is a strong indicator to
consider when assessing reports from al-Kāfī. Similarly, al-Ṣadūq (‫ )دامت بركاته العالية‬says in
the preface of al-Faqīh:

‫ ولم أقصد فيه قصد المصنفين في إيراد‬،‫وصنفت له هذا الكتاب بحذف األسانيد لئال تكثر طرقه وإن كثرت فوائده‬
‫ بل قصدت إلى إيراد ما أفتي به وأحكم بصحته وأعتقد فيه أنه حجة فيما بيني وبين ربي ـ تقدس‬،‫ج ميع ما رووه‬
‫ عليها المعول وإليها المرجع‬،‫ذكره وتعالت قدرته ـ وجميع ما فيه مستخرج من كتب مشهورة‬

And I authored for him this book, by deleting the chains, so that the paths may not
become too many, even though the benefits may be plentiful. And I did not intend to
have the goal of the authors who bring everything that they narrate. Rather, I bring
that by which I give my fatwa and judge to be authentic and believe it to be a proof
between me and my Lord, may his remembrance be holy and his power be lofty, and
whatever is within it is from famous books which are acted upon and are referred to.

⁃ Man Lā Yaḥḍuruhu al-Faqīh, 1/2-3

Thus, al-Ṣadūq (‫ )أدام هللا فيوضه‬clearly states that he is not going to narrate every report
available to him like other authors. Rather, he will only narrate that which he gives a
fatwā according to and that which he deems to be sound and he considers this a proof
between him and God. Although we know that there are mursal reports in the book, as
well as reports that have weak chains as per the chain-only method and might be
rejected, just as with al-Kāfī. However, al-Ṣadūq (‫ )شكر هللا سعيه‬was not operating with the
chain-only method, so it did not matter to him if the chain was weak. He would give
edicts and decide on matters due to reports with weak chains since there were other
corroborating indicators that he could use to verify the report, just as in the case of the
grave of Sayyida (‫ )سالم هللا عليها‬where he agreed with the content of the report narrated
by Sahl b. Ziyād, a disputed narrator deemed weak by many Rijālī scholars.

Moreover, al-Ṭūsī (‫ )عليه الرضوان‬in his two books, namely Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām and al-
Istibṣār, has also stated similar things. He says in al-Tahdhīb:

‫ وليس أيضا المقصد بهذا الكتاب بيان ما يتعلق باألصول وأن أترجم كل باب على حسب ما ترجمه وأذكر مسألة‬...
‫ وإما من السنة المقطوع بها من‬،‫مسألة فاستدل عليها إما من ظاهر القرآن أو من صريحه أو فحواه أو دليله أو معناه‬
‫ وإما من إجماع المسلمين إن كان فيها‬،‫ا ألخبار المتواترة أو اَّلخبار التي تقترن إليها القرائن التي تدل على صحتها‬
...‫ ثم أذكر بعد ذلك ما ورد من أحاديث أصحابنا المشهورة‬،‫أو إجماع الفرقة المحقة‬

… and nor is the aim of this book to explain what is relevant to the principles and that
I may bring every chapter according to what he (i.e., al-Mufīd) has brought, and
mention a matter one by one and bring an argument for it either from the apparent
meaning of the Qurʾān or from what is explicit from it, or its gist or its signified, or it’s
meaning, or from the conclusive sunnah from the mutawātir reports, or from the
reports which are attached with indicators which point to their soundness, or from the
consensus of the Muslims if there is any in that matter, or from the consensus of the
truthful sect, then I may mention after that what has come from the famous aḥādīth
of our companions…

⁃ Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, 1/3

Thus, al-Ṭūsī (‫ )طاب ثراه‬mentions that his goal is not to do this. However, in doing so, he
does highlight some qarāʾin that may be used to authenticate a report. He also says in
al-Istibṣār:

‫ وأبين وجه الجمع بينها على وجه َّل أسقط شيئا منها ما أمكن ذلك فيه واجري في ذلك على عادتي في كتابي‬...
‫ ومنها أن تكون مطابقة لظاهر‬،‫ والقرائن أشياء كثيرة منها أن تكون مطابقة ألدلة العقل ومقتضاه‬...‫الكبير المذكور‬
‫ فكل هذه القرائن توجب العلم وتخرج الخبر عن حيز اآلحاد‬،‫ إما لظاهره أو عمومه أو دليل خطابه أو فحواه‬:‫القرآن‬
‫ ومنها‬،‫ ومنها أن تكون مطابقة للسنة المقطوع بها إما صريحا أو دليال أو فحوى أو عموما‬،‫وتدخله في باب المعلوم‬
‫ ومنها أن تكون مطابقة لما أجمعت عليه الفرقة المحقة فان جميع هذه‬، ‫أن تكون مطابقة لما أجمع المسلمون عليه‬
…‫القرائن تخرج الخبر من حيز اآلحاد وتدخله في باب المعلوم وتوجب العمل به‬

… and I will explain the reason for reconciliation between the reports in a way where I
do not let anything from it fall as long as I can do that. And I will work in the same
manner that I did in my aforementioned big book (i.e., Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām)… and the
indicators are many things. From them is that the reports should be in accordance
with the evidence of the intellect and its necessity and that they are in accordance
with the apparent meaning of the Qurʾān, either due to its apparent meaning, or its
general meaning, or the evidence of its address, or its gist. So, all of these indicators
necessitate knowledge and take the report out of the domain of solitary reports and
enter it into what is known. And from then is that the reports be in accordance with
the conclusive sunnah, either explicitly or implicitly, or its gist or general meaning.
And from them is that it be in accordance with what has been agreed upon by the
Muslims and that it be in accordance with what the truthful sect has agreed upon
because all of these indicators take the report out of the domain of the solitary
reports and enters it into the domain of what is known and that which necessitates
acting according to it.

⁃ al-Istibṣār, 1/3-4

Thus, al-Ṭūsī here is telling us some of the indicators which one may use to ascertain the
strength or weakness of reports. Moreover, we have other scholars who also claim to be
bringing only reliable reports in their books that have indicators to substantiate them.
al-Ṭabrisī (‫ )رحمه هللا‬says in al-Iḥtijāj:

‫وَّل نأتي في أكثر ما نورده من األخبار بإسناده إما لوجود اإلجماع عليه أو موافقته لما دلت العقول إليه أو َّلشتهاره‬
‫في السير والكتب بين المخالف والمؤالف‬

And we will not bring - in most of what we narrate - reports with chains. This is either
due to the existence of a consensus on it, due to it being in agreement with what the
intellects prove, or due to it being famous in the books of biography and the books of
the opponent and proponent.

⁃ al-Iḥtijāj, 1/14

Thus, he also does not bring chains (except for Tafsīr al-ʿAskarī, whose authorship is
disputed) because he states that these reports are agreed upon or proven by the
intellect or are famous in other sources as well. Moreover, the author of Tuḥaf al-ʿUqūl,
Ibn Shuʿbah al-Ḥarrānī, writes:

‫وأسقطت اَّلسانيد تخفيفا وإيجازا وإن كان أكثره لي سماعا وَّلن أكثره آداب وحكم تشهد َّلنفسها‬

And I have left out the chains, for easing and for the sake of brevity, although for most
of it I do have the audition because most of it is about good manners and aphorisms
which testify for themselves.

⁃ Tuḥaf al-ʿUqūl, 3
Thus, like other authors, Ibn Shuʿbah al-Ḥarrānī did have the chains for the reports he
brought. However, he did not mention them in the book since the content testifies to
their veracity. Moreover, we have certain scholars who have claimed to only narrate
from trustworthy people. For example, Ibn Qūlawayh (‫)نور هللا مرقده‬, the author of Kāmil
al-Ziyārāt, writes:

‫لكن ما وقع لنا من جهة الثقات من أصحابنا (رحمهم هللا برحمته) وَّل أخرجت فيه حديثا روي عن الشذاذ من الرجال‬
‫يؤثر ذلك عنهم عن المذكورين غير المعروفين بالرواية المشهورين بالحديث والعلم‬

But what has come to us from the direction of the trustworthy people of our
companions, may God have mercy on them with his mercy. And I did not narrate
within it a single ḥadīth narrated from the anomalous narrators who are preferred
over them, those mentioned before, not the one’s not known for narration, but those
who are famous for ḥadīth and knowledge.

⁃ Kāmil al-Ziyārāt, 4

Rijāl scholars differ on what Ibn Qūlawayh (‫ )رضي هللا عنه‬meant by his statement. Some
took it to mean that all narrators in his book are thiqa (trustworthy). However, we find
even liars according to rijāl narrating reports in his book. Some others said he meant
that only his direct teachers are thiqa. Some others took it to mean that he is referring
to the text and so on. We shall not discuss this here since that is not the topic of our
discussion. The aim of mentioning this is to show that certain authors were very certain
about the reports they were bringing, and this was due to them having many indicators
to support their view.

The author of Tafsīr al-Qummī (attributed to ʿAlī b. Ibrāhīm) writes:

‫ونحن ذاكرون ومخبرون بما ينتهي إلينا ورواه مشايخنا وثقاتنا عن الذين فرض هللا طاعتهم‬

And we are mentioning and informing of that which has come to us and that which is
narrated by our masters and our trustworthy people from those whose obedience
Allāh has made obligatory (i.e., the Imāms).

⁃ Tafsīr al-Qummī, 1/4

We are unsure if al-Qummī authored this work. There is a discussion on this, but I will
leave it out for now since it is beyond the scope of the current discourse. The point is
that al-Qummī (if he wrote this) is claiming to authenticate all narrators found in his
book until the chains reach one of the Imāms (‫)عليهم السالم‬. However, his book contains
many narrators deemed weak or liars according to rijāl standards.

Similarly, the author of Bashārat al-Muṣṭafā writes:

‫وَّل أذكر فيه إَّل المسند من األخبار عن المشايخ الكبار والثقات األخيار‬

And I will not mention in it except the reports which are connected by chains from the
great masters and the best trustworthy individuals.

⁃ Bashārat al-Muṣṭafā, 18

We have a similar issue here as mentioned above. The only sound explanation is that
these authors were relying on these reports not primarily because of the chains, but
because they had many indicators at their disposal to strengthen these reports. This can
even be seen in later scholars such as Ibn Idrīs al-Ḥillī (‫ )نور هللا مرقده‬and al-Muḥaqqiq al-
Ḥillī (‫)رضي هللا عنه‬. See what al-Muḥaqqiq al-Ḥillī writes in Maʿārij al-Uṣūl:

‫ قد يقترن بخبر الواحد قرائن تدل على صدق مضمونه وان كانت غير دالة على صدق الخبر نفسه‬:‫المسألة الرابعة‬
‫ أو لنص الكتاب خصوصه أو‬،‫ احداها أن يكون موافقا لدَّللة العقل‬:‫لجواز اختالفه مطابقا لتلك القرينة والقرائن أربع‬
‫ ولم‬،‫ وإذا تجرد عن القرائن الدالة على صدقه‬.‫ أو لما حصل اَّلجماع عليه‬،‫ أو السنة المقطوع بها‬،‫عمومه أو فحواه‬
‫ افتقر العمل به إلى اعتبار شروط نذكرها في الفصول المعقبة‬،‫يوجد ما يدل على خالف متضمنه‬

The Fourth Matter: a solitary report may be connected with certain indicators that
point to the truth of its content, even though they may not be enough to prove the
report’s veracity itself, due to the possibility of difference being by that indicator. And
the indicators are four: one is that the report should be in agreement with the
indication of the intellect, or the clear text of the book, its general or particular or the
gist, or the conclusive sunnah, or that which is agreed upon. If the report is devoid of
the indicators that prove its veracity, and there is nothing that points to anything
against its content, then one needs to act on it due to certain conditions that we shall
mention in the coming sections.

⁃ Maʿārij al-Uṣūl, 147

Thus, al-Muḥaqqiq al-Ḥillī (‫ )رحمه هللا‬is on the same manhaj and not the chain-only
manhaj. He does not even mention the chain’s veracity at all but chooses instead to
focus on the text and the various indicators we can use for the text’s veracity. Similarly,
Ibn Idrīs al-Ḥillī (‫ )أعلى هللا مقامه‬says in al-Sarāʾir:
 ‫ وقول بعيد عن الحق‬،‫فعلى األدلة المتقدمة أعمل وبها آخذ وأفتي وأدين هللا تعالى وَّل ألتفت إلى سواد مسطور‬...
...‫ فهل هدم اإلسالم إَّل هي‬،‫ وَّل أعرج إلى أخبار اآلحاد‬،‫ والبرهان الالئح‬،‫ وَّل أقلد إَّل الدليل الواضح‬،‫مهجور‬

… upon the aforementioned evidences will I act, and to it do I hold and give my edict
upon and profess Allāh, the exalted. And I do not turn to the written black (ink), and
the statement which is far from the truth and forsaken. I do not follow anything
except the clear evidence, and the manifest demonstration. I do not turn to the
solitary reports, for has anything demolished Islām except for them?

⁃ al-Sarāʾir, 1/48

One may find other scholars mentioning the same things (refer to Rasāʾil al-Sharīf al-
Murtaḍā, 1/120, al-Sarāʾir, 1/20 etc.) They did not turn their attention to the chains and
the solitary reports because reports were either Mass-transmitted (‫ )متواتر‬or backed by
so many indicators that they were needless to examine individual narrators and look
through chains. One can read the last volume of Wasāʾil al-Shīʿah for details of these
matters.

The chain-alone method is not proven by the Qurʾān or the statements of the Ahl al-
Bayt (‫)عليهم السالم‬

As is evident, we have no clear proof from the Qurʾān or the Infallibles ( ‫ )عليهم السالم‬which
proves that we must examine chains and only use the chains to accept or reject reports.
Someone might respond by saying that this verse points towards ʿIlm al-Rijāl:

﴾٦ :‫َيا أَيُّ َها الَّذِينَ آ َمنُوا ِإن َجا َء ُك ْم فَا ِس ٌق ِبنَ َبإٍ فَتَ َبيَّنُوا… ﴿الحجرات‬

O you who believe! If a wrongdoer comes to you with information, investigate… [49:6]

We say in reply: this does not prove the chain-alone method. The most it proves is that
one must first assess if the person bringing the report is a wrongdoer or not. If they are
a wrongdoer, we will further investigate the report and see if there are other means by
which we can verify the veracity of the report. Conversely, if the person is upright, it
does not mean that everything they say must be accepted blindly since that can only be
the case for the infallible (‫)عليه السالم‬. Therefore, this noble verse proves the indicator
method instead of proving the chain-only method. Moreover, Allāh says:

ِ ‫َّللا َوأُولَ ٰـئِكَ هُ ْم أُولُو ْاأل َ ْلبَا‬

﴾١٨ :‫ب ﴿الزمر‬ ُ َّ ‫سنَهُ أُولَ ٰـئِكَ الَّذِينَ َهدَاهُ ُم‬
َ ‫الَّذِينَ يَ ْستَمِ ُعونَ ْالقَ ْو َل فَيَتَّبِ ُعونَ أَ ْح‬

Those who listen to the word and follow the best of it. They are the ones God has
guided, and they are the people of understanding. [39:18]
Thus, God tells us to listen to the speech and words, and then follow the best of it. How
will we know which is the best speech without examining the content and judging the
speech based on the text and content? Some reports say that the best word mentioned
in this verse is the ḥadīth of the Ahl al-Bayt (‫)عليهم السالم‬. Refer to Tafsīr al-Burhān for
such reports. However, that does not negate the apparent meaning of the verse since it
can have an exoteric and esoteric meaning at the same time.

Moreover, we have reports from the Imāms (‫ )عليهم السالم‬telling us not to reject a report
coming from a khārijī or qadarī or murjiʾī (see ʿIlal al-Sharāʾī, 2/395). Moreover, we have
plenty of reports from the Imāms (‫ )عليهم السالم‬saying that one must not reject a report
attributed to them but instead refer its knowledge back to the Imām (‫ )عليه السالم‬if they
do not understand its meaning. I will not cite those reports here since their number is
too many to be enumerated and because they can be read in many of the main sources
of ḥadīth. The point here is that we have no clearly laid out the method of rijāl from the
Imāms (‫)عليهم السالم‬. While we do find them condemning certain individuals and praising
others, that does not entail that they told us to use the chain-only method. The Imāms
(‫ )عليهم السالم‬gave us many criteria in their own words on how to deal with reports,
especially if they conflict with one another. They told us to refer the report to the
Qurʾān, the intellect, to the sunnah (i.e., what is mutawātir and established from them),
to look at what the opponents do and oppose it, to see what is agreed upon between
the Shīʿa, to act on any of them (if we do not find any preponderant to choose one or
the other) etc. This is an entire methodology that can be extrapolated from the words of
the Imāms (‫ )عليهم السالم‬themselves, and there are plenty of reports that can be shown to
prove this point. Thus, this would not be a circular argument since we already accept
the intellect as an authority, and we already know that tawātur is authoritative etc.

I will stress once again that we are not against the rijāl method as a whole, but are only
against the sole usage of rijāl to accept or reject reports without referring to other
indicators. Thus, we do not deem rijāl to be condemned, but only the sole usage of rijāl
to accept or reject reports based on the chain to be a faulty methodology.

The authenticity of the chain does not necessitate the authenticity of the text

Another important aspect to keep in mind is the assumption in the chain-only method
that since the chain (according to subjective and speculative criteria) is sound, it entails
that the text is sound. However, this is not the case.

We ask the rijālist: can a report with a sound chain have a text that contradicts sound
reason or the explicit meaning of the Qurʾān? Most would reply: yes. We would then
say: this means that the authenticity of the chain does not necessitate the authenticity
of the text.

Similarly, we ask: can a report with a weak chain have a text that is in line with sound
reason and with the explicit meaning of the Qurʾān? Every sound person would say: yes.
We would thus say: this means that a report that has a weak chain does not necessitate
that it has a weak text. We do not say that a weak chained text with an authentic text
means the Imām (‫ )عليه السالم‬surely said it unless we have other indicators to support it
which would make it as certain as we can get to know that the report has been issued
from the Imām (‫)عليه السالم‬.

Moreover, the liar does not necessarily always speak a lie. Although this matter is
axiomatic and self-evident because being a liar does not mean that a person necessarily
has to lie in every single instance, we shall quote al-Māzandarānī (‫ )قدس سره‬on this issue
who writes:

.‫ الحديث معتبر وإن كان الراوي كذوبا; ألن الكذوب قد يصدق‬:‫أقول‬

I say: the ḥadīth is reliable, even though the narrator is a liar because the liar can
sometimes speak the truth.

⁃ Sharḥ Uṣūl al-Kāfī, 2/25

Moreover, we even have a ḥadīth in the book of our brothers from the Ahl al-Sunnah
which states that Satan spoke the truth:

‫طا ٌن‬ َ َ‫ ذَاك‬، ٌ‫ص َدقَكَ َو ْه َو َكذُوب‬

َ ‫ش ْي‬ َ ...

The Prophet (ṣ) said, ‘he has spoken the truth, although he is a liar. That was a Satan.’

⁃ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, no. 3275

Even if we did not have any of these texts, we already know that a liar can speak the
truth. So, why is it the case that in the chain-only method, a liar’s report is always
rejected and not accepted in any case? We have examples where a liar (according to the
subjective and speculative rijāl method) has narrated a report and another chain for the
same text which is authentic. This itself is a counterexample that a liar can report
truthful texts. How would we know if the liar’s narration is truthful or not? We would
use the indicator method. This is because, with a chain, we have fallible humans
narrating from fallible humans and so on and this leads to a compounded fallibility
which reaches a high level of speculation. Thus, we cannot trust the chain-alone method
in giving us certainty when it is based on speculation at every level.

Moreover, not having a chain does not necessitate that the report is unreliable. This is
because if a report lacks a chain, that means it has one indicator lacking. However, it can
have many other indicators that support the text of the report and thus its text becomes
reliable and sound.

The chain-alone method is a later development

Another important thing that can be discussed is that the chain-alone method is a later
development. The first person to divide chains into four categories (Ṣaḥīḥ, Ḥasan,
Muwathtaq, Ḍaʾīf) was Sayyid Ibn Ṭāwūs (‫ )رضي هللا عنه‬and his student al-ʿAllāmah al-Ḥillī
(‫)عليه الرحمة‬. Before this time, this sort of division of reports did not exist. The most that
existed was that reports were either deemed either Ṣaḥīḥ or not-Ṣaḥīḥ. Moreover, we
already know that the Imāms (‫ )عليهم السالم‬did not teach this method. Someone might say
that this was because the Imāms (‫ )عليهم السالم‬were present and thus there was no need
to develop such a method. However, we have evidence against this of the Imāms ( ‫عليهم‬
‫ )السالم‬teaching us how to investigate and examine reports, some of which we have
mentioned above as well as in our other writings. Thus, the chain-alone method was
taken from our brothers from the Ahl al-Sunnah, along with the terminologies found in
their sources. This in itself is not a reason to dismiss it since that would be a genetic
fallacy, but it certainly is a thing to ponder.

However, we do find that there was a categorization of narrators and rijāl as a

phenomenon that did exist in earlier times. al-Ṭūsī (‫ )رحمه هللا‬mentions:

‫ َوفَ َّرقوا بَيْن َم ْن يعتمد‬،‫ض َعفَاء‬ ُ ‫ض َّعفَتْ ْال‬ َ ‫ فَ َوثَّقَتْ الثِقَات مِ ْن ُه ْم َو‬،‫الر َجا َل ْالنَاقِلَة ِل َه ِذ ِه ْاأل ْخبَار‬
ِ ْ‫إنا َو َج ْدنَا الطائفة ميَّزَ ت‬
،ِ‫ فُال ٌن متَّه ٌم فِي َحدِي ِثه‬:‫ َو َمدحوا ال َم ْمدُوح مِ ْن ُه ْم َوذَموا ْال َم ْذ ُموم َوقَالُوا‬،ِ‫علَى َخب ِْره‬ َ ‫يعتمد‬ ‫َّل‬ ‫علَى َحدِي ِث ِه َو ِروا َي ِت ِه َو َم ْن‬
َ
َ‫غير ذَلكَ مِ ن‬ ْ ْ
َ ‫ َو‬،‫ َوفُال ٌن َواقِفي َوفُال ٌن فَطحي‬،‫ِف فِي ال َم ْذهب َوا َِّل ْعتِقَاد‬ ٌ ‫ َوفُال ٌن ُمخَال‬،ٌ‫خلط‬ ِ ‫ َوفُال ٌن ُم‬، ٌ‫َوفُالن كَذاب‬
ِ ‫صانِيفِ فِي فَ َه‬
‫ار ْستِ ِه ْم‬ ْ ‫مِن ُج ْملَ ٍة َما رووه‬
َ َّ‫مِن الت‬ ِ ‫صنَّفوا فِي ذَلِكَ ْال ُكتُب َوا ْستَثْنوا‬
ْ ‫الر َجا َل‬ َ ‫الط ُعون التِي ذَك َُروهَا َو‬

We have found the group (i.e., Shīʿas) differentiating the narrators who narrate these
reports. So, they would authenticate the trustworthy ones from them and weaken the
weak ones. They would differentiate between the one whose ḥadīth and narration are
to be relied upon and whose report is not to be relied upon. They praised the
praiseworthy one and condemned the condemnable one. They said: so-and-so is
accused in his ḥadīth, so-and-so is a liar, so-and-so is confused, so-and-so is an
opponent in his doctrine and belief, so-and-so is a wāqifī, so-and-so is a faṭḥī, as well
as other criticisms they mention and books they have compiled on that and they
excluded narrators from the collectivity of what they narrated from the compilations
in their indexes.

⁃ ʿUddat al-Uṣūl, 1/366

Thus, rijāl as a phenomenon did exist, and we are also not anti-rijāl. However, we are
also not in agreement with the rijāl-alone method since it is subjective, speculative,
compounded with fallibility and so on. The existence of rijāl as a phenomenon is also
known from the books of great scholars. For example, al-Ṣadūq (‫ )قدس سره‬says:

‫ع ْنهُ كَانَ ََّل‬َ ‫َّللا‬

ُ َّ ‫ي‬ َ ‫ض‬ َ ‫ش ْي َخنَا ُم َح َّم َد بْنَ ْال َح‬
ِ ‫س ِن َر‬ َ ‫صا َمهُ فَإِ َّن‬
َ ‫ور فِي ِه ِل َم ْن‬ُ ‫ِير ُخ ٍم َوالثَّ َوابُ ْال َم ْذ ُك‬
ِ ‫غد‬ َ ‫َوأَ َّما َخ َب ُر‬
َ ‫ص َال ِة َي ْو ِم‬
‫َّللا‬
ُ َّ ‫َّس‬ َّ ‫ص ِح ْحهُ ذَلِكَ ال‬
َ ‫ش ْي ُخ قَد‬ ْ
َ ً ‫سى ال َه ْمدَانِي ِ َوكَانَ َكذَّابا‬
َ ُ‫غي َْر ثِقَ ٍة َو ُك ُّل َما لَ ْم ي‬ َ ‫ق ُم َح َّم ِد ب ِْن ُمو‬ َ ‫مِن‬
ِ ‫ط ِري‬ ْ ُ‫ص ِح ُحهُ َويَقُو ُل ِإنَّه‬ َ ُ‫ي‬
‫يح‬
ٍ ِ‫صح‬ َ ‫غي ُْر‬ ْ
َ ٌ‫ار فَ ُه َو ِع ْن َدنَا َمت ُروك‬ َ ْ
ِ َ‫ص َّحتِ ِه مِنَ األ ْخب‬ َ
ِ ِ‫ َول ْم يَ ْح ُك ْم ب‬-ُ‫ُرو َحه‬

And as for the report about praying on the day of Ghadīr Khumm and the reward
mentioned in it for the one who fasts in it, our teacher Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan, may
God be pleased with him, did not deem it to be Ṣaḥīḥ and he would say that it is from
the path of Muḥammad b. Mūsā al-Hamdānī, and he was a liar and untrustworthy.
And all of that which that Shaykh, may God sanctify his spirit, did not deem Ṣaḥīḥ and
did not consider authentic from the reports is forsaken and inauthentic in our view.

⁃ Man Lā Yaḥḍuruhu al-Faqīh, below ḥadīth no. 1817

Thus, we see al-Ṣadūq (‫ )رحمه هللا‬rejecting a report due to the narrator being a liar,
although that is not the sole reason because Ibn Walīd al-Qummī (‫)رضي هللا عنه‬, the
teacher of al-Ṣadūq (‫ )رحمه هللا‬also was upon the indicator method as we know from
other means. Moreover, we have other indicators to show why the content of the
report is not sound and thus it is clear that the report must be rejected. Similarly, al-Ṭūsī
(‫ )رحمه هللا‬says about a report:

‫علَى َما يَ ْنف َِر ُد بِنَ ْق ِل ِه‬

َ ‫ف ِجداً ََّل يُ َع َّو ُل‬ َ ‫ي ْب ُن َحدِي ٍد َوه َُو ُم‬
ٌ ‫ض َّع‬ َّ ‫ارةَ فَال‬
َ -‫ط ِري ُق ِإلَ ْي ِه‬
ُّ ‫ع ِل‬ َ ‫َوأَ َّما َخبَ ُر ُز َر‬

And as for the report of Zurārah, then the path to it is ʿAlī b. Ḥadīd and he is very
weakened and what he is alone in narrating is not to be relied upon.

⁃ Tahdhīb al-Aḥkām, 7/101 and al-Istibṣār, 3/95

Therefore, al-Ṭūsī (‫ )رضي هللا عنه‬has also used the chain when he tries to reconcile
reports. Similarly, al-Mufīd (‫ )عليه الرحمة‬has said about a report:
 ‫ َّل تختلف العصابة في تهمته‬،‫ وهو مطعون فيه‬،‫ طريقه محمد بن سنان‬،‫ غير معتمد عليه‬،‫ نادر‬،‫وهذا الحديث شاذ‬
‫وضعفه‬

And this is ḥadīth is anomalous and rare, it is not to be relied upon. Its path is
Muḥammad b. Sinān, and he is criticized. The group (i.e., the Shīʿa) do not differ about
his accusation and weakness.

⁃ Jawābāt Ahl al-Mawṣul, 20

However, we know that others differ about Muḥammad b. Sinān and some deem him to
be a reliable narrator. The point of mentioning these examples is to show that rijāl did
exist. However, even al-Mufīd (‫ )نور هللا مرقده‬is deeming the report anomalous and rare,
meaning he looked at the text and then also examined the chain. al-Mufīd (‫ )رحمه هللا‬was
surely not a rijālī as is evident from many of his works. Thus, we do find rijāl as a
phenomenon in some of the early scholars, but we do not find the rijāl-alone method
since they always considered the report from all the aspects and by examining all the
indicators before they accepted or rejected it.

The chain-alone method leads to the loss of many ḥadīth of the Ahl al-Bayt (‫)عليهم السالم‬

Albeit not an argument on its own, it does show the entailment of using the chain-alone
method. Consider the work by al-Muḥsinī called Muʿjam al-Aḥādīth al-Muʿtabarah (al-
Muḥsinī is considered one of the strictest when it comes to his rijāl manhaj, although he
accepts the taraḍḍī and taraḥḥum of al-Ṣadūq (‫)قدس سره‬, which in my view makes him a
bit less strict than al-Khūʾī in this matter). The work has 11,000+ reports deemed reliable
by al-Muḥsinī according to his manhaj in rijāl. This means that thousands of other
reports on creedal, moral and other matters would be unreliable as per al-Muḥsinī’s
criteria. We know of reports that are ‘weak’ as per the rijāl criteria but are filled with
wisdom, knowledge, moral virtues etc. and are weak due to one odd narrator being
‘majhūl’ or unknown, or due to someone like Sahl b. Ziyād is weak.

Thus, if one fully goes through with the chain method, they will lose many precious
reports from the Imāms (‫ )عليهم السالم‬on everything from ʿaqīdah to ḥikmah and other
issues. One must instead resort to the indicator method if one seeks to know the
sciences of the Ahl al-Bayt (‫)عليهم السالم‬.

The superiority of the Qarāʾin method (‫)منهج الوثوق الصدوري‬

The Qarāʾin method is superior because it tries to incorporate all the aspects a report
might have and limits any blindspots or speculation that may be present. After bringing
all of the evidence and weighing it, only then is a definitive conclusion reached. The
chain-only method works primarily on the chain and accepts or rejects the text based on
the chain unless the text has some problems due to which we have to examine further.

However, we challenge this presupposition of accepting or rejecting reports and say we

should look at all possible angles, to begin with, so that we may reach a sounder
conclusion.

After having discussed this, we will dedicate the last part to certain objections and their
responses:

Objection: The early Shīʿa scholars used rijāl as well.

Response: We have already explained that they did indeed use rijāl, and that it did exist
as a phenomenon. However, they did not use the rijāl alone method at all. Instead, they
used the indicator method as we know from many sources. The prefaces of the four
books are enough for one to verify this.

Objection: If not for rijāl, what else are we left with to examine the reports?

Response: We say that we mustn’t use rijāl ‘alone’ in examining reports. Instead, we
must use all available indicators or Qarāʾin when we are examining reports. This is a
more holistic approach and much more objective and in line with the historical method,
since we are looking at the report from all aspects possible and not from merely one
aspect, i.e., the chain.

Objection: Companions of the Imāms (‫ )عليهم السالم‬had also written rijāl books.

Response: We do not have access to those books to examine what the content was and
deem them to be ‘rijāl’ books in the sense we use the word today. This is because we
also know that meanings of words change over time, and just because someone wrote a
book which had rijāl in it, that does not mean the word is being used in its connotative
or technical (‫ )اصطالحي‬meaning as we use it today. Someone might say that al-Kashshī
quotes from companions of the Imāms (‫ )عليهم السالم‬such as Ibn Faḍḍāl and al-Faḍal b.
Shādhān and could be quoting from these rijāl books at times. Given that we know that
these companions were praising or condemning narrators, we can get an idea of the
content of these reports. We say: we do not know for certain what books al-Kashshī was
quoting from, and even if it is proven that they had books of rijāl which had al-jarḥ wa
al-taʿdīl, this still does not make their statements authoritative as has already been
demonstrated above. Moreover, we have already stated that our issue is not with rijāl
per se, but with the chain-only method. So, giving examples of the existence of rijāl in
earlier times does not in any way affect the argument we are making.

Objection: A lot of people have fabricated lies against the Imāms (‫ )عليهم السالم‬and there
are many false reports in our books. Therefore, we need rijāl to check the authenticity
of reports.

Response: We agree that people have fabricated lies. This is why we check the chain ‘as
well’ when examining reports. However, we also accept that a liar does not have to
necessarily lie. We also know that our scholars did not compile books filled with lies
even after they are certain of many of the contents of their books. We are also certain
that the truthful sect did not act upon false reports for centuries. Therefore, we need to
check rijāl ‘as well’ just to weigh the odds of the report, but that is just one of the many
indicators and levels we have to go through to examine reports.

Objection: Your method is also inductive (‫ )استقرائي‬and not conclusive (‫)قطعي‬

Response: This is a logical fallacy known as the tu quoque fallacy. Meaning that just by
highlighting the same (alleged) issue in someone else’s idea, you cannot evade the
problem you have in your idea and it does not solve the problem in the least bit. Ibn
Ḥazm too has explained this fallacy in one of his works (see Rasāʾil Ibn Ḥazm, 4/332),
and it is evident to those of sound intellect. Even if we accept this fallacious reasoning, it
does not apply to us. This is because although all discussions on particulars are
inductive, that does not mean that all are equally speculative. Some things are more
speculative than others and using the chain-only method is more speculative than using
the indicator method. Thus, our method limits speculation, whereas the speculative
nature is much more in the chain-only method. Moreover, there are degrees of
certainty. We have knowledge of certainty (‫)علم اليقين‬, the eye of certainty (‫)عين اليقين‬, and
truth of certainty (‫)حق اليقين‬. All of these are certain, and in inductive claims even if we
get to the knowledge of certainty, that is good enough. It is as good as it gets and it is on
par with certainty since there is nothing beyond that except deduction, which goes
beyond inductive arguments. Thus, our method of indicators gives us a level of
certainty, whereas the chain-only method fails to attain any level of certainty and
remains in speculation. One of the advantages of our method is that we can even accept
reports that aren’t from the Imāmī corpus but are found in Sunnī, Zaydī, Ibāḍī or other
works, provided they meet the indicator criteria. These reports would automatically be
deemed weak by default according to rijāl standards since the narrators of the author
would be unknown in Shīʿī rijāl.

Conclusion
It is very easy for someone to get a report, and just go check what some scholar of rijāl
has said about each narrator and then pass a judgment about whether the report ought
to be rejected or not. However, this is not the method taught by the Imāms (‫)عليهم السالم‬
and nor is this a historically rigorous method. Note that all of this criticism on rijāl is
coming from someone who has authored various articles and written books in rijāl. One
must follow certainty, not speculation. We must follow the guidance of the Imāms ( ‫عليهم‬
‫ )السالم‬when it comes to examining and evaluating reports, and not to a method
developed later that is inherently subjective and speculative and is the way of the earlier
scholars instead most of it is taken from the Ahl al-Sunnah. We claim that our method of
authenticating reports is much more rigorous and much more historically sound as
opposed to the chain method. May Allāh make us all hold fast to the teachings of the
Ahl al-Bayt (‫)عليهم السالم‬

⁃ Syed Ali Asdaq Naqvi