These scholars answer the majority’s proofs with the following points.

First, the ḥadith of Rukānah: in some narrations the wording is, “he divorced her three times,” in others, “once,” and in others still, “al-batta” (definitively). For that reason al-Bukhārī declared the report inconsistent (muḍṭarib). Imām Aḥmad said, “All of its chains are weak.” Some critics added that its isnād contains an unknown narrator and includes transmitters who are weak and abandoned. Shaykh al-Islām stated that the ḥadith of Rukānah is regarded as weak by the ḥadith masters—Aḥmad, al-Bukhārī, Abū ʿUbayd, and Ibn Ḥazm—because its reporters are not characterized by reliability and precision.

As for the report of ʿĀʾishah, using it as evidence is unsound, for it is possible that by “three” she merely intended the maximum number of divorces available to the husband, namely three pronouncements. Once such a possibility exists, the proof collapses. The report is therefore ambiguous and must be interpreted in light of the explicit ḥadith of Ibn ʿAbbās, as the principles of legal theory require.

With respect to invoking the practice of the Companions, no one is more deserving of emulation than they; yet we say that they numbered more than one hundred thousand, and this entire multitude—headed by their Prophet—counted a threefold pronouncement as a single divorce. The Messenger of Allah ﷺ passed away while this was still the ruling, and when his successor, the Truthful One (Abū Bakr), assumed office, the situation remained unchanged until his death. ʿUmar, may Allah be pleased with him, then became caliph; throughout the early part of his rule matters stayed exactly as they had been in the time of the Prophet ﷺ and of Abū Bakr. Only later did he reckon the threefold pronouncement as three divorces, for reasons we have already explained.

Thus, the great majority of the Companions had either died before ʿUmar’s caliphate or had been dispersed by the conquests, far from the council he convened for those who remained with him in Medina. Hence appealing to the Companions’ practice is undermined by what amounts to their consensus in Abū Bakr’s time on the contrary view.

As for the measure taken by ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb—may Allah be pleased with him—far be it from him, or from those with him, to introduce anything that contradicted the Prophet’s practice. Rather, he observed that people had become hasty and were frequently pronouncing triple divorce, an unlawful innovation. He therefore bound them to what they themselves had uttered, as a form of discipline and deterrent for the sin they had committed and for embracing hardship when ease and latitude were open to them.

This action of ʿUmar was an exercise of ijtihād, one of the discretionary judgments of the imams; such judgments vary with time and place and do not constitute a fixed, immutable legislation. What remains permanently binding is the original ruling on this issue.

Shaykh al-Islām said: “If a man divorces his wife three times in a single period of purity, whether with one phrase or with several…”