ibn Rajab al-Hanbali refutes ibn Taymiyya’s views on Talaq

Imam Jamal al-Din Yusuf ibn ‘Abd al-Hadi ibn al-Mibrad al-Hanbali (d.909AH) mentions Imam Zayn al-Din ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s (d.795AH) book in refutation of three talaqs (in a single sitting) being equal to one – which was a view ibn Taymiyya held and was stubborn upon:

“…ibn Rajab said in the book Mushkil al-Ahadith al-Warida fi ann al-Talaq al-Thalath Wahida (The problematic nature of the narrations in regards to three talaqs being equivalent to one)…”

[ibn al-Mibrad al-Hanbali, al-Sayr al-Hath ila ‘Ilm al-Talaq al-Thalath, ed. Dar al-Basha’ir al-Islamiyya 1997, pg. 27]

Note: Imam ibn al-Mibrad al-Hanbali then goes on to quote multiple passages from the above-mentioned book of Imam ibn Rajab al-Hanbali. This shows that although this book of Imam ibn Rajab al-Hanbali may not have survived to this day, it was known and available to those Imams who came just after his time.

قال ابن رجب في كتاب “مشكل الأحاديث الواردة في أن الطلاق الثلاث واحدة”

– السير الحاث الى علم الطلاق الثلاث للإمام جمال الدين يوسف ابن عبد الهادي ابن المبرد الحنبلي
– دار البشائر الإسلامية، ١٩٩٧
– ص. ٢٧


Imam Najm al-Din al-Ghazzi on ibn Taymiyya’s View on Triple Talaq

Imam Najm al-Din al-Ghazzi al-Dimashqi al-Shafi’i (D. 1061AH) reprimanded al-Shuwayki for secretly returning women to their husbands after three divorces in a single declaration in accordance with ibn Taymiyya’s View on Triple Talaq. He mentioned that he wrote to him as follows (wherein he says ibn Taymiyya’s deviant view is not to be followed at all and does not even constitute a legal shade of doubt, and those who follow it should be punished with the severe capital punishment for adultery):

“It is not permissible for a man to take back his wife after three divorces according to the doctrine of the Muslims, except for ibn Taymiyya’s view, which it is not permissible to imitate due to it’s deviance (li-shudhudhihi). What has been established on this matter is that he who follows the view of ibn Taymiyya must be chastised, and the doubt (shubha) constituted by his (ibn Taymiyya’s) disagreement does not cancel the prescribed punishment (hadd) of the man who has intercourse with the woman after she is returned to him, nor (the punishment) of her.”

[Najm al-Din al-Ghazzi, Lutf al-Samar wa Qatf al-Thamar min Tarajim A’yan al-Tabaqa al-Ula min al-Qarn al-Hadi Ashar, Mahmud al-Shaykh ed. (Damascus: Manshurat Wizarat al-Thaqafa, 1981), 1:268]