Abu Dawud

Benefits and Issues:
➊
For the Ummah, the only binding legal proof (hujjah shar‘iyyah) is the era of the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), during which the Shari‘ah was revealed and completed. And the statement of Imam Malik (rahimahullah) is the decisive statement: (لن يصلح آخر هذه الامة الا ما صلح به اولها) — “The latter part of this Ummah will not be rectified except by that which rectified its first part.”

➋
It is clear from this hadith that during the era of Prophethood, the era of Abu Bakr, and the early period of the era of Umar (radi Allahu anhu), three divorces (talaq) pronounced in one sitting (majlis) were counted as only one divorce. Therefore, this is the correct position. Furthermore, this is also the solution to the ignorance of the common people; due to their lack of knowledge about the correct method of divorce, they pronounce three divorces at once (even though doing so is strictly prohibited), and then they regret it. The solution is that it should be counted as one divorce, and the right of return (ruju‘) should be given. Many contemporary scholars of the Hanafi school have also supported this position. The details of this can be found in the book titled “Three Divorces in One Sitting.” Likewise, this discussion is also present to the necessary extent in the book “Distinguished Issues and Laws for Women,” authored by Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf, published by Darussalam.

Hadith Commentary: Benefits and Issues: ➊ According to Imam Malik rahimahullah and Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah, issuing three divorces (talaq) in a single period of purity (tuhr) or in a single sitting is an innovation (bid‘ah) and forbidden (haram), and one statement of Imam Ahmad rahimahullah is also the same. This is also the view of Umar radi Allahu anhu, Ali radi Allahu anhu, Ibn Abbas radi Allahu anhuma, and Ibn Umar radi Allahu anhuma. (Takmila: vol. 1, p. 152.) According to Imam Shafi‘i rahimahullah, it is not unlawful, but it is better not to give three divorces in a single period of purity. One statement of Imam Ahmad rahimahullah is also the same, and Umar radi Allahu anhu also considered it unlawful. (Takmila Fath al-Mulhim, vol. 1, p. 152) Umar radi Allahu anhu would also punish for this (Majma‘ al-Anhar, p. 382) where it is written that in the early period, up to the era of Umar radi Allahu anhu, when someone gave three divorces at once, they would be counted as only one. But when this practice became widespread among the people, he enforced all three as effective as a warning and reprimand, so that people would desist from this act. This shows that Umar radi Allahu anhu did this as an administrative measure, so that people would refrain from this action; it was not a permanent or everlasting ruling, nor was he authorized to do so. Therefore, the noble Companions radi Allahu anhum ajma‘in also accepted it as a temporary and situational ruling, just as his ruling regarding Hajj al-Tamattu‘ was generally accepted. Later, Umar radi Allahu anhu also expressed regret over this. (Ighathat al-Lahfan, pp. 181, 162)

➋ There are three or four views or statements regarding the occurrence of three divorces at once.

(1) According to the four Imams and the majority of scholars, all three will take effect. Although, according to one statement of Imam Shafi‘i rahimahullah and Imam Ahmad rahimahullah, it is permissible and binding, and according to another statement of Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah, Imam Malik rahimahullah, and Imam Ahmad rahimahullah, it is forbidden but still takes effect.

(2) Giving three divorces at once is forbidden, but only one divorce will take effect. This is the view of Imam Malik rahimahullah, Imam Abu Hanifah rahimahullah, and some companions of Imam Ahmad rahimahullah. It is also transmitted from some Companions and Followers (Tabi‘in). Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah and Hafiz Ibn Qayyim rahimahullah have given preference to this view and established it with evidence.

(3) Some Mu‘tazilah and some Shia hold the view that no divorce will take effect from this. According to Imam Nawawi rahimahullah, this is also the view of Hajjaj ibn Arta’ah, Ibn Muqatil, and Muhammad ibn Ishaq. However, from (al-Furu‘ min al-Kafi), which is an authoritative Shia book, it is understood that according to them, only one divorce will take effect. Hafiz Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah has also transmitted this view from Abu Ja‘far Muhammad ibn Ali ibn al-Husayn and his son Ja‘far (Majmu‘ al-Fatawa, vol. 33, p. 709).

(4) The fourth position is that if the woman has been consummated with (madkhulah), then three divorces will take effect, and if she has not been consummated with (ghayr madkhulah), then only one divorce will take effect. For details, see “Three Divorces in One Sitting and Its Shari‘ Solution” by Hafiz Salahuddin Yusuf.

Benefits and Issues:
The addition of (before he has consummated with her) — that is, before intercourse — in this narration is rejected (munkar).
For a detailed discussion, see (Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da‘ifah, vol.; 11343). The wording of the narration in Sahih Muslim is extremely explicit and clear: (Divorce during the time of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and during the time of Abu Bakr radi Allahu anhu, and for two years of the caliphate of ‘Umar, was that three divorces (talaq) counted as one. Then ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said: People have begun to hasten in a matter in which they had deliberation. So if we were to enforce it upon them (as three), it would be better. So he enforced it upon them.) (Sahih Muslim, Book of Divorce, Hadith: 1474). During the time of the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, the era of Abu Bakr radi Allahu anhu, and the first two years of the caliphate of ‘Umar, three divorces were counted as one. Then ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said: People have begun to hasten in this matter (of divorce) in which they previously had respite.
If we enforce (their three divorces as three), it would be better. Thus, he enforced it upon them.
‘Allamah al-Albani rahimahullah writes: There is no restriction in this hadith regarding whether the woman was consummated with (madkhulah) or not (ghayr madkhulah).
This text is undeniable, extremely firm, and established; it is not abrogated, because after the Messenger of Allah sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, during the caliphate of al-Siddiq radi Allahu anhu and the early period of ‘Umar radi Allahu anhu, this practice continued. And ‘Umar radi Allahu anhu did not oppose it based on any text, but rather by his own ijtihad (independent reasoning), and for this reason, before enforcing it, he experienced hesitation and unease.
And when this ruling was made part of the law in Egypt, Syria, and other places, it was not done for the purpose of following the Sunnah or reviving the Sunnah, but rather on the basis of expediency (maslahah) and in imitation of Ibn Taymiyyah.
If only these people would keep in view the following of the Sunnah in their acts of worship and dealings.
(Note) The translator submits: In the Indian subcontinent as well, the same situation prevails, that people, in view of their personal interests, strive to obtain fatwas according to these ahadith, not for the purpose of following the Sunnah.
So to Allah is the complaint.