Arab Law Quarterly Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

brill.com/alq

Triple Ta lq in One Session: An Analysis of the Opinions of Classical, Medieval, and Modern Muslim Jurists under Islamic Law
Muhammad Munir*
Chairman and Associate Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Shariah and Law, International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan

Abstract This work analyzes one of the hottest and most tricky issues of the Muslim Family Law, i.e., whether in cases of divorce (ta lq), three repudiations spoken in one session equal one or three repudiations. There had been no disagreement regarding this issue among the four Sunni Schools of Jurisprudence until the end of the 7th century Hijrah when Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn al-Qayim challenged the position of the amhr (majority of Islamic scholars). Before them only the Sha and the Z hirites had treated three pronouncements in one session as one. The amhr has given very strong arguments in support of their point of view, whereas Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn al-Qayim have advanced very weak arguments in support of their view. The Sha Immiyah School of Thought holds two opinions. According to one view, three ta lqs in one session amount to one, while the second point of view holds that three repudiations in one session do not amount to any ta lq. Keywords ta lq, triple ta lq, divorce, three repudiations, Muslim Family Law, Ibn Taimiyah, Ibn al-Qayim, amhr, Sha, Z hirite

* E-mail: muhammadmunir@iiu.edu.pk. The author is also Visiting Professor at the University College of Islamabad. He wishes to thank Moulana Ammar Khan Nasir, Shamsul Haq, Al-Hassan, Yasir Aman Khan, Dr Namane Djeghim, Dody Muliawan, and Mahvish Rani for their help. The help of Barrister Erum Ali Khan is acknowledged in editing an earlier draft of this work. I wish to thank Moazzam Wasti for editing this paper. The quotations from the Qurn in this work are taken, unless otherwise indicated, from the English translation by Muhammad Asad, The Message of the Qurn, Dr al-Andalus, Redwood Books Trowbridge, Wiltshire, UK, 1984 (reprinted, 1997).
Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2013 DOI: 10.1163/15730255-12341247

30

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

1. Introduction One of the most signicant jurisprudential issues in Islamic legal history is whether the intended triple divorce has the eect of the third and nal repudiation or should it be treated as a single pronouncement with the stated number having no eect. Many classical treatises in every Muslim school of thought contain detailed discussions stating, analyzing, rebutting, or approving the opinions and arguments of opposing schools and jurists. All four Sunni Schools of Jurisprudence argue that the intended triple divorce (ta lq) has the eect of the third and nal repudiation whereas Imm Bqar, Imm S diq (both Sha Imms), Z hirites (except Ibn H azam), Ibn Taimiyah, Ibn al-Qayim, several tbin (Followers), and most of the ah l al-h adth in India and Pakistan consider triple ta lq in one session (malis) as a single pronouncement. The discussion in this work will, therefore, focus on: a clarication of the position of the amhr (majority of jurists); an analysis of the positions of Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn al-Qayim on this issue; an overview of the position of ahl al-h adth in India and Pakistan; and a clarication of the opinions of the Sha Immiyah.

2. Types of Divorce in Islamic Law Islamic law categorizes divorce as ta lq al-sunnh (ta lq in accordance with the Sunnah) and its opposite ta lq al-bid ah.1 In the rst type, the husband divorces his wife (with whom he has consummated the marriage) through a single pronouncement while she is in a pure state (not menstruating) during which time he has not had sexual intercourse with her. In the second type, the husband proclaims divorce while his wife is menstruating or in an impure state, having already established a conjugal relationship with her, which is not in accordance with a sunnh divorce.2 Muslim jurists
1 Alddn Ab Bakr al-Ksn, Badi al-Sa ni (Beirut: Dr Ehia al-Turth al-Arab, 2000), 3:140; Muhammad b. Ahmd b. Rushd, Bidyat al-Mujtahid, trans. Imran A.K. Nyazee (Reading: Garnet Publishing Ltd., 1994), 2:75; Muhammad b. Muih, Al-Fur, (Cairo: lam al-Kutub, 1985), 5:370; Mans r al-Buht, Sharh Muntaha al-Irdt, (Beirut: Dr al-Fikr, n.d.), 3:123-126; Muhammad Abdullah Rpr, in M. Si ddique (Ed.), Fatw Ahli l-H adt, (Sargodha: Idrah Ihy al-Sunnah al-Nabawiya, n.d.), 2:506-508. 2 Technically the dierent expressions for describing ta lq as ta lq al-sunnh, ta lq al-bid ah, ta lq al-h asan and ta lq al-ih san should not be called modes or forms of ta lq because a ta lq is a ta lq. These expressions only refer to the conduct of the man pronouncing a ta lq.

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

31

dier regarding the eect of ta lq al-bid ah. Ta lq al-sunnh can be further divided into ih san and h asan. In the ih san form, the husband pronounces only one ta lq while his wife is in a state of purity during which time he has not had sexual intercourse with her and does not revoke it until the end of the third purity. The h asan form of ta lq is commonly misunderstood by most contemporary writers who believe that, in this manner of divorce, three ta lqs must be spoken during three successive or consecutive time-periods (tu hr) when the wife is not menstruating.3 This procedure is incorrect for h asan ta lq because this is the minimum, not maximum, time period in which the three separate pronouncements must be completed.4 Muslim jurists further classify a valid divorce as either bin (irrevocable) or raj (revocable). A divorce is called bin because the marriage has not been consummated or because of the number of ta lq pronouncements. In the raj divorce, the husband possesses the right to decide over his wifes return, without there being a choice for her in the matter, provided that
See, e.g., D.F. Mulla, Mullas Principles of Mahomedan Law, 19th edn., in: M. Hidayatullah & Arshad Hidayatullah (Eds.), (New Delhi: LexisNexis Butterworth, 1990, 13th repr. 2005), 261; David Pearl & Werner Menski, Muslim Family Law, 3rd edn., (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1998), 281; Alamgir Muhammad Sirajuddin, Sharia Law and Society: Tradition and Change in South Asia, 2nd edn., (Karachi: Oxford University Press, 2001), 200; J.J. Nasir, The Islamic Law of Personal Status, 2nd edn., (London/Dordrecht/Boston: Graham & Trotman, 1990), 119; Asaf A. Faizi, Outlines of Muhammadan Law, 4th edn., (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999), 153; Asaf A. Faizi, in: Tahir Mahmud (Ed.), Outlines of Muhammadan Law, 5th edn., (New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2008), 121; Dawoud el-Alami & Doreen Hinchclie, Islamic Marriage and Divorce Laws of the Arab World (London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1996), 23; Syed Khalid Rashid, in: V.P. Baharatiya (Ed.), Muslim Law, 4th edn., (Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2004), 101; M. Tahir Mansuri, Family Law in Islam: Theory and Practice (Islamabad: Shariah Academy, 2006), 121. 4 In the h asan form, if the husband has pronounced one ta lq in a tu hr, he must not pronounce ta lq for a second time until the next tu hr. He can do so still later, at anytime during the subsistence of the marriage, say after three years, and whenever he does so, the ta lq will be counted as the second ta lq. When the husband has pronounced ta lq for the second time in a tu hr, he must not pronounce ta lq for a third time before the next tu hr, but he can do so still later, at anytime during the subsistence of the marriage and whenever he does so, the pronouncement will be counted as the third ta lq. Tahir Mahmud argues that the requirement of the next tu hr for the second and the third ta lqs, thus, prescribes the minimum limitation, not the maximum limitation and its purpose is to provide to the husband, at least about a month for reconciliation each time. See Tahir Mahmud, No more Ta lq, Ta lq, Ta lqJuristic Restoration of the True Islamic Law on Divorce, International and Comparative Law Review, XII (1992), 5; Tahir Mahmud, The Muslim Law of India, 3rd edn., (New Delhi: LexisNexis Butterworths, 2002), 105-106.
3

32

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

the marriage has been consummated. The fuqah agreed about this because of the words of the Exalted:
O Prophet! When you [intend to] divorce women, divorce them with a view to the waiting-period appointed for them, and reckon the period [carefully], and be conscious of God, your Sustainer. Do not expel them from their homes; and neither shall they [be made to] leave unless they become openly guilty of immoral conduct. These, then, are the bounds set by Godand he who transgresses the bounds set by God does indeed sin against himself: [for, O man, although] thou knowest it not, after that [rst breach] God may well cause something new to come about.5

3. The amhrs Position Regarding Triple Ta lq Certain issues under this heading require a detailed discussion such as what is triple ta lq? Is triple ta lq permissible? What is the amhrs position regarding it? Is triple ta lq binding? 3.1. What Is Meant by Triple Ta lq? There is no disagreement among the jurists regarding its validity when triple ta lq is pronounced three times in three separate periods of purity (tu hr). Jurists have, however, disagreed on the form of triple divorce: rst, where divorce is pronounced thrice in one session (malis) within one phrase such as anti t liq thalthan (you are divorced thrice); secondly, where divorce is uttered in three sentences in one session (malis) such as anti t liq anti t liq anti t liq (you are divorced, you are divorced, you are divorced). The majority of Muslim jurists agree that triple ta lq (three pronouncements within one sentence or three phrases in one session) is not permissible. They argue that it is an innovation, the performance of which is prohibited. However, if this type of divorce is performed, the overwhelming majority of Sunni jurists consider it valid, binding, and eective. 3.2. Legal Eect of Triple Ta lq? If divorce is pronounced thrice in one phrase at once (i.e., anti t liq thalthan) or repeated three times in one session (i.e., anti t liq, anti t liq, anti t liq), or if divorce is uttered at three dierent times within one
5

Q65:1.

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

33

period of purity or menstruation without any revocation, this has the eect of the third and nal repudiation according to the majority of jurists among the Companions of the Prophet (sa h ba), Followers of the Companions (tbin), and fuqah of the four Sunni Schools of Thought, including the four founders and their disciples.6 3.2.1. Arguments of the amhr In support of their view, the amhr have presented many arguments from the Qurn, the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH), opinions and fatw of the Companions (sa h ba) as well as Followers (tbin), consensus, and analogy. First, the Qurn states that Ta lq is twice; then either to retain in all fairness, or to release nicely.7 They argue that, according to the verse, if a husband tells his wife, anti t liq, anti t liq in one session then it is valid, binding and eective. In the next verse, the Qurn mentions the third repudiation saying:
Thereafter, if he divorces her, she shall no longer remain lawful for him unless she marries a man other than him. Should he (the second husband) also divorce her, then there is no sin on them in their returning to each other, if they think they would maintain the limits set by Allah. These are the limits set by Allah that he makes clear to people who know (that Allah is alone capable of setting these limits).8

The third repudiation mentioned in this verse may be pronounced in the same tu hr (period of purity between menstruations) in which the two were pronounced. They argue that the Qurn uses the conjuction fa and not the word thumma ( fa in ta lqah, i.e., thereafter, if he divorced her) for the third repudiation, which means that if the husband pronounced the third repudiation in the same tu hr in the same session, then it will be valid,

Sahnn b. Sad al-Tanh, Al-Mudaanah, (Beirut: Dr al-S dir, n.d.), 2:68; Muhammad b. Qudmah, Al-Mugn , (Cairo: Dr al-H adth, 1995), 8:243; Ibn Rushd, supra note 1, at 74; Al-Kasn, supra note 1, at 153; Kaml ibn al-Humm, Fath al-Qadr al l-Hidyah (Cairo: Bulq, n.d.), 3:25; Ahmad b. Muhammad al-Ta hw, Sharh M n al-Athr (Hyderabad: n.p., 1302 AH), 3:59; Burhn al-Dn, Al-Fargh nan al-Marg nn, Al-Hidyah, trans. Imran A.K. Nyazee (Bristol: Amal Press, 2006), 1:560. 7 Q2:229. 8 Q2:230.
6

34

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

eective, and binding, whether or not such a ta lq was allowed or permissible in essence.9 Similarly, the Qurn says:
O Prophet! When you [intend to] divorce women, divorce them with a view to the waiting period appointed for them, and reckon the period [carefully], and be conscience of God, your Sustainer. [. . .] These, then, are the bounds set by Godand he who transgresses the bounds set by God does indeed sin against himself.10

According to the majority, the rst part of this verse is about ta lq al-sunnh and the second part (i.e., these, then, are the bounds set by Godand he who transgresses the bounds set by God does indeed sin against himself ) is about the triple ta lq in one phrase or three dierent phrases in one session because if it is not eective and binding, he would not be transgressing the limits set by God.11 Secondly, the amhr have cited many H adth from the Prophet (PBUH), and fatws from the Companions and Followers to support their point of view, as shown below:12 1. The companion Ftimah bint Qas was thrice-divorced by her husband Ab H afs b. Mug rah al-Mahzm and the Prophet (PBUH) refused her any maintenance. The opponents argue that, in this case, the repudiation was the third and nal statement (which is eective and binding) and not three repudiations within one phrase or within three phrases in one session. 2. It is reported that Ruknah b. Abd Yazd divorced his wife (batt)13 in a single session, and was greatly saddened in his longing for her.
9 For a detailed discussion of triple ta lq, see Bah th Haiat Kibr al-Ulm, H ukm al-ta lq al-thalth bi-lafzi n wh idin f daw al-kitb wa l-sunnh, Muga llah al-Buh uth al-Islmiya, 1:3 (1397 AH), 28-173 (hereafter Bah th Haiat). Muga llah al-Buh uth al-Islmiya, 1:3 (1397 AH)a Saudi academic journal, has published the most comprehensive edition on the issue of triple ta lq to date. Also see Muhammad Sarfrz Khan Sa fdar, Umdah al-Ass f H ukm al-Ta lqt al-Thalth, (Gujranwala: Maktaba Sa fdariya, 8th edn., 2010), 52. This is one of the best works on triple ta lq in the Urdu language. 10 Q65:1. 11 Bah th Haiat, supra note 9, at 148-149. 12 The amhr give many ah dth (pl. of h dth) to support their point of view but Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn al-Qayim have criticized all of them. 13 Literally, it means ta lq that severs relations between a husband and a wife. The fuqah diered on the meaning of batt ta lq. Some argue that it means either one or three ta lq. Others bring in two ta lq into it. See Sa fdar, supra note 9, at 61-62.

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

35

The Messenger of Allah asked him in which manner had he divorced her? Ruknah said that he divorced her thrice in a single session whereas he had intended only one. The Prophet (PBUM) asked him to swear in the name of God that he had intended only one, which he did.14 According to some jurists and commentators, if three ta lq spoken in one session are ineective, then why would the Prophet (PBUH) ask Ruknah to swear that he intended only one and not three ta lq.15 Sa fdar argues that if the word batt would not mean that three ta lq are three, then why would the Prophet (PBUH) ask Ruknah to swear because when metaphorical words are used for ta lq, the mans real intention assumes great signicance, whether the husband intended three or one. He further says, that the word batt could also mean three. However, if three would be considered as one, then the Prophet (PBUH) would never ask Ruknah to swear. It is reported that Ruknah pronounced the second ta lq at the time of Umar b al-H att b and the third at the time of Uthmn b. An.16 Therefore, this H adth is proof that three ta lq in one session are counted as three.17 3. The amhr cite the fatws of many Companions (sa h b), Followers (tbin), and Followers of the Followers (tabtbin) to support their point of view. Maln Muhammad Amn Sa fdar, a harsh critic of ahl al-h adth in Pakistan, has gathered forty-ve such fatws.18 Thirdly, the amhr cite ijm (consensus) in support of their view. Many scholars maintain the existence of a consensus amongst the scholars that the triple divorce, pronounced once, has the eect of a third and
14 See Ab Dwd, Sunan, (ed.) Muhammad Mahyddn, (Beirut: Al-Maktaba al-Athariya, n.d.), H adth No. 2206; Al-H kim Muhammad b. Abdullah, Al-Mustadrak ala al-Sa h h ain, (ed.) Must haf Abdul Qdar, (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Iilmiyah, 1990), H adth No. 2808, 2:199; Al-Drqutn , H adth No. 3978, 79, 2:39. 15 Sa fdar, supra note 9, at 61. 16 See Ab Dwd, supra note 14, at 1:300. 17 See Sa fdar, supra note 9, at 61-62. H adth Ruknah is deliberately cited because it is also used by the opponents to support their view. All other ah dth given by amhr in support of their view are severely criticized by the opponents. As explained below, the opponents use the same H adth to prove that three pronouncements are counted as one. 18 See Muhmmad Amn Sa fdar, Tn ta lq ar h allah, H air al-Fatw, (ed.) Muhammad Anwar (Multan: Maktaba Imddiya, 1999), 5: 419-433. M.A. Sa fdar was a harsh critic of ahl al-h adth in Pakistan and has written the most detailed criticism of their views on ta lq in the above-mentioned work.

36

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

nal repudiation. Scholars who have made this claim include Imm al-Sh,19 Ab Bakr al-Rz,20 Ab Bakr al-Maraz,21 Ibn al-Arab,22 Al-Bj,23 Ibn Rajb,24 Ibn Abd al-Barr,25 Alddn al-Ksn (d. 587),26 Ibn al-Tn,27 Al-Subk,28 Ibn H aar al-Haitham,29 and Al-Dusq.30 H anbal sources before Ibn Taimiyah suggest that there was a consensus among them on this issue.31 Ab Bakr al-Sarkhas (d. 483), Ksn of the H anaf School, and Ibn al-Arab (d. 543) of the Mlik School, attribute the opinion that triple divorce takes the eect of only one divorce to the Sha.32 Moreover, both these jurists mention only the views of the Sha jurists and criticize the same. This can be interpreted that the Sunni jurists were in agreement on giving the triple divorce the eect of three separate divorces carried out in accordance with the Sunni divorce.33 Moreover, if there were
Supra note 9, at 392, Ibid. 21 Muhammad al-Maraz, Ih tilf al-Fuqah, Al-Samra (ed.), (Beirut: lam alKutub, 1986), 134. 22 Supra note 9, at 392; Ab Bakr M. Ibn Abdullah ibn Arab, Ah km al-Qurn, (ed.), Imd Zak al-Brud (Cairo: al-Maktaba al-Tawqiya, n.d.), 1: 245. 23 Bah th Haiat, supra note 9, at 392. 24 Ibid. 25 Ysuf b. Abdullah Ibn Abdul al-Barr, al-Kf f Fiqh Ahl al-Madinah, (ed.), Muhammad Muhammad Uhayd (Riyd: Maktabah al-Riyd al-H adthah, 1980), 2:572573; Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Dusq, H shiat al-Dusq ala al-Sharh al-Kbir, (Beirut: Dr al-Fikr, n.d.), 2:362. 26 Al-Ksn, supra note 1, at 154. 27 Ibn H ajr al-Asqaln, Fath al-Br Sharh Sa h h al-Bukhr, Abdullah b. Bz & Muhibuddin al-H atb (eds.), (Madinah: Maktabat al-Madinah, n.d.), 9: 363. 28 Ahmad b. Muhammad Ibn H ajr al-Haitham, Tuh fat al-Muh tj f Sharh al-Minhj, (Beirut: Dr Ihy al-Turth al-Aab, n.d.), 8:83; amshuddn Muhammad b. Ab al-Abbs al-Raml, Nihiat al-Muh til Sharh al-Minh (Beirut: Dr al-Fikr, 1984), 7:8. 29 Ibn H ar al-Haitham, Tuh fat al-Muh t, 8:83. 30 Al-Haitham, supra note 28, at 2:362. 31 See Muhammad b. Qudmah, Al-Mun, (ed.) Al-Sayed, H att b & S diq (Cairo: Dr al-H adth, 1995), 10: 96-97; Ab Ishq Ibrhm b. Al b. Ysuf al-Shirz, Muhaddab f l-Fiqh l-Imm al-Sh, (Cairo: n.d.), 4:287-288; Al-Dusq, supra note 25, at 2:361-362; Muhammad b. Al al-Shakn, Nal al-At r, Is muddin al-Sa bbt (ed.) (Cairo: Dr al-H adth, 1993), 8:19-20. 32 Ab Bakr Muhammad b. Ahmad al-Sarhas, Kitb al-Mabst, (ed.), Smr Must afa Rabb (Beirut: Dr Ihya al-Turth al-Arab, 2002), 6:58; Al-Ksn, supra note 1, at 153; and Ibn Arab, supra note 22, at 1: 245. 33 Sarhas argues that if a husband divorced thrice, three are eected [according] to us [the Ah nf ]; and Al-Zaidiyah from among the Sha say only one [ta lq] is eected; and the
20 19

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

37

disagreements among the Sunni jurists before Al-Sarkhas and Al-Ksn, they would have denitely mentioned them, given their arguments, and analyzed and rebutted the same. Finally, the last argument of the amhr is qiys (analogy). They argue that since divorce is the husbands right, he can exercise it in stages or all at once just like entering into a marriage contract. 3.2.2. Arguments of Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn al-Qayim Before Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn al-Qayim, few if any major jurists vocally and openly supported the view that three or more ta lq should be counted as one. Today this view nds tremendous support among the ahl al-h adth in India and Pakistan. However, ahl al-h adth scholars have not added anything new to the debate. They only repeat the arguments given by Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn al-Qayim, therefore, their arguments will be discussed in greater detail below. However, the arguments of Sha scholars are also given, where necessary. Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn al-Qayim use the same Qurnic verse mentioned above, i.e., Ta lq is twice; then either to retain in all fairness, or to release nicely,34 and argue that the word marratn means marratn bada marrah (i.e., one after the other).35 This means, they argue, that the ta lq in which the husband has the right to exercise revocation, is to divorce her twice, one after the other and it does not make any dierence whether the husband pronounces ta lq one, three, or one thousand times.36 Rwand argues that three repudiations are not eective when pronounced in one

Immiya [the Twelvers] say nothing [no ta lq] is aected. Sarhas, supra note 32, at 6:58. This is conrmed by H illa great Sha jurist. See Namuddn al-H ill, Shar al-Islm f Masil al-H allwa l-H arm, (ed.), Al-Siyad S diq al-H usain (Beirut: Dr al-Qr, 2004), 3:14. However, in another place in his book, H ill mentions two opinions, i.e., if two or three ta lq are pronounced in one phrase, then it is said: no ta lq is eective, and [it is also] said: one ta lq is counted. See H ill, Shari, at 3:11. 34 Q2:229. 35 amshuddn Ibn al-Qayim, Ithah al-Lafh n min Masid al-Shat n, (ed.) M. Ahmad Iis, (Mans rah: Dr al-ad al-add, 2005), 1: 256, 269-271. According to Rwand (a Sha commentator), marratn means daf atn (i.e., two times). See Qutb uddn al-Rwand, Fiqh al-Qurn, (ed.) Al-Siyad Ahmad al-H usain (Qum: Matb ah al-Wiliyah, n.d.), 2:176. 36 Bah th Haiat, supra note 9, at 1:3 (1397), 153-54.

38

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

phrase and if a person divorced in one phrase he has not divorced twice or three times.37 Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn al-Qayim also argue that the Qurnic verse, Thereafter, if he divorces her, she shall no longer remain lawful for him unless she marries a man other than him. Should he too divorce her, then there is no sin on them in their returning to each other, if they think they would maintain the limits set by Allah,38 means that if he had divorced her for the third time in a single repudiation in one phrase twice or thrice, then she is not lawful for him until she marries someone else.39 The most important H adth used by them in support of their view is the one reported by Abdullah b. Abbs who said: The divorce in the period of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), Ab Bakr and in the rst two years of the caliphate of Umar, if pronounced thrice at once was counted as one, but Umar gave it eect against them.40 The second H adth used by the three amounts to one camp is the famous H adth Ruknah mentioned above and reproduced here. Ibn Abbs said: Ruknah divorced his wife thrice in a single session and was greatly saddened in his longing for her. The Messenger of Allah questioned him, How did you divorce her? He replied, I divorced her thrice in a single session. The Prophet (PBUH) said that is a single divorce, return to her by revocation if you want.41 According to Ibn Taimiyah, no one during the time of the Prophet (PBUH) who had exclaimed divorce thrice at one time, was considered by the Prophet (PBUH) to have performed a legally valid divorce. In his view, all the H adth (pl. ah adth) given by
Rwand, supra note 35, at 2:177. He compares ta lq with lin and says, just like in lin swearing four times is obligatory, but if four [oaths] are uttered in one phrase, it will not be eective, and similarly, if [during the h a ] seven stones are thrown together to hit devil [a symbolic hitting of devil called ram], it will not be eective (i.e., counted as seven times), so is [the issue of ] the ta lq., at 2:177. 38 Q2:230. 39 Bah th Haiat, supra note 9, at 154. 40 Muslim, Sa h h , (ed.) M. Fud Abdul Bq, (Beirut: Dr Ih y al-Turth al-Arab, n.d.), H adth No. 1472, 2:1099; Ahmad b. H anbal, Musnad al-Imm Ah mad b. H anbal, (Beirut: Musasat al-Rislh, 2001), H adth No. 2875, 5:61. Ibn al-Qayim and his followers consider this H adth as their strongest argument. Ibn al-Qayim even asserts that the 15-year period in the H adth was ijm (consensus) among the sa h ba about this issue. See amsuddin Ibn al-Qayim, Zd al-Md f Hady H ar al-Ibd, (ed.) Ahmad Al Sulmn (Mansrah: Dr al-ad al-add, 2009), 4:100-101. Also see Ibn al-Qayim, supra note 35, at 1:261. 41 Ahmad, supra note 40, H adth No. 2387, 4:215.
37

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

39

amhr in support of their view are not authentic. He asserts that such H adth are either weak or fabricated.42 Ibn Taimiyah considers the ruling of Umar (i.e., three ta lq means three) in the nature of discretionary punishments, which can be used when needed. He mentions that Umars ruling was opposed by his opponents amongst the Companions because this ruling did not dierentiate between those who deserved punishment because they had pronounced talaq intentionally, while fully aware of its consequences, and others who had pronounced it in ignorance, i.e., while being unaware of its consequences.43 Unfortunately, Ibn Taimiyah does not give any evidence in support of his claim (that Umars ruling was discretionary in nature) and it is not possible to nd any muh adith or any jurist among the amhr who considers it as such. Instead, the latter always treated it as a legal, not a political, ruling. Ibn Taimiyah asks how the amhr can consider triple divorce impermissible and yet also claim that the resultant ta lq is binding. The textual evidence necessitates that only the ta lq al-sunnh can be binding, argues Ibn Taimiyah. If this divorce is considered by the Lawgiver to be impermissible but valid, what purpose is served by the division of divorce into the permissible and the prohibited, charges Ibn Taimiyah. If this were true, it would lead to the existence of a contradiction in the legal rulings, but Allah is far removed from making contradictory rulings.44 Ibn Taimiyah asserts that some H anbal scholars before him also considered three ta lq in one session to be counted as one.45 An interesting analysis of the works of H anbal scholars before Ibn Taimiyah was carried out by Matroudi who did not nd any evidence of such an argument, as was claimed by Ibn Taimiyah.46 Out of ve H anbal scholars, i.e., Al-H iraq (d. 334/945),47 Ibn al-Bann (d. 471/1078),48 Ibn Qudmah (d. 620/1223),49
42 Ahmad Ibn Taimiyah, Mamu al-Fatw, (ed.) Al-Qsim, Abd al-Rahmn & Muhammad (Riyd: Dr Alam al-Kutub, 1991), 33:12-13. 43 Ibid., 33:16-17. 44 Ibid., 24-25. 45 Ibid., 33:11. 46 See Abdul Hakim Al-Matroudi, The H anbal School of Law and Ibn Taimiyah: Conict or Conciliation (London: Routledge, 2006), 177. This is perhaps the best work on the inuence of Ibn Taimiyah on the H anbal School. 47 Umar al-H airaq, Muh tasa r (Riyd: Maktabat al-Marif, 1988), 185. 48 Al-Hasan Ibn al-Bann, al-Muqn f Sharh Muh tasa r al-H airaq (Riyd: Maktabat al-Rushd, 1994), 3:959-960. 49 Muhammad Ibn al-Qudmah, Umdat l-Fiqh, Ahmad Muhammad al-Azz (ed.), (Beirut: al-Maktaba al-Athariyah, 2004), 105.

40

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

Bah al-Dn al-Maqdis (d. 624/1227),50 and Al-Majd Ab l-Barakt (d. 652/1254), Ibn Taimiyahs grandfather, only al-Majd has mentioned that H anbal scholars were split on the status of a triple ta lq, but he did 51 not mention any dispute about its legal eects. Ibn al-Qayim, Ibn Taimiyahs main disciple, mentions that I dont nd any H anbal scholar [before Ibn Taimiyah] except the grandfather of Ibn Taimiyah who supports the view of Ibn Taimiyah.52 Even this may be going too far because Al-Mardw mentions that Ibn Taimiyah told him that his grandfather, Al-Majd, used to issue secret fatw that three divorces amounted to one only.53 As discussed above, this was not Al-Majds public opinion.

4. Evaluation of the Arguments from Both Sides A thorough analysis and evaluation of the arguments of both sides (i.e., three means three camp and the three means one camp) is required to conclude this discussion. The amhr have severely criticized both the contents as well as the narrators of the H adth used by the three means one camp. The amhr question the H adth reported by Ibn Abbs that the ta lq at the time of the Prophet (PBUH), Ab Bakr and the rst two years of khilfat of Umar . . . and ask, what is meant by ta lq in this H adth? If it means every form of ta lq, then a person divorcing his wife in three successive tu hr periods would also be considered to have pronounced only one. Ibn Taimiyah and his followers do not accept this. Ab Bakr al-Baihaq argues that Bukhr did not check its authenticity because this H adth is against Ibn Abbss other reports.54 The main points against this H adth are given below:

50 Abdur Rahmn al-Maqdis, al-Uddah Sharh al-Umdah (Cairo: Dr al-H adth, 2003), 451-425. 51 Al-Majd Ab l-Barakt, al-Muh arrar f al-Fiqh (Riyd: Maktabat al-Marif, 2nd edn., 1984), 2:51, 56. 52 Ibn al-Qayim, supra note 35, at 1:292. 53 Al al-Mardw, al-Ins f, (ed.) al-Fq (Beirut: Massast al-Trikh al-Arab, n.d.), 8:453-454. 54 Ab Bakr al-Baihaq, Sunan al-Kubr, ed. Ath (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah, 1st edn. 1994), 7:337.

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

41

(1) This H adth is narrated by T ws,55 but is against the reports of all other students of Ibn Abbs.56 The report is not authentic.57 T ws is considered by the amhr as a liar and fabricator of H adth, and attributing them to the Companions.58 (2) Urwah b. al-Zubair reported that yshah informed him that the wife of Rifa al-Qurad came to the Prophet (PBUH) and said, Messenger of Allah, Rafa has divorced me thalthn (thrice). After him I married Abdur Rahmn b. Zubair al-Qurad who is accid (i.e., impotent). The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, Perhaps you want to return to Rafa? No, not until he experiences your sweetness and you experience his (i.e., the marriage is

55 His full name is Ab Abdur Rahmn T ws b. Kisn (d. 106/725). See Muhammad Ibn Sad, Ta baqt al-Kubr, (ed.) Muhammad Abdul Qdar, (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah, 1990), 5:537; Muhammad Ibn Isml al-Bukhr, Al-Trh al-Kabr (Hayderabad: Diratu l-Mrif al-Islmiya, n.d.), 4:365; Abdur Rahmn b. Muhammad al-Tamm, al-Jarh wa l-Tadl (Beirut: Dr Ihy al-Turth al-Arab, 1952), 4:500; and Muhammad b. Ahmad al-D ahab, Siyar Ilm al-Nubal, (ed.) Shuaib al-Arnth, (Beirut: Musasa al-Rislh, 3rd edn. 1985), 5:38. 56 Ibn Rushd, supra note 1, at 73. 57 The chain of its narrators is doubtful because in some narrations T ws reports from Ibn Abbs; in others T ws reports from Ab al-Sa hba from Ibn Abbs and in others Ab al-Ghawz reports from Ibn Abbs. There are problems with its contents as well. Ab al-Sa hba reports in one narration, dont you know when a man divorced his wife thalthan (thrice) before consummation of his marriage with her, it was considered one. But in another narration, he states that dont you know that the ta lq, at the time of the Prophet . . .. See Muslim, supra note 40, H adth No. 3491-3493. Also available, at <http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/ muslim/009.smt.html> (last visited 03/02/2011); and Abdur Razzq b. Humm, Musa nnaf, (ed.) H abbur Rahmn al-Aza m, (Beirut: Al-Maktab al-Islm, 1403 AH), H adth No. 11336, Vol. 6, p. 392. See Ab Dwd Sulmn, supra note 14, H adth No. 2200. In this report T ws reports from Ab al-Sa hb who reports from Ibn Abbs. And Abdullah, supra note 14, H adth No. 2792, 2: 214. In the last report Ab al-Ghawz reports from Ibn Abbs. 58 In another report, Ab al-Sa hb is said to have asked Ibn Abbs whether he knew that three ta lq, at the time of the Prophet, Ab Bakr and the early three years of Umars H ilfat was considered as one? Ibn Abbs armed this fact: Yes, it was so. Muslim, supra note 40, H adth No. 1472, 2:1099. Ab al-Sa hb who is considered either weak or mahl (unknown), is reported to have asked Ibn Abbs: tell me something that you hate the most [to tell], and Ibn Abbs would narrate this episode. Muslim, supra note 40, H adth No. 1472, 2:1099.

42

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

consummated).59 By comparing this H adth with H adth T ws, there seems to be two situations: (1) that the Arabic word al-thalth in H adth yshah and H adth T ws means that three divorces were either separately pronounced (i.e., on three dierent occasions) or they were pronounced in one phrase (such as I divorce you thrice). If they were pronounced in one phrase, then H adth yshah is more authentic as it is reported both by Imm Bukhr as well as Imm Muslim and it must prevail. It would mean that three ta lq when pronounced in one phrase makes a wife illegal for the husband, and she is not allowed to marry him again until she has married someone else, and is subsequently divorced from him after consummation of her (second) marriage. However, if the word al-thalthan is given the meaning of three divorces on three dierent occasions, then H adth T ws (ta lq at the time of the Prophet) does not prove anything in this discussion. Giving the word al-thalthan to mean three ta lq on three dierent occasions in the H adth reported from yshah and interpreting it to be three ta lq in one phrase (in one setting) in the H adth reported by T ws cannot be accepted. (3) The fatw of Ibn Abbs is against H adth T ws. Other students of IbnAbbs such as Sad b. Jubayr, At b. Ab Rabh, Mujhid, Akramah, Amr b. Dnr, Mlik b. al-H uwayrat, Muhammad b. Eys b. al-Bukr and Maia b. Ab Aysh al-Ans r, report from Ibn Abbs that he considered three ta lq [in one phrase or stated thrice in one session] as three.60 (4) Several great muh adthn have mentioned that should the H adth be authentic this is about a gyair mad khulan bih woman (with whom the marriage has not yet been consummated).61 (5) It is argued that pronouncing three ta lq in one phrase or in three sentences in one session was a prohibited act; was condemned by
59 Bukhr, Sa h h , H adth No. 5260 and Muslim, supra note 40, H adth No. 1433. The words above are that of Bukhr. In a similar H adth narrated by Bukhr it is related from yshah that a man divorced his wife three times and she married (someone else) and the Prophet (PBUH), was asked if she was lawful to the rst husband. He said, No, until he experiences her sweetness as the rst one did. Bukhr, Sa h h , H adth No. 5261. 60 Baihaq, supra note 54, H adth No. 14982, 7:552; Sakn, supra note 31, H adth No. 2860, 6:276. 61 Ibid. Mrdn argues that T ws himself stated that this H adth is about gyair mad h ulan bih. Alldn Al b. Uthmn al-Mrdn, Al-ahar al-Naq al al-Baihaq (Beirut: Dr al-Fikr, n.d.), 7:331.

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

43

the Prophet (PBUH); and was considered as istihz bi-kitb allah (mockery with Gods law). If this is so, then could the Companions (sa h ba) dare to carry out this illegal act (three divorces in one phrase or three phrases in one session) at the time of the Prophet, Ab Bakr, and in the beginning of Umars rule? Were the Companions pronouncing bid ta lq all the time and were committing this bid ah for fteen years? Sa fdar asserts that it is a very serious allegation against the Companions.62 (6) Many jurists have attempted to defend this solitary H adth from Ibn Abbs but one has to be very careful when doing this because it concerns a matter of h all (permitted) and h arm (prohibited), and any H adth which is not even acceptable to its reporter cannot be accepted in haste. (7) Moln Sarfrz Khn argues that if a bad practice existed at the time of the Prophet (PBUH) it does not necessarily imply that he knew about it and that such practice was taking place with his permission. He points out that certain practices existed at that time of which the Prophet (PBUH) had no knowledge. Moreover, since the above H adth is neither the saying nor the act of the Prophet, then why should it be raised to the status of a textual authority?63 He quotes Ibn H azam who argues that there is nothing in this H adth which proves that the Prophet (PBUH) treated three ta lq as one or counted them as one. Nor does it reveal that the Prophet (PBUH) ordered this practice to be maintained when he knew about it because what is counted as a proof is only acceptable if the Prophet (PBUH) said something, did it himself, or approved of it.64 (8) It is very clear that this H adth is not the Sunnah of the Prophet (PBUH), i.e., part of his sayings or acts or something tacitly approved by him. Baihaq quotes from Imm Sh that this report seems to be abrogated because it is not possible that he would give fatw against it.65
Sa fdar, supra note 18, at 5:439. Sa fdar, supra note 9, at 84. 64 Ab Muhammad Al b. Ahmad Ibn H azm, Al-Muh all bi l-Athr (Beirut: Dr alFikr, n.d.), 9:392. 65 Baihaq, supra note 54, H adth No. 14983, 7:552. Ab Dwd also considers this report of Ibn Abbs as superseded. See Ab Dwd, supra note 14, H adth No. 2195, 2:259.
62 63

44

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

(9) Maln Sarfrz Khn argues that the H adth [the ta lq at the time of the Prophet (PBUH), Ab Bakr and the rst two years of the khilfat of Umar, were considered as one] does not mean that three ta lq in one session were considered as one. It simply means that at that time people used to pronounce one ta lq instead of three. Thereafter, if the husband wanted, he would give a second and a third in two successive tu hr periods, or he would wait until the end of the third tu hr period when the wife would become free from him. This H adth does not tell us that at that time three ta lq used to be pronounced but would be counted as one.66 (10) This H adth does not mention that three ta lq in one phrase or in three phrases in one session were counted as one. It only says, al-ta lq al ahde raslullah . . . (i.e., the ta lq at the time of the Prophet) without specifying the type of ta lq.67 (11) Since T wss report was about a well-known social fact at that time, then why is it that only one man (who does not have good reputation among the muh adithn) reported it? Such a well-known societal fact, instead, should have been reported by many of his contemporaries. (12) How the Companions of the Prophet could keep quiet when Umar allegedly innovated the rule, i.e., that three ta lqs in one session will be considered as three? The amhr have criticized both the contents as well as the narrators of H adth Ruknah despite the fact that some of them use it to support their point of view. This H adth is quoted by Imm Ahmad b. H anbal in his Musnad and its narrators in the chain are Sad b. Ibrhm from Muhammad b. Ishq from Dwd b. al-H isn from Akramah from Abdullah b. Abbs. Since the opponents have used this H adth as a proof for their point of view, the amhr treat it as a shd (exception) and severely criticize all
66 This is how Imm Ubadullah b. Abdul Karm and Ab Zar al-Rz understood this H adth. See Baihaq, supra note 54, H adth No. 14983, 7:552; and Sa fdar, supra note 9, at 87. 67 Ab Sad Sharafuddn Dehlvis criticism is the most scornful by an ah l al-h adth scholar. Surprisingly, his views are reproduced in Fatwa Ta niyah which is considered as the most authentic of ah l al-h adths collection of legal edicts. See Maln Ta nullah Amratsar, Fatwa Ta niyah, (ed.) M. Dwd Rz (Lahore: Maktaba Ash b al-H adth, 2010), 2:216. Dehlaw was a top Indian ahl al-h adth scholar but supported the opinion of amhr on this issue.

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

45

the narrators except Abdullah b. Abbs. Their main criticism is summed up below: (1) In one version of H adth Ruknah reported by Imm Ahmad,68 one of the narrators Muhammad b. Ishq (other narrators are: Sad b. Ibrhm, Dwd b. al-H isn, and Akramah) is not trustworthy for Imm Nas;69 Imm Ab H ta m describes him as daf;70 Imm Dr Qutn, Sulmn Tamm, Hishm b. Urwah, ImmYahy b. Sad al-Qatt n consider him a kad d b (liar);71 (2) Imm Ahmad himself supported the view of the amhr; (3) The amhr argue that Ruknah pronounced only one ta lq and not three and this narration was supported by Ruknahs family; (4) It is reported that Sad b. Ibrhm was a singer and thereby his narration cannot be accepted; (5) Muhmmad b. Ishq is considered by Imm Mlik as dal (antiChrist) and a kad d b.72 According to Urwah, he had fabricated H adth earlier and was punished for the same. (6) Dwd b. al-H isn was accused of being a kariite. Allma D ahab called him a munkir al-h adth (one who denies H adth);73 (7) Akrama (mentioned in this H adth) was also a kariite and used to attribute H adth to Abdullah b. Abbs. In addition, Sad b. al-Musa ib, Imm At and Imm Sirn, considered him a liar.74 (8) There are authentic reports from Abdullah b. Abbs in which he considers three ta lq in one session as valid, binding, and eective.75
This version is reported by Imm Ahmad, See Imm Ahmad, supra note 40, 1:265; Baihaq, supra note 54, 7:339. 69 Ab Abdur Rahmn al-Nas, al-D af wa l-Matrkn, (Beirut: Musasa al-Kutub al-Thaqyah, 1985), 211. 70 Ab H tam, Kitb l-Ilal, 1:433. 71 amshuddn al-Dhahab, Mizn al-Iitidl f Naqd al-ril (Beirut: Dr al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah, 1995), 3:21. 72 Ab Bakr Kht b Baghdd, Trkh Baghdd (Beirut: Dr al-Gharb al-Islm, 2002), 1:223. 73 Imm Su fyn b. Einiah says that we use to avoid his H adth. Imm Abbs Dur calls him weak. Dhahab, supra note 71, 3:9, 10. For more details, see Sa fdar, supra note 9, at 109-110. 74 See Dhahab, supra note 71, 3: 96. 75 For an interesting discussion of the quality of the above-mentioned H adth and the trustworthiness or otherwise of those who narrated it from IbnAbbs, see Sa fdar, supra note 18, at 5: 435-437.
68

46

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

(9) The version of this H adth in Ab Dwd does not prove that three ta lq shall be counted as one because its chain has an unknown person from Ban Ab R. This is why Imm Naa described this H adth as daf (of weak authority).76 Ibn H azm opined that a weak H adth cannot be a proof.77 Such a weak H adth cannot be used to make something legal or illegal. (10) According to authentic reports, Ruknah had pronounced ta lq 78 batt and not triple ta lq. It can be concluded from the above criticism that the H adth of Ibn Abbs, i.e., ta lq at the time of the Prophet . . ., is not authentic; secondly, it shall not be called H adth of the Prophet but is a narration attributed to Ibn Abbs, who himself, as reported in many other H adth, considered three ta lq in one session as valid, binding, and eective; thirdly, if it is accepted as authentic, it does not say three ta lq used to be counted as one. It only mentions that people used to pronounce one ta lq; fourthly, declaring three ta lq as one and treating three ta lq of gyair mad khulan bih (woman with whom the marriage has not been consummated) to be having the same legal eect as all other forms of ta lq, cannot be accepted because of its contents as well as its narrators; fthly, H adth Ruknah cannot be accepted as all the narrators are very daf (weak) and were known for fabricating H adth. In case the H adth is authentic even then it shows that three ta lq are counted as three otherwise why would the Prophet ask Ruknah to swear that he intended one; and nally, how can daf ah adth

Yahy b. Sharaf b. H usan al-Naa, Sharh al-Muslim (Beirut: Dr Ihy al-Turth al-Arab, 1392 AH), 1:478. 77 Ibn H azm, supra note 64, at 10:168. Khall Ahmad Sahranpr (d.1346 AH) argues that according to Mustadrak, the unknown (majhl ) man was Muhammad b. Ubaidullah b. Ab Rf, who was very weak narrator. Khall Ahmad Sahranpr, Badl al-Majhd, 3:69. Imm Bukhr calls him munkar al-h adth; Imm Ibn Mun calls him laisa bi-shin (he is nothing); Ab H ta m describes him as a weak authority and munkar al-h adth; according to Imm Dr Qutn, he was matrk; and Dhahab says that muh addithn consider him weak and that he is a very weak narrator. See Dhahab, supra note 71, 3:593, 555. Ibn Add describes him as a Sha from Kuf. See Ahmad b. H aghr al-Asqaln, Tahdb al-Tahdb (Haiderabad: Maktabam a-rif al-Nidhmiyah, 1326 AH), H adth No. 2849, 6:269. 78 Ab Dwd, supra note 14, at 1:301; Baihaq, supra note 54, 7:339; Shakn, supra note 60, 6:246. According to Naa, some narrators thought batt to be three and, therefore, use the word thaltha (three) mistakenly. Naa, supra note 76, 1:478.
76

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

47

(weak reports), such as, the ta lq at the time of the Prophet . . . as well as H adth Ruknah be used as proof for making something legal or illegal. The question is why did both Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn al-Qayim so vigorously support the view that three ta lq in one session are counted as one? According to Ibn al-Qayim, a Muft at the time of Ibn Taimiyah issued a fatw saying that if anyone asserted that three ta lq in one session would be counted as one, he would become an indel (kr) and an apostate (murtad).79 It is this fatw that infuriated Ibn Taimiyah and a result he challenged it. Ibn al-Qayim says, that some people have issued a fatw declaring all those who oppose his point of view (i.e., three means three) as murtad and kr.80 Both Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn al-Qayim were severely punished after they had rendered their fatw that three ta lq in one session means one.81 Ibn Taimiyah was not even supported by some of his disciples. Shamshuddn al-Dhahab, a student of Ibn Taimiyahs, disagreed with him on this issue because until that time it was only the opinion of the Sha School of Thought.82 As discussed above, probably this is the reason why Sarkhas and Al-Kasn mention that three ta lq in one session amounting to one is the opinion of Rawd (Sha). 5. Position of the Sha Immiyah The position of the Sha Immiyah has already been discussed briey. They consider three pronouncements in one session as h arm (illegal). Allma H ill, a great Sha jurist, argues that if a person uttered three ta lq in one session, nothing [no ta lq] is aected.83 However, in another place in his book, H ill mentions two opinions; if two or three ta lq are pronounced in one phrase, then it is said: no ta lq is aected, and [it is also] said: one ta lq is counted.84 Allma H ills assertion that there is a second opinion in the school is important. According to the leading Sha Imm, Ab Jafar, avoid marrying women who are divorced three times in one session because they have husbands [still married to their previous
Ibn al-Qayim, supra note 35, at 1:292, 294. Ibid. 81 Muhammad b. Isml al-Sa nan, Subl al-Salm Sharh Bul al-Marm, (ed.) M. Abdul Azz al-Khal (Lahore: Dr Nashr al-Kutub al-Islmiah, n.d.), 3:175. 82 Sa fdar, supra note 9, 49. 83 H ill, supra note 33, at 3:14. Also see Sarkhas, supra note 32, at 6:58. 84 H ill, supra note 33, at 3:11.
80 79

48

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

husbands].85 In other words, three ta lq in one session amounts to one only and the husband can revoke it if he wants. Thus, there are two opinions within the Sha Immiyah School of Thought. According to one view, three ta lq in one session amounts to one and according to the second view, nothing will be aected. According to the Zadyah from among the Sha, only one [ta lq] is aected.86 Qutb uddin al-Rwand compares ta lq with lin and says, just like in lin swearing four times is obligatory, but if four [oaths] are uttered in one phrase, it will not be eective, and similarly, if [during the h ajj] seven stones are thrown together to hit the devil [a symbolic hitting of devil called ram], it will not be eective (i.e., counted as seven times), so is [the issue of ] the ta lq.87According to Al-Rwand, marratn means daf atn (i.e., two times).88

Conclusion To sum up this work, if divorce is pronounced thrice in one phrase at once or repeated three times in one session or the divorce is uttered at three different times within one purity or menstruation without any revocation, this has the eect of the third and nal repudiation according to the majority of jurists among the Companions of the Prophet (sa h ba), Followers of the Companions (tabin), those who came after them, and the fuqah of the four Sunni Schools of Thought, including the four founders of those schools and their disciples. The majority of Muslim jurists, i.e., the H anates, Mlikites, Shites, and the H anbalites, agree that three pronouncements in one session are not permissible but when pronounced will be eective, valid, and binding in law. According to Ibn Taimiyah, Ibn alQayim, the Z hirites, the Sha Immiyah, and many ahl al-h adth, three pronouncements, even if intended by the husband to be three in one
Al-Ka, Vol. 2, p. 178. Sarhas, supra note 32, at 6:58. 87 Rwand, supra note, 36, at 2:177. Ibn al-Qayim gives the same argument. See Ibn al-Qayim, supra note 35, at 1: 301. However, ram or the symbolic stoning of devil is a worship and the thrower has to recite Allah O Akbar (God is great) with every stone. Ta lq on the other hand is the most hated thing to God and the analogy of worship over a hated thing is wrong. Similarly, lin (a husband accusing his wife of sex with someone else) is h add, which may not be implemented if there is the slightest doubt. There is no analogy between ta lq, the most hated to God, and a h add, the penalty for which is xed by God. 88 Ibid.
86 85

M. Munir / Arab Law Quarterly 27 (2013) 29-49

49

session, would amount to only one repudiation. Both camps have given many arguments from the Qurn, the Sunnah and the sayings of the Companions (sa h ba) in support of their view but each is bitterly contested by the other. The strongest argument of three amounts to one camp was the H adth reported by Ibn Abbs, i.e., ta lq at the time of the Prophet . . ., however, this is not a H adth, as it was only a report by Ibn Abbs, who did not attribute it to the Prophet (PBUH), neither was it the practice of the Prophet (PBUH) nor his approval. Ibn Abbs himself considered three ta lq in one session as three. Even if were to be accepted as an authentic report it does not say that three ta lq in one session used to be counted as one. It only mentions that people used to pronounce one ta lq. The H adth Ruknah cannot be accepted as all the narrators are daif (weak) and are known for fabricating H adth. In case the H adth were authentic even then it shows that three ta lq are counted as three otherwise why would the Prophet ask Ruknah to swear that he had intended only one and not three. Weak reports such as, the ta lq at the time of the Prophet . . . as well as the H adth Ruknah cannot be used as the basis for declaring something legal or illegal. The reason for Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn al-Qayimin vigorously opposing the amhrs position is that a Muft in their times had issued a fatw stating that anyone supporting the view that three ta lq amounted to one, was an indel and an apostate. Ibn Taimiyah and Ibn al-Qayim started a campaign against that fatw and both were severely punished for their position on ta lq because until their time three amounting to one was only attributed to the Sha.