THE SUNNIYY ARTICLES
Ibnu Taymiyyah transgressed the consensus of the Muslims on the issue of divorce - Ibnu Taymiyyah previously affirmed the consensus on the matter
والصَّلَاةُ والسَّلاَمُ عَلَى سَيّدِنَا مُحَمَّدٍ أَشْرَفِ اْلمُرْسَلِيْنَ وَعَلَى آلِهِ وَصَحْبِهِ الطَّيّبِيْنَ الطَّاهِرِيْن
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)?
