These scholars rebut the majority’s evidences with the following points:
-
The ḥadīth of Rukānah: In some of its versions it states that “he divorced her three times,” in another that it was “one time,” and in yet another that it was “final and absolute (albattah).” Because of this divergence al-Bukhārī declared the report “inconsistent (muḍṭarib).” Imām Aḥmad added that all of its transmission routes are weak. Others observed that its chain contains an unknown narrator and one who is weak and discarded. Shaykh al-Islām said: “The ḥadīth of Rukānah is weak according to the leading ḥadīth critics—Aḥmad, al-Bukhārī, Abū ʿUbayd, and Ibn Ḥazm—because its transmitters are not characterized by uprightness and accuracy.”
-
The ḥadīth of ʿĀʾishah: Using it as proof is unwarranted, for it is possible that by “three” she merely meant the total number of divorces available to a husband. Once such a possibility exists, the inference collapses. The wording is ambiguous and must be interpreted in the light of the clarifying report from Ibn ʿAbbās, as established in the principles of legal theory.
-
Appeal to the Companions’ practice: Who among them is more entitled to imitation and following? We contend that they numbered more than one hundred thousand, and this entire vast company—beginning with their Prophet ﷺ—counted a triple pronouncement as one. The ruling remained thus until the Prophet passed away. It continued unchanged through the caliphate of al-Ṣiddīq, and even through the early years of ʿUmar’s rule. Only later did ʿUmar treat the triple utterance as three, for the disciplinary reason we have already explained.
Accordingly, the majority of Companions held that three-in-one counts as a single divorce—namely, all who died before ʿUmar’s caliphate or who were dispersed by the conquests before the council he convened for the Companions who stayed with him in Madinah. Hence, citing the Companions’ practice as proof is overturned by what is tantamount to their consensus in the time of al-Ṣiddīq on the opposite view.