and the third view is that the atonement for a broken oath suffices. See Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (33/195–196). From this it is clear that he was not alone in holding the opinion and that the question is subject to legitimate disagreement.

2 – They further allege that he regards three divorces pronounced in a single utterance as only one divorce. The answer is that, in this matter as well, the Shaykh—may Allah have mercy on him—did not contravene any consensus, nor did he originate the view; many leading scholars had preceded him to it, basing themselves on evidences they considered sound. He said:

“This opinion is reported from a group of both early and later authorities among the Companions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, such as al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf. Two conflicting reports exist from ʿAlī, Ibn Masʿūd, and Ibn ʿAbbās. It is also the position of many of the Successors and those who followed them—among them Ṭāwūs, Khallas ibn ʿAmr, Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq—and of Dāwūd and most of his disciples.” See Majmūʿ al-Fatāwā (33/8).

Al-Qurṭubī said: “Ṭāwūs and a few literalists diverged by holding that a triple divorce pronounced in a single statement counts as one. This is also narrated from Muḥammad ibn Isḥāq and al-Ḥajjāj ibn Arṭaʾah; another report from both of them is that nothing at all results, which is likewise the view of Muqātil. It is related that Dāwūd held that no divorce occurs. The view most commonly attributed to al-Ḥajjāj ibn Arṭaʾah and to the overwhelming majority of the early scholars and leading Imams is that it is binding and constitutes three divorces.” End of quotation (3/129) from al-Qurṭubī’s Tafsīr.

3 – They also contend that he does not validate a divorce pronounced to a menstruating wife, nor a divorce pronounced in a state of purity during which the husband has had intercourse with her. The reply is that this is an innovated form of divorce (ṭalāq bidʿah), concerning which the scholars have differed as to whether it takes effect at all. Therefore, when the Shaykh holds that it does not take effect, he is not opposing any consensus, contrary to the fabrications of his detractor; the matter is one of legitimate disagreement, and each side has its evidence. Whoever, after due consideration,