Ibn Taymiyyah and the Triple Talaq Issue

[boriqee]

Bismillahi ar-rahman ar-raheeem

Inal-Hamdulilah wa salatu wa salamu 'ala rasulillah wa b'ad

Asalamu alaikum

Since in current times there is a hype about how Ibn taymiyyah "opposed he majority" on this issue and therfore are duped into the current modern hype that usually eminates from certain individuals whom they have no idea where it coms from. Actually these doubts originatefrom actual innvoators whom he scholars of ahlu-sunnah have deemed so, example being Kawthari, Ghumari and their likes.

however the individual rulings of these people have no place here except only to clarify where this hype originates from

What is provided below is a clarification of the issue and will bring clarity and light, bi ithnillah, to a matter that was for so long deceptively entrenched in a sea of doubt, literally, even i too was duped.

I will start of with a question and then bring forth its relevencies inshallah. This is from the takhreej of Abu Zubayr

Is ibn Taymiyyah's opinion on triple divorce in opposition to an existing consensus amongst the scholars?


Here are his proofs and the proofs of those who had already supported what he viewed.

1.The view of IT was that his view was held by senior Sahaaba(radiALLAHU 'anhum) like Abu Bakr, 'Umar - in his first 2 years of his khilafah, 'Ali, Ibn Mas'ud, Ibn Abbas (in one of his views, al-Zubayr and ibn 'awf. And that the ikhtilaf amongst the salaf upon this matter cannot be denied

Reference: ibn Taymiyyah, fatawa. vol. 33 p.91

2. His grandfather Shaykul-Islaam Majd ad-Deen Ibn Taymiyyah(rahimahullah) also held this opinion, however he would use his ijtihad to arrive at the opposing opinions in certains circumstances based upon maslaha in individual cases.
Reference: Ibid., Vol. 33 p.93

3.Ibn Mughith cites Ibn Taymiyyah's position in his book al-Muqni' to Maaliki scholars of Cordoba such as Ibn Zinba, al-Husayni, Ibn Mukhlid and Ibn al-Habab. Also that 20 scholars from Toledo (Andalus) held this position

Reference: Ibid., p. 83. The text of Ibn Mughith is also cited by Ibn Qayyim in his Ighaathat, Vol. 1 p.482, al-Mardawi, al-Insaf, vol. 8 p. 455, Ibn Hajar, Fath, vol. 11 p.278, al-Shawkani, Nayl, Vol. 8 p.20

4. as well as a narration from Malik.

Reference: Ibn Taymiyyah, Fatawa, vol. 33 p. 83

5. Muhammad b. Muqatil al-Razi a famous hanafi 'alim held this opinion.

Reference: Ibid., vol. 33 p. 83

6. The majority of the dhahiris held this opinion on triple talaaq.

Reference: Ibid., p. 8, Ibn Qayyim, al-Ighaathat vol. 1 p. 435, 482, Ibn al-Mubarrid, Sayr al-Hath, p. 157

7. There are other points mentioned by the author from Ibn Taymiyyah, however interestingly enough he mentions other scholars who held the same position as Ibn Taymiyyah:

Ibn Hazm al-Muhalla, vol. 10 p. 204

Ibn Rushd Bidayat al-Mujtahid, vol. 2 p. 72

An-Nawawi Sharh Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4 p. 70

8. Ibn Qudamah - He mentions the scholars ikhtilaf on a triple divorce pronounced by one word al-mughni, Vol. 10 pp. 96-97. He also mentions the existence of disagreement on triple divorce which is carried out in separate words, in the case of a wife whose husband has not consummated the marriage. al-Mughni, vol. 10 pp. 298-301

al-Lakhmi Ibn Qayyim al-Ighaathat, vol. 1 p.482

al-Tahawi ibid., vol. 1 p.483

al-Nasafi ibid., p. 484

Abu l-Wahid al-Qurtubi ibid., p.484

Ibn Qayyim he cites 20 proofs why there is no ijmaa' ibid., vol. 1 pp. 478 - 487

Ibn Hajar Fath, vol. 11 pp.277-278

al-Shawkani Nayl, vol. 8 pp 19-20

Ibn Baz - Fatawa al-Talaaq pp. 79-81


Might i add to this the fact that in the hanbali madhaab, whatever is found by hanbalis of an issue that even one sahabi practiced it, then by default, well at least according to the hanbali madhaab, he is able to excerise judgement off of that. The hanbali madhaab is not like the other madhaabs where sticking to the majority view is something that is weightier and therefore binding and that by opposing it then you are deemed unreliable. The hanbali madhaab has a totally different approach. And what kills me is when people use this argument (that he went against the majority) as if that is an issue. It is only an issue within their own respective madhaabs, BUT NOT FOR HANBALIS. This has to do or is tied in with the athari approach to the madhaab where precedent to he athaar is held weightier within he madhaab than the "majority"

I hope this pretty much clarifies the matter and the boogy man arguement

asalamu alaikum