Thread by @tafsirdoctor, False attributions to Imam #Razi in his Tafsir: they happen for multiple [...]

False attributions to Imam #Razi in his Tafsir: they happen for multiple reasons. In complex discussions it& #39;s hard to distinguish his own opinions from things he is quoting/disputing. A good edition would sort this out..!

More fundamentally: he is NOT the sole author! THREAD

https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👇🏾" title="Down pointing backhand index (medium dark skin tone)" aria-label="Emoji: Down pointing backhand index (medium dark skin tone)">

Whether he completed it or not has been a matter of academic dispute, but ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Muʿallimī (d. 1966) cast convincing doubt over Razi& #39;s authorship of three groups of surahs, in this quite enjoyable paper:
https://tafsir.net/uploads/books/689/Tafseer_Arrazy.pdf?fbclid=IwAR3qa7Pl8yW5yEo3DOg2S_-mcdoYscJ1LzT6AuhXeTgqv6Y3btMQlCZanAY">https://tafsir.net/uploads/b...

Surahs 29-36 (al-Ankabut to Ya-Sin)
Surahs 47-56 (Muhammad to al-Waqi& #39;ah)
Surahs 60-66 (al-Mumtahana to al-Tahrim)
-- these all have clear signs of a different authorship, most likely Ahmad b. Khalil al-Khuwayyi (d. 637 AH). The last group also looks more "rushed" than the rest.

There are many indicators of this, which the paper explains. It& #39;s possible that Razi wrote a full commentary then parts were lost and the gaps filled in - but it& #39;s more apparent that he simply left gaps which he died before completing. A proper tahqiq might shed light.

The fact these realities aren& #39;t widely known is seen in this passage from Prof. M. Fadel @Shanfaraa& #39;s article: & #39;Is Historicism a Viable Strategy for Islamic Law Reform?& #39; He draws attention to a shockingly misogynistic passage which he naturally assumes to be authored by Razi:

Fadel 1/2 "In commenting on the verse which states, “And among His signs is that He created for you mates [... Q 30:21]” Rāzī argued not only that the phrase, “He created for you,” is proof that God created women for the convenience of men (a not uncommon position at that time),

Fadel 2/2 "...but he also went so far as to argue that women, unlike men, were not the intended subjects of the law’s moral commands (taklīf). For al-Rāzī, God subjected women to the law’s discipline only for the convenience of men."

Prof. Fadel then contrasts this with how the author treats Q 33:35, but again assumes that the author is Razi. Both al-Rum and al-Ahzab fall into what Mu& #39;allimi calls Group 2 (of 7) and therefore not his authorship. Whoever should be blamed for those words, it& #39;s not Fakhr al-Din!

Editions of the work should make clear the distinction between the work of Imam Razi and the sections by Pseudo-Razi. Certainly I will ensure this in my forthcoming translation which includes Ya-Sin, also part of "Group 2".

P.S. - I mentioned this to Prof. Fadel who accepted the point gracefully as expected.
Someone forwarded me the same Arabic excerpt from the Rūm exegesis a few years ago, and since I didn’t know about the authorship issue then, I could only remark:

P.P.S. - this list matches Mu’allimi’s: https://twitter.com/tafsirdoctor/status/987056203778928640?s=21">https://twitter.com/tafsirdoc...

https://twitter.com/tafsirdoctor/status/987056203778928640?s=21

Nobody asked: what percentage definitely belongs to Imam Razi, according to this? So I counted pages and the answer is: 89% of the Tafsir.

This document may contain additional evidences for Mu’allimi’s conclusions:
https://ia601407.us.archive.org/18/items/20200330_20200330_1907/%D9%87%D9%84%20%D8%A7%D9%94%D8%AA%D9%85%20%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%8A%20%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B1%D9%87%D8%9F.pdf">https://ia601407.us.archive.org/18/items/...

Latest Threads Unrolled: