Abu Dawud

Benefits and Issues:
➊
This hadith is weak.
However, according to some researchers, it is of the level of hasan.
(For discussion on this, see: Irwa al-Ghalil 1447 or what precedes it) and the referenced ahadith are coming ahead.
2208.
2206)
➋
Talaq batti: that is, such a divorce in which the right of return (ruju‘) is severed.
Bat yabittu battan means to cut off; to break into pieces.

➌
In the era of the Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), the term talaq batti was used in the sense of giving three divorces at once.
In this regard, both giving three divorces at once and talaq batti mean the same thing.
This is why there is explicit mention in this hadith that the Messenger of Allah (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) counted this (talaq batti) as one.
Otherwise, according to the meaning of talaq batti that became prevalent later, it could in no way be considered as one divorce.

Qadeed is also the name of a place. In previous hadiths, Waddan or Abwa’ have been mentioned. All these locations are close to each other. There is no contradiction. A place situated between two cities can be attributed to either city.

Takhrij:
«أخرجه أبوداود، باب نسخ المراجعة بعد التطليقات الثلاث، حديث:2196.* فيه بعض بني أبي رافع مجهول، وحديث "طلّق أبوركانة امرأة في مجلس واحد" أخرجه أحمد:1 /265، وسنده ضعيف، داود بن حصين عن عكرمة منكر و ضعيف، وحديث "أن ركانة طلق امرأته سهيمة البتة: أخرجه أبوداود، الطلاق، حديث:2206 وسنده حسن.»©Explanation:
This hadith is evidence that if the one issuing the divorce intended only a single divorce, then only one revocable divorce (talaq raj‘i) will take effect. Some have said that the purpose of making Rukanah radi Allahu anhu swear an oath was that if he had intended three, then three would have taken effect.

However, this hadith is weak, and in addition to being weak, it also contains confusion (idtirab).

Furthermore, it contradicts the first two narrations reported from Ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhuma (917, 919), so it cannot be used as evidence.

It should be kept in mind that the hadith of the story of Rukanah has three chains of transmission, and the author rahimahullah has mentioned all three.

Of these, the first and third chains, which have been narrated by Abu Dawud, are weak.

The first is weak because it is narrated through Ibn Jurayj, who says: “Someone from Banu Rafi‘ informed me from ‘Ikrimah…” while the person from Banu Rafi‘ who gave the information is unknown, so this chain is weak.

As for the third narration, in which the mention of an irrevocable divorce (talaq mughallazah) occurs, it is narrated by Jarir ibn Hazim from Zubayr ibn Sa‘id from ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Ali ibn Yazid ibn Rukanah from his father from his grandfather, and similarly it is also narrated from Nafi‘ ibn ‘Ujayr from Rukanah ibn ‘Abd Yazid. In the first chain, Zubayr ibn Sa‘id is weak.

In Mizān al-I‘tidāl it is stated: “Laysa bi shay’” (He is nothing), meaning he has no standing.

And al-Nasa’i has said that he is weak.

And in Taqrib it is stated that he is “layyin al-hadith” (weak in hadith).

And ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Ali ibn Yazid is also weak.

Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah has said in Taqrib that he is “layyin al-hadith.”

And in Mizān al-I‘tidāl it is stated that al-‘Uqayli said: “There is confusion in his chain.”

There is no corroborating narrator for his hadith.

As for his father, ‘Ali ibn Yazid! In al-Khulāsah it is stated that Ibn Hibban considered him trustworthy, but Imam Bukhari rahimahullah said that his hadith is not authentic.

And al-Tirmidhi has mentioned from Imam Bukhari rahimahullah that there is confusion (idtirab) in it.

And in the second chain, Nafi‘ ibn ‘Ujayr is weak.

‘Allamah Ibn al-Qayyim rahimahullah has said in Zad al-Ma‘ad that Nafi‘ ibn ‘Ujayr is unknown (majhul).

No one at all knows his circumstances—who he was and what he was like. And ‘Allamah Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah has said in his Fatawa that the scholars who are experts in the defects of hadith and have insight into it—such as Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Imam Bukhari, Abu ‘Ubayd, and Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm rahimahumullah and others—have declared the hadith of talaq batti (irrevocable divorce) to be definitely weak and have clarified that its narrators are such unknown people whose reliability and precision are not known.

(Fatawa Ibn Taymiyyah: 33/15) When this is the state of this chain, then there remains no doubt or uncertainty about its weakness.

This was the discussion regarding the first and third chains. As for the second chain, which Abu Dawud did not narrate but Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal rahimahullah did, all its narrators are trustworthy and reliable.

However, there is indeed some discussion regarding Muhammad ibn Ishaq rahimahullah.

And it is well known that the only notable weakness in Muhammad ibn Ishaq rahimahullah is tadlis (concealing the directness of transmission).

In this chain, he has explicitly stated hearing (sama‘), so the suspicion of tadlis is also removed.

Thus, this narration is established as completely sound.

From the above discussion, it becomes clear that the best and most authentic chain is the one narrated by Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal rahimahullah.

But since Abu Dawud did not narrate this chain, he compared the first and third chains and gave preference to the third, and after mentioning it, he said: “This is more authentic than the chain of Ibn Jurayj, in which it is stated that Rukanah gave his wife three divorces, because the narrators of this (third chain) are the household of Rukanah himself.”

And the household members have more knowledge.

(Abu Dawud) This does not mean that, according to Abu Dawud, it is authentic; rather, it means that among these two weak hadiths, this one is preferable and its weakness is less.

And it does not appear from the words of Imam Abu Dawud rahimahullah that the narration of Nafi‘ ibn ‘Ujayr is preferred over the narration in Musnad Ahmad, because Imam Abu Dawud did not even mention it, so we also do not discuss it.

After understanding this necessary clarification, now know that the discussion of the author (Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah) regarding this hadith is problematic for two reasons.

The first is that after mentioning the first and second chains, the author rahimahullah said that in the chain of both these hadiths is the narrator Muhammad ibn Ishaq, about whom there is discussion, even though Muhammad ibn Ishaq is not present at all in the first chain; he is only in the second chain.

And the second reason is that the author, while mentioning the third narration, said that Abu Dawud narrated it through another chain which is better than the first.

It is apparent that this would mean that this chain is better than the hadith of Ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhuma or better than the second chain which Imam Ahmad rahimahullah narrated, since the latter is the one mentioned nearby.

In any case, whichever of the two it is, you have already come to know that the soundest and strongest chain is the second one.

If the author’s intent is that, according to Imam Abu Dawud, this is better, then you have already come to know that this is not the meaning of Imam Abu Dawud’s words; and if his intent is that, according to me, this is better, then in light of the previous details, this is also not correct.

© Hadith Narrator:
«حضرت رکانہ رضی اللہ عنہ » In Rukanah, the “ra” has a dammah (u-sound).

He is Rukanah ibn ‘Abd Yazid ibn Hashim ibn Muttalib ibn ‘Abd Manaf al-Muttalibi.

He became Muslim at the time of the conquest of Makkah.

It is said that he wrestled with the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam.

And this wrestling was the cause of his accepting Islam.

He came to Madinah and died there at the beginning of the caliphate of Amir Mu‘awiyah radi Allahu anhu.

According to some, he died in 41 AH.

His wife was Suhaymah bint ‘Umayr al-Muzaniyyah.

«محمد بن اسحاق» His kunyah was Abu Bakr, and some have stated Abu ‘Abdullah.

His full name is Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar al-Muttalibi.

He was a freed slave of Qays ibn Makhramah al-Madani.

He was an imam in maghazi (military expeditions) and sirah (biography).

He died in 150 AH.

Some have said he died after that.