THE SUNNIYY ARTICLES
Ibnu Taymiyyah transgressed the consensus of the Muslims on the issue of divorce - The Egyptian courts altered the correct ruling
والصَّلَاةُ والسَّلاَمُ عَلَى سَيّدِنَا مُحَمَّدٍ أَشْرَفِ اْلمُرْسَلِيْنَ وَعَلَى آلِهِ وَصَحْبِهِ الطَّيّبِيْنَ الطَّاهِرِيْن
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.
