Three Divorces in one sitting Issue

Salaam,

Hope every in this forum is well and if I have said anything that contradicts the the Qur'an and Sunnah then please do forgive me.

I wanted to raise a question to forum members in regards to a situation out of control in the current world we live in.

Triple Talaq in one sitting is a heavily contested issue which has two Islamic opinions. On one hand you have the view the three divorces in one sitting is irrevocable and the marriage void, the other is it counts as 1 or even depends on level of anger to be considered a divorce or not.

The issue is that both sides in this day and age are trying to debunk each other. Now i am not no scholar or expert in this is just my opinion, but both sides have compelling evidence to prove their points. So my question to everyone is, doesn't it come down to intention ?. There's authentic hadiths that prove the prophet sometimes did consider three divorces in one sitting as 1 but also there's proof that he also accepted if the person intentions were of three divorces. Intention plays a big part in islam so doesn't it come down to this. Both parties agree that anyone who says it three time in one sitting is a sinner and must repent.

There's a very famous hadith where the prophet says three things are taken seriously or in jest - Marriage, Divorce and taking a wife back. Because of this hadith many scholars belive that words are taken seriously and held into effect, hence why people accept three divorces in one as three. However at the same time many scholars of the past and present muftis and sheikhs state that pre planned marriage for the wrong intentions is void- for example if a husband divorces his wife three times and she's becomes a stranger to him, then the wife knowingly marries a stranger and consumates the marriage and then "husband" issues a divorce so she can go back to her husband. It's widely known that these marriages are void and the couple will be committing zina so why Isit that many scholars don't accept this type marriage at all due to the wrong intentions of both parties but they accept that 3 divorces in one sitting are 3 even when the husbands intention wasn't to issue 3 divorces.

Surely we must work to save marriages, and don't get me wrong, if a person says talaq however times in one sitting but three separate times then that is definetly a divorce and marriage is void.

The Qur'an maintains that people must have time to reconcile after issues of each divorce so accepting three divorces in one sitting is going against that even when individuals insist that was not there intention.

A famous hadith that says ibn abbas stated that during the prophet times 3 divorces in one sitting was counted as 1, also during abu bakr and it was the same during the first two years of umars caliphe. Umar then enforced it on the men who were abusing the divorce system. A famous Islamic historian (apologies i can't remeber the name) said the reason for this descion was because of the rapid spread of Islam, new ladies were migrating into Muslim land and the men wanted to marry then but the women insisted that they issue a divorce to their wife before marrying them. The men then issue it one sitting but take advantage of the Islamic divorce system and go back on their word stating they didn't mean an irrevocable divorce because they had some leeway in this situation. Many are of the view that say umar created this rule are wrongly mistaken, how can one of the most trusted shahabah create such as innovation so it's clear in the prophet time he also accepted 3 divorces in one sitting as three but at the same time, as mentioned earlier he gave Indivduals the benefit of the doubt and allowed them to back to their wives if it wasn't their intention. It's evident that because people had leeway in divorces that the completely abused the system therefore Umar enforced their words upon them. His goal for this was for prevention of this happening again and so the men learn from their mistakes and people learn from others. However, you can argue that this was a legal ruling and not a permanent sharia, just as umar did of the whipping of drunks. One must consider that his actions were all about preventention and therefore the following has to be taken into account. During the calpih of Umar, the ummah was united (much more than now) and divorced women wernt treated as such a taboo as they are now. If during the ruling Umar, the social situation was what we are seeing now then his approach could of been different (there's no way to know), meaning that the rule he enforced was temporary and based on the situation in that time.

In this current climate, a man gets angry and divorces his wife in one sitting and then they divorce and the women is not supported and very rarely finds a good marriage to go into because of the tabbo of divorce in our society, this applies even more to women with kids. Also the Islamic world is completely different as it was during the ruling of Umar, the ummah then was United and if umar enforced a law then they would follow that as the benefit of a caliphate of Islam. Nowadays we don't have such a thing, there are so many differences of opinion, many different legal matters,Many different islamic states who hold different views So it's only write that the ruling of Umar was only supposed to applied for such a time and therefore we have to back to the sharia way of divorce.

Going back to sharia way of divorce will ensure that Indivduals who make the same mistake three times in separate occasions will be divorced.

When you look at how marriage is described in the Qur'an and by the prophet, do we really think that Allah who is the most forgiven will allow a man and women to be divorced completely for the 1-2 seconds of madness/stupidity of the husband. This ruling is extremely harsh and not in line with the Sharia.

As for the madhabs view on this, it's correct to say that if Umar agreed upon this way of divorce and enforcing the words on the men and the rest of the shababa agreed, then the madhabs followed their lead. Abu hanifah was the closest to the shahab so he naturally of gone with the view they held. My point is that should this be made permanent because that was the agreed Islamic ruling of that time and not going in line with what the prophet said and what the Qur'an states ?

All views welcome on this subject. Please note that this is no way a debate,I am just writing this so we can all discuss and learn from each other. Please respect each other's opinion.

Allah knows best.