A common objection to the sayings of the salaf that refute the Asharis and Maturidis is that our books are weak therefore, these sayings cannot be accepted, in this channel I will be showing what a brother has managed to compile in regards to the weak chains they also have in their books of Aqeedah, and I will be showing at the end where Ibn Hajar says that books do not need a sahih chain.

So the Asharis and Maturidis are stuck in a dilemma where they reject the books of the salaf and early ulama that refute them alongside their own books or they have to accept our books alongside accepting theirs. There is no way out for them on this matter. All the work in this channel is from anajil_aljhmia and I have just translated it.

The book al-Lumaʿ fi al-Radd ʿala Ahl al-Zaygh wa al-Bidaʿ by Abu al-Hasan al-Ashʿari (d. 324 AH)

This book has undergone three investigations: the first by the Christian McCarthy, followed by an investigation by Gharaba, a senior scholar of al-Azhar, and later by Hasan al-Shafiʿi with an introduction by the Shaykh of al-Azhar. In all versions, the investigators relied on a single manuscript, the Beirut manuscript. Gharaba describes this manuscript as follows: “The scribe of the Beirut manuscript is unknown, and I lack the means to determine the period in which it was copied.”

He then states, “Although it is possible to confirm that it was copied after the death of al-Ghazali (d. 505 AH).” As for the other manuscript, its scribe is a Christian. Gharaba ultimately relied on the text of McCarthy’s edition with some modifications. Hasan al-Shafiʿi explicitly stated that he depended on this incomplete manuscript and validated the book merely by mentioning al-Ashʿari’s students referencing it, by citing what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted from it, and because Ibn ʿAbd al-Qadir al-Sanbawi narrated al-Ashʿari’s works!

However, this holds no weight if the primary source is incomplete, as the book cannot be authenticated due to the anonymity of the scribe, the date of transcription being unknown, and the chain of transmission between it and the author being severed.

We notice that Hasan al-Shafiʿi substantiates the book using the quotations of Shaykh al-Islam, even though he regards him as an anthropomorphist (mujassim) in his creed. It is also notable that Hasan al-Shafiʿi—a leading scholar of the Ashʿaris—adheres to the methodology of relying on partial quotations to validate an entire book, contrary to one of the Ashʿari acolytes.

Hasan al-Shafiʿi considers providing a chain of transmission for a book—even if it is not present in the manuscript itself—a decisive proof of authenticating the manuscript, which differs from some ignorant Jahmis who have appeared recently. Both Gharaba and al-Shafiʿi, when investigating the book, did not treat the dire condition of the manuscript as evidence to deny its attribution to al-Ashʿari. Instead, they operated as if the book’s attribution was a given, which demonstrates their misrepresentation.

The book Maqalat al-Islamiyyin by Abu al-Hasan al-Ashʿari (d. 324 AH)

This book has undergone three investigations: one by the German scholar Ritter, and the others by Muhi al-Din ʿAbd al-Hamid and ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Zarzur. Manuscripts and Issues in Authentication: The latter two investigators neglected to provide detailed descriptions of the manuscripts. However, Ritter extensively described them, stating that he relied on five manuscripts, summarized as follows: – First Manuscript:  The scribe is unknown.  No chain of transmission to the author. A gap of 263 years between the time of transcription and the death of the author.

Second Manuscript:

• The scribe is unknown.
• No chain of transmission to the author.
• A gap of 359 years between the time of transcription and the death of the author.

Third Manuscript: 

• Incomplete at the beginning, lacking the title of the book and the name of the author.
• The scribe is unidentified.
• A gap of 261 years between the time of transcription and the death of the author. 
• Fourth Manuscript:
• The scribe is unknown.
• Owned by al-Shahrastani (d. 548 AH), described as an extremist in Shiʿism and atheism by al-Samʿani and Ibn Raslan. 
• Lacks a date of transcription.
• No chain of transmission to the author.

Fifth Manuscript:

• The scribe is ignorant of what he transcribes.
• Very late transcription date (1223 AH).
• The owner is unknown.
• No chain of transmission to the author.

The manuscripts of this book suffer from various critical issues, including unknown scribes, undetermined transcription dates, and ownership by unreliable figures such as an atheist extremist. All of them share the significant flaw of lacking a chain of transmission back to the author (isnad).

Risalat Istihsan al-Khawd fi ʿIlm al-Kalam by Abu al-Hasan al-Ashʿari (d. 324 AH)

This book has been printed several times in Hyderabad, India. It was later critically edited by the Jesuit scholar McCarthy and subsequently by Muhammad Wali al-Habashi. Manuscript and the chain: All editions are based on a manuscript with a isnad that includes three unknown narrators, in addition to an unknown scribe and an unidentified student of al-Ashʿari.

The text of the book is weak in language and style (rakaakah), leading scholars like ʿAbd al-Rahman Badawi and the Christian McCarthy—relied upon by the leading Ashʿari scholar Hammudah Gharaba—to doubt its authenticity. None of al-Ashʿari’s students mention this risalah, thereis no reference to it before modern times. The risalah cannot be attributed to Abu al-Hasan al-Ashʿari either textually or through its chain of transmission due to the reasons outlined above.

The Ashʿaris affirmed the authenticity of the book without examining or providing biographies of the individuals in the chain of transmission, treating the treatise as though its authenticity were indisputable. The Ashʿari Rustam Mahdi, known for his numerous articles defending the Ashʿari school, holds that repeated narrations of their imams from an unknown source are sufficient grounds for acceptance. If this principle were applied to the books of Sunnah (Like kitab as sunnah ibn ahmad), which they often criticise, not a single work would be rejected. However, their bias is clear.

The book Mujarrad Maqalat al-Ashʿari attributed to Ibn Furak (d. 406 AH)

This book was first investigated by the French orientalist Daniel Gimaret, consistent with the trend of Ashʿari books being initially published by non-Muslim scholars. The second critical edition was undertaken by Ahmad ʿAbd al-Rahim al-Sayih. Issues with the Manuscripts: – The original manuscript has a tampered title. – Other copies lack the author’s name entirely. – The scribe of the original manuscript is unknown. – There is a gap of 54 years between the date of copying and the death of the author.

Given these issues, the book cannot be authenticated using the flawed standards of the Jahmis, which demand unbroken chains and identified scribes. The Ashʿaris altered the book’s title and attributed it to their imam without providing any evidence to support their decision. More concerning is their failure to acknowledge the gravity of this alteration. Remarkably, it was the French orientalist, not al-Sayih, who pointed out this serious discrepancy. The Ashʿaris authenticate books based on manuscripts with unknown scribes and incomplete information, some of which lack even the author’s name.

In the case of Mujarrad Maqalat, the Ashʿaris did not employ their usual approach of casting baseless doubts and conjectures. Instead, they affirmed its authenticity without question. This double standard highlights that their criticisms of works like al-Ibanah are driven purely by bias and desires.

The book Mushkil al-Hadith wa Bayanuhu attributed to Ibn Furak (d. 406 AH)

This book has been published in several editions, the first being printed at the Vatican. Manuscript Issues:

• Lack of a sanad
• All copies of the book lack a documented chain of transmission, except for one unique manuscript, which contains narrators who are majhul (unknwon)
• None of the manuscripts include the name of the scribe. There is significant inconsistency across the manuscripts regarding the book’s title, with it being referred to by five different names.

This raises a critical question: which of these is the book’s actual title?

The Ashʿaris quote and reference Mushkil al-Hadith in their works without raising any objections about the anonymity of its narrators. This is in contrast to the innovative standards of contemporary Ashʿaris, who demand stringent validation for books they oppose. Most Ashʿari manuscripts lack isnads connecting them to their authors. Even when an isnad exists, it does not meet the Ashʿari standards for narrator reliability.

The book Sharh al-ʿAlim wa al-Mutaʿallim attributed to Ibn Furak (d. 406 AH) is a commentary on the risalah al-ʿAlim wa al-Mutaʿallim, ascribed to Abu Hanifa (d. 150 AH).

However, the original risalah of Abu Hanifa itself is transmitted through liars and unknown narrators, and the commentary by Ibn Furak is no better in terms of authenticity. The book was edited by Ahmad al-Sayih and Tawfiq Wahba, and to the best of our knowledge, this is the only edition of the book. The editors relied on two manuscripts:

• The Murad Mulla Manuscript (Turkey):
• Copied in 798 AH.
• No chain of transmission linking it to the author.
• The scribe is unknown and has no documented biography.
• The Center for Oriental Studies Manuscript (Zurich, Switzerland) Copied in 937 AH. 
• No chain of transmission linking it to the author. 
• The scribe’s identity is unknown.

The temporal gap between the death of Ibn Furak and the copying of the manuscripts is significant, 392 years for the Murad Mulla manuscript and 531 years for the Zurich Switzerland. Both manuscripts suffer from the absence of a chain of transmission to the author and are penned by unidentified scribes. Significant Temporal Gaps: The wide gap between the death of the author and the date of the manuscripts casts doubt on the book’s authenticity, according to any reasonable scholarly standard. 

Side Note: I have recieved objections to this one specifially and that there is another chain for this book however the chain that was presented is also weak, and the response is that there cannot be majhool narrators in a book and when asked for someone that preceded them on the matter I got no response, so the issue still arises for the asharis and maturidis. 

The book al-Hudud fi al-Usul by Abu Bakr Ibn Furak (d. 406 AH)

This book was critically investigated by Muhammad al-Sulaymani, which is, to the best of my knowledge, the only available edition of the book. He relied on a single manuscript in the British Museum. Date of Copying: 988 AH. Scribe: A Yemeni judge named Muhammad ibn Ali al-Hamawi al-Hanafi, whose biography is unknown.

The book al-Bayan attributed to al-Baqillani (d. 403 AH)

This book has only been investigated by the Christian scholar McCarthy, based on a single manuscript. No Name of the Scribe: The manuscript lacks any indication of who copied it. NO ISNAD There is no documented isnad linking the manuscript to al-Baqillani. The manuscript does not include the date it was transcribed.

The book al-Insaf (also known as Risalat al-Hurra) attributed to al-Baqillani (d. 403 AH)

This book was renamed by al-Kawthari purely to match the title found on the manuscript, disregarding the introduction of the book. Moreover, he mistakenly included the annotations of the manuscript’s owners in the main text, demonstrating his lack of expertise.

These blatant errors were pointed out by the Ashʿari scholars Sayyid Saqr and Jalal ʿAbd al-Hamid.

– The book was investigated only by al-Kawthari, relying on a single manuscript housed at Dar al-Kutub al-Misriyya.

– The manuscript was copied in 1300 AH, according to Sezgin and it does not mention the scribe nor is there an isnad for it

Conclusion:

According to the principles of contemporary Ashʿaris, the book cannot be reliably attributed to al-Baqillani due to the lack of isnad, the anonymity of the scribe, and the significant time gap between the author’s death and the manuscript’s copying.

Al-Kawthari, a leading figure among Ashʿaris, affirmed the book’s authenticity based on a single, unverified manuscript with a massive chronological gap. This raises the question: should we trust the modern Ashʿari standards, or those of their earlier scholars like al-Kawthari?

Al-Kawthari demonstrated significant ignorance by failing to differentiate between the writings of scribes or manuscript owners and the original author.

The book al-Tamhid attributed to al-Baqillani (d. 403 AH)

This book has been investigated in three times.

• The first time was by al-Khudayri and Abu Rida, based on an incomplete manuscript. Despite the clear deficiencies in the manuscript, they affirmed the book’s completeness and accused Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim of lying. Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari (d. 1371 AH) supported them in this claim. This was done intentionally, as clarified by Jalal Muhammad Abd al-Hamid.

• Second time was by the Christian scholar McCarthy, who is known for his focus on editing Ashʿari texts. McCarthy exposed the ignorance of the previous editors and the injustice they showed toward Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim.

• The third time was by Imad Ahmad Haydar, who deliberately omitted the chapter discussing the affirmation of istiwa (the literal meaning of “settling” upon the throne) in the book, so as not to embarrass the Ashʿaris for contradicting their own scholars. The most relied upon manuscript was the one used by the Christian editor McCarthy, which suffers from both gaps in transmission and unknown scribes.

Thus, the book cannot be reliably attributed to al-Baqillani according to the standards of Ashʿaris themselves.

The book Suʾalat Ahl al-Ray attributed to al-Baqillani (d. 403 AH)

This book has been investigated in three times First time was by Muhammad Mahmoud Fikri, a researcher at the Office for the Revival of Heritage at al-Azhar University. Second time was by Adar Yusuf, a doctor at the Faculty of Islamic Sciences in Algeria. Third time was by Jamal Muhaib in a publication by Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah.

The book was investigated in all three editions based on a single manuscript, which is part of a collection in the La Héliot library in Turkey. Dating of manuscript is 872 AH.

The Scribe: Muhammad ibn Salim al-Hasbani al-Shafiʿi is majhool and it has no isnad back to the author Adar Yusuf was the most thorough in discussing the attribution of the book, but his findings were limited to some verbal and conceptual similarities between this book and other works attributed to al-Baqillani.

However, these other works also have deteriorating manuscripts and cannot be validated according to the contemporary Ashʿari standards. Additionally, Adar Yusuf acknowledged that the name of the book is not mentioned in any sources, nor are there any quotes from it found in other texts. This further complicates the book’s attribution.

The book Lata’if al-Isharat by Abu al-Qasim al-Qushayri (d. 465 AH)

This book was printed again by Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyyah without mentioning the original manuscripts relied upon. The investigator, Ibrahim Basyuni, relied on two manuscripts:

• First Manuscript: The scribe is unknown and is not an Arab. It was copied in Shawwal, 1324 AH. The manuscript lacks any isnad.

• Second Manuscript: This version is incomplete, starting from the interpretation of verse 52 of Surah al-Anbiya and continuing to the end of the book. No information is available about the scribe or the date of copying. Ibrahim Basyuni described it as: “We do not know anything about the scribe who worked on it or the date it was copied, as it is missing from the beginning, and the scribe did not leave any information about himself at the end. We assume it is more recent than the first manuscript based on the style of writing and spelling rules.”

The earliest manuscript relied upon by Basyuni was copied approximately 321 years ago.

The book Shikayat Ahl al-Sunnah by al-Qushayri (d. 465 AH)

This book relies in all its editions on the transmission of Ibn al-Subki in his Tabaqat The methodology followed by the Ashʿaris, as outlined by Ibn al-Subki, requires that the narrator chain be at least ten narrators for a theological text to be accepted. When this rule was applied, it was found that one of their doctrinal texts, which had a chain of transmission documented by one of their scholars in his work, was problematic.

This is because one of the narrators in the chain was at most seven years old when he received the narration, and the other was four years old at the time of transmission. According to the invented criteria of the Ashʿaris, the book cannot be accepted as authentic due to the issues with the age of the narrators, which violates their own conditions.

The Aqida of Abu Ishaq al-Isfarayini (d. 418 AH)

This book was only looked into by a Westerner named Richard Frank. In the introduction, Frank referred to it as “The Creed of Professor Ibn Ishaq al-Isfarayini,” but he did not specify the sources he relied on for his edition. There is no mention of a chain or the year of the manuscript’s copying in his edition.

Some may try to argue that there is a sharh on the creed, but it is important to note that the only known commentary is attributed to someone named Muhammad ibn Ja’far al-Sanhaji. This name may correspond to another individual mentioned in al-Muqaffa by al-Maqrizi, who died in 603 AH. However, it’s not certain that it’s the same person. Moreover, the manuscript of the commentary does not have a year of copying or an isnad to the commentator.

Non-Arab scholars (mostly Christians) have been the ones to undertake the task of editing the Ashʿari works, while the Ashʿaris themselves are often preoccupied with various theological disputes, such as reconciling with the Shiʿa or discussing the limits of the punishment for apostasy.

The book Al-Tabsir fi al-Din by Abu al-Muẓaffar al-Isfarayini (d. 418 AH)

This book was first investigated by Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari (d. 1371 AH), and his edition was printed by the Khanji Library, later reprinted by the Al-Azhar press. Al-Kawthari relied on a photocopy of a manuscript from the Fatih Library in Istanbul, with the manuscript number 02905. As is typical in al-Kawthari’s work, he does not provide any details about the copier, the year of copying, or the isnad which is a common omission in his editions.

There is no isnad to the Author The manuscript was copied at the end of Dhul-Hijjah in the year 870 AH, which is more than two centuries after the author’s death.

The copier of the manuscript is identified as Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Ya’qub al-Bukhari, but this individual is unknown, making it difficult to verify the authenticity of the manuscript.

Al-Shamil by Al-Juwayni

• The first part of the book was published by the German Orientalist Klöppfer, through Dar al-Arab under al-Bustani’s publishing house. Kloppfer’s Edition was based on a fragmented manuscript, where the beginning was missing. The manuscript starts in the middle of the text of al-Juwayni, written by Rabi’ ibn Mahmoud ibn Musa in 610 AH.

• The second edition was published under the supervision of Ali Sami al-Nashar, with the contribution of Suhair Mukhtar and Faisal Badiroun, by Mansha’at al-Ma’arif. They used the same fragmented manuscript that Klopper had used, but they mistakenly believed their version to be different from the one used by Kloppfer, though they were essentially working from the same manuscript.

• The third edition was looked into by Richard Frank, the American scholar, and was translated into Farsi by some Rafidah scholars in Iran. This edition was based on a manuscript from Tehran, but it lacked information about the copier or the isnad The fourth edition was printed by Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah.

The various editions of Al-Shamil are based on fragmented manuscripts and often lack crucial information, such as the isnad and the identity of the copier, making it difficult to ascertain the authenticity and reliability of the text based on the standards of Ashʿaris.

Kitab al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat by Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi

The first edition of this book was printed around three years ago, and the editor Sharafawi relied on three manuscript copies.

• The first manuscript is in Kaysari Rashid Library, Turkey. This manuscript was mistakenly titled “Tafseer al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat” by Abu Mansur al-Maturidi on its cover. The first page of the manuscript was lost, but the second page carried the title “Tafseer al-Asma’ wa al-Sifat” by Abu Mansur al-Baghdadi al-Maturidi.

Sharafawi, corrected this title error by stating that it was a mistake to attribute the book to Abu Mansur al-Maturidi. He argued that the correct author was Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi based on the contents of the text, which referenced Abd al-Qahir bin Tahir directly and criticised the Hanafi madhhab. Sharafawi dismissed the initial title confusion as a result of a misattribution.

The manuscript itself does not mention the copier, and there is no information about the date of the copy or the isnad for this particular manuscript.

Therefore, this edition raises questions about the authenticity and validity of the manuscript, as it is based on a misattribution and lacks the necessary references and details to meet the rigorous standards of scholarly research, especially considering Ash’ari expectations for isnaads and proper verification.

“Iyar al-Nazar” by Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi

The book was first printed around four years ago and was edited based on a unique manuscript found in the National Library in Tunisia. Copyist: Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn al-Ha’im, who copied the book in 797 AH. This places the manuscript approximately three centuries after the death of the author, Abd al-Qahir al-Baghdadi. The manuscript does not have any chain from the copyist to the author, and it does not mention the date of the original manuscript.

Al-Ghunya by al-Mutawalli

The book was first edited in 1986 by the Orientalist Marie Bernand, a member of a Jewish family, at the French Institute of Oriental Archaeology. It was published as part of the Islamic Studies Yearbook and was based on a unique manuscript from the Alexandria Municipal Library. This manuscript has many gaps and errors, and sometimes large sections are illegible. Copyist: Ismail ibn Yahya ibn Saleh al-Mutafaqqih (whose biography is unknown).

Date of Copying: First Shawwal, 590 AH (around the year 1194 CE).

The book was later re-investigated by Ahmad Hidar, who relied on a different manuscript in addition to the one used by Marie Bernand.

This manuscript is from the Aya Sofya Library in Turkey, but it lacks an isnad, and neither the copyist’s name nor the date of copying are mentioned. The script suggests that this manuscript is relatively newer than the earlier one.

Kitab at “Tawhid” by al-Maturidi

All its editions have been investigated which are all based on a unique manuscript housed at Cambridge University in Britain. The copyist’s name is not mentioned in the manuscript, and it lacks an isnad. Furthermore, the date of copying is unknown, though it appears to be relatively late.

The exact date of copying is unclear, but based on the editor al-Damanhouri’s comments, the manuscript was likely copied before 1150 AH, as that was the year of the second ownership of the manuscript.

This suggests the manuscript was copied sometime before this date but is still several centuries removed from al-Maturidi’s time. The time gap between the death of al-Maturidi (d. 333 AH) and the likely date of the manuscript’s copying is around about 800 years.