Ibnu Taymiyyah transgressed the consensus of the Muslims on the issue of divorce

والصَّلَاةُ والسَّلاَمُ عَلَى سَيّدِنَا مُحَمَّدٍ أَشْرَفِ اْلمُرْسَلِيْنَ وَعَلَى آلِهِ وَصَحْبِهِ الطَّيّبِيْنَ الطَّاهِرِيْن

During the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, when a man would say to his wife, 'You are divorced the battah', they intended by "battah" to emphasise a single divorce. It was regarded as one divorce unless the intention was to mean three. This practice continued during the time of ‘Abu Bakr and in the early caliphate of ^Umar. However, over time, the usage among the people evolved, and they began saying, 'You are divorced the battah', to signify three divorces.

^Umar then implemented the ruling of three divorces, as the people had come to intend by "battah" the threefold divorce, rather than the single one. Accordingly, ^Abdu l-Lah ‘Ibnu ^Abbas held that anyone who pronounces divorce three times in a single utterance, [such as saying, 'You are divorced three times'], would be considered to have pronounced three distinct divorces.

However, some people have deviated by stating that if a triple divorce is pronounced in a single statement, it is considered as only one divorce, and they erroneously support this claim with the hadith narrated by Imam Muslim, in which Ibnu ^Abbas said:

"كانَ الطلاقُ طلاقُ الثلاثِ على عهدِ رسول الله وأبي بكر وصدْرٍ منْ خلافةِ عُمَرَ واحِدًا، ثم قالَ عمرُ إنَ الناسَ استَعجلوا في أمرٍ كانت لهُم فيهِ أناةٌ فلو أمْضَيناهُ عليهم فأمضاهُ عليهم"

“During the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, ‘Abu Bakr, and the early period of ^Umar’s Caliphate, the pronouncement of divorce three times was regarded as a single pronouncement. However, ^Umar remarked: ‘The people have hastened in a matter with which they once exercised patience. We should enforce this ruling upon them’, and he proceeded to do so.”

They have no valid evidence for this, and it is not permissible to interpret this hadith literally for several reasons:

1. Imam ‘Ahmad ‘Ibnu Hanbal said about this hadith: « It is anomalous (shadh-dh), and the anomalous is not accepted as evidence. » This was noted by Hafidh ‘Ibnu Rajab al-Hanbaliyy in his refutation of those who claimed that the three pronouncements of divorce when uttered at once, are considered a single one.
2. Due to this anomaly, the hadith is considered weak and unreliable (da^if), as it contradicts the fatwa issued by Ibnu ^Abbas, which states that a triple divorce pronounced in a single statement constitutes three divorces. This ruling was firmly established and is considered “mutawatir”[1]. It was reported by eight of Ibnu ^Abbas's trusted companions, as documented by Al-Bayhaqiyy in Sunan al-Kubra, through his chains of narration (‘asanid). Furthermore, according to certain scholars of hadith, including ‘Abu Hanifah and his followers, a hadith is not deemed valid evidence if the narrator’s actions contradict its intended meaning. It is highly improbable that ^Abdu l-Lah Ibnu ^Abbas would narrate this hadith with the aforementioned wording, interpret it literally, and subsequently issue a fatwa that opposes its apparent meaning.
3. Alternatively, it is suggested that the interpretation of his statement 'the pronouncement of divorce three times was regarded as a single pronouncement', refers to the 'battah' divorce, which was initially used to emphasise a single divorce. However, during the ^Umar’s time, its usage evolved to denote a three-time divorce[2]. Consequently, ^Umar implemented his ruling based on the people’s understanding of the term.

In other words, people initially used the phrase 'You are divorced the battah' to emphasise a single divorce; over time, however, it became commonly understood to refer to a three-time divorce.

 [1] The term mutawatir refers to a specific classification in Hadith studies. It describes a narration that has been transmitted through a certain number of narrators, so they can't have colluded in fabricating the report. In other words, the Hadith is transmitted by so many people across different generations that its authenticity is considered certain and indisputable. A mutawatir Hadith is regarded as one that conveys knowledge with absolute certainty, and thus, it is accepted as indisputable in Islamic scholarship.

[2] From then on, the ‘battah’ divorce has been regarded as threefold. It occurs when a man tells his wife, "You are divorced the ‘battah’." In such a case, the woman cannot return to her former husband until her waiting period (^iddah) from this divorce has passed, after which another man marries her, consummates the marriage, and divorces her. Only after the expiration of her ^iddah from the second divorce can she return to her first husband.

Thus, scholars vary on this matter across different madh-habs. Some interpret the term “battah” and expressions such as “You are forbidden to me” or “You are ba'in” (which signifies a divorce pronounced three times, akin to a “battah” divorce) as indicating a three-time divorce, while others interpret “battah” as depending on the intention behind its usage.

What supports the aforementioned view is the statement of ‘Abu Bakr Ibnu l-^Arabiyy in his book Al-Qabasu fi sharhi Muwatta'i Maliki bni ‘Anas (2/724): "The term 'battah' during the time of the Messenger of Allah, ‘Abu Bakr, and the early years of ^Umar’s caliphate referred to a single divorce. Then ^Umar said: ‘The people have hastened in a matter with which they once exercised patience. We should enforce this ruling upon them’, and he proceeded to do so." This wording is attributed to Imam Muslim, and is likely preserved in certain copies of Sahih Muslim found among the people of the Maghreb.

Hafidh Ibnu Hajar clarified in his explanation of Al-Bukhariyy, through his final and extensive argumentation on the issue of combining the three pronouncements of divorce, that the hadith in question should not be used to challenge the unanimous agreement (‘ijma^) established during the caliphate of ^Umar, which recognised the three pronouncements in a single utterance as three distinct divorces. He emphasised that no disagreement existed on this matter at the time, and any subsequent dispute does not undermine the validity of the consensus (‘ijma^).

Regarding Hafidh Ibnu Hajar's mention of a disagreement involving ^Aliyy and others, he did not present it as a definitive position. Instead, he was merely reporting that some individuals held that view. However, this does not contradict the consensus (‘ijma^) he affirmed in the conclusion of his argument. Had he considered the report to be definitive, he would not have ended by asserting that there was consensus on the issue, with no confirmed disagreement among any of the jurisconsults (mujtahidun) of ‘Ahlu s-Sunnah.

Even Ibnu Taymiyyah, who brought up this disagreement, had previously affirmed the consensus on the matter and stated that 'whoever disagrees with it is a blasphemer', as reported by Hafidh ‘Abu Sa^id al-^Ala’iyy. Ibnu Taymiyyah is not a mujtahid, and his disagreement is similar to his stance on the issue of the perpetuity of Hell.

In his book Minhaju s-Sunnati n-Nabawiyyah, Ibnu Taymiyyah initially affirmed the consensus (‘ijma^) regarding the perpetuity of Paradise and Hell, stating that the only dissenting view came from Jahm ibnu Safwan, who was therefore deemed a blasphemer. However, he later contradicted this consensus by asserting that the fire of Hell would eventually cease to exist. Furthermore, he claimed that a provisional divorce intended as a yamin (swearing by one of the Names or attributes of Allah) does not take effect when the condition is met and that only expiation (kaffarah) is due. In doing so, he contradicted the established consensus (‘ijma^) of Islamic scholars, who agreed that a provisional divorce takes effect when the specified condition is fulfilled, regardless of whether it is intended as an oath (yamin).

Hafidh‘Abu Sa^id al-^Ala’iyy further reported that Ibnu Taymiyyah himself acknowledged the consensus (‘ijma^) on this matter and proclaimed that anyone who opposed it was a blasphemer (kafir). In light of this, is it appropriate to elevate such a man to the status of an imam and jurisprudent (mujtahid), and to regard his opinions as valid ijtihad (independent jurisprudence)?

The claim that those considered from ‘Ahlu s-Sunnah, to whom Ibnu Taymiyyah attributed his view, actually held that opinion has not been confirmed; it was merely ascribed to them. A statement cannot be regarded as confirmed simply because it is attributed to an imam. The claim that those considered from ‘Ahlu s-Sunnah, to whom Ibnu Taymiyyah attributed his view, actually held that opinion has not been confirmed; it was merely ascribed to them. A statement cannot be regarded as confirmed simply because it is attributed to an imam.

We thank Allah that the Saudi courts have rejected Ibnu Taymiyyah’s opinion on divorce because there is no justification for the Egyptian courts to align with him on this matter, as it constitutes a rejection of the consensus among the four major Sunni schools of jurisprudence, as well as other scholars. The Saudi judges rejected Ibnu Taymiyyah’s opinion, as it contradicts the teachings of the Hanbali school of thought, in addition to opposing the established ijma^.

On the other hand, the Egyptian courts altered the correct ruling due to a judge who became infatuated with the ideas of Ibnu Taymiyyah. In reviving his deviation, the judge aligned himself with the desires of ignorant and hasty individuals regarding divorce. As a result, people began pronouncing divorce three times, mistakenly believing they could still reconcile with their wives, in accordance with one of Ibnu Taymiyyah's two views. The alternative view maintains that the pronouncement of divorce three times is inconsequential. Those who adhere to this perspective believe they can reunite with their wives, even after three divorces, without the necessity of a new marriage contract or her having to marry another man first, as outlined earlier.

Those who regard Ibnu Taymiyyah as one of the mujtahidun deserving to be followed are mistaken. How can this be, when Ibnu Taymiyyah asserted that the world is eternal in its kind, meaning that Allah did not precede the kind of the world in existence, though He did precede its specific elements? The consensus among Muslims is that anyone who claims the world is eternal alongside Allah—whether asserting it is eternal only in kind or in its elements as well—is to be declared a disbeliever. As previously mentioned, Ibnu Taymiyyah reiterated this view in five of his books. How, then, can those infatuated with Ibnu Taymiyyah dare to consider him a mujtahid, when adherence to Islam is one of the prerequisites for being a mujtahid and anyone who holds such beliefs is undoubtedly a blasphemer?

‘Ahmad and all of his followers are united in affirming the position of his madh-hab, which states that three pronouncements of divorce made simultaneously in a single utterance are to be regarded as three separate divorces. To interpret the hadith by its apparent meaning would, in effect, cast aspersions upon ^Umar ibnu l-Khattab and Ibnu ^Abbas, suggesting they were guilty of betrayal.

Indeed, it would imply that ^Umar ibnu l-Khattab forbade women, divorced thrice in a single pronouncement, from returning to their husbands until they had married other men, despite being aware that both the Messenger ﷺ and ‘Abu Bakr had ruled differently. Such an assertion, however, inevitably imputes to ^Umar a grave transgression, for to deliberately and knowingly alter a ruling established by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ is nothing short of blasphemy.

Furthermore, those who assert that Ibnu ^Abbas ruled that three pronouncements of divorce made in one utterance are considered as three, while being fully aware of the ruling of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, are, in effect, accusing him of deliberately distorting the Messenger's established judgment.

This also leads to accusing the Companions present at that time, such as ^Aliyy, of being traitors, for their alleged silence regarding ^Umar’s deviation, according to their claim. ^Umar said, in essence: “I seek refuge with Allah from facing a dilemma without the support of ‘Abu l-Hasan.”[3]

How could it be appropriate for ‘Abu l-Hasan to remain silent if he knew that this contradicted the ruling of the Messenger? What a vile fabrication!"

[3]Abu l-Hasan is the agnomen (kunyah) of ^Aliyy ibnu ‘Abi Talib. ^Umar is praising ^Aliyy’s intelligence and courage to solve problems.

As for what ^Umar did regarding the punishment for alcohol consumption, where he imposed eighty lashes—while during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and ‘Abu Bakr, the prescribed punishment for consuming alcohol was forty lashes—this does not share the same context as the issue of divorce. ^Aliyy ibnu ‘Abi Talib affirmed, 'Whipping forty times is a Sunnah, and so is whipping eighty times' (reported by Muslim and others). It is not permissible to draw a direct comparison, for ^Umar’s decision concerning the punishment did not annul the ruling established by the Messenger of Allah. The act of administering forty lashes by the Messenger ﷺ does not imply that any other number was prohibited.

Al-Mardawiyy said in “Al-‘Insaf” Vol 9 page 4: "His statement: 'If he said: (أنت الطلاق),(الطلاق لي لازم) and likewise his statement: (الطلاق يلزمني) or (الطلاق يلزمني) or (علي الطلاق) and the like while intending three divorces, the woman is divorced three times.  However, there are two narrations regarding whether he did not intend anything or said: (أنت طالق) intending three divorces. 

Be aware that the correct view in the madh-hab is that the statements: (أنت الطلاق), or (الطلاق لي لازم) or (الطلاق يلزمني) or (علي الطلاق) are explicit in effecting divorce, whether unconditional, provisional, or sworn upon.  It is explicitly affirmed, upheld by the majority of the Ashab (companions of the school), and decisively confirmed by many of them. However, is it explicit in signifying three divorces or merely one? This matter will be addressed later. It has also been said that such expressions are considered metonymical (kinayah).

He stated in Al-Qawa^idu l-fiqhiyyah, and it was followed in Al-‘Usuliyyah: ‘If he intended by it less than three divorces, does only what he intended take effect, or do three divorces take effect, with the statement being explicit in indicating three? There are two approaches among the ‘Ashab regarding this.’ End quote.

Shaykh Taqiyyu d-Din mentioned that the statement: (الطلاق يلزمني) and similar expressions are consensually considered as oaths (yamin), by the people of sound reason, nations, and jurists. He derived this from the texts of Imam ‘Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him). He[4] stated in Al-Furu^: 'This contradicts its explicit meaning.' Shaykh Taqiyyu d-Din also said: 'If someone swears by a statement such as: (الطلاق لي لازم) and intends it as a nadhr-vow, he incurs expiation (kaffarah) according to Imam ‘Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him).' This was mentioned by him in Al-Furu^ in the chapter on oaths, and he supported it in I^lamu l-Muwaqqi‘in along with the previous saying". End quote from Al-Mardawiyy.

The argument here is that Ibnu Taymiyyah claimed that "the people of sound reason, nations, and jurists" concurred in considering the statement "الطلاق يلزمني" and similar expressions as an oath (yamin). However, the author of Al-Furu^ refuted him, stating, "This contradicts its explicit meaning", referring to the direct and unambiguous statement of Imam ‘Ahmad. Ibnu Taymiyyah clearly asserted a consensus on an issue where Imam ‘Ahmad had expressed an opposing view.

The intent behind Ibnu Taymiyyah’s statement was likely to bolster his opinion—which runs counter to the consensus—that a divorce pronounced in the form of an oath does not take effect, and only a kaffarah is due. It is evident that Ibnu Taymiyyah’s goal was to align the matter with his own perspective. Furthermore, this discussion brings out another point: both Ibnu Taymiyyah and his student, Ibnu l-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, attribute to Imam Ahmad the statement, “Whoever claims consensus is a liar.” One need only observe Ibnu Taymiyyah's inconsistent claim of the agreement among "the people of sound reason, nations, and jurists" to see the flaw in his reasoning. In contrast, Imam ‘Ahmad’s statements regarding consensus in various issues were clearly affirmed.

The issue of divorce in which Ibnu Taymiyyah deviated is the very same matter conveyed by Hafidh Al-^Ala’iyy, who stated that Ibnu Taymiyyah reported the consensus (‘ijma^) on both the occurrence of the three-time divorce through a single pronouncement and the provisional divorce, should the conditions be met. Yet, in both instances, he contradicted the established consensus. This statement of Hafidh Al-^Ala’iyy was related by Hafidh Shamsu d-Din ibnu Tulun in his work Dhakha’iru l-qasr fi tarajimi nubala’i l-^asr.

Imam Muhammad ibnu Nasr al-Maruziyy, in his work Ikhtilafu l-^Ulama’ (p. 219), conveyed the consensus on this matter, stating: "If one swears by divorce or manumission, the entire ummah has unanimously agreed that no expiation is required for divorce, and if the oath is broken, the divorce is ‘lazim’." End quote. He further elaborates: "For any oath a person takes, if they break it, expiation is required according to the apparent meaning of the text of the Qur’an, unless the ummah has reached a consensus that no expiation is due for a particular oath. Therefore, we absolve the one swearing by divorce from expiation and we compel it to the one swearing by manumission, as the ummah has not agreed on the exemption of expiation in the latter case." End of quote

[4] This pronoun refers to Shamsu d-Din Ibnu Muflih, the author of Al-Furu^, who was a student of Ibn Taymiyyah and closely followed him. However, he disagreed with him on the issue of divorce, as he was aware that the texts of Imam ‘Ahmad contradicted Ibn Taymiyyah's position.