 In recent times, al-Tawhîdî’s and ‘Abd al-Jabbâr’s attribution has been reconsidered by emphasizing the Fatimid militancy of some among the pretended authors of the encyclopedia (Reymond 2011, 124–125). Hamdani recalls that, according to al-Tawhîdî, such personages were Qarmats, so that al-Tawhîdî could accuse of eresy Zayd b. Rifâ‘a, too (Hamdani, Soufan 2019, 7–8, where the testimony of al-Qiftî is also discussed – that the alleged authors were followers of the imâm ‘Alî). Hamdani even exploits al-Tawhîdî’s observation that the Rasâ’il were widely read, as further evidence that they would have been written long before (cf. also de Vaulx d’Arcy 2019b). Poonawala shares historians’ doubts on al-Tawhîdî’s reliability and concludes that his one “is certainly a hostile witness” that implies the authors’ affiliation with the Qarâmita of Basra (Baffioni, Poonawala 2017, 294). Following Hamdani’s “deconstruction”, the witness is considered to be “very suspicious”, all the more so if one considers that most medieval authors and modern scholars are used to equate the Qarâmita with the Ismâ‘îlis (Poonawala in Baffioni, Poonawala 2017, 298). Poonawala also emphasizes Stern’s remark on the qâdî Abu ’l-Hasan ‘Alî b. Hârûn al-Zanjânî – that ‘Abd al-Jabbâr writes against the Ismâ‘îlis without mentioning the Brethren at all (Baffioni, Poonawala 2017, 301–302).