Check it before you forward it.

Matched on meaning, not only on exact wording, so paraphrase and loose translation are still found.

Narrator by narrator, from the collector back toward the source, with each link identified.

Using the canonical grade vocabulary, with the narrator and the rule that produced it named.

Which narrator in the chain the grade actually turns on.

Whether independent chains support the report, and whether that support is genuinely independent.

Verify a quoted āyah, its reference, and its rendering.

Six distinct outcomes, of which two are forms of "we cannot answer this".

What the sources hold on a subject, set beside what a text chose to cite — and which of the uncited reports point a different way.

Identify which school a position follows and where the others differ. Sanad names the position; it does not score it.

When a position held by few is presented as the mainstream one.

Whether "the scholars agree" survives checking against documented disagreement.

Whether an argument rests on authentic sources, engages the counter-evidence, states its method, and reaches a conclusion its premises support. Sanad reviews the reasoning; it does not substitute a ruling of its own.

Whether a body certifying a financial product has a disclosed relationship with the issuer.

You watch Sanad read, search, and build the chain. Not a progress bar — the actual work, as it happens.

The chain and the sources come first. The conclusion arrives last, deliberately.

Scroll back through the centuries. Tap any narrator for their dates, their teachers and students, and what the critics said about them.

The claim as it was sent to you, aligned against the claim as it is actually attested, with every difference marked.

Independent chains shown together, so a single thin thread is visibly different from a well-attested report.

The chain laid against real centuries, so a gap in transmission appears as a gap in time.

The route a report travelled between cities and generations.

Which rule fired, which narrator capped the grade, and why.

A shareable summary carrying the evidence, not merely a verdict, sized for the chat it came from.

Every check has an address you can send, cite, or return to.

When the corpus is updated, saved cases are re-checked and anything whose verdict changed is flagged.

Contest any result. The challenge is published on the case itself, so the next reader sees it is contested. Sanad publishes disputes; it does not adjudicate them.

One tap from every result. Corrections are applied to the corpus and grading rules, and anyone whose saved case changes is told.

Off by default. Kept only if you choose to keep it.

Follow an account or a publication and be told when a claim worth checking appears.

What is circulating now, already checked.

One claim, with its chain, grade, and sources. The document you file or forward.

A whole khutbah, article or chapter, every claim tabulated and ranked by risk.

The full apparatus, narrator by narrator, for scholarly use.

Cited against available, on a given subject.

Exactly what was retrieved from a link, with a hash and a timestamp — because pages get edited after they are questioned.

When a verdict changes, a document you can circulate to correct a record you already acted on.

A record that a body of work was checked, on a date, against a stated corpus version. It certifies that a check was run and what it found. It is not a religious endorsement and does not approve content.