The four claims of the Hanafis on the issue of triple talaq and their reality

We consider it appropriate to clarify the essential aspects of the topic under discussion so that the dust raised on Ahl al-Hadith is cleared and the issue is properly analyzed. The summary of the claims of the Hanafis is as follows:

Claim: 1

The fatwa that three divorces given in one gathering count as three was issued by Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him).

Claim: 2

No companion or follower disagreed with the fatwa of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). The Hanafis claim that this has not happened, and to our knowledge, there is no disagreement.

Claim: 3

In the issue of triple divorce, the Hanafi school follows the doctrine of the four Imams, which is equivalent to the consensus (Ijma) of the Ummah.

Claim: 4

In the issue of triple divorce, Ahl al-Hadith deviate from the consensus of the Ummah and follow the footsteps of the Shia.

Final Requests:

The nature of the original issue and its evidence have been briefly explained. In the following pages, we will ignore the details of the topic and discuss only these four points mentioned. ان شاء الله
This will also further clarify the important aspects of the issue and the truthfulness of the Ahl al-Hadith school of thought. والله الموفق للصواب

The status of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him)’s ijtihadi fatwa or tactical measure:.

Claim: 1

The fatwa that three divorces given in one sitting count as three was issued by Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him).

Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him)’s fatwa:.

If the above-mentioned fatwa of Hazrat Umar رضي الله عنه is considered without sectarian bias, the key to the issue becomes clear and the solution to the problem emerges. The words of Hazrat Umar رضي الله عنه‘s fatwa are as follows:

عن ابن عباس قال : كان الطلاق على عهد رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وأبي بكر وسنتين من خلافة عمر، طلاق الثلاث واحدة، فقال عمر بن الخطاب: إن الناس قد استعجلوا فى أمر كانت لهم فيه أناة، فلو أمضيناه عليهم فأمضاه عليهم

Hazrat Ibn Abbas رضي الله عنهما states that during the time of the Prophet Muhammad صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم, the era of Hazrat Abu Bakr رضي الله عنه, and the first two years of Hazrat Umar رضي الله عنه‘s caliphate, three divorces were counted as one. But Hazrat Umar رضي الله عنه said: In the matter (of divorce), where people should have acted with deliberation, they have begun to act hastily; so why should we not enforce it? Thus, he enforced it upon them.
This hadith is presented as evidence that three divorces given in one sitting or one word are counted as three divorces, and it is claimed that there is consensus (ijma) of the Companions رضي الله عنهم on this. But from the same hadith, it is also clearly understood that during the time of the Prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم, during the era of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq رضي الله عنه, and even during the first two years of Hazrat Umar رضي الله عنه‘s caliphate, the practice was that three divorces were counted as one. The fair question to consider is: which practice of the Ummah is more correct—the one during the time of the Prophet and the era of Abu Bakr and up to two years after, or the practice that began two years after the start of Hazrat Umar رضي الله عنه‘s caliphate? That is, does the practice of the era of the Prophet and Abu Bakr have precedence, or the practice of the era of Umar?
Therefore, the fact is that this hadith from Sahih Muslim, which our brothers present in support of triple talaq, actually supports the school of thought which rules that three divorces given in one sitting count as only one divorce.

The Reality of Farooqi’s Fatwa :.

Regarding the matter of why Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) enforced a ruling against the era of the Prophet and the era of Siddiq, it is requested to note that the reason for this has been explained in the same hadith that people had started giving divorces excessively, whereas the Shariah emphasizes utmost contemplation, patience, and forbearance in this matter. Moreover, giving three divorces at once is a severely disliked act in Islamic Shariah, which is also against the clear Quranic text الطَّلَاقُ مَرَّتَانِ, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) described giving three divorces at once as playing with the Book of Allah تلعب بكتاب الله.

In Sunan an-Nasa’i, there is a hadith that a man gave his wife three divorces at once. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) came to know about it, he became very angry and said:

أيلعب بكتاب الله وأنا بين أظهركم

Is the Book of Allah being toyed with in my presence? Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) disliked this so much that whenever he found out that someone had given three divorces at once, he would strike his back with a whip.

أن عمر كان إذا أتي برجل طلق امرأته ثلاثا أوجع ظهره

But when Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) saw that people were not exercising the caution and prudence that Shariah intended in the matter of divorce, and were not following the correct method prescribed by Shariah—that is, giving one divorce (with a single utterance) during a state of purity—but instead were frequently giving three divorces at once, he thought that why not enforce counting the three divorces as three so that this strict measure would serve as a warning to people and discourage the tendency of giving three divorces at once frequently. This was essentially a punitive and deterrent measure that Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) adopted as an ijtihad (independent reasoning), just as he had done in many other matters. Since the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) were aware of these considerations and the background of Hazrat Umar’s action, they remained silent at that time. Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:

رأى أمير المؤمنين عمر رضي الله عنه، أن الناس قد استهانوا بأمر الطلاق، وكثر منهم إيقاعه جملة واحدة، فرأى من المصلحة عقوبتهم بإمضائه عليهم، ليعلموا أن أحدهم إذا أوقعه جملة بانت منه المرأة وحرمت عليه حتى تنكح زوجا غيره نكاح رغبة يراد للدوام لا نكاح تحليل، فإنه كان من أشد الناس فيه، فإذا علموا ذلك كفوا عن الطلاق المحرم، فرأى عمر أن هذا مصلحة لهم فى زمانه، ورأى أن ما كانوا عليه فى عهد النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم وعهد الصديق وصدرا من خلافته كان الأليق بهم، لأنهم لم يتتابعوا فيه، وكانوا يتقون الله فى الطلاق، وقد جعل الله لكل من اتقاه مخرجا، فلما تركوا تقوى الله وتلا عبوا بكتاب الله وطلقوا على غير ما شرعه الله ألزمهم بما التزموه عقوبة لهم، فإن الله تعالى إنما شرع الطلاق مرة بعد مرة، ولم يشرعه كله مرة واحدة، فمن جمع الثلاث فى مرة واحدة فقد تعدى حدود الله، وظلم نفسه، ولعب بكتاب الله، فهو حقيق أن يعاقب، ويلزم بما التزمه، ولا يقر على رحصة الله وسعته، وقد صعبها على نفسه، ولم يتق الله ولم يطلق كما أمره الله وشرعه له ، بل استعجل فيما جعل الله له الأناة فيه رحمة منه وإحسانا، ولبس على نفسه ، واختار الأغلظ والأشد فهذا مما تغيرت به الفتوى لتغير الزمان، وعلم الصحابة رضي الله عنهم ، حسن سياسة عمر وتأديبه لرعيته فى ذلك، فوافقوه على ما ألزم به

The Urdu translation of the above Arabic text in “Deen Muhammadi” (by Maulana Muhammad Junagarhi, may Allah have mercy on him) is as follows:
What Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) did was a matter of expediency of the time, not a Shariah ruling. It was something that was forbidden and against the Sunnah, but if someone did it, Shariah did not hold him accountable. When people began doing it fearlessly in large numbers, he legislated as a law that from now on, I will count three as three. This was only so that people would refrain from giving three divorces at once. Otherwise, why would this ruling not have been issued for three years? Hence, this is not a Shariah ruling but a legal measure so that people fear that if they do this, the wife will be outside the marriage until she marries another man properly and with willingness for permanence, not just for halala and then divorce, because Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was strongly opposed to halala. Hazrat Umar Farooq (may Allah be pleased with him) thought that the people of earlier times, who deserved it, were deprived of it by the people of his time because they did not give divorces consecutively like this; they observed the proper method of divorce and feared Allah, so Allah had made things easy for them. Now that this equality has come, should they not be deprived of this divine favor so that their minds and actions become correct again? Thus, this fatwa was a kind of Farooqi punishment, not that Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) changed the Shariah ruling.

The prescribed divorce is one after another, not all at once. Whoever does so exceeds the limits, wrongs himself, and plays with the commands of Allah. Therefore, he became deserving that the ruler of the time impose some severity on him as punishment. Since he plays with the verses of Allah, why should he not be deprived of Allah’s permission so that his eyes open? Hence, this is of the kind that rulings change with changing times. Keeping this wisdom in view, the companions supported the Farooqi policy and began issuing similar fatwas.

Similarly, Imam Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) has also explained the social benefits and other causes and reasons behind Hazrat Umar’s ijtihadi measure in “Ighathat al-Lahfan min Masa’id ash-Shaytan.”

Even the Hanafi jurists accept that until the early period of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), three divorces were considered as one divorce. Then, due to the frequent divorces by people, Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) enforced counting three divorces as three as a political measure. Accordingly, Imam Tahtawi writes in the margin of “Dur al-Mukhtar,” citing Qahistani:

إنه كان فى الصدر الأول إذا أرسل الثلاث جملة لم يحكم إلا بوقوع واحدة إلى زمن عمر، ثم حكم بوقوع الثلاث سياسة لكثرته من الناس

The Expression of Regret by Hazrat Umar (May Allah be pleased with him):

From this explanation, it becomes clear that Hazrat Umar’s (May Allah be pleased with him) ruling was as a punishment. Some punishments change according to circumstances and conditions. When Hazrat Umar (May Allah be pleased with him) issued this ruling, he never said that it was a command from the Messenger of Allah (Peace and blessings be upon him); rather, he attributed it to himself:

فلو أمضيناه عليهم، فأمضاه عليهم

Thus, in his later days, he also realized that he should not have taken this step even as a punishment, for which he expressed regret.
Therefore, a disciplinary and ijtihadi (juridical) measure cannot be given the status of religion and Shariah, especially when during the era of the Prophet and the era of Abu Bakr as-Siddiq, three divorces were counted as one divorce.

The Reality of the Claim of Consensus:

Similarly, the claim of consensus on this is completely wrong, because regarding consensus, the principles of Hanafi jurisprudence themselves state:

والشرط إجماع الكل وخلاف الواحد مانع كخلاف الأكثر، يعني فى حين انعقاد الإجماع لو خالف واحد كان خلافه معتبرا ولا ينعقد الإجماع لأن لفظ الأمة فى قوله لا تجتمع أمتي على الضلالة يتناول الكل فيحتمل أن يكون الصواب مع المخالف

For consensus, the agreement of “all” is a condition, and the disagreement of even one will prevent the establishment of consensus just as the disagreement of many would. Therefore, if even one opponent exists at the time of consensus, consensus will not be established because the word “Ummah” in the hadith (My Ummah will not gather on error) includes the entire Ummah. Hence, it is possible that the truth is on the side of the opponent (and the rest are in error).
Further detailed explanation of the reality of the claim of consensus will come after a few pages.

Ancient Consensus on One Divorce:

After this clarification, every justice-seeker can estimate the reality of the claim of consensus by some contemporary Hanafis regarding the issue of the three divorces (tatliqāt thalātha). On the contrary, the fact is that the viewpoint of Ahl al-Hadith on this issue had the consensus of the entire Ummah before the ijtihadi and administrative step of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), that is, during the era of the Prophet, the era of Abu Bakr, and the first two or three years of Umar’s era, the entire Ummah considered the three divorces given at once as one divorce. At that time, no one’s disagreement on this issue is proven or transmitted.

Therefore, Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:

وكل صحابي من لدن خلافة الصديق إلى ثلاث سنين من خلافة عمر كان على أن الثلاث واحدة فتوى أو إقرارا أو سكونا، ولهذا ادعى بعض أهل العلم أن هذا إجماع قديم، ولم تجمع الأمه ولله الحمد على خلافه، بل لم يزل فيهم من يفتي به قرنا بعد قرن وإلى يومنا هذا

And further he writes:

والمقصود أن هذا القول قد دل عليه الكتاب والسنة والقياس والإجماع القديم، ولم يأت بعده إجماع يبطله

And in “Ighathat al-Lahfan” during the discussion on this issue, he writes:

فيكفي كون ذلك على عهد الصديق، ومعه جميع الصحابة ، لم يختلف عليه منهم أحد، ولا حكي فى زمانه القولان، حتى قال بعض أهل العلم : إن ذلك إجماع قديم وإنما حدث الخلاف فى زمن عمر رضي الله عنه، واستمر الخلاف فى المسئلة إلى وقتنا هذا، كما سنذكره

The summary of these statements is that according to all the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), until the early years of Hazrat Umar’s era, the three divorces were counted as one. According to some scholars, there was consensus on this; not even one Companion’s disagreement is proven in this, and those who follow this school have continued until now. However, after the administrative step of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), disagreement arose on this and this disagreement has continued until now.

And addressing those who claim that after the decision of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) there was consensus on this, he writes:

وحينئذ فتكون المسئلة مسئلة نزاع يجب ردها إلى الله تعالى ورسوله، ومن أبى ذلك فهو إما جاهل مقلد، وإما متعصب صاحب هوى، عاص الله تعالى ورسوله ، متعرض للحوق به ، فإن الله تعالى يقول : فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ذَلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا فإذا ثبت أن المسئلة مسئله نزاع وجب قطعا ردها إلى كتاب الله وسنة رسوله وهذه المسئلة مسئلة نزاع، بلا نزاع بين أهل العلم الذين هم أهله، والنزاع فيها من عهد الصحابة إلى وقتنا هذا

At that time, this will be a disputed issue which must be referred back to Allah and His Messenger. Whoever denies this will either be an ignorant follower or one who follows desires, biased, disobedient to Allah and His Messenger, and will pursue that which has been warned against, because Allah says: If you dispute over anything, refer it back to Allah and His Messenger if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. When it is established that this is a disputed issue, then it is definitely obligatory to refer it back to Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger. This is a disputed issue in which there is no disagreement among the scholars (they refer it back to Allah and the Messenger to end the disagreement), and this disagreement has continued from the time of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) until now.

The Reality of the Claim of Consensus :.

Claim : 2

No companion or follower has disagreed with the fatwa of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). The claim of the Hanafis is that this has never happened; to our knowledge, there is no disagreement.

Fatwas of the Companions and Followers :.

The second point made is that no companion or follower had a fatwa opposing that of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), implying that there is consensus on this matter according to them. This claim is also not correct because there are numerous fatwas from the noble companions, followers, and followers of the followers (may Allah have mercy on them) that three divorces at once are considered as one divorce. These fatwas are present in books of tafsir, hadith commentaries, and jurisprudence books. A few such references are presented here which reveal the fatwas of many companions and followers about which complete ignorance is shown.

Shaykh al-Islam Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) :.

He has written in detail on this subject at several places. Here is a passage from the Imam himself. He writes:

وكذلك إذا طلقها ثلاثا بكلمة أو كلمات فى طهر واحد فهو محرم عند جمهور العلماء، وتنازعوا فيما يقع بها ، فقيل : يقع بها الثلاث، وقيل : لا يقع بها إلا طلقة واحدة، وهذا هو الأظهر الذى يدل عليه الكتاب والسنة، كما قد بسط فى موضعه

If a person gives three divorces with one declaration of the word or with three words in one state of purity, according to the majority of scholars, this act (giving three divorces at once) is forbidden; however, there is a difference of opinion regarding their occurrence. One opinion is that all three divorces will take effect, and another opinion is that only one divorce will take effect, and this latter view is more correct, as indicated by the Quran and Sunnah, as has been explained in detail elsewhere.

Hafiz Ibn Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him:

They have also discussed this topic in considerable detail. At one place, they write: Among the Companions, Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), Zubair bin Awwam (may Allah be pleased with him), Abdul Rahman bin Awf (may Allah be pleased with him), and according to one narration, Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) and Abdullah bin Masood (may Allah be pleased with both of them), among the Tabi‘in, Hazrat Ikrimah (may Allah have mercy on him) and Imam Tawus (may Allah have mercy on him), and among the Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in and the Imams after them, Muhammad bin Ishaq (may Allah have mercy on him), Khallas bin Amr (may Allah have mercy on him), Harith al-Akli (may Allah have mercy on him), Dawood bin Ali (may Allah have mercy on him), and most of their companions, some companions of Malik, some Hanafis including Muhammad bin Muqatil (may Allah have mercy on him), and some companions of Ahmad have held the view that three divorces given in one sitting will count as only one divorce.

Allama Abu Hayyan Andalusi (may Allah have mercy on him):

The author supports those who argue for divorce given at different times:

الطَّلَاقُ مَرَّتَانِ

Then he writes:

هكذا بحثوه فى هذا الموضع وبحث صحيح

The summary of the statement is that from the words of the Quran وما زال يختلج فى خاطري أنه لو قال : أنت طالق مرتين أو ثلاثا أنه لا يقع إلا واحدة، لأنه مصدر للطلاق ويقتضي العدد فلابد أن يكون الفعل الذى هو عامل فيه يتكرر وجودا كما تقول : ضربت ضربتين أو ثلاث ضربات it has always come to my heart that if a man pronounces two or three divorces in one sitting and at one time, it counts as only one divorce.

Imam Nizam al-Din Qummi Nishapuri, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:

الطَّلَاقُ مَرَّتَانِ

Then there are also those who say that if someone pronounces divorce two or three times, it will count as only one divorce, and this is more consistent with reason.
That is, this meaning of ثم من هؤلاء من قال : لو طلقها ثنتين أو ثلاثا لا يقع إلا واحدة وهو أقيس is more appropriate.

Hafiz Ibn Hajar, may Allah have mercy on him:

الطَّلَاقُ مَرَّتَانِ

In Fath al-Bari, under Sahih Bukhari بَابُ مَنْ جَوَّزَ طَلَاقَ الثَّلَاثِ, it is written:

وفي الترجمة إشارة إلى أن من السلف من لم يجز وقوع الطلاق الثلاث

In the translation of the chapter, it is pointed out that among the Salaf there were people who did not consider the occurrence of triple divorce as valid.
Then, supporting the single divorce with the word “thalaath” (three), they expose the reality of the claim of consensus as follows:

نقل عن على وابن مسعود وعبد الرحمن بن عوف والزبير مثله، نقل ذلك ابن مغيث فى كتاب الوثائق له وعزاه لمحمد بن وضاح، ونقل الغنوي ذلك عن جماعة من مشايخ قرطبة كمحمد بن تقي بن مخلد ومحمد بن عبدالسلام الخشني وغيرهما، ونقله ابن المنذر عن أصحاب ابن عباس كعطاء وطاؤس وعمرو بن دينار ويتعجب من ابن التين حيث جزم بأن لزوم الثلاث لا اختلاف فيه، وإنما الاختلاف فى التحريم مع ثبوت الاختلاف كما ترى

Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him), Abdul Rahman bin Awf (may Allah be pleased with him), and Hazrat Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him) also hold the view of a single divorce with the word “thalaath”. Similarly, a group of the scholars of Cordoba such as Ahmad bin Baqi bin Mukhlad and Muhammad bin Abd al-Salam al-Khashni, etc., as well as the companions of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them), for example Ata (may Allah have mercy on him), Tawus (may Allah have mercy on him), Amr bin Dinar (may Allah have mercy on him), also hold this view. It is surprising regarding Ibn al-Tin (may Allah have mercy on him) with what certainty he claimed that there is no disagreement about the obligation of the three divorces, the disagreement is only about the prohibition. Despite the fact that disagreement is established as you are seeing.
Before this, Hafiz Sahib also mentioned that Muhammad bin Ishaq (may Allah have mercy on him), the author of Maghazi, held the same view.

Imam Ayni, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:.

وفيه خلاف، فذهب طاؤس ومحمد بن إسحاق والحجاج ابن أرطاة والنخعي وابن مقاتل والظاهرية إلى أن الرجل إذا طلق امرأته ثلاثا معا فقد وقعت عليها واحدة

There is a difference of opinion on this issue. Imam Tawus, may Allah have mercy on him, Muhammad bin Ishaq, may Allah have mercy on him, Hajjaj bin Artaah, may Allah have mercy on him, Nakha’i, may Allah have mercy on him, Ibn Muqatil, may Allah have mercy on him, and the apparent view have gone towards the opinion that when a man gives his wife three divorces at once, it will be counted as only one.

Imam Nawawi, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:.

قد اختلف العلماء فيمن قال لامرأته : أنت طالق ثلاثا، فقال الشافعي ومالك وأبو حنيفة وأحمد وجماهير العلماء من السلف والخلف : يقع الثلاث، وقال طاؤس وبعض أهل الظاهر : لا يقع بذلك إلا واحدة، وهو رواية عن الحجاج بن أرطاة، ومحمد بن إسحاق، والمشهور عن الحجاج بن أرطاة أنه لا يقع به شيء، وهو قول ابن مقاتل، ورواية عن محمد بن إسحاق

There is a difference of opinion regarding the ruling on pronouncing three divorces at once. Imam Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, and the majority of the scholars of the Salaf and Khalaf say that this results in three divorces. However, Imam Tawus, may Allah have mercy on him (a Tabi’i), and some of the literalists hold that only one divorce takes place in this manner. This is also narrated from Hajjaj ibn Arta’ah, may Allah have mercy on him, and Muhammad ibn Ishaq, may Allah have mercy on him, although Hajjaj ibn Arta’ah’s well-known opinion is that nothing happens in this case, and this is also the opinion of Ibn Muqatil, may Allah have mercy on him, and there is a narration from Muhammad ibn Ishaq, may Allah have mercy on him, supporting this view. From these statements of the scholars of the Ummah, it is clear that their alleged issue is not one of consensus but rather there has been a difference of opinion from the beginning. Further clarifications on this matter should be observed, which further expose the reality of the claim of consensus.

Imam Tahawi Hanafi, may Allah have mercy on him:

The esteemed Hanafi scholar, while simultaneously discussing the issue of triple talaq, writes:

فذهب قوم إلى أن الرجل إذا طلق امرأته ثلاثا معا، فقد وقعت عليها واحدة إذا كانت فى وقت سنة وذلك أن تكون طاهرا فى غير جماع واحتجوا فى ذلك بهذا الحديث

One group has taken the position that when a man gives his wife three divorces at once, only one divorce takes effect, provided it is given during the time of purity (tuhr), meaning she is in a state of purity and they have not had intercourse. Their evidence is this very hadith. (The hadith from Sahih Muslim mentioned earlier, which clarifies that during the time of the Prophet, the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and the first two years of Caliph Umar’s rule, three divorces were counted as one.)

Maulana Abdul Hayy Hanafi Lakhnawi, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:

والقول الثاني : أنه إذا طلق ثلاثا تقع واحدة رجعية ، وهذا هو المنقول عن بعض الصحابة، وبه قال داود الظاهري وأتباعه ، وهو أحد القولين لمالك، ولبعض أصحاب أحمد

There is a difference of opinion on this issue (first the Shia sect narrates and writes) and the second opinion is that when three divorces are given at once, it will be a single revocable divorce. This is also narrated from some Companions, and this is the view of Dawood Zahiri, may Allah have mercy on him, and his followers. According to one opinion, this is also the doctrine of Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, and some companions of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him.

Imam Qurtubi, may Allah have mercy on him:

They have also classified this issue as a matter of difference and have attributed this school of thought to the following Companions, Successors, and other Imams:
Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him), Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both of them), Zubair bin Awwam (may Allah be pleased with him), Abdur Rahman bin Awf (may Allah be pleased with him), Tawus (may Allah have mercy on him), some of the people of apparent meaning, Muhammad bin Ishaq (may Allah have mercy on him), Hajjaj bin Arta (may Allah have mercy on him), and among the Sheikhs of Cordoba, Ibn Zanba’ Sheikh Hadi (may Allah have mercy on him), Ahmad bin Baqi bin Mukhlad (may Allah have mercy on him), Muhammad bin Abdus Salam (may Allah have mercy on him), Asbagh bin Habbab (may Allah have mercy on him), and besides them, a group.

Imam Razi (may Allah have mercy on him):

In Tafseer Kabeer, under الطَّلَاقُ مَرَّتَانِ, it is written:

ثم القائلون بهذا القول اختلفوا على قولين : الأول : وهو اختيار كثير من علماء الدين، أنه لو طلقها اثنين أو ثلاثا لا يقع إلا الواحدة، وهذا القول هو الأقيس، لأن النهي يدل على اشتمال المنهي عنه على مفسدة راححة، والقول بالوقوع سعي فى إدخال تلك المفسدة فى الوجود وإنه غير جائر، فوجب أن يحكم بعدم الوقوع

The stance of many scholars of religion is that when two or three divorces are given at once, only one divorce takes effect. This view is the most consistent with analogy because forbidding something indicates that it involves a major harm or corruption. The stance that considers the occurrence (of three divorces given at once as three separate divorces) causes this harm and corruption, which is not permissible. Therefore, it is necessary to rule that the occurrence of three divorces at once as three separate divorces does not take place.

Qazi Sanaullah Hanafi Panipati, may Allah have mercy on him:

They have written almost the same thing in the commentary of this verse in their famous and well-known Tafsir:

فكان القياس أن لا يكون الطلقتين المجتمعتين معتبرة شرعا وإذا لم يكن الطلقتين معتبرة لم يكن الثلاث مجتمعة معتبرة بالطريق الأولى

So the requirement of analogy is that two cumulative divorces are not legally valid, and when two cumulative (simultaneous) divorces are not valid, then three divorces at the same time will, by the first principle, not be valid.
Although later on they claimed consensus in support of the Hanafi school regarding the occurrence of triple divorce, and the strange thing is that before this they had acknowledged the dispute on this issue and mentioned some opposition from the Hanbalis, so it is unclear how the issue became one of consensus?

Allama Alusi Baghdadi, may Allah have mercy on him:.

Sahib Ruh al-Ma’ani also acknowledges this issue as a matter of difference:

وخالف فى ذلك الإمامية وبعض من أهل السنة كالشيخ أحمد بن تيمية ومن اتبعه، قالوا : لو طلق ثلاثا بلفظ واحد لا يقع إلا واحدة احتجاجا بهذه الآية

The Imami school has opposed the popular opinion on this matter, and some individuals among Ahl al-Sunnah have also inclined towards this view, such as Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, and his followers. Their stance is that pronouncing three divorces at once results in only one divorce. Their argument is based on the same verse الطَّلَاقُ مَرَّتَانِ.

Imam Shawkani, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:

واعلم أنه قد وقع الخلاف فى الطلاق الثلاث إذا أوقعت فى وقت واحد ، هل يقع جميعها ويتبع الطلاق الطلاق أم لا

When three divorces are given at once, there is a difference of opinion whether all three divorces become effective or whether the divorces occur one after another or not.
After narrating the view of the majority of scholars (that in such a case all three divorces become effective), they write:
And a group of scholars say that a divorce after a divorce does not take place; rather, in such a case, only one divorce will be counted. This is the position of Hazrat Abu Musa (may Allah be pleased with him), and according to one narration, Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both), Tawus (may Allah have mercy on him), Ata (may Allah have mercy on him), Jabir bin Zaid (may Allah have mercy on him), Hadi (may Allah have mercy on him), Qasim (may Allah have mercy on him), Baqir (may Allah have mercy on him), Nasir (may Allah have mercy on him), Ahmad bin Isa (may Allah have mercy on him), Abdullah bin Musa bin Abdullah (may Allah have mercy on him), and according to one narration, Zaid bin Ali (may Allah have mercy on him) hold this view. A group of later scholars also inclined towards this view, including Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), and a group of researchers. Ibn Mughith in his book Al-Watha’iq also narrates the same view of Muhammad bin Waddah (may Allah have mercy on him). Furthermore, a fatwa based on this view has been narrated from the scholars of Cordoba (such as Ahmad bin Baqi (may Allah have mercy on him) and Muhammad bin Abd al-Salam (may Allah have mercy on him)). Additionally, in the same book, they mention that Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), Ibn Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him), Abdur Rahman bin Awf (may Allah be pleased with him), and Hazrat Zubair (may Allah be pleased with him) held this same position.
Then, proceeding further, while refuting the explanations of people regarding the view of triple divorce by a single word (that perhaps the ruling of one divorce was abrogated), they write:

ويجاب بأن النسخ إن كان بدليل من كتاب أو سنة فما هو؟ وإن كان بالإجماع فأين هو؟ على أنه يبعد أن يستمر الناس أيام أبى بكر وبعض أيام عمر على أمر منسوح وإن كان الناسح قول عمر المذكور فحاشاه أن ينسخ سنة ثابتة بمحض رأيه، وحاشا أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم أن يجيبوه إلى ذلك ومن الأجوبة، دعوى الاضطراب كما زعمه القرطبي فى المفهم، وهو زعم فاسد لا وجه له، ومنها ما قاله ابن العربي : إن هذا حديث مختلف فى صحته فكيف يقدم على الإجماع ويقال : أين الإجماع الذى جعلته معارضا للسنة الصحيحة، والحاصل أن القائلين بالتتابع قد استكثروا من الأجوبة على حديث ابن عباس وكلها غير خارجة عن دائرة التعسف، والحق أحق بالاتباع، فإن كانت تلك المحاماة لأجل مذاهب الأسلاف فهي أحفر وأقل من أن تؤثر على السنة المطهرة وإن كانت لأجل عمر بن الخطاب فأين يقع المسكين من رسول الله ، ثم أى مسلم من المسلمين يستحسن عقله وعلمه ترجيح قول صحابي على قول المصطفى صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم

In response to the two versions, we say: if the first ruling (of one divorce) was abrogated by any evidence from the Book and Sunnah, then where is that evidence? And if it is said that it was abrogated by consensus, then when was that consensus established? Moreover, it is highly unlikely that people continuously acted upon an abrogated ruling during the caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and the early caliphate of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). And if it is claimed that the abrogator was the statement of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioned (the three divorces as a tactical measure), then it is also unbelievable that Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) would abrogate an established Sunnah merely by his opinion. And we seek refuge from the notion that the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) would support Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) in this matter (abrogating the Sunnah by his opinion). The claim of confusion regarding the ending of the hadith of Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) is also a corrupt assumption without any reasonable cause. Similarly, saying that the authenticity of the hadith of Ibn Abbas is disputed and therefore it cannot be preferred over consensus is incorrect; after all, where is the consensus that opposes an authentic Sunnah? In any case, those who advocate for consecutive (three at once) divorces have given many responses to the hadith of Ibn Abbas, but none of them are free from difficulty and distortion. The truth worthy of following is the other view. Furthermore, if this refutation and criticism is in support of the views of their predecessors, then obviously it is not worthy to prefer them over the pure Sunnah. And if it is in support of Hazrat Umar ibn Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), then it is clear what status Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) can have compared to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Then, which Muslim would prefer the opinion of a Companion over the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) based on his intellect and knowledge?

Ibn Rushd, may Allah have mercy on him, writes:

جمهور فقهاء الأمصار على أن الطلاق بلفظ الثلاث حكمه حكم الطلقة الثالثة، وقال أهل الظاهر وجماعة : حكمه حكم الواحدة ولا تأثير للفظ فى ذلك

The majority of jurists say that when the word “three” is used in divorce, its ruling is that of the third divorce (i.e., irrevocable), and the apparentists and a group say that such a divorce (i.e., the word “thrice”) has the ruling of one divorce and the word has no effect.
After this, he mentions the arguments of both schools and then finally writes:

كأن الجمهور غلبوا حكم التغليظ فى الطلاق سدا للذريعة ولكن تبطل بذلك الرحصة الشرعية، والرفق المقصود

Thus, the majority have imposed the ruling of intensification in divorce as a means of blocking the way. But the reality is that this invalidates the legal concession and ease which is intended. That is, by counting three divorces given at once as three, the concession and ease that comes from giving divorce on multiple occasions is lost. Therefore, their own inclination seems to be that three divorces given at once should be counted as one divorce so that people are not deprived of the legal concession and ease.

Necessary Clarification:

Among the four claims mentioned by the Hanafi scholars, this is the second claim. It is the claim of consensus which is currently being discussed. Further details on this are ahead. The remaining third claim is that the doctrine of the Four Imams is equivalent to the consensus of the Ummah. The fourth claim is that the Ahl al-Hadith, regarding the issue of triple divorce, deviate from the consensus of the Ummah and follow the footsteps of the Shia. Discussion on these third and fourth claims can be seen at the end of the book. For now, the discussion is about the reality of the second claim.

These were references from scholars of both early and later periods, including scholars from every school of thought. From a few references, it is clear that this issue has been disputed since the time of the Companions, and claiming consensus on it and saying that we have no knowledge of any Companion or Successor who differed on this issue is completely wrong. Among the Companions and Successors, there were those who counted the triple divorce given at once as a single divorce, and among later Imams and Mujtahids, there has also been a group who have held this view, especially the Ahl al-Hadith, who have always been the torchbearers of truth in every era, have maintained this position.

It is even more interesting that contemporary scholars have not only made this issue a subject of their contemplation but have also strongly supported and advocated the viewpoint of the Ahl al-Hadith. Among these scholars are those from the Indian subcontinent as well as from Egypt and Syria, representing every school of thought, including Deobandi Hanafi and Barelvi Hanafi. Here! Now please observe the details which, in fact, may be nothing less than a revelation for those who claim consensus on this issue.

Contemporary Arab Scholars:

The renowned Egyptian scholar Abdul Rahman Al-Jaziri, while mentioning disagreement in his famous book “Al-Fiqh ala al-Madhahib al-Arba’ah,” first lists the honorable names of the Companions and Tabi‘in who hold the view of a single divorce, then narrates the hadith from Sahih Muslim which forms the strong foundation of their school of thought. He writes:

وهذا الحديث صريح فى أن المسئلة ليست إجماعية

This hadith clearly shows that this issue is not one of consensus.
Then, justifying the action of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), he negates the claim of consensus as follows:

ولكن الواقع أنه لم يوجد إجماع، فقد خالفهم كثير من المسلمين، ومما لا شك فيه أن ابن عباس من المجتهدين الذين عليهم المعول فى الدين، فتقليده جائز، كما ذكرنا، ولا يجب تقليد عمر فيما راه ، لأنه مجتهد وموافقه الأكثرين له لا تحمم تقليده على أنه يجوز أن يكون قد فعل ذلك لتحذير الناس من إيقاع الطلاق على وجه مغاير للسنة فإن السنة أن تطلق المرأة فى أوقات مختلفة على الوجه الذى تقدم بيانه، فمن يجرأ على تطليقها دفعة واحدة فقد خالف السنة، وجزاء هذا أن يعامل بقوله زجرا له، وبالجملة : فإن الذين قالوا : أن الطلاق الثلاث بلفظ واحد يقع به واحدة لا ثلاثا ، لهم وجه سديد وهو أن ذلك هو الواقع فى عهد الرسول، وعهد خليفة الأعظم أبى بكر، وسنتين من خلافة عمر، واجتهاد عمر بعد ذلك خالفه فيه غيره، فيصح تقليد المخالف، كما يصح تقليد عمر

But the reality is that there is no consensus on this because many Muslims have opposed them (the majority). For example: Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both of them) was undoubtedly among the Mujtahids and one whose opinion is trusted in matters of religion, so following him (accepting his opinion) is also correct. It is not obligatory to follow only the opinion of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) because he was also a Mujtahid. And the majority agreeing with Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) does not make it necessary to follow him. Moreover, it is also possible that he implemented it as a disciplinary measure, seeing that people were divorcing in a manner contrary to the Sunnah, because the Sunnah is that a woman should be divorced according to the specified intervals mentioned in the method. So whoever dares to give three divorces at once, he acts against the Sunnah and it requires that he be dealt with through reprimand and admonition.
In short, those who say that the three divorces, though expressed in the singular word, occur as one and not three, have a very reasonable argument because during the era of the Prophet, the era of the Greatest Caliph Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), and the first two years of Caliphate of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), three divorces given at once were considered as one divorce. After that, the ijtihad of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was opposed by many others, so following those who opposed it is just as correct as considering following Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) as correct.

Allama Syed Rasheed Raza Misri, may Allah have mercy on him:

In the Tafsir “Al-Manar,” while explaining the interpretation of الطَّلَاقُ مَرَّتَانِ, it is first mentioned that this issue is a matter of disagreement.

ولذلك وقع فيه الخلاف من الصدر الأول إلى الآن

There has been a difference of opinion on this issue from the earliest times until today.
Then, after mentioning the arguments of both parties (in which the arguments of those who advocate for one divorce are quoted in somewhat more detail), it is written:

إنما أطلنا فى ذكر الخلاف فى هذه المسئلة على تحامينا فى التفسير ذكر الخلاف ما وجدنا مندوحة عنه لأن بعض الناس يعتقدون أن المسئلة إجماعية فيما جرى عليه الجمهور وما ثم من إجماع إلا ما قاله ابن القيم، وليس المراد مجادلة المقلدين أو إرجاع القضاة والمفتين عن مذاهبهم فيها فإن أكثرهم يطلع على هذه النصوص فى كتب الحديث وغيرها ولا يبالي بها لأن العمل عندهم على أقوال كتبهم دون كتاب الله تعالى وسنة رسوله (حاشيه) ألا إن محاكم مصر الشرعية قد خالفت مذهب الحنفية بعد استقلال البلاد دون الدولة العثمانية فى كثير من أحكام الزوجية ومنها هذه المسئلة

In our tafsir, despite generally not paying attention to disputed issues, we have presented details on this matter because some people believe that there is consensus (Ijma) on the majority’s school of thought regarding this, whereas (this is not correct). If there is consensus, it is the one explicitly stated by Hafiz Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, (that during the era of the Prophet, the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and the early caliphate of Umar, there was agreement and consensus to count three divorces given at one time as one divorce). Our purpose is to debate with followers (Muqallideen), not to compel judges and muftis to refer to their (fiqh) schools because (they will not be willing to do so). The majority of them, even when they become aware of the legal texts in hadith books, do not care at all; for them, only the opinions of the Imams recorded in their (fiqh) books are actionable, not the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger. However, after separating from the Ottoman Empire, the religious courts of Egypt have opposed the Hanafi school in many rulings related to marriage, one of which is the issue of triple talaq given in one sitting, where they have decided against the Hanafi school to count it as one divorce.

Sheikh Jamaluddin Qasmi, may Allah have mercy on him:

Another esteemed scholar and exegete of the present era, Sheikh Jamaluddin Qasmi Al-Shami, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote a scholarly book on the subject of marriage and divorce titled “Al-Istinās li-Tashīh Ankihat al-Nās.” In it, after a reasoned and detailed discussion on the issue of divorce, he expressed the opinion that if three divorces are given at once in one sitting, only one revocable divorce will actually take place. He expressed this same opinion in his Tafsir under verse الطَّلَاقُ مَرَّتَانِ ….

Dr. Wahbah Zuhayli (Syria):

Dr. Sahib is a great contemporary researcher, jurist, and commentator. His book “Al-Fiqh al-Islami wa Adillatuh” (in eight voluminous volumes) is a well-known and highly acclaimed book. After mentioning the arguments of both parties on the issue under discussion, he writes:

والذي يظهر لي رجحان ر أى الجمهور وهو وقوع الطلاق ثلاثا إذا طلق الرجل امرأته دفعة واحدة، لكن إذا رجح الحاكم رأيا ضعيفا صار هو الحكم الأقوى، فإن صدر قانون، كما هو الشأن فى بعض البلاد العربية يجعل هذا الطلاق واحدة، فلا مانع من اعتماده والإفتاء به تيسيرا على الناس وصونا للرابطة الزوجية وحماية لمصلحة الأولاد، خصوصا ونحن فى وقت قل فيه الورع والاحتياط، وتهاون الناس فى التلفظ بهذه الصيغة من الطلاق، وهم يقصدون غالبا التهديد والزجر، ويعلمون أن فى الفقه منفذا للحل ومراجعة الزوجة

For me, the opinion of the majority is prevailing that when a person pronounces three divorces at once, all three take effect. However, when the ruler of the time prefers a weaker opinion, that becomes the stronger ruling. Therefore, if a law is enacted, as in some Arab countries, counting the three divorces mentioned as a single divorce, there is nothing to prevent accepting it and issuing fatwas accordingly. This is because it facilitates people, protects the relationship between husband and wife, and supports the welfare of the children, especially in current circumstances where there is a lack of fear of Allah and caution, and people are very bold in pronouncing divorce in the mentioned manner and form. Because their intention (is not to divorce but) mostly to warn and reprimand. Moreover, they also think that there will be some solution in jurisprudence for them and some way to return to the wife will emerge.

Dr. Sahib has also expressed the same opinion in his Tafsir. Accordingly, after narrating the arguments of both schools, he writes:

وبالرغم مما أراه وهو رجحان مذهب الجمهور، لا أجد مانعا من الأخذ بر أى ابن تيمية ومن وافقه، لأن الطلاق هدم الأسرة وتعريض لضياع الأولاد وهو كما قال : فيما رواه أبو داود وابن ماجه والحاكم عن ابن عمر أبغض الحلال إلى الله الطلاق والشريعة أجازته لدفع ضرر أشد، وتحصيل مصلحة أكثر، ولا يلجأ إليه إلا للضرورة القصوى، والله شرع الطلاق مرتين متفرقتين فى طهرين كما أرشدت إليه السنة، لا مجتمعتين، فإن شاء أمسك وإن شاء طلق وأمضى الطلاق – وفي هذا تيسير على الناس، وبخاصة أنهم يقصدون غالبا بالطلاق التهديد والزجر، لا الحقيقة والوقوع الفعلي، ثم إن الفرقة تحدث بطلقة واحدة، فيكون ما يتلوها مؤكدا لها

Despite the fact that in my opinion the majority’s view is prevailing, I find no objection to adopting the opinion of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, and those who agree with him, because divorce breaks the family and ruins the children. That is why the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: Divorce is lawful but it is the most disliked lawful thing by Allah.
And the Shariah has permitted it to prevent the most severe harm and to gain greater benefits; it should only be used in the most unavoidable necessity. Allah Almighty has explained the method of divorce that it should be given twice in two periods of purity as the Sunnah guides, not both divorces at once. Then if he wishes, he may keep the wife with him by returning, or if he does not intend to return, he may let her go and complete the divorce to its logical conclusion. This method (giving divorces separately) is easier for people, especially in cases where the intention behind divorce is mostly to scare the woman, not to actually divorce her. Moreover, separation occurs with one divorce; the subsequent divorces are only for emphasis, so it is more appropriate not to consider them.

Syed Former Egyptian, may Allah have mercy on him:

Sayyid Sabiq Al-Misri, may Allah have mercy on him, who passed away a few years ago, was a distinguished researcher, jurist, and eminent scholar of his time. His work Fiqh al-Sunnah is considered highly authentic and reliable throughout the Islamic world. In it, the learned author, may Allah have mercy on him, after mentioning the arguments of both parties on the issue under discussion, wrote:

A group of later scholars adopted this second opinion, including Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, Ibn al-Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, and a group of researchers. Ibn Mughith also mentioned the same doctrine of Muhammad ibn Waddah, may Allah have mercy on him, in his book Al-Watha’iq, and he quoted the fatwas of a group of the scholars of Cordoba accordingly, such as Muhammad ibn Baqi, may Allah have mercy on him, and Muhammad ibn Abd al-Salam, may Allah have mercy on him, among others. Imam Ibn Mundhir, may Allah have mercy on him, also transmitted the same opinion from the companions of Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with them, such as Ata, may Allah have mercy on him, Tawus, may Allah have mercy on him, and Amr ibn Dinar, may Allah have mercy on him. Furthermore, Ibn Mughith in his book stated the same position of Hazrat Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, Ibn Mas’ud, may Allah be pleased with him, Abdur Rahman ibn Awf, may Allah be pleased with him, and Zubair, may Allah be pleased with him. This is also the position according to which the courts of Egypt make their rulings.

Allama Sheikh Mahmood Shaltut, Sheikh Al-Azhar (Egypt) May Allah Have Mercy on Him

He, like the aforementioned Arab scholars, has adopted the same stance regarding the issue of triple talaq in one sitting as these gentlemen have. This fatwa is included in Maulana Saeed Ahmad Akbarabadi’s article, which appears on page 301.

Scholars of Hanafi School from India:

These were the contemporary scholars of the Arab world. Now observe the scholars of the Indian subcontinent. The Ahl-e-Hadith scholars are not included among them because they all believe that three divorces pronounced in one sitting count as a single divorce. Here, we will only mention those Hanafi scholars who, in the current circumstances, have acknowledged and expressed that the social difficulties and family problems arising from considering three divorces in one sitting as three separate divorces can only be resolved by adopting the Ahl-e-Hadith school of thought, which counts three divorces in one sitting as only one divorce.

Among the scholars of the Indian subcontinent who have presented their findings on this subject through study and research are Maulana Saeed Ahmad Akbarabadi, editor of the monthly Burhan Delhi; Maulana Mufti Atiqur Rahman, president of All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat; Maulana Hamid Ali, secretary of Jamaat Hind; Maulana Urooj Ahmad Qadri, editor of the monthly Zindagi Rampur; Maulana Shams Pirzada; Maulana Mahfuzur Rahman Qasmi, a graduate of Deoband; and many other scholars, as detailed further below.

Accordingly, some concerned individuals in India organized a seminar on the topic of تطليقات ثلاثة (a discussion session from November 4 to 6, 1973) at the Islamic Research Institute Ahmedabad (India), in which the aforementioned scholars and two Ahl-e-Hadith scholars, Maulana Abdur Rahman and Maulana Mukhtar Ahmad Nadwi, participated. A questionnaire was sent to the participants so that they could prepare their papers in light of it, present their viewpoints with reasoning, and also answer these questions.

Four Questions of the Seminar (Scholarly Discussion):

◈ Does merely repeating the word divorce three times, i.e., saying divorce, divorce, divorce at once, result in three divorces even if the person giving the divorce says that his intention was only one divorce?
◈ If a person pronounces three divorces in one sitting with the explicit word “three,” but he says that he thought that unless the word “three” is used, the divorce does not take effect, then in this case, will three divorces occur or one?
◈ Is there a consensus of the Ummah on the occurrence of three divorces in one sitting? If not, then write the names of those scholars and jurists who consider three divorces in one sitting as one.
◈ What is your solution to the issue of three divorces in one sitting? Should it be counted as one or three?
Out of the eight participants mentioned, seven scholars prepared papers. Maulana Mufti Atiq ur Rahman did not read a paper but gave comprehensive comments on the papers read in the session during his presidential remarks, acknowledged the issue under discussion as contentious, emphasized an appropriate solution, and advised broadening the scope of this issue. Among them, only Maulana Urooj Qadri presented the Hanafi viewpoint in his paper; however, considering the delicacy of the issue, he also tried to adopt a moderate approach.
All the other participants denied the claim of consensus on this issue and clearly admitted that this issue has been disputed since the time of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). Secondly, they proposed the same solution to the issue as the Ahl al-Hadith hold, that three divorces given simultaneously should be counted as one divorce. Furthermore, in support of this viewpoint, they presented such solid evidence from the Qur’an, Hadith, and jurisprudential books that there remains no reasonable justification for insisting on jurisprudential rigidity. جزاهم الله أحسن الحزاء
The entire proceedings of the seminar, the papers, and the responses to objections have all been published in book form under the title “Three Divorces in One Sitting.” We present summaries and important excerpts of some necessary papers in the following pages so that the nature of the issue becomes fully clear.

Maulana Shams Peerzada (Bombay):

He has written the preface of the mentioned book (Majmua Maqalat Ilmiya Darbarah “Ek Majlis Ki Teen Talaq”), in which, denying the claim of consensus, he writes: The clear and straightforward fact is that there is neither any explicit text in the Quran nor any authentic and explicit hadith, nor any consensus on the occurrence of three divorces at one time. Rather, this issue relates to the interpretation and ijtihad (independent reasoning) of the texts of the Quran and Sunnah. For this reason, there has been ongoing disagreement, and there is a sect independently known as Ahl al-Hadith which considers three divorces given at one time as only one divorce. If four sects are accepted as correct, there is no reason why the fifth sect should not be accepted as correct, especially when it is supported by Mujtahids like Allama Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) and Allama Ibn Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him). Therefore, all kinds of narrow-mindedness and sectarian fanaticism should be condemned as a grievous divorce, and this issue should be presented to people as a matter of difference of opinion with arguments on both sides. If a person adopts the sect that considers three divorces given at one time as one, then there is full scope for this within Islam, and no misguidance necessarily follows from it.

Moreover, the Maqalat also includes a paper by Maulana himself. At the end of this paper, under the heading “Summary of the Discussion and Solution of the Issue,” he writes:

From the review of the arguments presented above regarding the pronouncement of three divorces at one time, it becomes clear that there is neither any explicit command in the Quran nor any authentic hadith that explicitly states its ruling, nor is there any consensus on it. Rather, this issue has been disputed among the Ummah from the time of the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) until now, with arguments on both sides. In such a case, what can be said with certainty is that the issue is not one of definitive and conclusive ruling but rather of interpretation and ijtihad. Therefore, the difference of opinion on this issue should be regarded as an ijtihadi difference, and fatwas should be issued according to the ijtihadi opinion that is most appropriate considering the interests of the Ummah.

The condition of our society is such that people are deeply ignorant and very few are familiar with Shariah rulings. Therefore, they give three divorces at once and later regret it. On the other hand, this ignorance of the man causes great problems for the family, and thirdly, opponents of Muslim personal law and the Islamic social system begin to distort Shariah and present a very ugly picture of the Islamic way of life, which greatly influences the modern educated mind and creates major difficulties in protecting Shariah laws. In view of this situation, the interests of the religion and the Ummah demand that instead of remaining confined within the shells of jurisprudential sects, broad-mindedness should be exercised and the ijtihadi opinion should be adopted according to which three divorces given at one time count as only one divorce.

The solution to the issue of three divorces at one sitting is that on one hand, religious awareness and piety should be raised among the general Muslims, and they should be made familiar with the Shariah method of divorce, that if a person wants to divorce, he should suffice with giving only one revocable divorce in a state of purity in which there has been no intercourse. After that, if he does not want to reconcile, he should let the waiting period (‘iddah) pass, and after the ‘iddah, there will be an opportunity for remarriage. Therefore, there will be no question of regret. Thus, on one hand, efforts should be made on a large scale to familiarize people with the Shariah ruling, and on the other hand, our Shariah councils should issue fatwas that three divorces given at one time count as one divorce. والله أعلم

Maulana Syed Ahmad Urooj Qadri (Editor of Monthly “Zindagi”, Rampur, India):

In his article, he has supported the Hanafi position, but despite that, in the answers to the questions, he has found considerable scope in the issue under discussion.
Here! Please observe the questions and answers:

Question:

Does merely repeating the word divorce three times, i.e., saying divorce, divorce, divorce at once, result in three divorces, while the person giving the divorce says that his intention was only one divorce?

Answer:

If the person repeating the word divorce three times says that his intention was one divorce, and he used the word divorce two more times for emphasis, then in my view, it will be one revocable divorce.

Question:

If a person gives three divorces in one sitting with explicit mention of the number three but says that he thought that divorce does not take effect unless the word three is used, in this case, will three divorces occur or one?

Answer:

I have thought deeply about this issue and, considering the current situation, have reached the conclusion that if the one giving the divorce explicitly states three times that without these three pronouncements the divorce does not take effect, then the three divorces should be counted as one.

Question:

Is there a consensus of the Ummah on the invalidity of three divorces given in one sitting? If not, please write the names of those scholars and jurists who consider three divorces given in one sitting as one.

Answer:

There have been claims both affirming and denying consensus on the severity of three divorces given in one sitting. Eminent scholars of the Ummah like Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him), Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), and Ibn Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) have denied such consensus, and now even a large group of Ahl al-Hadith scholars deny this consensus.

Studying books that explain sectarian differences also shows that there has been disagreement on this issue since ancient times. Ibn Rushd (may Allah have mercy on him) writes:

جمهور فقهاء الأمصار على أن الطلاق بلفظ الثلاث حكمه حكم الطلقة الثالثة، وقال أهل الظاهر وجماعة : حكمه حكم الواحدة ولا تأثير للفظ فى ذلك

The majority of jurists hold the view that when three divorces are pronounced in one sitting, the ruling is that of the third divorce, i.e., it is considered a final and irrevocable divorce. However, the literalists and a group hold the opinion that the ruling is that of a single divorce, and the wording has no effect.

It seems that Qadi Ibn Rushd’s (may Allah have mercy on him) own inclination is that the ruling should be that it counts as only one divorce. From this detailed explanation, it becomes clear that the claim of consensus on the severity of three divorces given in one sitting is questionable.

Question :

What is your opinion on the issue of three divorces given in one sitting? Should it be considered as one or three?

Answer :

As I have mentioned earlier in the article, if a person deliberately gives his wife three divorces in one sitting, then three divorces take effect. In my view, the extent to which three divorces can be considered as one has been discussed in my answers to questions one and two. Those who know and understand that giving three divorces at once and in one statement results in three divorces, it is not correct in my opinion to consider those three divorces given by such people as one.

Maulana Mahfuzur Rahman Qasmi (Fazil Deoband):

Among these writers is a Hanafi scholar Maulana Mahfoozur Rahman Qasmi, a graduate of Deoband, teacher at Madrasa Bayt al-Uloom Maligaon (India). In his article, he writes:
To contemplate the subject of Talaq-e-Thalatha (triple talaq), in my view, there are four foundations. After considering these, we should decide which path is more acceptable and feasible for us in the current circumstances:

◈ The first foundation of contemplation:.

Is the idea of considering three divorces as one coming from the era of Prophethood? And is there any basis for this in the Ahadith or not? If there is a basis and the discussion has been ongoing since the era of Prophethood, then now, like other issues, we must see which form is more suitable in our society. That should be adopted.

◈ The second foundation of contemplation:.

Is giving three divorces at once something commendable and desirable? If not, then why not consider a form that is according to the Sunnah and exactly in line with the intent of the Shariah?

The Third Basis of Reflection and Contemplation :.

Is there scope in Hanafi jurisprudence to act upon the opinion of another Imam or Mujtahid instead of the sayings of Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him?

◈ The Fourth Basis of Reflection and Contemplation :.

What form do our social and communal conditions invite us to adopt? For the excellence of the law, it is very necessary that it guarantees the maximum welfare and benefit for society.
Let us now consider the first foundation. There is no doubt that the idea of counting three as one is not futile or false but has a basis, and a section of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah has always accepted it. For this, we briefly quote four hadiths. (After this, the learned author has quoted hadiths and statements of Imams and jurists, then he writes)
Among the scholars of the present era, Allama Shibli Nomani (may Allah have mercy on him) also counted the triple talaq as three among the priorities of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) in his book Al-Farooq. After all, it is present in Sahih Muslim that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) allowed it. This itself shows that in the early period, considering three as three was not common; otherwise, why would Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) have needed to permit it? Allama Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), while presenting examples for his view that if three divorces are given in one word, it should be considered as one, wrote:
Shariah requires four types in the case of Li’an (mutual cursing), but if one word is used to utter all four types, our jurists do not consider it sufficient and require the four types to be separate. Similarly, if Shariah permits three divorces and also considers their combined use as sinful, then it is necessary to keep them separate, and three divorces given in one sentence should be considered as one, just as it is necessary to have seven pebbles for stoning the Jamrah. If someone throws seven pebbles at once, it is considered as one thrower, just as someone swears to recite one hundred thousand salutations on the Prophet (peace be upon him). Now if he says صلى الله عليه وسلم مائة ألف, it will not be considered sufficient; rather, he must recite one hundred thousand salutations separately, then he will be considered to have fulfilled the oath.
Our scholars consider these analogies as qiyas with a difference, but these interpretations are not so strong that there is no room for discussion.
After considering all these writings, it appears that the idea of counting three as one is not a later invention but has its basis in the era of Prophethood and the era of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), and there are both textual and rational evidences in its favor. From the beginning, a section of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah scholars has accepted it. Therefore, the idea of considering triple talaq as one is not futile or false but if not the strongest, then certainly correct; if not preferred, then at least not rejected, but it cannot be called futile or false.
The second foundation for reflection was: Is giving three divorces at once something commendable and desirable? The answer is absolutely negative. From the study of hadiths, it is clear that it is not only disliked but also causes severe sin. It is narrated in Sunan al-Nasa’i that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was informed that a man had given his wife three divorces at once. Upon hearing this, the Prophet (peace be upon him) stood up in anger and said:

أيلعب بكتاب الله وأنا بين أظهركم

Are you playing with the Book of Allah? While I am among you.
In this matter, the general opinion of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) is what Sahib Fath al-Qadeer has narrated that Imam Muhammad narrated from Ibrahim al-Nakha’i (may Allah have mercy on him):

إن الصحابة رضي الله عنهم، كانوا يستحبون أن يطلقها واحدة ثم يتركها حتى تحيض ثلاثة حيض

The Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) preferred that a man should give his wife only one divorce and keep her until she completes three menstrual cycles.
These are the words of Ibn Abi Shaybah. Imam Muhammad’s original words are:

كانوا يستحبون أن لا يزيدوا فى الطلاق على واحدة حتى تنقضي العدة

Their preference was not to exceed one divorce in the matter of divorce until the ‘iddah (waiting period) was completed.
For this reason, our jurists call triple talaq a bid’ah (innovation). Obviously, calling it an innovation does not mean that this divorce is not proven from hadith, rather they accept it as proven but call it reprehensible and an innovation due to its causing blame and sin. Thus, Shah Waliullah (may Allah have mercy on him) says:

كره أيضا جمع الطلقات الثلاث فى طهر واحد

Combining three divorces in one purity is severely disliked.
And this act nullifies the wisdom and benefits of Shariah. From the previous clarifications, it becomes clear that giving three divorces at once is severely disliked in the eyes of Shariah. Firstly, the act of divorce itself is أبغض الحلال, as it is narrated in Sunan Abu Dawood that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said:

ما أحل الله شيئا أبغض إليه من الطلاق

Allah has not made lawful anything more disliked than divorce.
Therefore, the explanation of our jurists is present in Hidayah al-Awwalin:

الأصل فى الطلاق هو الحظر

The essence of divorce is prohibition.
Shariah has permitted divorce due to some great benefits and said that its use is correct only in cases of extreme necessity. And the principle of jurisprudence is:

ما ثبت بالضرورة فهو يتقدر بقدر الضرورة

Whatever is permitted for a particular compulsion or necessity will be permitted only to the extent that fulfills the necessity.
For example: carrion is permitted in necessity but with the restriction that only as much carrion is permitted as is necessary to preserve life, as Allah says:

غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ

Neither should he be rebellious nor exceed the limit.
Now, if someone gives three divorces at once, he commits a grave sin.
Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) even calls two divorces an innovation. In Hidayah al-Awwalin it is stated:

وقال مالك رحمه الله : إنه بدعة ولا يباح إلا واحدة، لأن الأصل فى الطلاق هو الحظر والإباحة لحاجة الخلاص وقد اندفعت بالواحدة

Giving two divorces (at once) is also an innovation; only one at a time is permissible because the act of divorce itself is primarily disliked and its permissibility was due to necessity, and that necessity is fulfilled by one.
From the above clarifications, it is clear that giving three divorces at once is sinful, so why not arrange to prevent this sin and close its door while preserving the benefits related to divorce? Allama Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (may Allah have mercy on him) preferred this opinion of Shariah.

The third foundation for reflection was: Is there scope in Hanafi jurisprudence that in extreme necessity, the opinions of other mujtahids can be followed? Regarding this, I clearly state that the consideration of custom, benefit, and circumstances in Hanafi jurisprudence is perhaps unmatched elsewhere. This is because practically Hanafi jurisprudence has had a long period of implementation of rulings. Our jurists describe those rulings which are based on public interests as istihsan (juristic preference), although the Shariah evidences in these matters are different, but the general temperament and law of Shariah is ease and the conditions of people require something else, so accordingly another practical method is adopted, which is called istihsan.
Who does not know Allama Shami in the world of jurisprudence? The fame and popularity he gained in the Islamic world is perhaps unmatched. He authored a book specifically on this topic named نشر الحرف فى بناء بعض الأحكام على العرف. This treatise was published in Damascus in 1901. In it, the learned author has detailed those issues in which custom, benefit, and the demands of the time are specially considered. After this, the learned author gave many examples where later jurists issued fatwas contrary to the opinions of predecessors. Then he writes:
Therefore, after considering this foundation, it appears that in the issue of triple talaq, if a fatwa is issued following the school of other jurists, there is no harm because necessity strongly demands it, as we will discuss in the fourth foundation, and this is why some contemporary Hanafis and respected scholars lean towards this.
Mufti Azam Maulana Kifayatullah Dehlawi was asked by a questioner about the same triple talaq issue. In the questioner’s village, an incident occurred where a Hanafi person, after giving three divorces, sought a fatwa from an Ahl al-Hadith scholar and followed it. The villagers boycotted him. Mufti Sahib replied that according to the consensus of the majority of scholars and the four Imams, giving three divorces in one sitting counts as three, and the four Imams agree on this. Except for the four Imams, some scholars do not accept that this is a single revocable divorce, and this is also the belief of the Ahl al-Hadith, and it is narrated from Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), Tawus (may Allah have mercy on him), Ikrimah (may Allah have mercy on him), and Ibn Ishaq (may Allah have mercy on him). Therefore, it is not correct to call any Ahl al-Hadith person a disbeliever due to this ruling, nor is he worthy of boycott or expulsion from the mosque. However, it was impermissible for the Hanafi to seek and act upon a fatwa from an Ahl al-Hadith scholar. But if he commits this out of compulsion and necessity, it is excusable.

Among our Hanafi scholars, Maulana Abdul Hayy Farangi Mahli writes: In this case, according to the Hanafis, there will be three divorces and without halala, the marriage will not be valid. But in case of necessity, if separation is difficult for him and there is a possibility of greater harm, then following another Imam is not objectionable. An example of this is the issue of marriage of a missing husband and extended purity ‘iddah, where Hanafis consider it correct to follow Imam Malik’s opinion in necessity, as detailed in Radd al-Mukhtar.

Consider another fatwa from Madrasa Aminiyah Dehli:
Some of the Salaf and earlier scholars also accept this, although this opinion is not among the four Imams. Therefore, the fatwa given by those Maulvis against the Mufti of Ahl al-Hadith is incorrect, and the fatwa of disbelief, boycott, and expulsion from the mosque against the Mufti of Ahl al-Hadith on this difference is not correct. Due to severe necessity and fear of harm, if the divorcer follows the opinion of those scholars who consider this incident as one divorce, he will not be outside the Hanafi school because Hanafi jurists have permitted following the opinion of another Imam in extreme necessity.

In the sayings of Hazrat Maulana Thanwi, I have read that when he authored “Hila Najizah” and issued a fatwa regarding the marriage of a missing husband according to Imam Malik’s school, someone said that you people emphasize following Abu Hanifa, but you issue fatwas according to Imam Malik’s school. He replied: You wander about following taqlid (imitation), here Islam itself is at stake. In fact, his indication was that to preserve the overall benefit of Shariah, it is correct to follow the opinion of another Imam by imitating a particular Imam.
From this entire detail, you will have no difficulty in understanding that the Imams of Hanafi school, considering necessity and the demands of the time, permit following the opinions of other mujtahids and Imams. Therefore, in the issue of triple talaq, let us reflect and see whether necessity really demands that three divorces be counted as one or not? If necessity is severe, then accept it.
The fourth foundation for reflection is: What form do our social and communal conditions invite us to adopt? Our Hindu society (and Pakistani society as well) is running in such a way that religious values have declined. Our masses do not acquire even that much religion which is obligatory upon them. Many people have high worldly education degrees but less religious education. Due to this ignorance, when such people want to give divorce, they do not even know which method Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) taught and preferred and which is sinful. Many Muslims know that after one divorce, there is the option of reconciliation, so they do not consider one divorce as complete. When, out of religious ignorance and emotional intensity, they give three divorces, after the correct ruling becomes apparent, they become deeply regretful and seek all kinds of tricks and remedies, adopting such wrong measures that the woman either returns to him without halala or remains.
This causes many harms. If the divorcer follows the Hanafi school and wants to remain on it, then inevitably it takes the form of halala, i.e., marrying another with the condition that he divorces her the next day. Thus, he becomes a criminal near the Shariah. It is narrated in Jami’ al-Tirmidhi:

إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم لعن المحلل والمحلل له

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) cursed the one who does halala and the one for whom halala is done.
This hadith is also present in Sunan al-Nasa’i, and in Sunan Ibn Majah, the narration of Uqbah bin Amir (may Allah be pleased with him) is:

ألا أخبركم بالتيس المستعار ؟ قالوا : بلى يارسول الله ! قال : هو المحلل، لعن الله المحلل والمحلل له

Shall I not inform you about the purchased goat? The Companions said: Certainly, O Messenger of Allah! He said: That is the one who does halala. Allah has cursed the one who does halala and the one for whom halala is done.
The statement of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah with these words:

لا أولى بمحلل ولا محلل له إلا رجمتهماء

Whoever brings to me the one who does halala and the one for whom halala is done, I will stone them.
Imam Bayhaqi narrated in his Sunan al-Kubra that a man asked Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) about a person who divorced his wife, and if someone marries her and makes her lawful for him, what is the ruling? He replied:

من يخادع الله يخدعه

Whoever plays tricks with Allah, Allah will frustrate his trick.

This fatwa is also narrated by Imam Tahawi in Ma’ani al-Athar.
In Muwatta Imam Malik it is stated:

يفرق بينهما مع كل حال إذا أريد بالنكاح التحليل

There will always be separation between the two if their intention is halala.
Among our Imams, only Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) considers halala to make the wife lawful for the first husband; otherwise, according to Imam Muhammad (may Allah have mercy on him) and Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him), like other Imams, على وجه التحليل the marriage is invalid and the woman does not become lawful for the first husband. However, Imam Abu Hanifa himself considers halala as makruh tahrimi (disliked to the extent of prohibition). As stated in Hidayah:

إذا تزوجها بشرط التحليل فالنكاح مكروه لقوله عليه السلام : لعن الله المحلل والمحلل له

In the margin of Muwatta Imam Malik it is stated:

قال الشافعي وأبويوسف بشرط أنه إذا وطئ طلق، بطل

Imam Shafi’i (may Allah have mercy on him) and Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on him) say that if the marriage was contracted on the condition that after intimacy the man will divorce the woman, then the marriage is invalid.
Consider a fatwa of Maulana Mufti Kifayatullah Dehlawi written in Akhbar al-Jam’iyyah Dehli, dated 6 Sha’ban 1350 AH corresponding to 16 December 1931:
Halala: A divorced woman marries another husband and then separates from him due to divorce or death of the husband and becomes lawful for the first husband; this is called halala. But it is haram for the first husband or wife or any guardian to make a condition with the second husband that he should divorce her, and for the second husband to accept this condition and marry her. Both parties are cursed in this regard.
Now consider what form is prevalent in our society. Exactly like متعة النساء, conditional marriage is done and the next day the marriage is divorced. In this form, some shameful and disgraceful stories are heard that the temperament of Shariah is not ready to tolerate. This is why Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said he would stone such people. Sometimes it happens that the one who marries does not divorce, and thus another dispute and corruption arises.
All these evils occur when the divorcer adheres to the Hanafi school, but if he is not steadfast on the Hanafi school, he immediately considers changing the school, and such a person is also a sinner because our scholars consider this not following Shariah but following the desires of the self and call such change wrong and impermissible. Allama Shatibi has explained this clearly in Al-Muwafaqat, Volume 4, page 82, statement مفاسد اتباع رخص المذاهب. And for the divorcer, it is difficult that if he follows the Ahl al-Hadith school only on this issue and opposes them on other issues while following Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him), whom he has followed all his life, then he is openly following his desires. Such a tendency is dangerous in Shariah matters. Such a person will always seek the leniencies of the schools, and if due to this one issue he adopts the complete Ahl al-Hadith school, he acts against his mind and heart, as he accepts Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) as right in many issues but is forced to act against him due to this one issue. Moreover, separating a woman in anger and emotional intensity has very serious consequences, especially for the woman’s life, which can be extremely destructive. Immediately, the issue of care and upbringing of children arises. Obviously, the real mother who can sacrifice her blood and soul for her children’s upbringing cannot be replaced by another woman. Then the issue arises of how to integrate this divorced woman into society after 50 or 25 years of living with her husband, especially if she has reached old age. India (and Pakistan too) is not our Bayt al-Mal (public treasury) to support her. She herself does not have the ability to earn and feed herself. Moreover, a veiled woman who has lived a life of dignity and honor, how can she overcome her financial difficulties and live in peace and comfort? I know well about my city that a man who was well-known as a pious person gave three divorces at once after living together for 50-60 years. For some days, the woman managed herself, but due to poverty and financial difficulties of her family, she became so distressed that she developed mental illness and now begs from door to door to fill her stomach.
You will find dozens of such incidents. I agree with the views of respected Iqbal Waraqwala that opponents narrate these incidents with coloring, but one should not forget that these incidents have some reality on which coloring and exaggeration are built. This is why the government (India) has insisted on making laws that the maintenance and alimony of the divorced woman is obligatory on the husband until she remarries. Obviously, this is a step towards excess. But it would also be negligence and deficiency if we do not sit and think of a plan for such women. Our view is that if in the prevalent method of divorce, instead of the Hanafi school, the opinions of some other mujtahids are followed, i.e., three divorces are counted as one, many complications will automatically be resolved and both parties can think calmly about each other’s future. This way, opponents will not get the opportunity to color against Muslim Personal Law, just as Egyptian scholars have made the optional bequest of one-third of the property compulsory in the matter of inheritance of grandchildren. Similarly, after considering the above four foundations, we should make some changes which have scope in Shariah and are permitted by the Hanafi school. The Imams consider giving three divorces at once sinful and blameworthy, and our conditions strongly demand it, so why not act upon those opinions which have been the practice of a section of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah from the beginning.
Now, listen to the brief answers to the clauses in the questionnaire:
➊ If the word divorce is said three times with the intention of one divorce and the other two times are said merely for emphasis or without any intention of emphasis or non-emphasis, then only one divorce will occur. Allama Alusi has quoted the statement of Allama Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) in Tafsir Ruh al-Ma’ani that the intention of emphasis by a sinful person is considered valid. This is also our belief.

فإن صريح مذهبنا تصديق مريد التاكيد بشرطه وإن بلغ فى الفسق ما بلغ

Mufti Mahdi Hasan, former president of Darul Uloom Deoband, says:
If the woman is consummated and the intention was to give one divorce but the word was repeated three times and the second and third divorces were used as emphasis, then his statement with three types will be valid and one revocable divorce will occur; there is no difference in this.

In the book Al-Muhalli by Allama Ibn Hazm (may Allah have mercy on him), the same words are found but without mentioning honesty or oath, only that the intention of emphasis will be considered valid. He says:

فلو قال لموطوءة : أنت طالق ، أنت طالق، أنت طالق، فإن نوى التكرير (أى التاكيد) لكلمته الأولى وإعلامها فهي واحدة وكذلك إن لم ينو بتكراره شيئا – فإن نوى بذلك أن كل طلقة غير الأخرى فهي ثلاث إن كررها ثلاثا

Someone said to his consummated wife: You are divorced, you are divorced, you are divorced. If she had no intention of emphasis or non-emphasis or informing with the other two, then only one divorce will occur. But if the meaning was that each divorce is separate from the previous one, then three will occur.

➋ The same form is different. The Hanafis believe in the occurrence of three divorces and do not accept ignorance as an excuse. Allama Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), Ibn Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him), and the Ahl al-Hadith consider the divorcer who gives three divorces as three revocable divorces, and here the intention was for the divorce itself, not for three, so according to them, it will be one.
➌ A section of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah has been against this from the beginning, so it cannot be called the consensus of the Ummah. Yes, some of our scholars claim the consensus of the four Imams, but this is also doubtful. The statement of Maulana Abdul Hayy Lakhnawi which we quoted above clearly shows that Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) had one opinion and the companions of Ahmad also had one opinion. We have mentioned the names of those jurists who believe one divorce is revocable in the first foundation of reflection.
➍ In our view, the three divorces in one sitting should be considered as one. This is our opinion whose evidences have been quoted above.

Maulana Saeed Ahmad Akbarabadi (Editor of Burhan Delhi):

He was a student of Maulana Anwar Shah Kashmiri Rashid and among the very distinguished scholars of the Hanafi school in India. He also wrote a paper on this issue. First, he discussed the matter of three divorces in one sitting being considered as one, then he mentioned the ijtihadi and political decision of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and, based on that, the consensus of the four Imams and their school of thought, writing: But in our view, this is a matter of ijtihad, and on this basis, there is room for reconsideration if the conditions of society change or an emergency arises. The reasons and arguments on which this reconsideration can be based are as follows:
◈ The verse in the Holy Quran regarding three divorces is a definitive text that a triple divorce will occur only when the three divorces are given consecutively in different sessions.
◈ فَإِمْسَاكٌ بِمَعْرُوفٍ أَوْ تَسْرِيحٌ بِإِحْسَانٍ also implies the intention and will in pronouncing the third divorce.
◈ When all the Quranic and Prophetic narrations related to divorce are considered together, they shed light on the following matters:
(a) Although divorce is permissible and lawful, it is the most disliked of the permissible things, and the essence of marriage is its continuation.
(b) Divorce should be given only when both husband and wife are certain that they cannot maintain Allah’s limits.
(c) Before pronouncing divorce, the matter should be presented before a bench (arbitrator).
(d) The purpose of the man in pronouncing divorce should not be to torment or harm the woman.
(e) Divorce should not be given in a state of anger.
Hafiz Ibn Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) narrated in “Zad al-Ma’ad” 566/3 the narration of Hazrat Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) that I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) say:

لا طلاق ولا عتاق فى إغلاق

Abu al-Abbas al-Mubarrad explained the meaning of “ighlaq” as narrow-mindedness, restlessness, compulsion; Hafiz Ibn Qayyim said it means anger. Therefore, the Prophetic statement means that a divorce given in a state of anger or compulsion is not a valid divorce. Accordingly, this is the doctrine of Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him), and the hardships he endured for this are not hidden from the scholars.
(f) The intention of the man regarding divorce should be considered. Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) dedicated a chapter in his Sahih titled:

باب الطلاق فى الإغلاق والكره والسكران والمجنون وأمرهما والغلط والنسيان فى الطلاق والشرك وغيرهما

The chapter on divorce given under compulsion and coercion, similarly the ruling on divorce given under intoxication or insanity, or divorce given by mistake or uttering the word of shirk.
And then he narrated the hadith:

الأعمال بالنية ولكل امرئ ما نوى

All actions depend on intention, and every person will get what he intended.
Now, consider the current conditions not only in India and Pakistan but throughout the Muslim world. These conditions are:
◈ Nowadays, Muslims generally are unaware of the issues of divorce and do not know the difference between revocable, irrevocable, and triple divorce. Therefore, whenever they want to declare separation from their wife in anger or for some other reason, they casually utter the word divorce two or three times.
◈ But when the anger subsides, they regret their action and want to restore the marital relationship, but they are told that three divorces have been pronounced on her, and now she cannot be lawful for them without halala.
◈ Both those who perform and those who undergo halala are cursed by the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), so neither the man nor the woman agrees to it, and their honor does not permit it.
◈ The husband insists that he neither knew the ruling of triple divorce nor intended it. But no one listens to him, and the decision remains.
◈ The unfortunate woman’s youth has passed, so partly because of this and partly because of the stigma of divorce, she cannot marry anywhere.
◈ Marriage was also a means of livelihood for that woman. Now that it has ended, she has no means of livelihood. When a person becomes so destitute and impoverished, no sin is unlikely from him.
◈ Moreover, this matter is not only between one man and one woman but also involves their children. One should consider what they will endure and what psychological, moral, and mental effects the separation of their parents will have on them. This is not hidden from the experts.
◈ In short, these are the conditions that have caused a great upheaval in Muslim society. Observe the proceedings of Islamic courts worldwide; you will find that such unfortunate incidents are occurring daily in large numbers.
Now the question is, if those who live peaceful lives cannot hear the cries and lamentations of thousands of oppressed and wronged people, does Islam have no help for them? The answer is yes, and necessarily so. The very action of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) clearly shows that there is so much flexibility in the rulings of divorce that, for the reform of specific conditions of Islamic society, the literal command of any verse of the Quran can be restricted and qualified. So if this is possible, then if in a later era other unforeseen social conditions arise and their reform is possible by returning to the original meaning of the Quranic text, then why would adopting that path not be more correct and appropriate? Therefore, considering the Quranic verses related to divorce and the above clarifications, in the present social conditions, in our view, there is ample scope for the scholars of ijtihad to make the following decisions:
➊ Three divorces pronounced with one word in one sitting will be considered as one divorce, and it will be revocable.
➋ If three divorces are pronounced with three words in one sitting and the husband is in a state of severe anger and after the anger subsides he says that the words of the second and third divorce were said to emphasize the first divorce or were uttered unknowingly in anger, and he was unaware of the ruling of triple divorce and did not intend it, then in all these cases the man’s statement should be confirmed. The true spirit of Islamic Shariah is to try to maintain the marital relationship as much as possible. However, if the husband has firmly decided to sever this relationship, then it is inevitable.
Now let us examine the arguments of those who are not willing to accept the above three divorces as one revocable divorce and are strongly opposed to it. (After this, they examined the claim of consensus and negated it. Then they wrote:)
So first of all, it is not correct to claim that there was a consensus of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) on the order of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), and even if there was consensus, it was a silent consensus, which is in any case less than an explicit consensus. Moreover, it is necessary to keep in mind that a consensus decision made at a particular time based on specific circumstances and conditions of that time, according to the scholars of Usul al-Fiqh, remains obligatory as long as those times and conditions remain. But when those conditions change, that consensus decision will no longer be obligatory, and instead, a new decision must be made in light of the new conditions and requirements. Today, Muslims face exactly this situation, as I mentioned at the beginning. These conditions are not specific to India and Pakistan but are universal. Scholars and thinkers of every Islamic country are deliberating on them and have made decisions in this regard. For example, Egypt, which is the center of religious and Islamic sciences due to Al-Azhar University and where great scholars and jurists of Islam have always emerged, its eminent scholars have also expressed their opinions on this particular issue. Thus, Allama Sheikh Mahmood Shaltut clearly writes in his fatwas:

الطلاق بالثلاث لا يقع إلا واحدة رجعية، ويرد الرجل زوجه بكلمة الرجعة أو بالمخالطة الخاصة

When three divorces are given at once, only one revocable divorce will take place, and the husband will have the right to take back his wife through the word of return or through specific cohabitation.

Allama Syed Rashid Rida writes in his Tafsir al-Manar: Some jurists and intellectuals proposed to our government in Egypt that the original Book and Sunnah should be referred to regarding the issue of triple divorce, whose arguments were first elaborated in great detail by Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, and his student Allama Ibn Qayyim, may Allah have mercy on him, in their books “I’lam al-Muwaqqi’in,” “Ighathat al-Lahfan,” and “Zad al-Ma’ad.” Then, these two scholars were supported and agreed upon by Imam Shawkani, may Allah have mercy on him, Syed Siddiq Hasan, may Allah have mercy on him, and other later Indian scholars.

Accordingly, the Egyptian government enacted a law on this matter, which was approved on March 10, 1929. This law pertains to divorce and contains many clauses. Clause number 3 states: The divorce after which the number is indicated either by gesture or word will only be one revocable divorce.

Furthermore, another esteemed contemporary Arab scholar and Mufti, Sheikh Jamal al-Din al-Qasimi, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote a very excellent book named الاستيناس لتصحيح أنكحة الناس, in which after a very detailed discussion on the issue of divorce, he expressed the opinion that when three divorces occur at once, only one revocable divorce will take place.

Maulana Syed Hamid Ali (Secretary Jamaat-e-Islami, India):

Their article is very detailed, and they have thoroughly examined the arguments of those who believe in the occurrence of three divorces at once. First, they scrutinized the reasoning based on the Quranic verse الطَّلَاقُ مَرَّتَانِ, then reviewed the hadiths that these individuals use as evidence. After that, they clarified the reality of the claim of consensus which is said to be present in the issue under discussion. Then, they cited a hadith from Sahih Muslim and Musnad Ahmad narrated by Rukana رضي الله عنه, which confirms that three divorces in one sitting count as one divorce. This entire article, spanning sixty pages, is worth studying. Here, we present its concluding part, which states:

The summary of the above discussion is that from the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah صلى الله عليه وسلم, and the consensus of the Ummah, it is not established that giving three divorces in one sitting results in a final and irrevocable divorce (ṭalāq mugallazah bā’inah). On the contrary, it is proven from the narration in Sahih Muslim and Musnad Ahmad that three divorces in one sitting do not constitute a final and irrevocable divorce; they will be counted as a single divorce. Although the majority of the Imams and scholars of truth hold the opinion that this divorce is a final and irrevocable divorce, a considerable number of scholars believe that it is not a final and irrevocable divorce. This latter view is, in our opinion, the stronger one. However, even if this view is considered a weaker opinion, it must be acknowledged that there is room for adopting this view based on the Book and Sunnah. It is not new that under certain circumstances and necessities and for the welfare of the Ummah, a weaker opinion is given as a fatwa. The scholars of truth have done this repeatedly. The most serious issue facing Muslims at this time is this. The matter of whether three divorces in one sitting constitute a final and irrevocable divorce is neither unanimous nor explicitly and definitively established from the Book of Allah and the authentic Sunnah. Rather, it is a matter of difference and ijtihad (independent reasoning). Therefore, there is full scope for adopting the weaker opinion in this matter. I appeal to the scholars of the Ummah to reconsider this issue in light of the circumstances and necessities and save thousands and millions of families from destruction.

From my observations, the answers to question number 3 and number 4 have become clear.

I will now present the answers to the first and second questions:

Number: 1

From my point of view, the answer to this question is clear. If one says divorce, divorce, divorce and has the intention of one or three, if the person uttered these words in the same sitting, then only one divorce will take place. Whether the intention is one or three, it does not make any difference. According to the Hanafi point of view as well, in this case, if the one giving the divorce says that my intention was for one divorce, I only said divorce three times for emphasis. Honestly, only one divorce will occur, but in terms of legal ruling (qada), three divorces will be counted. The time has come for Hanafi jurists to eliminate this difference between honesty and legal ruling and decide to issue a fatwa according to the intention.

This matter pertains to the Arabic language. As far as the Urdu language is concerned, it can be said with full confidence that divorce, divorce, divorce or divorce given, given, given or divorce given, divorce given, divorce given — all these words are used for emphasis, not for counting. Unless there is a clear indication for counting, these words should be understood as emphasis only and one should not delve into investigating the intention. But if the one giving the divorce explicitly says that his intention was for one divorce, then necessarily his statement should be accepted because this is also in accordance with the apparent words.

Number: 2

Ignorance is widespread in India (and also in Pakistan). Not only the general public but even many lawyers believe that there is only one form of divorce, which is that the words “three divorces” are spoken or written. In such a case, if a person solemnly states that by the words “three divorces” he only meant to give a divorce and not the number, then his statement should be accepted. As far as my point of view is concerned, whether a man gives three divorces or a thousand, it will not be considered a final irrevocable divorce (mughallazah bainah); only one divorce will be counted, whether he intends to give it three or a thousand times or his purpose is only to give a divorce. What has been stated above is neither meant to issue a fatwa nor to open the door for debate and argument. It is respectfully presented for the consideration of the scholars, hoping that it may help them in resolving this complex issue.

Maulana Mufti Atiq ur Rehman Usmani (President All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat):

The conference held in Ahmedabad (India) in 1973 to resolve the issue under discussion was presided over by the late Mufti Sahib. In the end, he delivered a presidential speech, the summary of which is given at the end of the collection of articles. In it, Mufti Sahib did not explicitly express a single opinion, but he acknowledged the issue as one of disagreement. Secondly, he admitted the difficulties faced by the public due to the Hanafi viewpoint. Thirdly, he emphasized finding a solution that would remove these social complications. Fourthly, he stressed the importance of reaching a consensus. From these points, it appears that his inclination was that Hanafi scholars should seek a reasonable solution to this issue with broad-mindedness rather than rigid jurisprudence. Important excerpts from his speech are as follows:

The articles presented in this discussion are of a very high standard in terms of their characteristics. The respected scholars who wrote these articles have discussed the issue of triple talaq in a very scholarly manner. As far as the Hanafi scholars are concerned, I am not in a position to comment on their opinions after reading these articles. If we consider the matter without regard to the needs of the times and circumstances, two jurisprudential schools of thought emerge regarding the issue of triple talaq. One school considers the three pronouncements of talaq given at once as an emphatic or irrevocable talaq. The other believes in the occurrence of only one talaq. No matter how many modern circumstances and difficulties of the time are presented before the former, they will not change their decision. They will say, who forced the husband to give three talaqs? But at this moment, we have to look beyond these differences and see what the ruling actually is in this matter.

Holding a seminar on the issue of triple talaq is a very courageous step, for which the members of the Islamic Research Center deserve congratulations. It is clear that this is a contentious issue, and due to changes in circumstances and times, it is causing great complications in Muslim society. Therefore, it was necessary for scholars from different schools of thought to sit together and deliberate on this issue and find a way to overcome the difficulties faced by Muslims. The unparalleled All India Muslim Personal Law Convention held in Bombay also had this issue present in some form, but at that time, our focus was only on whether the government has the right to intervene, amend, or repeal Muslim Personal Law or not. But now the issue of triple talaq has come to the forefront, and some demands of modern circumstances are also emerging. We should consider what the Shariah’s decision is on these and seek solutions to the problems. I believe that by taking this step, the Islamic Research Center has pointed out a path. My wish is that whatever is decided here should be presented before the Personal Law Board. Similarly, great work can be done through unity and cooperation; otherwise, creating discord is easy, but the atmosphere of agreement and unity is very difficult to establish. People from different schools of thought are participating in this seminar, but if efforts are made, a common viewpoint can emerge.

During the time of Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (may Allah have mercy on him), some social issues arose. At that time, the situation was such that Muslim women were leaving Islam to join their non-Muslim acquaintances. Therefore, he consulted scholars on the emerging issues and authored a book titled Al-Hilatu An-Najizah, in which solutions to these problems were proposed.

Our scholars tend to be somewhat flexible regarding the inheritance of grandsons, but in the chapter on triple talaq, it is said that there is consensus, so there is no room for amendment. However, this is not correct. This consensus is not such that there is no room for discussion afterward; rather, it is a silent consensus. New circumstances and issues prompted the compilation of jurisprudence. In Medina, the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) did not face any need for this. Considering the circumstances of that time, the Book and Sunnah were sufficient. However, when the Companions advanced to Kufa, Basra, etc., new circumstances and issues arose. Consequently, the jurist scholars felt this important need and compiled jurisprudence, clarifying the origin and texts of various issues. Regarding the issue of triple talaq, the Hanafi viewpoint is that three talaqs given at once count as three. However, Hanafi books also state that if more than one talaq is given for emphasis or if the intention was not to give three, then three do not occur. The Fatwas of Qazi Khan discuss the issue of the word “fa” (فأنت طالق) and its effect on talaq. People give three talaqs out of ignorance, but their intention is not three, so this issue deserves consideration. Innovated talaq should not be considered a good example. Even those who believe in three have situations where one talaq may suffice. We should ensure that whatever decision we make here is by consensus.

Maulana Mufti Kifayatullah Dehlvi, may Allah have mercy on him:

These were the Hanafi scholars of India who expressed their opinions through papers at the scholarly seminar held on this topic. You have observed their opinions. Now, consider the fatwa of a prominent scholar of united India and great Mufti Maulana Kifayatullah Dehlawi, may Allah have mercy on him, and one of his deputies.

He has been mentioned earlier in some articles, and his fatwa has also been cited that a petitioner inquired about the same triple talaq. An incident had occurred in the petitioner’s village where a Hanafi person, after giving three divorces, took a fatwa from a Deobandi scholar and followed it. Now the villagers boycotted him. The late Mufti Sahib replied as follows: According to the consensus of the majority of scholars, giving three divorces in one sitting results in all three being counted, and the four Imams are unanimous on this. Apart from the four Imams, some scholars do not accept that this constitutes a revocable divorce, and this is also the belief adopted by the Ahl-e-Hadith, and it has been narrated from Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), as well as from Ta’us (may Allah have mercy on him), Ikramah (may Allah have mercy on him), and Ibn Ishaq (may Allah have mercy on him). Therefore, it is not correct to call any Ahl-e-Hadith person a disbeliever because of this ruling, nor are they worthy of boycott or expulsion from the mosque. However, it was impermissible for a Hanafi to seek a fatwa from an Ahl-e-Hadith scholar and act upon it in terms of issuing a fatwa. But if he committed this out of compulsion and necessity, then it is pardonable.

Another Fatwa of Madrasa Aminia Delhi:

And some of the pious predecessors and earlier scholars also hold this view, although this opinion is not found among the four Imams. Therefore, the fatwa issued by that Maulvi Sahib against the Mufti Ahl-e-Hadith is incorrect, and issuing a fatwa of disbelief, severance, and expulsion from the mosque against the Mufti Ahl-e-Hadith on the basis of this difference is not correct. Due to extreme necessity and fear of harm, if the one who pronounces divorce follows the opinion of those scholars who hold that in the mentioned incident there is only one divorce, then he will not be considered outside the Hanafi school because the Hanafi jurists have permitted following the opinion of the second Imam due to extreme necessity.

In undivided India, the status of Mufti Kifayatullah Dehlavi (may Allah have mercy on him) and his Madrasa Aminia among the Hanafis is well known. We have quoted these two fatwas to clarify two points: first, that this issue is not unanimous (Ijma) as is claimed; rather, many companions and followers also held this view. Second, criticism and condemnation of those who adopt this belief is not correct; even if a Hanafi follows it, he is not blameworthy, let alone the Ahl-e-Hadith being declared as deniers of the consensus of the Ummah and being excommunicated from the Islamic community on this issue, as many do.

Third, from this fatwa it is also understood that the truth is not confined only to the four Imams. Other schools are also correct because their rulings are based on the Quran and Hadith, especially the Ahl-e-Hadith school.

Maulana Abdul Hayy Lakhnawi, may Allah have mercy on him:

He was a learned personality of undivided India, Maulana Abdul Hayy Lakhnawi, may Allah have mercy on him. A reference to one of his opinions regarding the footnotes of Umdat al-Ra’aya has already been mentioned. Next, two of his fatwas appear in the article of Maulana Pir Karam Shah, may Allah have mercy on him, in which he has permitted acting according to a fatwa involving one divorce under severe necessity. Furthermore, he has refused to consider this practice as contradictory to Taqlid (imitation).

The solution proposed by Maulana Waheeduddin Khan (India):

Maulana Waheeduddin Khan Sahib has also presented two solutions for the issue of triple talaq pronounced in one sitting. The first solution is the same as the Ahl-e-Hadith school of thought, which many Hanafi scholars are also urging to adopt. Maulana Waheeduddin Sahib has accepted this solution as well. Please observe: In the opinion of the writer, in the current situation, we have to choose one of two methods in this matter. One is that when a person says talaq talaq talaq in a moment of immediate emotion, it should be attributed to the husband’s anger, meaning it should be understood that the husband gave three talaqs in one sitting as an expression of intensity, although his intention was not to give a complete talaq but only to express the intention of divorce strongly. This was a matter of threat and severity, not actually the completion of triple talaq.

In this case, it will be done that the husband will be told that your three talaqs will be considered as one talaq of the first month in practice. Now you have the option to reconcile, and if you insist on separation, then according to the Quranic method, you give the second talaq in the next month, and if after that the intention of separation remains, then in the third month you can complete the talaq process and separate from your wife.

The second possible method for us in this matter is that we adopt the Sunnah of Farooq (Caliph Umar) according to the circumstances of our time, meaning that the three talaqs given in one sitting are considered three talaqs and separation is effected between the man and woman. But in this case, it is mandatory according to the Sunnah of Farooq that the husband be severely punished to discourage this temperament. Under the current legal system, it is probably not possible to punish such a husband by flogging, but an alternative is certainly possible, which is that just as the ulema of India demanded from the Government of India and got a law passed by the Parliament in the famous Shah Bano Begum case, similarly in this matter too, a demand should be made from the government to pass a law in the Indian Parliament. This law should stipulate that if a Muslim pronounces three talaqs to his wife in one sitting, then the talaq will be effected, but at the same time the husband must suffer a severe punishment for this un-Islamic act. In the opinion of the writer, that punishment should be that the husband who committed the un-Islamic act of giving three talaqs in one sitting should be fined a heavy amount as a penalty, and this entire amount should be given to the divorced woman. Even if this husband is not in a position to pay cash, he should be sentenced to long-term rigorous imprisonment. In this matter, a deterrent punishment is necessary. Any punishment less than this cannot be effective in this matter.

Maulana Syed Salman Al-Husseini Al-Nadwi (India):

Consideration of social interests in juristic differences: Marriage is for establishing a household and family, not for separation or mere indulgence and pleasure-seeking. Therefore, giving divorce without any valid Shariah reason is a forbidden act. Divorce should only be given when living together becomes unbearable and there is fear of harm or fitnah if divorce is not given. In such a situation, the disliked act of divorce is made permissible. However, only one divorce should be given in a state of purity, and then after the completion of the waiting period (iddah), the divorce should be finalized. Divorce should not be given in anger, agitation, or emotional turmoil; one should control anger and always strive to maintain pleasant relations.

Three divorces should never be given at once. Whether three divorces given in one sitting count as one or three is a matter of difference. In light of some ahadith and the decision of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), all four Imams have considered three divorces given in one sitting as three divorces after which there is no right of reconciliation. However, originally, the strict enforcement of triple divorce was intended as a punishment for many men’s careless approach to divorce. In that society, widow remarriage was not a difficult issue, nor did the bride’s family have to bear expenses. Therefore, the enforcement of this ruling, which the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as a leader and Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) as the Caliph of the Muslims also implemented, was a kind of legal punishment (ta’zir) for men. On the other hand, today, the woman mostly bears the consequences of the sin of triple divorce. The woman brings dowry, is the means of establishing the household, and at the time of the wedding ceremony, there is a feast like a walima at her place. The man gains everything, even forgives the dower, enjoys the feast, then in anger and agitation gives three divorces and separates, remarries. The woman becomes a widow. She neither has the courage to marry again herself, nor does society arrange her remarriage immediately, and if she has children, the issue of remarriage becomes almost impossible. The future of her children is at stake. Those who offer partial solutions regarding religion issue fatwas and then separate. The divorced woman lives her whole life bitterly, suppressing her legitimate demands. If she has a strong shield of religion and chastity, she lives with sorrow and pain in her heart; otherwise, she seeks forgiveness from religion and chastity.

In such a situation, scholars, muftis, and judges should think and weigh the issue in terms of custom, general welfare, necessity, compulsion, need, removal of hardship, facilitation, and permission, and solve the problem. This is a disputed issue on which there has been difference among the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), the great Tabi‘in (may Allah have mercy on them), and later scholars of the Ummah, and it is not a matter of disbelief or faith. Do not show severity on one aspect only. On the other hand, some ahadith and the statements of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), the great Tabi‘in (may Allah have mercy on them), and scholars of the Ummah consider three divorces given in one sitting as one divorce. This is also an opinion. The Ahl al-Hadith today are strong proponents of this view. There is no harm in those holding scholarly differences expressing their differences within scholarly limits on the table of knowledge, but do not make a disputed issue a cause of division and factionalism in the Ummah.

When Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) made a decision as the Caliph of the Muslims, the Muslims agreed with him. Whoever disagreed kept their difference to themselves. Today, the Muslim Personal Law Board in India has prestige, dignity, and credibility. It is a symbol of Muslim unity and a representative of their authoritative power. If, on the basis of the opinions of the president, members, and majority of scholars of the Muslim Personal Law Board, a decision is made on a disputed issue, then for the preservation of the collective system of Muslims and maintaining their unity, we must support that opinion. Yes! Individually and in special cases, we must remember to consider the permissions given by Shariah for the public, especially for women, and in such matters, if a mufti cannot decide himself, permission should be given to refer to Ahl al-Hadith scholars.

Is the Consensus of the Imams Equivalent to the Consensus of the Ummah?

Claim: 3

In the issue of triple talaq, the Hanafi school is the school of the four Imams, which is equivalent to the consensus of the Ummah.
After refining the issue under discussion, now two claims remain to be examined. One is whether the agreement of the four schools on an issue is equivalent to the consensus of the Ummah. The second is whether deviation from this consensus is following the Shias.
As far as the first claim is concerned, in our opinion, this claim is completely wrong for the following reasons.

Firstly:

For consensus, it is necessary that all mujtahids agree at the same time of the ruling. Even if it is conceded that instead of all mujtahids, the agreement of only these four mujtahids is sufficient for consensus, then how can the simultaneous agreement of these four be proven on any issue? Whereas their eras are not the same; the birth date of Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, is 80 AH, Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, 93 AH, Imam Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, 150 AH, and Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, 164 AH. The death dates are Imam Abu Hanifa, may Allah have mercy on him, 150 AH, Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him, 179 AH, Imam Shafi’i, may Allah have mercy on him, 204 AH, and Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, 241 AH.

Secondly:

If it is said that the consensus and agreement of these four Imams’ opinions on any issue is sufficient, even then the matter requires consideration because the jurisprudential books of these schools are not actually written by the Imams themselves but were compiled by later people centuries afterward. Can it be claimed that all the statements and opinions attributed to them are authentic? It is quite possible that the attribution of some statements to them is not correct. Accordingly, Abdul Aziz Muhaddith Dehlavi (may Allah have mercy on him) points out this aspect and writes:

It should be known that among the writings of the four Imams (may Allah have mercy on them) in the science of Hadith, today only the Muwatta (of Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him) is available to people, and the Musnads of the other Imams, which are famous in the world, were not authored by the Imams themselves but were compiled by others who came after them, collecting their narrations and naming them as the Musnad of so-and-so. It is not hidden from any intelligent person that the narrations of any person remain a mixture of the ripe and the unripe, i.e., authentic and weak, until that person, whose greatness and virtue we believe in, himself distinguishes this mixture after repeatedly studying it with deep contemplation and teaches his students. How can such a source be trusted otherwise?

It should be known that among the writings of the four Imams, except for the Muwatta (of Imam Malik, may Allah have mercy on him), no other compilation in the science of Hadith is available today, and the Musnads of the other Imams, which are famous worldwide, were not authored by the Imams themselves but were compiled by others who came after them, collecting their narrations and naming them as the Musnad of so-and-so. It is not hidden from any intelligent person that the narrations of any person remain a mixture of the ripe and the unripe, i.e., authentic and weak, until that person, whose greatness and virtue we believe in, himself distinguishes this mixture after repeatedly studying it with deep contemplation and teaches his students. How can such a source be trusted otherwise?

When the collections of hadith attributed to them are in such a state, then the codified books of these schools, in which their statements and opinions and the extraction of rulings upon them have been compiled, cannot be considered as the consensus of the Ummah based on the agreement of these four schools.

Thirdly:

This claim is probably based on the established mindset that the truth is confined to these four schools of thought. Outside of them is misguidance and error, as Imam Tahawi of the Hanafi school, may Allah have mercy on him, claimed, although this is also incorrect. Restricting the truth to these four schools is a form of legislating Shariah, which is solely the right of Allah Almighty. These four chains of imitation were established after the fourth century Hijri, as Shah Waliullah, may Allah have mercy on him, and other scholars have explicitly stated that if the truth is considered confined to these alone, then what judgment will be passed regarding the Muslims of the first four centuries, which include the Companions of the Prophet, may Allah be pleased with them, the Followers (Tabi‘in), the Followers of the Followers (Tabi‘ al-Tabi‘in), and the Mujtahid Imams, may Allah have mercy on them all? If they were true Muslims despite not adhering to the chains of imitation of these four schools, then why can later Muslims not also be people of truth by following the Quran and Hadith in the same way? What reasonable evidence is there to bind them to any one chain of imitation? After all, even after the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, the Followers, and the Followers of the Followers, may Allah have mercy on them, there has always been a great group of Muhaddithin (people of Hadith) in every era who, by staying apart from the imitation of the Imams, have adopted pure Quran and Hadith as their way of conduct and style of speech. Who can exclude them from the people of truth? Indeed, if the truth is considered confined to the four schools, then, God forbid, the group of Muhaddithin scholars would exclude themselves from the people of truth, whereas it is precisely this group whose unparalleled efforts preserved the religion in its original form and presented the complete life of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, in knowledge and practice in a consolidated form. جزاهم الله عنا وعن جميع المسلمين أحسن الجزاء
In any case, this chain of imitation is a recent phenomenon, and there is no obligation or ruling in Islamic Shariah that mandates it. To restrict the truth to these self-made methods is outright imposition and manipulation. Accordingly, Mulla Ali Qari Hanafi writes:

ومن المعلوم أن الله سبحانه وتعالى ما كلف أحدا أن يكون حنفيا أو مالكيا أو شافعيا أو حنبليا بل كلفهم أن يعملوا بالكتاب والسنة إن كانوا علماء، أو يقلدوا العلماء إن كانوا جهلاء

It is certain that Allah Almighty has not burdened anyone to become Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i, or Hanbali, but has obligated all (Muslims) that if they belong to the class of scholars, they should act directly upon the Book and Sunnah, and if they are ignorant, they should follow the scholars.

Fourthly :

If the basis of this philosophy is the assumption that the faculty of Ijtihad possessed by the Four Imams cannot be attained by later Imams, and therefore Ijtihad ended with them and following anyone else is also impermissible, as some people have written, then this is also incorrect. Many Hanafi scholars themselves have refuted this false assumption and have called it disrespectful to other Mujtahids and an affront to Allah’s power. For example, Maulana Abdul Ali Hanafi (Bahr al-Uloom), in his commentary on Ibn al-Hummam, states:

وأما المجتهدون الذين اتبعوهم بإحسان، فكلهم سواء فى صلاح التقليد بهم، فإن وصل فتوى سفيان بن عيينة أو مالك بن دينار يجوز الأخذ به كما يجوز الأخذ بفتوى الأئمة الأربعة إلا أنه لم يبق عن الأئمة الآخرين نقل صحيح إلا أقل القليل، ولذا منع من التقليد إياهم فإن وجد نقل صحيح منهم فى مسألة فالعمل به والعمل بفتوى الأئمة الأربعة سواء

The Mujtahids who are good followers of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) are all equally capable of being followed (i.e., there is no exclusivity for the Four Imams). If a fatwa of Sufyan ibn ‘Uyaynah (may Allah have mercy on him) or Malik ibn Dinar (may Allah have mercy on him) is found, it can be acted upon just as it is permissible to act upon the fatwas of the Four Imams. The only point is that the sayings of other Imams besides the Four Imams are less frequently transmitted with authentic chains, and for this reason some people have discouraged following them. However, if in any issue their opinion is found with an authentic chain, then acting upon it is equal to acting upon the fatwas of the Four Imams. And in the Sharh Muslim, while refuting the claim that following anyone other than the Four Imams is not permissible, it is written:

ثم فى قوله (يعني ابن الصلاح) خلل آخر إذ المجتهدون الآخرون أيضا بذلوا جهدهم مثل بذل الأئمة الأربعة، وانكار هذا مكابرة وسوء أدب، بل الحق أنه إنما منع من منع تقليد غيرهم لأنه لم يبق رواية مذهبهم محفوظة، حتى لو وجد رواية صحيحة من مجتهد آخر، يجوز العمل بها، ألا ترى؟ أن المتأخرين أفتوا بتحليف الشهود إقامة له موقع التزكية على مذهب ابن أبى ليلى، فافهم

In it, he calls this notion disrespectful to other Imams and gives an example of deviation from the Four Schools. Earlier, on page 624, he writes:

ثم إن من الناس من حكم بوجوب الخلو من بعد العلامة النسفي، واختتم الاجتهاد به، وعنوا الاجتهاد فى المذهب، وأما الاجتهاد المطلق، فقالوا: اختتم بالأئمة الأربعة حتى أوجبوا تقليد واحد من هؤلاء على الأمة، وهذا كله هوس من هوساتهم لم يأتوا بدليل، ولا يعبأ بكلامهم، وإنما هم من الذين حكم الحديث: أنهم أفتوا بغير علم، فضلوا وأضلوا

That is, those who have decided that after Allama Nasafi (may Allah have mercy on him) “Ijtihad within the school” (Ijtihad fi al-Madhhab) has also ended, while absolute Ijtihad had already ended with the Four Imams, and therefore now it is obligatory for the Ummah to follow one of these Four Imams, this is merely one of their desires for which they have no evidence. In reality, their statement is not worthy of consideration; it is an example of the hadith: They issued a fatwa without knowledge, so they themselves went astray and led others astray.

And Maulana Nizam al-Din Lakhnawi (may Allah have mercy on him), in his Sharh Muslim, writes:

اعلم أن بعض المتعصبين قالوا: اختتم الاجتهاد المطلق على الأئمة الأربعة ولم يوجد مجتهد مطلق بعدهم، والاجتهاد فى المذهب اختتم على العلامة النسفي صاحب الكنز ولم يوجد مجتهد فى المذهب بعده، وهذا غلط ورجم بالغيب، فإن سئل من أين علمتم هذا، لا يقدرون على إيراد دليل أصلا، ثم هو إخبار بالغيب وتحكم على قدرة الله تعالى، فمن أين يحصل علم أن لا يوجد إلى يوم القيامة أحد يتفضل الله عليه بنيله مقام الاجتهاد، فاجتنب عن مثل هذه التعصبات

It should be known that some bigots who say that absolute Ijtihad ended with the Four Imams and that after them no absolute Mujtahid appeared, and similarly that Ijtihad within the school ended with Allama Nasafi (may Allah have mercy on him), the author of Kanz, and after him no Mujtahid within the school appeared, this is completely false and utterly baseless. If asked where they got this knowledge from, they will not be able to present any evidence. Moreover, this is clairvoyance (predicting the unseen) and passing judgment on Allah’s power without evidence. How did they acquire the knowledge that Allah will not grant anyone the rank of Ijtihad until the Day of Judgment? Avoid such bigotry and stubbornness.

Fifthly:

The obligation of taqlid (imitation) of the four Imams has caused many trials and evils within the Muslim Ummah, for example:
◈ The true religion, which was one, was divided into four sects, promoting sectarianism and prejudice among Muslims, and this partisanship and prejudice reached such an extent that even inside the Kaaba, four separate prayer rugs were established, and they were not even tolerant enough to pray behind one another.
The true religion was made into four sects,
They created discord in the religion of the Prophet.
◈ The audacity to fabricate hadiths was shown; accordingly, these followers of the four Imams fabricated many hadiths in favor of their own Imam’s virtues and against the opposing Imams, using many fabricated hadiths to justify their sect. In some hadiths, to prove their sect correct, they even altered texts, to the extent that in the zeal to affirm taqlid, a high-ranking follower scholar in India even added a piece of a verse on his own.

◈ They promoted disregard for the Quran and Hadith and encouraged blind imitation and jurisprudential stagnation, which was also acknowledged by Syed Sulaiman Nadvi (may Allah have mercy on him) while describing the services of the Ahl al-Hadith movement.

Besides these, there are many other evils that arose from the obligatory theory of taqlid of the Imams and the jurisprudential stagnation of their followers. In this regard, this chain of taqlid is entirely against Islam and extremely harmful for the Muslim Ummah, let alone granting it such sanctity and importance that any issue on which these four taqlidi sects agree is considered the consensus (ijma) of the Ummah. Whoever has even a little understanding of religion and whose heart is imbued with the zeal and honor of Islam will never support this theory of taqlid.

Who is following in the footsteps of the Shias?

Claim: 4

In the issue of triple talaq, Ahl al-Hadith are following the footsteps of the Shia, deviating from the consensus of the Ummah.
As for the fourth claim that Ahl al-Hadith have deviated from the consensus of the Ummah and are following the footsteps of the Shia, and that the command of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to the Ummah to follow the Rightly Guided Caliphs (may Allah be pleased with them) has slipped from their hands.

Clarifying the reality of the claim of consensus, we have explained that the order of Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) to count three divorces as three was a political and tactical measure; otherwise, Hazrat Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) was a proponent of the prophetic era ruling (i.e., counting three divorces as one). This is why during the first two years of his caliphate, this was the practice, and even towards the end of his life, he expressed regret over this tactical measure he had adopted. The same practice was followed during the caliphate of Hazrat Abu Bakr Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him), and many other companions (may Allah be pleased with them), including Hazrat Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), also held this view. Now see, in this issue, which side did the Rightly Guided Caliphs (may Allah be pleased with them) take: counting three divorces as three or counting three divorces as one? Obviously, according to the aforementioned statements, all three Rightly Guided Caliphs (may Allah be pleased with them) believed in counting it as one divorce. Now think a little! Who is the real culprit in not following the Rightly Guided Caliphs (may Allah be pleased with them)? So, are the followers of the Shia Ahl al-Hadith or are the followers themselves?
Furthermore, the rigid followers are on the path of deviation from the understanding and methodology of the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) and the Tabi‘in (may Allah have mercy on them). Insisting on personal imitation is itself a deviation from the method of the companions and the Tabi‘in, due to which they have to reject many authentic hadiths (either through weak interpretations, distortions, or fabricated principles). Alhamdulillah, Ahl al-Hadith are safe from this deviation and adhere to the methodology of the noble companions (may Allah be pleased with them).
Then also consider who divided the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) into categories of jurists and non-jurists. And who rejected the narrations of the non-jurist companions (may Allah be pleased with them) in favor of personal reasoning? Wasn’t all this done by the Hanafi followers? Also, calling the companions (may Allah be pleased with them) non-jurists and rejecting their narrated hadiths in favor of one’s own reasoning—is this not an insult to the companions? Is this not following the Shia? Think carefully about who is following the footsteps of the Shia.
And moving forward! Do not the followers prefer the sayings of their Imams over the Quran and Hadith? Certainly, they do, which has been acknowledged by many great scholars (fear of length prevents citing dozens of references and incidents). Is considering their Imams as obligatory to obey and preferring their sayings over the Quran and Hadith not the same doctrine of infallible Imamate that the Shia believe in? The only difference is that the Shia verbally accept their Imams as infallible, while the followers do not say so verbally, but practically they have made their Imams infallible to the extent that the Quran and Hadith are abandoned, but they are not ready to abandon the sayings of their Imams. Decide for yourself, or else get a decision from a third court on who is following the footsteps of the Shia.
We used to blame them, but the fault turned out to be ours.
If our words hurt the delicate sensibilities, then we present the statement of Shah Ismail Shaheed (may Allah have mercy on him), in which he expressed the same view about the followers. He says:

وقد غلا الناس فى التقليد وتعصبوا فى التزام تقليد شخص معين، حتى منعوا الإجتهاد فى مسألة، ومنعوا تقليد غير إمامه فى بعض المسائل، وهذا هي الداء العضال التى أهلكت الشيعة، فهؤلاء أيضا أشرفوا على هلاك إلا أن الشيعة قد بلغوا أقصاها فجوزوا (رد) النصوص بقول من يزعمون تقليده وهؤلاء أخذوا فيها، وأولوا الروايات المشهورة إلى قول إمامهم، والحق تأويل قول الإمام إلى روايات إن قبل وإلا فالترك

People have gone to extremes in imitation and have shown great prejudice in adhering to imitation of a particular person, to the extent that they have even forbidden ijtihad in some issues, and in some matters, they do not tolerate imitation of anyone other than their Imam. This is the severe disease that destroyed the Shia, so these (followers) are also close to destruction. The difference is that the Shia have reached the extreme of destruction because they consider it permissible to reject texts in favor of the sayings of those they claim to imitate, whereas these (followers) try to reconcile even authentic narrations by interpreting them away to fit their Imam’s opinion, while the correct approach is to make the Imam’s sayings conform to the narrations if they must be adopted; otherwise, the Imam’s sayings should be abandoned in favor of authentic narrations.
Moreover, regarding the solution to the issue under discussion, the Hanafis have especially invented the cursed halala, whose fatwa Hanafi jurists have issued and continue to issue. Is this not a Shia-like practice? The companions (may Allah be pleased with them) considered it adultery, and during the era of the companions and Tabi‘in (may Allah have mercy on them), no Muslim could even imagine committing such a cursed act, let alone committing it. Have our brothers, by ignoring the practice of the companions and Tabi‘in, opened the path to adultery in the form of halala like the Shia mut‘ah?
Secondly, apart from the Hanafis, there is consensus of the entire Ummah that the customary halala is forbidden and cursed; the companions and Tabi‘in agreed on its prohibition, all the Mujtahid Imams agreed on it, and the codified schools of thought also consider it forbidden. Even Imam Abu Hanifa’s students, Imam Muhammad and Imam Abu Yusuf (may Allah have mercy on them), considered such a marriage invalid. Among the entire Ummah, only Imam Abu Hanifa (may Allah have mercy on him) considered the marriage conditional upon halala valid, thus opening the door to the permissibility of the cursed halala, on which his Hanafi followers also issue fatwas permitting it. Now everyone should think: is committing and permitting such a cursed act, whose prohibition is established by the Prophet’s ﷺ command and on which the entire Muslim Ummah is unanimous, a denial of the consensus of the Ummah or not? Thus, the followers themselves are following the footsteps of the Shia and are also the deniers of the consensus of the Ummah.

علي وجه التحليل

Request to the Government!

Finally, we will also request the government to enact a law to prevent halala, in which both the man and woman involved in halala should be given the punishment for adultery, as Hazrat Umar Farooq (may Allah be pleased with him) had expressed the idea of giving the punishment of stoning to both the man and woman who perform halala. Similarly, a reasonable punishment should also be proposed for the mufti who issues a fatwa permitting halala, so that no mufti dares to issue such a fatwa in the future that legitimizes the prevalent halala, which is completely against the Quran and Hadith, contrary to the practices of the Companions and the Successors, and against the consensus of the Ummah. It is certainly not right to allow any group, under the pretext of jurisprudential imitation, to openly deny the Quran and Hadith, defile the practices of the Companions and Successors, and deviate from the consensus of the Ummah.

Similarly, a punitive punishment should be proposed for giving three divorces at once, especially writers of petitions and lawyers should be bound to write only one divorce because the purpose is also fulfilled by this; if there is no reconciliation during the waiting period (‘iddah), even one divorce results in separation between husband and wife and both become free. And whoever writes three divorces in a petition or as a lawyer should be given a punitive punishment so that this wrong tendency and custom is discouraged.وَمَا عَلَيْنَا إِلَّا الْبَلَاغُ الْمُبِينُ

Summary of Previous Discussions:

The following points become clear from the above explanation and detail:
◈ Counting three divorces given at once as one divorce is not a new issue; rather, since the time of the Prophet ﷺ it has been counted as one divorce.
◈ First of all, Hazrat Umar رضي الله عنه in the third year of his caliphate, when he saw that people were giving divorces frequently, issued a disciplinary order to count three divorces given in one sitting as three divorces to deter people from this practice.
◈ This was not a Shariah ruling but rather an ijtihadi (juristic) and disciplinary measure.
◈ Even after Hazrat Umar رضي الله عنه’s political and administrative order, many Sahabah رضي الله عنهم and Tabi‘een رحمهم الله practically differed and continued to count the triple divorce under discussion as only one divorce.
◈ Many eminent Imams after the Sahabah and Tabi‘een رحمهم الله also adhered to this position.
◈ Several mufassirun have acknowledged in the exegesis of الطَّلَاقُ مَرَّتَانِ that the wording requires that two or three divorces given together be counted as only one divorce.
◈ Many contemporary Arab scholars have also advised adopting this school of thought considering the circumstances.
◈ Many Hanafi scholars of the Indian subcontinent have also admitted that the solution to the difficulties faced by Muslim women is to adopt the Ahl al-Hadith school or to seek fatwa from an Ahl al-Hadith scholar and follow it.
◈ The prevalent practice of halala is a cursed act and adultery; a divorced woman does not become lawful for her first husband through this halala.
◈ The claim of consensus on the triple divorce being three divorces is completely false and baseless.
◈ If someone takes a fatwa from a Hanafi Ahl al-Hadith scholar and follows it, then this is permissible.
◈ If a person repeats the word divorce three times for emphasis while his intention was only to divorce once, then his intention will be considered and it will be counted as one divorce. This is the unanimous position of all four schools.
◈ In cases of dire necessity, even Hanafi scholars consider it permissible to issue fatwa according to another school of thought and act upon it.
◈ One revocable divorce means that the husband can reconcile during the ‘iddah period and after the ‘iddah expires, he can remarry without halala.
◈ The ‘iddah is three menstrual cycles or three months.