THE SUNNIYY ARTICLES
Ibnu Taymiyyah transgressed the consensus of the Muslims on the issue of divorce - Imam ‘Ahmad had clearly expressed an opposing view
والصَّلَاةُ والسَّلاَمُ عَلَى سَيّدِنَا مُحَمَّدٍ أَشْرَفِ اْلمُرْسَلِيْنَ وَعَلَى آلِهِ وَصَحْبِهِ الطَّيّبِيْنَ الطَّاهِرِيْن
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.
