Debunking Triple Talaq Lies: A Hanafi Brother’s Review New

A Critical Analysis of Fazil Ahmad Nasir’s Article on Triple Talaq

I came across an article titled “Until When Will the Ahl-e-Hadith Lie About the Issue of Divorce?” written by a Hanafi named Fazil Ahmad Nasir. In this article, the author has resorted to lies and manipulation. Below is an analysis of his claims.

First, he accused us of being “non-followers” (ghayr-muqallid) because we do not follow the four Imams (of the Hanafi, Shafi’i, Maliki, and Hanbali schools). Let us first understand who is called a “muqallid.” A muqallid is someone who follows a scholar’s opinion without evidence, blindly accepting their views. The one whose opinions are followed is called a “mujtahid,” “faqih,” or “imam.” This means that the opposite of a muqallid is a mujtahid, i.e., a scholar, and the term “muqallid” refers to an ignorant, unwise person. This is why no Hanafi calls themselves a muqallid. You might have seen books on fiqh where the term “non-muqallid” is used thousands of times for Ahl-e-Hadith, but they do not label themselves as muqallids. This is the secret behind that.

After calling us non-muqallids, he also called us “lamazhab” (without a school of thought), which actually applies to them. Generally, Hanafis, including Deobandis and Barelwis, call themselves “Aami” (laymen). Their scholars and books refer to laypeople as “lamazhab.”

In the famous Hanafi book Radd al-Muhtar by al-Shami, it is mentioned:
ان من التزم مذھباً معینا کابی حنیفۃ والشافعی فقیل یلزمہ و قیل لاوھو الاصح وقد شاع ان العامی لامذہب لہ
(Radd al-Muhtar al-Shami, 1/33)
Translation: “Whoever adheres to a specific school, such as Hanafi or Shafi’i, it is said that he must remain committed to it. Others say this is not obligatory, and the more correct view is that the layman has no fixed school.”

This proves that they themselves are “lamazhab.”

A propaganda is spread about us that we do not respect the Imams, do not follow their teachings, and do not engage in their taqleed. Let it be clear that taqleed is ignorance. As for respecting and following the Imams, we Ahl-e-Hadith respect and follow the four Imams more than anyone else. Here are two examples:

1. Hanafis follow only one Imam while rejecting the other three. If they respected all four Imams, they would not deny practices like raising hands (rafa yadayn), saying “Ameen” loudly, placing hands on the chest, and allowing followers to recite behind the Imam—practices endorsed by some of the Imams, but which they reject and write books against.
2. We Ahl-e-Hadith truly respect the Imams and follow their teachings. Imam Abu Hanifah’s statements are clear:
   
   • اِذَا صَحَّ الْحَدِيثُ فَهُوَ مَذْهَبِی (Shami, p. 150)
     “When a hadith is authentic, it is my madhhab.”
   • لَا ينْبَغِی لِمَنْ يَعْرِفْ دَلِيْلِی اَنْ يُفْتِیَ بِکَلامِی (Aqd al-Jadid)
     “It is not permissible for someone who knows my evidence to give a fatwa based on my statement.”
   • اِذَا کَانَ قَوْلُ الصَّحَابَةِ يُخَالِفُهُ قَالَ اُتْرُکُوا قَوْلِی بِقَوْلِ الصَّحابَةِ (Aqd al-Jadid)
     “If my statement contradicts that of the companions, then leave my statement and follow that of the companions.”

In light of these sayings, we do exactly as Imam Abu Hanifah instructed: we reject any of his opinions that contradict the Quran and Hadith and follow those that align with them. However, none of the muqallidun follow these principles. If they do, I challenge them to prove it.

Now, I will address the core issue. To keep it brief, I will only evaluate the arguments and will disregard unnecessary debates such as whether three divorces in one or two breaths, or discussions on “Muslim Sharif” and the issue of the wife being previously married or not.

First Argument:
اخبر رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم عن رجل طلق امرأتہ ثلاث تطلیقات جمیعاً فقام غضباناً ایلعب بکتاب اللہ وانا بین اظہرکم؟حتی قام رجل وقال: یارسول اللہ الا اقتلہ؟ (Nasa’i)

The essence of this hadith is that the Prophet (PBUH) was informed that a man gave his wife three divorces in one sitting. The Prophet became extremely angry and said, “Will the Book of Allah be played with during my lifetime?” Seeing his anger, a companion asked, “O Messenger of Allah, should I kill him?”

This hadith mentions a man giving three divorces in one sitting, but it does not confirm that all three divorces are valid. In fact, many hadiths clearly state that in one sitting, three divorces count as only one.

Second Argument:
عن ابن عباس کان الطلاق علی عہد رسول اللہ صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم وابی بکر و سنتین من خلافۃ عمر طلاق الثلاث واحدۃ فقال عمر بن الخطاب ان الناس قد استعجلوا فی امر کانت لہم فیہ اناۃ فلو امضیناہ علیہم فامضاہ علیہم۔ (Muslim)

This means that during the time of the Prophet (PBUH), Abu Bakr, and the first two years of Umar’s caliphate, three divorces were considered as one. However, due to the rush people were making in giving three divorces, Umar decided to enforce the ruling of three divorces being final and binding.

This hadith is a clear proof that in one sitting, three divorces were considered as one during the time of the Prophet (PBUH). This practice continued even after his death. However, some followers claim that this hadith is “mauquf” (a statement of a companion) and not “marfu” (a statement attributed to the Prophet), despite the fact that Ibn Abbas (RA) is narrating the practice during the time of the Prophet (PBUH), which makes it a marfu hadith. The author also claims that Ibn Abbas (RA) gave a fatwa contrary to this hadith, but this is a contradiction. These people often claim that companions cannot act contrary to hadith, yet here they say Ibn Abbas did exactly that, issuing a fatwa against the hadith. What are we to make of such claims?

Ibn Abbas’s narration in Muslim is marfu, i.e., it mentions the Prophet’s practice. However, the author claims that Ibn Abbas (RA) acted and gave a fatwa contrary to this hadith. Let’s examine the hadith presented by the author:
عن مجاھد قال کنت عند ابن عباس فجاءہ رجل فقال انہ طلق امرأتہ ثلاثاً قال فسکت حتی ظننت انہ رادھا الیہ ثم قال ینطلق احدکم فیرکب الحموقۃ ثم یقول یا ابن عباس یا ابن عباس! وان اللہ قال ومن یتق اللہ یجعل لہ مخرجا وانک لم تتق اللہ فلا اجد لک مخرجا عصیت ربک وبانت منک امرأتک (Abu Dawood)

Translation: Mujahid narrates that he was with Ibn Abbas when a man came and said he had given three divorces. Ibn Abbas remained silent, and Mujahid thought he might reverse the divorce. Then Ibn Abbas angrily said, “One of you does something foolish and then cries out, ‘O Ibn Abbas! O Ibn Abbas!’ What should I do? Allah has said, ‘Whoever fears Allah, He will make a way for him.’ You did not act with taqwa (fear of Allah), so I cannot find a way for you. You have disobeyed your Lord, and your wife is now separated from you.”

The author claims that Ibn Abbas (RA) acted contrary to Sahih Muslim. But the hadith in Muslim narrates the Prophet’s practice. So, who should we follow—the Prophet’s practice or a companion’s individual view?

Third Argument:
The hadith of Rukanah, which is presented by Ahl-e-Hadith, is also criticized by the author, who calls it weak and defective. However, this hadith is authentic and valid for use in argument.

1. Allama Ibn Taymiyyah stated that Abu Abdullah al-Maqdisi narrated it in his book al-Mukhtarah, which is more authentic than Mustadrak al-Hakim (Majmu’ al-Fatawa 13/33).
2. In Musnad Ahmad, Ahmad Shakir declared its chain of narration as sahih (authentic) (Musnad Ahmad 4/123).
3. Allama Nasiruddin al-Albani confirmed the authenticity of its narrations, declaring them hasan (good) (Irwa’ al-Ghalil 7/144).
4. Shams al-Haq Azim Abadi also confirmed it to be authentic (Awn al-Ma’bud 6/138).
5. Allama Ibn al-Qayyim declared it authentic (al-Sawa’iq al-Mursalah 2/625).
6. Imam Shawkaani mentioned that Imam Ahmad declared it to be authentic (al-Fath al-Rabbani 7/3469).
7. Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani stated that the evidence from Sahih Muslim and other sources strengthens this narration (Fath al-Bari 9/275).

Hafiz Ibn Hajar’s definitive comment on this hadith is as follows:
وھذا الحدیث نص فی المسئلۃ لا یقبل التاویل الذی فی غیرہ من الروایات الاتی ذکرھا (Fath al-Bari 9/316, Beirut edition)
“This hadith is a clear text on the matter and does not accept any interpretations that are applied to other narrations mentioned later.”

Fourth Argument:

The author has mentioned another narration of Rukanah in support of his view:
عن عبداللہ بن یزید بن رکانۃ عن ابیہ عن جدہ قال: اتیت النبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم فقلت یا رسول اللہ انی طلقت امرأتی البتۃ فقال ما اردت بہا؟ قلت واحدۃ قال واللہ؟ قلت واللہ قال فھو ما اردت (Tirmidhi)

Rukanah says that he went to the Prophet (PBUH) and said, “O Messenger of Allah, I have given my wife talaq al-batta.” The Prophet (PBUH) asked, “What was your intention with this?” He replied, “One divorce.” The Prophet (PBUH) then asked, “By Allah?” and he said, “By Allah.” The Prophet (PBUH) said, “Then your intention is what counts.”

First: This hadith is not valid for inference because it is extremely weak.
The narrators in the chain, Zubair bin Sa’id and Abdullah bin Ali, are weak, and Ali bin Yazid bin Rukanah is unknown. Imam Tirmidhi mentioned that this hadith is only known through this specific chain, and when he asked Imam Muhammad bin Ismail al-Bukhari about it, he said that there is ishtiraab (confusion) in it.
Ibn al-Qayyim declared it non-authentic, Allama al-Albani noted several defects in it, Imam Bukhari and Ibn al-Arabi mentioned ishtiraab, and Hafiz Ibn Hajar noted a difference in the chain. In summary, this narration is not reliable for deduction.

Second: The term talaq al-batta here refers to a single revocable divorce (talaq raj’i), not three divorces. The word wahidah (one) also supports this interpretation. Therefore, this narration is weak, confused, and contradicts the authentic hadith in Sahih Muslim mentioned earlier. The correct hadith of Rukanah is the one cited above from Musnad Ahmad.

Now, the author claims that all the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) held the view that three divorces in one sitting were considered as three. In support of this claim, the author has presented five arguments, which we will now analyze.

1st Argument:
The author refers to a hadith from Nisai about the case of Fatimah bint Qais. She was given three divorces, and when her maintenance was asked, the Prophet (PBUH) said:
لَيْسَ لَكِ سُكْنَى وَلَا نَفَقَةٌ فَاعْتَدِّي عِنْدَ فُلَانَةَ (Nisai)
Translation: “You do not have accommodation or maintenance; so observe your waiting period with such-and-such woman.”
This hadith is narrated with different wordings, and in some versions, it is mentioned that she was given the third and final divorce. However, upon gathering all the narrations, it becomes clear that Fatimah was not given three divorces at once, but only one, which was the third and final divorce.

2nd Argument:
عن عائشۃ ان رجلاً طلق امرأتہ ثلاثاً فتزوجت فطلق فسئل النبی صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم اتحل للاول؟ قال لا، حتی یذوق عسیلتہا کما ذاق الاول رواہ البخاری
Translation: A man divorced his wife three times, and she remarried. Before consummation, she was divorced by her second husband. The question was asked to the Prophet (PBUH), “Is she now lawful for her first husband?” He replied, “No, until the second husband has consummated the marriage.”

Analysis: This hadith actually refers to the case of Rafi’ah al-Qurazi. The hadith in Sahih Bukhari mentions that Rafi’ah did not give three divorces at once but spaced them out. The full wording in Bukhari clarifies that Rafi’ah gave two divorces, and this was the third one.

3rd Argument:
Abdullah bin Umar (RA) divorced his wife during her menstruation and asked the Prophet (PBUH):

یا رسول اللہ لوطلقتہا ثلاثاً کان لی ان اراجعہا قال: اذاً بانت منک وکانت معصیۃ
Translation: Abdullah bin Umar divorced his wife during her menstruation and asked the Prophet (PBUH), “If I give her three divorces at once, will I still be able to return her?” The Prophet (PBUH) replied: “Then the marriage would be severed, and it would be a sin.”
The full wording of this hadith shows that Abdullah bin Umar first gave her one divorce during her menstruation and intended to give two more at separate times. The author has ignored the full context and has chosen to support their viewpoint while disregarding the details. Furthermore, this hadith is weak, as Darqutni and others criticized one of its narrators, Ali bin Said Razi. Al-Albani and Ibn al-Qayyim also considered it weak.

4th Argument:
In the Mu’jam al-Tabarani, there is a narration from Abdah bin Samit in which a person claims to have given his wife a thousand divorces, and the Prophet (PBUH) responds that the woman is separated from him by three divorces, and the other 997 divorces will be a sin for him.
This narration is extremely weak.

• Darqutni said the narrators are unknown and weak (Sunan al-Daraqutni 3/271).
• Haythami mentioned the weakness of the narrators, especially Ubayd bin Walid and Safi’ al-Ajjali (Majma’ al-Zawaid 4/341).
• Al-Albani declared it very weak (Silsilat al-Dha’ifah 1211).
• Shawkani criticized several weak narrators in the chain (Nail al-Awtar 7/17).
• Other scholars, including Ibn Hajar, criticized the narrators as weak.

5th Argument:
There is a narration in Sunan al-Bayhaqi about Hasan bin Ali, where he says, “If I had not heard my grandfather (the Prophet PBUH) say that anyone who divorces his wife three times during the waiting period or ambiguously, she will not be lawful for him until she marries another man, I would have reconciled with her.”
Analysis: This narration is also unreliable due to significant weaknesses in the chain. Bayhaqi recorded this hadith through two different chains, and both contain problematic narrators such as Muhammad bin Hamid Razi and Salim bin Fadl Qurashi.

Conclusion:
Finally, the author raised concerns about zina (fornication) and halalah (a practice where a divorced woman marries another man to return to her first husband). This topic is lengthy, and I will provide a link to my article addressing who is truly paving the way for zina and the dangerous consequences of halalah. This will clarify the situation.