Majmu' al-FatawaIbn Taimiya

does it effect an irrevocable separation that does not count as one of the three divorces, but is instead an annulment? There are two well-known views.

The first is the position of Abū Hanīfah, Mālik, and many of the early scholars. It has also been attributed to a number of the Companions, but it has not been authentically established from any of them. Indeed, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Ibn Khuzaymah, Ibn al-Mundhir, and others judged all the reports attributed to the Companions on this matter to be weak.

The second view is that it effects an irrevocable separation without counting as one of the three divorces. This is authentically established from Ibn Abbās, as the hadith experts agree. It was also the view of his students, such as Tāwūs and Ikrimah, and is one of al-Shāfi‘ī’s two positions. It is the apparent position of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and other hadith jurists, and was also held by Ishāq ibn Rāhawayh, Abū Thawr, Dāwūd, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Khuzaymah, and others.

Ibn Abbās supported this view by pointing out that Allah Most High mentions compensated release after two divorces, then says:

“If he then divorces her, she is not lawful for him thereafter until she marries another husband.”

If compensated release were itself a divorce, the total number of divorces would therefore be four.

Those who hold this view then disagreed: must compensated release be expressed using wording other than “divorce”? Must it be expressed only in terms of release, annulment, or redemption, with the additional condition that he does not intend divorce? Or does it make no difference whether he intends divorce or not, so that it constitutes compensated release whatever wording is used, whether “divorce” or anything else?

There are several positions on these questions within Ahmad’s school and elsewhere. The soundest is the last, which is supported by the statements of Ibn Abbās and his students, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and his early followers: compensated release is separation in return for compensation. Thus, whenever he parts from her in return for compensation, she is

تَقَعُ بِهِ فُرْقَةٌ بَائِنَةٌ وَلَيْسَ مِنْ الطَّلَاقِ الثَّلَاثِ بَلْ هُوَ فَسْخٌ؟ عَلَى قَوْلَيْنِ مَشْهُورَيْنِ. و " الْأَوَّلُ " مَذْهَبُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ وَمَالِك وَكَثِيرٍ مِنْ السَّلَفِ وَنُقِلَ عَنْ طَائِفَة مِنْ الصَّحَابَةِ؛ لَكِنْ لَمْ يَثْبُتْ عَنْ وَاحِدٍ مِنْهُمْ بَلْ ضَعَّفَ أَحْمَد بْنُ حَنْبَلٍ وَابْنُ خُزَيْمَة وَابْنُ الْمُنْذِرِ وَغَيْرُهُمْ جَمِيعَ مَا رُوِيَ فِي ذَلِكَ عَنْ الصَّحَابَةِ. و " الثَّانِي " أَنَّهُ فُرْقَةٌ بَائِنَةٌ وَلَيْسَ مِنْ الثَّلَاثِ وَهَذَا ثَابِتٌ عَنْ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ بِاتِّفَاقِ أَهْلِ الْمَعْرِفَةِ بِالْحَدِيثِ وَهُوَ قَوْلُ أَصْحَابِهِ: كطاوس وَعِكْرِمَةَ وَهُوَ أَحَدُ قَوْلَيْ الشَّافِعِيِّ وَهُوَ ظَاهِرُ مَذْهَبِ أَحْمَد بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ وَغَيْرِهِ مِنْ فُقَهَاءِ الْحَدِيثِ وَإِسْحَاقَ بْنِ رَاهَوَيْه؛ وَأَبِي ثَوْرٍ ودَاوُد وَابْنِ الْمُنْذِرِ وَابْنِ خُزَيْمَة وَغَيْرِهِمْ. وَاسْتَدَلَّ ابْنُ عَبَّاسٍ عَلَى ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّ اللَّهَ تَعَالَى ذَكَرَ الْخُلْعَ بَعْدَ طَلْقَتَيْنِ ثُمَّ قَالَ: {فَإِنْ طَلَّقَهَا فَلَا تَحِلُّ لَهُ مِنْ بَعْدُ حَتَّى تَنْكِحَ زَوْجًا غَيْرَهُ} فَلَوْ كَانَ الْخُلْعُ طَلَاقًا لَكَانَ الطَّلَاقُ أَرْبَعًا. ثُمَّ أَصْحَابُ هَذَا الْقَوْلِ تَنَازَعُوا: هَلْ يُشْتَرَطُ أَنْ يَكُونَ الْخُلْعُ بِغَيْرِ لَفْظِ الطَّلَاقِ؟ أَوْ لَا يَكُونُ إلَّا بِلَفْظِ الْخُلْعِ وَالْفَسْخِ وَالْمُفَادَاةِ وَيُشْتَرَطُ مَعَ ذَلِكَ أَنْ لَا يَنْوِيَ الطَّلَاقَ؟ أَوْ لَا فَرْقَ بَيْنَ أَنْ يَنْوِيَهُ أَوْ لَا يَنْوِيَهُ وَهُوَ خُلْعٌ بِأَيِّ لَفْظٍ وَقَعَ بِلَفْظِ الطَّلَاقِ أَوْ غَيْرِهِ؟ عَلَى أَوْجُهٍ فِي مَذْهَبِ أَحْمَد وَغَيْرِهِ: أَصَحُّهَا الَّذِي دَلَّ عَلَيْهِ كَلَامُ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ وَأَصْحَابِهِ وَأَحْمَد بْنِ حَنْبَلٍ وَقُدَمَاءِ أَصْحَابِهِ وَهُوَ الْوَجْهُ الْأَخِيرُ وَهُوَ: أَنَّ الْخُلْعَ هُوَ الْفُرْقَةُ بِعِوَضِ فَمَتَى فَارَقَهَا بِعِوَضِ فَهِيَ

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Why Translate?

Support

  • Contact us
  • Report a bug
  • Support us
  • Donate
  • AI combat arena

Follow us

© 2026 Kutub. All rights reserved.
Terms and conditionsPrivacy policyCookies