That which Allah has made for you to stand upon, so as long as a fool is being held accountable, by what means do we hold him accountable?

The Shaykh : The one that Allah has made for you to stand by. As long as a person is a fool, we take hold of his hand by any means. How do we take hold of his hand? Some people are not deterred by the Quranic restraint; that is, some people are not convinced when we say that the three consecutive pronouncements of divorce are forbidden. So we deal with him using the authority-based deterrent. As long as he is not convinced by the Quranic restraint, we treat him with the authority-based deterrent, which is that we deprive him of his wife and say that we are not treating him except with what he wanted for himself, which is that we do not allow him to take her back. 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) ratified the divorce for them. The meaning of his ratification of the divorce is that he prevented them from taking her back, as a discipline for them and to prevent them from the forbidden act. He did not prevent them from taking her back for two years of his caliphate. He did not prevent them except when they rushed into this matter and hastened in it, despite its prohibition. He wanted to ratify it for them, taking their words into account. They were the ones who wanted it for themselves, and it is forbidden by the Shari'ah, so let it be ratified for them. So this from 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is from the category of policy, not from the category of legislation. Therefore, it does not contradict the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) that the three pronouncements of divorce are one. Rather, this is from the category of Shari'ah policy. A parallel to this from his actions (may Allah be pleased with him) is that he prohibited the sale of mothers of children. That is, if a man has intercourse with his slave woman and she bears a child from him, she becomes the mother of his child. So he (may Allah be pleased with him) prohibited the sale of mothers of children, even though mothers of children were sold in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and in the time of Abu Bakr. Why? Because he saw that people had little fear of Allah, so a man would sell the mother of his child while his son was crying. Whose son is this son? The son of her master. It is not possible for her master to give his son to the new master. So people did not care; they would sell their slave woman who had a son, and his son would be crying, and they did not care about separating them. Even though the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) prohibited separating a mother from her child. So 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) saw, as a discipline for them, what? That he should prevent them from separating them from their children using the authority-based deterrent. And this is from policy. A parallel to this is that when drinking of intoxicants became widespread among people, he increased the punishment for it, from forty to eighty lashes, as a deterrent for people from drinking it. Otherwise, the original ruling is that the punishment for intoxicants is not a fixed limit (hadd). If you examine the Sunnah regarding this, you will know that it is not a hadd. Because when a drunkard was brought in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), did he appoint a person to count the lashes? No. Some of the Companions would beat him with his sandal, his cloak, his whip, or his hand, about forty lashes. In the time of Abu Bakr, the matter remained the same at forty lashes. In the time of 'Umar, when drinking became widespread, he consulted the Companions. What do you think? They said, O Commander of the Faithful, the lightest of the fixed limits is eighty lashes, which is the limit for falsely accusing someone of zina. That is, drinking intoxicants does not have a fixed limit. So 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) raised the punishment for the drinker of intoxicants to eighty lashes. And this is clear, like consensus, from the Companions that the punishment for drinking intoxicants is not a hadd. Because 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Awf said, "The lightest of the fixed limits is eighty," but no one objected. And this is like their consensus that the punishment for drinking intoxicants is not a hadd. Also, is it possible for 'Umar or anyone other than 'Umar, if the punishment were a hadd and it were forty lashes, to raise it to eighty to deter people? It is absolutely not possible. Therefore, if zina becomes widespread among people, do we say that one hundred lashes is not enough and we raise it to two hundred? It is not possible, it is not possible. So whoever examines the texts will see, as clear as the sun, that the punishment for drinking intoxicants is not a hadd, but rather it is a discretionary punishment (ta'zir), but it should not be less than forty lashes. That is, we can say it is a discretionary punishment not less than forty lashes, because this is the minimum that has been reported in it, and because this is the least that can deter people. So the important point is that 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) had policies. Policies that are in fact a Sunnah that we are commanded to follow, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: And it is well known that he (peace and blessings be upon him) explicitly mentioned Abu Bakr and 'Umar and said: And he said: So this Sunnah, which is the policy of dealing with people by being strict with them in what does not contradict the Shari'ah, is a 'Umaric Sunnah, and indeed it is a Prophetic Sunnah, because we are commanded to follow the Sunnah of the Caliphs. For this reason, the command of the Messenger was made a command from Allah, because Allah commanded us to obey the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). The conclusion is that this hadith of Ibn 'Abbas is clear and explicit that the three pronouncements of divorce are one, regardless of the wording used. And analogy (qiyas) requires this. And whether a person makes his wife free or does not make her free is not up to him, but it is up to Allah and His Messenger. For this reason, if he says, "You are divorced with a divorce from which there is no taking back," does he have the right to take her back? According to the stronger opinion, he has the right to take her back, because his saying "there is no taking back" is a ruling on a single pronouncement of divorce that there is no taking back in it, and this is not up to him, but up to whom? Up to Allah and His Messenger. So if he divorces her with a single pronouncement, he has the right to take her back, even if he says there is no taking back. Just as if he says, "You are divorced with a divorce that does not make you free," is that valid? It is not valid. So if... attaching the divorce to a characteristic that requires its non-existence does not have an effect. Likewise, if he attaches the divorce to a characteristic that requires no taking back in it, then this characteristic does not have an effect on it. And I think this is very clear. Then, the scholars (may Allah have mercy on them), most of them, are of the opinion that the divorce takes effect as three, whether he says "You are divorced three times" or "You are divorced, you are divorced, you are divorced," it takes effect as three. And this is the position of most of the scholars. And if the matter is a matter of disagreement, then Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) directed us to refer the matter to Allah and His Messenger: The majority answered this hadith with varied answers, but they do not satisfy or benefit from hunger, because they are weak answers. Some of them said that they were in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) intending emphasis, not intending that each sentence is independent of the others. Who said this? The original ruling in speech is what? Establishment, not emphasis. And some of them said that this is for the divorced woman who has not been consummated, because she becomes free with the first pronouncement, and the second and third do not follow it. And this is not correct. This, my brothers, is twisting the necks of the texts to what a person believes from a school of thought, and this is dangerous. That is, a person's behavior in this path is very dangerous, trying to twist the necks of the texts to what he believes or to what he says from an opinion. All opinions are followers, not followed. Leave the texts as they are, and praise be to Allah. If you do this now, you have said the original ruling, because the original ruling is that the three pronouncements of divorce do not take effect. And if you say this, then you have taken the easier path for the people, and it is well known that religion is what? Ease. So as long as this is the easier path, and it is the original ruling, and it is what the texts indicate, why do we shy away from it? For this reason, a person should, when the matter is completely clear, not shy away from saying what the Book and the Sunnah indicate, absolutely. Even if people say and say. The Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) was afflicted with this issue and was imprisoned for it, and he was patient and seeking reward, because he saw that he was on the right and that he was striving in the path of Allah, wanting the word of Allah to be supreme. So if the matter becomes clear to you from the Book and the Sunnah, then hold to it and do not care. But it is true that what contradicts the majority requires you to be careful and to be deliberate, because ruling that the majority is wrong is difficult. If you see an opinion that appears to you to be the correct one and it contradicts the opinion of the majority, do not rush; be deliberate and reconsider. And if the matter becomes clear to you, do not care. You are with the Book and the Sunnah, and the majority is forgiven for their mistake, because whoever judges and exerts effort and is correct has two rewards, and if he errs, he has one reward. There is an anomalous opinion in the issue that nothing takes effect if he divorces three times. This is the opinion of the Rafidah. And their opinion is sound, because this is forbidden by its characteristic, so it is invalid, just as if he sold a sa' of wheat for two sa's, the contract is invalid. But this analogical opinion, if it is contradicted by the text, becomes a dropped and rejected opinion. And it is called by the specialists in principles of jurisprudence "defective consideration," so it is not taken into account. And as long as the texts indicate that the three pronouncements of divorce are one, let it be one. Yes.