Triple Talaq In One Sitting: A Debate With Wahhabi Ghayr-Muqallid.

[MuhammedAli]

Introduction:

Jurists of Hanafiyyah, Malikiyyah, Shafiyyah, and Hanabilah were/are unanimously agreed upon three Talaq issued in one sitting (in other words issued in one go) were three Talaq. And this Talaq would end marriage contract. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah started evil innovation of three, or more Talaq in one go would amount to one Talaq in every situation and two more are required to end marriage. Tiny minority who ascribe to Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah’s pseudo Hanbalism ascribes to his understanding. In subcontinent under guise of holding to Quran/Sunnah Ghayr-Muqallids rebirthed this evil innovation.

Background To How It All Started:

A Ghayr-Muqallid Wahhabi read one of my articles on topic of Biddah on SalafiAqeedah, here. After some search and help he managed to find me on IslamiMehfil. He said he did not agree with the content of article but he was impressed with my strict reliance on evidence of Quran/Ahadith to support position of Ahlus Sunnah without referring to Islamic scholarship. He enquired about any further reading material on subject of innovation and I then directed him to English section of IslamiMehfil forum and urged him to read. It was roughly a week later he contacted me and expressed his desire to discuss subject of Talaq Thalathah (i.e. Three Talaq), Rafa ul-Yadain (i.e. raising of hands), and Fatihah Khalf ul-Imam (i.e. reciting Fatihah when being lead by an Imam). He was under impression that my strict reliance and usage of Quran/Ahadith as evidence would work in his favour. By presenting evidences of Quran/Ahadith on these disputed subjects he would succeed in converting me to Wahhabism. During my discussion on subject of Talaq e Thalathah it became evident he thought of me an idiot with zero knowledge. He had no idea what and who he wanted to wrestle with. Smile. I obliged on condition that I will take charge and attempt to prove position of Ahlus Sunnah and it would be his responsibility to explain evidence of Ahlus Sunnah so it is in accordance with his position. If I fail to prove our stance within reasonable time frame he would be allowed to present his case. Despite the agreement Wahhabi Brother did not play ball and discussion developed in a way that I had no control over it but in the end discussion came togather in favour of Ahlus Sunnah. We agreed to discuss the subjects in the order which Wahhabi brother purposed and being totally ill-prepared for all I had to take crash course on Talaq e Thalathah. I had to read following three books within few days here, here, and here, to get up to speed with the topics.

Episode One – The Day Of Wahhabism And Promise Of Return:

Wahhabi: What is your belief regarding triple Talaq in one sitting?

Sunni: Procedure of Talaq is clearly taught in book of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and explained in Sunnah of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). One Talaq is to be issued at the end of each menstrual cycle. If done correctly from beginning to end three Talaq should be issued in three months with one key condition that there should be no sexual intercourse in these three periods. This would effectively end marriage contract. If someone deviates from Quranic method of divorce; issues three Talaq in one instance, or three Talaq in three minutes, or in three hours, or in three days, or in three weeks; such a person has committed a major sin and has acted on an evil innovation. Regardless of its Biddah status it would result in end of marriage because Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) has stated divorce is twice and third time if she is divorced then she cannot marry her ex-husband until she has married another man: “Divorce is twice. Then either keep (her) in an acceptable manner or release with good treatment. And it is not lawful … And afterward if he has divorced her (third time) then she is not lawful to him until she marries a husband other than him.” [Ref: 2:229/230] Nature of Quran is Jawami al-Kalim and therefore it has widest possible interpretation scope: “I heard Allah's Messenger saying: "I have been sent with Jawami al-Kalim … Muhammad said Jawami al-Kalim means that Allah expresses in one or two statements or thereabouts the numerous matters that used to be written in the books revealed before (the coming of) the Prophet.” [Ref: Bukhari, B87, H141, here.] Coming back to the verse of Quran. It is explicit in stating divorce is twice during which marriage can be reconciled after third there is no returning. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) did not specify that this Hukm of divorce is for one who adheres to three menstrual cycles divorce method. This is example of Hukm Mutliq which is inclusive of all and excludes none. Meaning all types of three Talaq are to be deemed three and end marriage as per verse of Quran. This interpretation agrees with Jawami al-Kalim nature of Quran.

Wahhabi: Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) hates divorce according to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but has allowed it despite it: “It was narrated from Abdullah bin Umar that: The Messenger of Allah said: ‘The most hated of permissible things to Allah is divorce.’" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B10, H2018, here.] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) told us Iblees is pleased with those Satan’s who manage to cause rift between husband/wife leading to divorce: “Jabir reported that Allah's Messenger said: ‘Iblis places his throne upon water; he then sends detachments (for creating dissension); the nearer to him in rank are those who are most notorious in creating dissension. One of them comes and says: ‘I did so and so.’ And he says: ‘You have done nothing.’ Then one amongst them comes and says: ‘I did not spare so and so until I sowed the seed of discord between a husband and a wife.’ The Satan goes near him and says: ‘You have done well.’ Amash said: He then embraces him.” [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6755, here.] An agent of Iblees incites a man to issue Talaq and instead of opposing this agent of Iblees Hanafis sides with him and issue judgment that Nikkah has been invalidated even when they can make exception. Instead of opposing Satan you’re actually helping his agent to achieve his objective. Our Minhaj opposes Iblees, his agents, and their Hanafi agents.

Sunni: You didn’t actually respond to what I wrote instead you kind of took your own path. We won’t get anywhere if this continues. Secondly you should think through about what you write before you write because there can be significant consequences.

Wahhabi: What consequences you’re on about? I said you’re being Iblees’s agent’s agent by nullifying marriage due to triple Talaq. How have I said something wrong?

Sunni: Hadith: “’Then one amongst them comes and says: ‘I did not spare so and so until I sowed the seed of discord between a husband and a wife.’ The Satan goes near him and says: ‘You have done well.’ Amash said: He then embraces him.” [Ref: Muslim, B39, H6755, here.] This Hadith is not specific about three Talaq in one sitting. Rather it is inclusive of; i) Talaq Ahsan, ii) Talaq Hasan, iii) and Talaq Biddah – which is three or more Talaq in one sitting. It makes no Takhsees between these three. Natural meaning of Hadith is any who divorces his wife, via any of three methods Satan has conspired against the couple and incited husband to issue Talaq. There are incidents in which Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) invalidated Nikkah/marriages after Ahsan/Hasan three Talaqs are you willing to say he was supporting agent of Iblees in his verdicts? If not then why would you say Fuqaha of Ahnaf are behaving as agents of Iblees? You know every divorce is work of a Satan destroying marriage so technically every Qadhi giving verdict that Talaq Ahsan, Hasan, Biddah is effective is in your logic actually behaving as an agent of Iblees. Objective of Qadhi/Mufti is to uphold the law of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and he issues judgment in light of it not in light of wish of Iblees and his agents.

Wahhabi: I didn’t say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) or every Qadhi is behaving as such. You’re just clutching straws.

Sunni: First of all I didn’t say you said that. I spelt out if your logic; any who issues verdict on three Talaq in sitting ends marriages is behaving as an agent of Iblees; is invalid. Then logic of, behaving as an agent of Iblees, should also apply on Talaq Ahsan and Hasan because Hadith does not make exception for any of three types of Talaqs. Only you have specifically applied the Hadith to Talaq Biddah but reality is this Hadith is about all three types of Talaq i.e. Ahsan, Hasan, Biddah. So this rationale of yours is also applicable to Talaq Ahsan and Talaq Hasan. Therefore whenever a Qadhi issues judgment about any Talaq type saying; this Talaq is now in effect and marriage is ended; technically as par your logic he is doing bidding of Iblees. In my previous message I kind of demonstrated how your logic; invalidating marriage after three Talaq in one sitting is work of agent of Iblees; is completely out of touch of reality. And I told you Qadhi issues judgment to uphold law of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Qadhi is under any blame for upholding law even if his judgment achieves objective of Iblees and his minions. Instead of thanking me for correcting your misguided notion you’re accusing I am clutching at straws.

Wahhabi: Never mind you won’t understand. The real issue is; three Talaq in one sitting is a Biddah and you even said it is Biddah.

Sunni: Yes it is Biddah but it does not give you free license to give million Talaq to your wife in one sitting. Giving verdict three or more Talaq in one sitting does not invalidate marriage only allows this Biddah to remain active. Only way this Biddah can be eradicated if we all give same verdict; it ends Nikkah. We Ahlus Sunnah punish this evil Biddah in accordance with prophetic teaching and his companions.

Wahhabi: Three Talaq is an innovation therefore Talaq is a rejected form of Talaq. During the life of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) three Talaqs issued in one sitting were deemed to be just one.

Sunni: Your proof is?

Wahhabi: Hadith records three Talaq in one sitting became effectively three Talaq in Caliphate of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and they were not deemed three during life time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and first Caliph Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu). We want to revert to Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

Sunni: I asked for evidence.

Wahhabi: “Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: Abd Yazid the father of Rukanah and his brothers divorced Umm Rukanah and married a woman of the tribe of Muzaynah. She went to the Prophet and said: He is of no use to me except that he is as useful to me as a hair; and she took a hair from her head. So separate me from him. The Prophet became furious. He called on Rukanah and his brothers. He then said to those who were sitting beside him. Do you see so-and-so who resembles Abdu Yazid in respect of so-and-so; and so-and-so who resembles him in respect of so-and-so? They replied: Yes. The Prophet said to Abdu Yazid: Divorce her (the wife from Banu Muzaynah). Then he did so. He said: Take your wife the mother of Rukanah and his brothers, back in marriage. He said: I have divorced her by three pronouncements, Messenger of Allah. He said: I know: Take her back. He then recited the verse: "O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them at their appointed periods." Abu Dawud said: The tradition narrated by Nafi b. Ujair and Abd Allah b. Yazid b. Rukanah from his father on the authority of his grandfather reads: Rukanah divorced his wife absolutely (i.e. irrevocable divorce). The Prophet restored her to him. This version is sounder (than other versions), for they (i.e. these narrators) are the children of this man, and the members of the family are more aware of his case. Rukanah divorced his wife absolutely (i.e. three divorces) and the Prophet made it a single divorce.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2191, here.]

Sunni: Brother you didn’t understand. I want evidence that three Talaq was one during the life of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

Wahhabi: “Tawus said: Abu al-Sahba said to Ibn Abbas: Do you know that a divorce by three pronouncements was made a single one during the time of the Prophet and of Abu-Bakr and in the early days of the caliphate of Umar? He replied: Yes.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2194, here.]

Sunni: According to another Hadith recorded in Muwatta of Imam Malik (rahimullah) it was Marwan Ibn al-Hakim who decided three Talaqs issued in one sitting are irrevocable and marriage is terminated: “Yahya related to me from Malik from Ibn Shihab that Marwan Ibn al-Hakam decided that if someone made three pronouncements of divorce, he had divorced his wife irrevocably. Malik said, "That is what I like best of what I have heard on the subject." [Ref: Muwatta Malik, B29, H1156, here.] This could be continuation of what Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) started so no contest on this. Note Imam Malik (rahimullah) agreed with decision of Marwan Ibn al-Hakim saying he has heard the best judgment on subject of three Talaq in one sitting.

Wahhabi: There is another authentic Hadith from Sahih of Imam Muslim stating Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) judged three Talaq in one sitting as three: “Abu Sahba said to Ibn Abbas: Do you know that three (divorces) were treated as one during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle, and that of Abu Bakr, and during three (years) of the caliphate of Umar? Ibn Abbas said: Yes.” [Ref: Muslim, B9, H3492, here.] How can we accept judgment of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu), or Marwan Ibn al-Hakim, or even Imam Malik (rahimullah) when they are against practice/Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)? It is clearly an innovation. We don’t say two [Umar radiallah ta’ala anhu and Imam Malik rahimullah] sinned because they were Mujtahid and his error will earn them reward.

Sunni: Taraweeh of entire month, under leadership of a single Qari was also started by Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu). Prophetic Sunnah as established from Ahadith is that it was Sunnah for only three days and that too during the last ten days of Ramadhan. It remained same during life time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and during Caliphate of Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu). It only became what we all practice when Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) assembled them under a single Qari. Yet you have adopted it and practice it. Why don’t and haven’t you reverted to prophetic Sunnah in regards to Taraweeh if returning to Sunnah is your objective?

Wahhabi: Stop lying Brother Taraweeh is a prophetic Sunnah.

Sunni: Entire Ramadhan month Taraweeh under leadership of a single Qari and in Masjid a prophetic Sunnah?

Wahhabi: No, not this way.

Sunni: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said follow my Sunnahs and Sunnahs of rightly guided Caliphs: “It was said to him: 'O Messenger of Allah, you have delivered a speech of farewell, so enjoin something upon us.' He said: 'I urge you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if (your leader) is an Abyssinian slave. After I am gone, you will see great conflict. I urge you to adhere to my Sunnah and the path of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and cling stubbornly to it. And beware of newly-invented matters, for every innovation is a going astray.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H42, here.] We have clear instruction to follow Sunnahs of rightly guided Caliphs so follow Sunnahs of all rightly guided Caliphs. Including three Talaq in one sitting being three, Taraweeh of entire month in Masjid under a single Qari, and anything else they introduced.

Wahhabi: You’re misinterpreting Hadith. Scholars have stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said Sunnahs of Caliphs and this is not inclusive of innovations introduced by Caliphs but prophetic Sunnahs which Caliphs apply during their rule.

Sunni: Brother wait. I will deal with your objection after I have completed my response. Don’t add to my plate when I am still trying to finish what is already in it. Otherwise you will complain I am not giving you opportunity to respond to me.

Wahhabi: OK!

Sunni: As for three Talaq becoming one. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) stated: “Divorce is twice. Then, either keep (her) in an acceptable manner or release with good treatment. And it is not lawful for you to take anything of what …” [Ref: 2:229] And RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) does not do contrary to what is revealed in Quran. I cannot believe/accept Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made three into one because it goes against Quranic teaching but evidence suggests he did.

Wahhabi: You will reject authentic Ahadith because they do not agree with your understanding?

Sunni: Just let me finish Brother. It doesn’t take too much to keep your hands off keyboard so keep them off it. I am not rejecting Sahih Ahadith I don’t even reject Da’if Hadith when they can provide clarification and serve as replacement for Qiyas.

Wahhabi: OK! You go on.

Sunni: My assessment of Hadith-2191 is that Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) interpreted first pronouncement of Talaq by Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) as intended Talaq and two that followed understood them in sense of emphasis. Example would be Amr telling someone to be, come here, and to emphasize urgency repeat, come here, twice more in quick succession. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not invent his own version of Trinity; three Talaq is one Talaq. And in case of this Hadith-2191 companion issued first Talaq and to emphasize it he followed it by two more.

Wahhabi: You rather make Taweel then adopt correct course of action. This is sign of weak Iman.

Sunni: Or maybe better education.

Wahhabi: Do you have evidence to back this ingenious interpretation? We will see.

Sunni: No I don’t have it yet. It is just a theory yet. I will have to study this subject to further my understanding on this topic. I need to see if there are other versions and study them to get complete picture of narrated incident. You will have to excuse me.

Wahhabi: I am hoping this doesn’t become last time I see you. After all you’re a modern Muhaqiq and I wouldn’t be surprised if you disappeared. Barelwi Maulvis boast about their Munazra/debate skills but in reality you all are ignorant about Islamic texts. It is only getting tougher for you Brother.

Sunni: Brother I haven’t discussed this subject before. I studied traditional Sunni position but not back and forth exchanges between Sunnis and Wahhabis. So this is new to me and it will take bit of time for me to gather my study minerals but I will achieve my objective.

Wahhabi: Brother just face the truth and accept it.

Sunni: Humility will serve you best my Brother. You’re mistaking me for typical Sunni and I am not. As long as I am alive rest assured I am not going but to come back stronger.

Wahhabi: Just come back at very least. I have no expectations of coming back stronger from you Barelwis. Lolz.

Sunni: You presented Hadith-2191 as evidence that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made three Talaq as one. Hadith just states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed companion to take his wife back even though he had divorced her three times. Where does it say Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) declared three Talaq are one?

Wahhabi: Can I respond?

Sunni: Why not!

[MuhammedAli]

Wahhabi: Hadith-2194 and Hadith-3492 both state three Talaq were deemed one during life of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and during Caliphate of Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu). In this context Hadith (-2191) of Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) is interpreted to mean; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made his three Talaq into one.

Sunni: (i) How do you know Ahadith, Hadith-2194 and Hadith-3492 are inclusive of all/every three Talaq in one sitting! Without contextual information it would be leap of false Qiyas to act on this Hadith and apply it upon every three Talaq. You’re aware of principle Ihtimal (i.e. possibility) invalidates Istidlal (i.e. inference). (ii) You believe, correct me if I am wrong, ALL instances of three Talaq in one sitting are ONE TALAQ. Hadith-2194 and Hadith-3492 does not state ALL such Talaqs are one. You’ve assumed all into text Hadith. There is Ihtimal (i.e. possibility) only some three Talaq in one sitting are one and not every three Talaq in one sitting. And this Ihtimal invalidates your Istidlal. (iii) Hadith (-2191) of Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) does not explicitly state companion gave three Talaq in one sitting it just states he divorced her irrevocably. Ihtimal is that he could have divorced her on three menstrual periods. This Ihtimal also invalidates your Istidlal.

Wahhabi: i) Imam Abu Dawud (rahimullah) said Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had issued three Talaq in one sitting. You said he could have given three Talaq on three menstrual periods. That cannot be possible because of two main reasons: ii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) would have validated divorce. Why would he not invalidate marriage if it was three Talaqs as prescribed by Quran? iii) Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) recited verse this verse admonishes him: "O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them at their appointed periods." Why would Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) quote this verse then? This can only make sense if Abd Yazid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had divorced Umm Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anha) against the instructed method.

Sunni: If you can get plausible answer to your points you will agree Ihtimalaat have invalidated your inferred evidence/argument?

Wahhabi: No! If your plausible answer fits into text of Hadith I will concede point.

Sunni: i) Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu), Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu), and Imam Malik (radiallah ta’ala anhu) were closer to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) then Imam Abu Dawood (radiallah ta’ala anhu). When I cited their judgments as evidence you rejected their judgments and you cited what Imam Abu Dawood’s (rahimullah) said to substantiate your position. You can abandon companions and their judgments and you expect me to adhere to judgment of Imam Abu Dawud (rahimullah). You shouldn’t expect and shouldn’t demand that I hold to scholarly views which you reject yourself. ii) There have been special exceptions to norm. Companion who broke his fast and as an act of atonement … he was told go eat dates yourself and feed your family. Quran indicates four wives but Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) had eleven wives. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) may have made special exception in case of three Talaq issued by Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anhu). iii) You did not read the Hadith properly. Hadith states Abd Yazid divorced Umm Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anha) and then married woman of Banu Muzaynah. Umm Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anha) went to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and he instructed Abd Yazid to divorce his wife. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed Abd Yazid (radiallah ta’ala anhu) to divorce his new wife not Umm Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anha) because she was already divorced. He divorced his new wife and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed him to take his ex-wife back. Then recited verse quoted by you because he divorced his new wife instantly with three Talaq in one sitting. With this interpretation we have proof for an exceptional case of three Talaqs being made void but no proof for three Talaqs becoming one. You can argue no he recited verse because of Umm Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anha) but my interpretation proves there is Ihtimal of another interpretation in this Hadith and therefore your Istidlal is invalid. [Readers should take note that I had not consulted other Ahadith on this topic and interpreted Hadith-2191 in isolation.]

Wahhabi: I can see how you derived your understanding of Hadith-2191 but Brother I cannot accept Ihtimal invalidating Istidlal principle. How can that be correct?

Sunni: It is an agreed upon principle by all sects that Ihtimal of another interpretation invalidates Istidlal. You presented these evidences to prove your position. I argued back proving these evidences do not conclusively prove three Talaq issued in one sitting is one. It is your job to provide satisfactory evidence in support of your position.

Wahhabi: This has turned into a never ending discussion so I will purpose way to end it: i) I quoted these Ahadith; Hadith-2194 and Hadith-3492. If you quote me evidence; Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) deemed three Talaq issued in one sitting as valid I will concede and accept our position is not established. ii) About Hadith of Umm Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anhu) you theorized one Talaq was intended and two additional were for emphasis. If you prove this I will concede and admit our understanding of Hadith is incorrect. If you fail you will admit your position is invalid. Right? It is time for Namaz/Salah. Salam Alaykum.

Sunni: I will acknowledge lack of my knowledge and after thoroughly investigating however long it takes if I find our position is invalid I will leave it. [He signed out.]

Episode Two – Return Of Sunni And Truth Obliterating Falsehood:

Sunni: As promised my Brother I am back. Salam Alaykum.

Wahhabi: Brother I am so glad you’re back. Wa Alaykum Salam. Are you back with substance or back for more beating you took last time?

Sunni: I don’t recall me giving up under pretext that it has become never ending discussion when things got hard for me. Smile.

Wahhabi: I purposed way to solve the dispute. You have had week to prepare for this so I am guessing you believe you’re prepared.

Sunni: Prepared as much as I needed to be. You purposed how we can solve the dispute and it is absolutely fine but needs tiny improvement.

Wahhabi: Brother you’re making excuses because you know you cannot meet my demands. Your improvements will be changes which you will be able to meet.

Sunni: Brother I am not making any changes to what you demanded but about to say all your evidence needs to be explained in a way that no contradiction between my evidence and your evidence remains.

Wahhabi: How you going to do that?

Sunni: Watch me and learn. First I will explain your evidence in light of prophetic Sunnah and then meet your demands.

Wahhabi: OK! Make it harder for yourself. Lolz. Why don’t you just give-up this bravado Brother because we both know your just empty vessel making loud noise.

Sunni: Your first evidence was Hadith of Rukanah (radiallah ta’ala anhu). Following Hadith: “Narrated Abdullah Ibn Abbas: Abd Yazid the father of Rukanah and his brothers divorced Umm Rukanah and married a woman of the tribe of Muzaynah. She went to the Prophet and said: He is of no use to me except that he is as useful to me as a hair; and she took a hair from her head. So separate me from him. The Prophet became furious. He called on Rukanah and his brothers. He then said to those who were sitting beside him. Do you see so-and-so who resembles Abdu Yazid in respect of so-and-so; and so-and-so who resembles him in respect of so-and-so? They replied: Yes. The Prophet said to Abdu Yazid: Divorce her (the wife from Banu Muzaynah). Then he did so. He said: Take your wife the mother of Rukanah and his brothers, back in marriage. He said: I have divorced her by three pronouncements, Messenger of Allah. He said: I know: Take her back. He then recited the verse: "O Prophet, when you divorce women, divorce them at their appointed periods." [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2191, here.] With regards to it I said it is not about three Talaq in one instance but I was wrong. I affirm it was/is about three Talaq in one instance.

Wahhabi: This refutes me doesn’t it Brother? Lolz.

Sunni: Summarizing before I start. Calm down. I also said three Talaq in this Hadith can be in sense; one was intended, and two for emphasis. And I have found evidence which supports this indirectly.

Wahhabi: Your evidence is in Fiqha of Imam Abu Hanifah (rahimullah)? Lolz.

Sunni: “It was narrated from Abdullah bin Ali bin Yazid bin Rukanah, from his father, from his grandfather that: He divorced his wife irrevocably (i.e. three times), then he came to the Messenger of Allah and asked him. He said: ‘What did you mean by that?’ He said: ‘One (divorce).’ He said: ‘By Allah did you only mean one (divorce) thereby?’ He said: ‘By Allah, I meant one.’ Then he sent her back to him.” Muhammad bin Majah said: I heard Abul-Hasan Ali bin Muhammad Tanafisi saying: ‘How noble is this Hadith.’ Ibn Majah said: 'Abu Ubaid left it (i.e. did not narrate it) and Ahmad was fearful of it. [Ref: Ibn Majah, B10, H2051, here.] “Ali b. Yazid b. Rukanah reported on the authority of his father from his grandfather that he (Rukanah) divorced his wife absolutely (i.e. three times); so he came to the Messenger of Allah. He asked (him): What did you intend? He said: A single utterance of divorce. He said: Do you swear by Allah? He replied: I swear by Allah. He said: It stands as you intended.” Abu Dawud said: This tradition is sounder than that of Ibn Juraij that Rukanah divorced his wife by three pronouncements, for they are the members of his family and they are more aware for him. The tradition of Ibn Juraij has been narrated by some children of Abu Rafi' from 'Ikrimah on the authority of Ibn 'Abbas. “ [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2202, here.]

Wahhabi: Give me link I want to check reference.

Sunni: He gave three Talaqs intended one and logically the other two were for emphasis so Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) decided it was one Talaq.

Wahhabi: Brother I didn’t know these Ahadith existed. I trusted Ahle Hadith scholarship.

Sunni: I know Brother. You have been flying little too high due to your Taqleed of Wahhabi scholarship but I must continue.

Wahhabi: I wasn’t being arrogant Brother Ali. I was just messing with you.

Sunni: You also quoted following Hadith: “Tawus said: Abu al-Sahba said to Ibn Abbas: Do you know that a divorce by three pronouncements was made a single one during the time of the Prophet and of Abu-Bakr and in the early days of the caliphate of Umar? He replied: Yes.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2194, here.] Note Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) narrated this Hadith. Following Hadith is also narrated by Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) in which he clearly states that three Talaq was one if couples had not had sexual relationship: “Tawus said A man called Abu Al Sahba used to ask Ibn Abbas questions frequently. He asked “Do you know that when a man divorced his wife by three pronouncements before sexual intercourse with her, they (the people) made it a single divorce during the time of the Apostle of Allah, of Abu Bakr and in the early phase of the caliphate of ‘Umar?” Ibn “Abbas said “Yes, when a man divorced his wife by three pronouncement before sexual intercourse they made it a single divorce during the time of the Apostle of Allah, of Abu Bakr and in the early phase of the caliphate of ‘Umar. When he saw that the people frequently divorced (by three pronouncements) he said “Make them operative on them (i.e., on women).” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2193, here.] Note this Hadith is also narrated by Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu). In Hadith-2197 he did not narrate the context but in Hadith-2193 he narrated context, when and why, three Talaq became one. In your understanding EVERY/ALL instances of three divorces in an instant is ONE divorce therefore this Hadith does not support your position.

Wahhabi: I want to check Urdu translation. There is something fishy in these translations.

Sunni: You said three Talaqs are one and you quoted these Ahadith to support your foundation: “Tawus said: Abu al-Sahba said to Ibn Abbas: Do you know that a divorce by three pronouncements was made a single one during the time of the Prophet and of Abu-Bakr and in the early days of the caliphate of Umar? He replied: Yes.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2194, here.] “Abu Sahba said to Ibn Abbas: Do you know that three (divorces) were treated as one during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle, and that of Abu Bakr, and during three (years) of the caliphate of Umar? Ibn Abbas said: Yes.” [Ref: Muslim, B9, H3492, here.] This is clearly and absolutely contradicted by following Hadith from Sahih Muslim: “Abu al-Sahba said to Ibn Abbas: Enlighten us with your information whether the three divorces (pronounced at one and the same time) were not treated as one during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger and Abu Bakr. He said: It was in fact so, but when during the caliphate of Umar people began to pronounce divorce frequently, he allowed them to do so (to treat pronouncements of three divorces in a single breath as one).” [Ref: Sahih Muslim, B9, H3493, here.] According to this Hadith it was Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) who allowed three divorces to be treated as one but in the time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) this was not the case.

Wahhabi: Brother you’re talking rubbish. Where are you getting all this?

Sunni: Brother Read Ahadith don’t shoot the delivery service guy and if you don’t believe me check Urdu translations.

Wahhabi: Even if this is true Hadith then there is contradiction.

Sunni: There is no contradiction between Hadith-3493 and what you quoted Brother. Your evidence of Ahadith in summary is: Hadith-2194 and Hadith-3492 are about SPECIFIC three Talaq issued in one breath to a virgin turning to one Talaq. Where as my evidence of Hadith-3493 is about GENERALLY three Talaq were not one Talaq.

Wahhabi: You will have to provide proof that three Talaq were not one in other instances and I will accept.

Sunni: I will but first I need to put something else in context. We established that three Talaq were generally three. Only except was in context of virgin getting divorced with instantaneous divorce or person intending one divorce but emphasizing it with two more. Now question is which Talaq did Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) made three in his Caliphate time? Answer is all exceptions including three Talaq of virgin, three Talaq given but one intended, two to emphasize the first one, he made them all three.

Wahhabi: I am still waiting on your answer to my explanation of Sunnah of Caliph Hadith.

Sunni: Noted that down Brother next time. Right now I am trying to go through this portion.

Wahhabi: It would be interesting to read what you have to say on that.

Sunni: Now what remains is for me to prove that three divorces were three even in time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). It is recorded in Hadith that Uwaimir (radiallah ta’ala anhu) divorced his wife three times in presence of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam): “Narrated Sahl bin Sa`d As-Sa`idi: Uwaimir Al-Ajlani came to Asim bin Adi Al-Ansari and asked, "O Asim! Tell me, if a man sees his wife with another man, should he kill him, whereupon you would kill him in Qisas, or what should he do? O Asim! Please ask Allah's Messenger about that." Asim asked Allah's Messenger about that. Allah's Apostle disliked that question and considered it disgraceful. What Asim heard from Allah's Messenger was hard on him. When he returned to his family, 'Uwaimir came to him and said "O Asim! What did Allah's Messenger say to you?" Asim said, "You never bring me any good. Allah's Messenger disliked hearing the problem which I asked him about." Uwaimir said: "By Allah, I will not leave the matter till I ask him about it." So Uwaimir proceeded till he came to Allah's Messenger who was in the midst of the people and said: "O Allah's Messenger! If a man finds with his wife another man, should he kill him, whereupon you would kill him (in Qisas): or otherwise, what should he do?" Allah's Messenger said: "Allah has revealed something concerning the question of you and your wife. Go and bring her here." So they both carried out the judgment of Lian, while I was present among the people (as a witness). When both of them had finished, Uwaimir said, "O Allah's Messenger! If I should now keep my wife with me, then I have told a lie". Then he pronounced his decision to divorce her thrice before Allah's Apostle ordered him to do so. (Ibn Shihab said, "That was the tradition for all those who are involved in a case of Lian." [Ref: Bukhari, B63, H185, here.] Another Hadith on same incident reveals that Uwaimir (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had told truth and his wife had illicit sexual intercourse with another man: “Narrated Ibn Juraij: Ibn Shihab informed me of Lian and the tradition related to it, referring to the narration of Sahl bin Sa`d, the brother of Bani Sa`idi He said: "An Ansari man came to Allah's Messenger and said: 'O Allah's Apostle! If a man saw another man with his wife, should he kill him, or what should he do?' So Allah revealed concerning his affair what is mentioned in the Holy Qur'an about the affair of those involved in a case of Lian. The Prophet said: 'Allah has given His verdict regarding you and your wife.' So they carried out Lian in the mosque while I was present there. When they had finished, the man said: "O Allah's Messenger! If I should now keep her with me as a wife then I have told a lie about her. Then he divorced her thrice before Allah's Messenger ordered him, when they had finished the Lian process. So he divorced her in front of the Prophet." Ibn Shihab added: "After their case, it became a tradition that a couple involved in a case of Lian should be separated by divorce. That lady was pregnant then, and later on her son was called by his mother's name. The tradition concerning their inheritance was that she would be his heir and he would inherit of her property the share Allah had prescribed for him." Ibn Shihab said that Sahl bin Sa`d As'Saidi said that the Prophet said (in the above narration), "If that lady delivers a small red child like a lizard, then the lady has spoken the truth and the man was a liar, but if she delivers a child with black eyes and huge lips, then her husband has spoken the truth." Then she delivered it in the shape one would dislike (as it proves her guilty).” [Bukhari, B63, H229, here] This proves three Talaq were not one in time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). And Hadith-229 records Uwaimir (radiallah ta’ala anhu) divorced his wife after Li’an (i.e. mutually invoking curse of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala) and this had not been done before him. Rather his act of issuing Talaq set a precedent and others followed his example in such cases. This establishes it became a norm for Li’an to end marriage via three Talaq after Li’an. And there is not a single Hadith which states Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said these three Talaq are to be counted as one.

Wahhabi: I will be back in few minutes Brother. You can continue.

Sunni: Earlier you quoted Hadith that Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said in the time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) three Talaqs were one. Yet Hadith records Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) invalidate Nikkah in cases of such Talaq: “Mujahid said: I was with Ibn Abbas. A man came to him and said that he divorced his wife by three pronouncements. I kept silence and thought that he was going to restore het to him. He then said: A man goes and commits a foolish act and then says; ‘O Ibn Abbas! Allah has said: ‘And for those who fear Allah, He (ever) prepares a way out.’ Since you did not keep duty to Allah I do not find a way out for you. You disobeyed your Lord and your wife was separated from you. Allah has said ‘O Prophet! When you divorce women divorce them in the beginning of their waiting period.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2192, here.] In another Hadith recorded in Muwatta Imam Malik (rahimullah) Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) has issued same Fatwah that three Talaq or more invalidate Nikkah: “Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that a man said to Abdullah Ibn Abbas: ‘I have divorced my wife by saying I divorce you a hundred times. What do you think my situation is?’ Ibn Abbas said to him: ‘She was divorced from you by three pronouncements, and by the ninety-seven, you have mocked the ayat of Allah.’" [Ref: Muwatta Malik, B29, H1153, here.]

Wahhabi: Wouldn’t that mean he gave Fatwah against the Sunnah of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam)?

Sunni: Why would you deduce that?

Wahhabi: If prophetic Sunnah was contrary to his Fatwah then naturally it would be against Sunnah.

Sunni: Brother I don’t know what and how you view Sahabah as but in my understanding a Sahabi would not knowingly give Fatwah against prophetic teaching. And in case of Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) he knew prophetic Sunnah of three divorces in one breath meaning three.

Wahhabi: So what you make of his statement that in the time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) three Talaq were one?

Sunni: Brother Sahabi understands prophetic Sunnah better then you and me. He understands his own statements better then you and me. And he issues judgments better then you and me. When these are true don’t you think his statement three Talaq was one is better understood by him then you? I want answer for this Brother.

Wahhabi: Sahabi!

Sunni: Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) himself contextualized his own general statement of three Talaq was one in specific context of virgin getting divorce. Are you all claiming to know prophetic Sunnah and meaning of statement of Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu) better then Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu)? Don’t forget Sahabi is better in knowledge of Sunnah and Taqwa then Wahhabi. [He didn’t say anything so I asked.] Can I continue with my final piece of evidence?

Wahhabi: Yes but quickly.

Sunni: Ahadith record Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) also judged three Talaqs in one breath to mean three Talaqs which invalidate Nikkah: “When Ibn Umar was asked about a man who divorced his wife when she was menstruating, he would say: ’If it is the first or second divorce, the Messenger of Allah would tell him to take her back and keep her until she has menstruated again and purified herself, then divorce her before having intercourse with her. But if it was three simultaneous divorces, then you have disobeyed Allah with regard to the way in which divorce should be conducted and your wife has become irrevocably divorced.’" [Ref: Sunan Nisa’i, B27, H3587, here.] There is little ambiguity in Hadith-189 but if you pay attention you will realize it also means the same: “Nafi said: When Ibn Umar was asked about person who had given three divorces, he said: "Would that you gave one or two divorces, for the Prophet ordered me to do so. If you give three divorces then she cannot be lawful for you until she has married another husband (and is divorced by him)." [Ref: Bukhari, B63, H189, here.]

Wahhabi: Can you explain how Hadith-189 amounts to evidence for three Talaq in one sitting? It can also be three menstrual period Talaqs.

Sunni: Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was asked about three divorces in one breath. He said it would have been better if he had given one or two. If he had given one each at end of every menstrual period then why would Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) would make suggestion of one, or two, because then in his suggestion/advice there would be no benefit. If companion had given three Talaq in one go, in one sitting, in one breath, in an instant then his advice/suggestion would make sense because issuing three would end marriage but one or two would leave room to revoke Talaq.

Wahhabi: Salam Alaykum. [He signed out.]

Sunni: I have concluded my response now if you have anything to say you can have your say. [He had gone by this time so I got no response.]

Episode Three – Three Talaq Is A Rejected Innovation And Nikkah Stands:

Sunni: Salam Alaykum Brother.

Wahhabi: Wa Alaykum Salam.

Sunni: You want to add something or respond to something?

Wahhabi: No not right now. You have caught me off guard. I will have to research on what you said. I have to say for now everything makes sense but your explanation does not fit with Ahadith of; every innovation is misguidance and Ahadith of; a matter which is not from Islam is rejected.

Sunni: Can I respond to your point about Sunnah of Caliphs? Otherwise I will forget again.

Wahhabi: Yeah! Respond to that point first.

Sunni: Brother following is just a brief summary of what transpired. It may not be exactly as stated here because I will be adding our motives and objectives into this summary.

Wahhabi: I don’t remember anything about our earlier discussion apart from that one point so you can make up what you like. Lolz.

Sunni: Our entire discussion on subject of Talaq e Thalathah is safe with me; PalTalk audio and written exchanges, E-Mail, WhatsApp audio and written exchanges, all are safe with me. Eventually our discussion will feature, here. I am MuhammedAli. Smile. I won’t publish your name, email address, and other details.

Wahhabi: I can’t check right now but will do. Definitely later. You will write all this and publish it?

Sunni: Will do.

Wahhabi: Good luck then Brother.

Sunni: I have prepared discussion ten times longer then this. Smile.

Wahhabi: OK! Brother can we get to Sunnah of Caliphs Hadith.

Sunni: You said Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) ordered three Talaq being three and before his Caliphate it was one. Therefore you cannot accept three Talaq being three because his actions went against prophetic Sunnah. I responded saying even if this is the case; we are instructed in Hadith to follow Sunnahs of rightly guided Caliphs. So we have to obey rightly guided Caliph and deem three Talaq issued in one sitting as three. You then responded with; scholars said Hadith is being incorrectly interpreted and applied because scholars said Sunnah of Caliphs is those prophetic Sunnahs which Caliphs apply as law. Therefore Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs is not inclusive of their own Ijtihadat and innovative Sunnahs. End. You would agree something like that could have transpired?

Wahhabi: You got my stance right and that’s all that really matters to me not the context.

Sunni: I quote the Hadith: “It was said to him: 'O Messenger of Allah, you have delivered a speech of farewell, so enjoin something upon us.' He said: 'I urge you to fear Allah, and to listen and obey, even if (your leader) is an Abyssinian slave. After I am gone, you will see great conflict. I urge you to adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah (i.e. Path) of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and cling stubbornly to it. And beware of newly-invented matters, for every innovation is a going astray.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H42, here.] Which scholars said Sunnah of Caliphs is referring to prophetic Sunnahs which Caliphs make law?

Wahhabi: Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahma-ullah) explained it in his Majmu al-Fatawah but I cannot recall precise reference. It shouldn’t matter because my understanding is just that.

Sunni: I doubt it but let us continue. However you play Brother you loose at the end. If you agree that Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs is referring to Ijtihadaat of rightly guided Caliphs then you will have to obey RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and accept Ijtihadi Sunnah of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu). This translates to mean that you will have to accept three Talaq is three after Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) judged it to be so. If you hold to your position that Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs is referring to those prophetic Sunnahs which Caliphs make into law then you will have to accept and obey Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu). Implication of this is; Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) took prophetic teaching of three Talaq is three and made it law. With your interpretation of Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs is about prophetic Sunnah you have refuted your very foundation of your position (i.e. in life time of Prophet sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam three Talaq were one). Not surprisingly your indirect invalidation of your stance on Talaq e Thalathah is actually supported with evidence. And I have already provided proof of it earlier. Smiles.

Wahhabi: Brother you’re wasting time because I already told you I will have to investigate everything. Why are you barking up the wrong tree? [First sign of anger building in him.] There was no need to put it [the statement of Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs] in context of Talaq Thalathah discussion. I wanted you to prove your assertion why Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs is about innovations. If you can then prove how and why this statement is about innovations of Caliphs.

Sunni: Brother that’s simple. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “I urge you to adhere to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs, and cling stubbornly to it. And beware of newly-invented matters, for every innovation is a going astray.'" [Ref: Ibn Majah, B1, H42, here.] Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed the believers to adhere to his Sunnah. If a Jahil teaches you a prophetic Sunnah, or a common man, or an Aalim, or your brother, or your mother, or a rightly guided Caliph makes it a law, or an evil Caliph; will you say no I will not follow the prophetic Sunnah! Regardless of who teaches or makes prophetic Sunnah into law you will act according to it and accept it. Prophetic Sunnah will not be disputed or rejected by believers.

Wahhabi: Why are you telling me this Brother? I am loosing my patience with your never ending responses. [He signed out.]

Sunni: Sunnahs (i.e. practices) innovated via Ijtihad by Caliphs could have been challenged and rejected. Result of this would be strife in Ummah so Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed us to follow their innovated practices (i.e. Sunnahs).

Wahhabi: Brother how can they be allowed to innovate Sunnahs of their own when every innovation is misguidance?

Sunni: Brother absolutely every innovation is not evil. Otherwise what will you do about Sahih Bukhari? Every innovation of a certain type is evil innovation and misguidance and it takes to hellfire. If you take prophetic statement absolutely literally then what will you make of prophetic statement: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466, here.] Note Hadith states any who introduces a SUNNAH IN ISLAM will earn equal reward to one who follows the good Sunnah introduced in Islam. So Ijtihadi innovations/Sunnahs introduced by Caliphs are not same as the prophetic Sunnahs. We interpret phrase Sunnahs of Caliphs in light of this Hadith. And we have proof Caliphs did introduce good innovations in Islam which they said are good/excellent innovation. I mean Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) saying Taraweeh of entire month, in Masjid, under single Qari, entire Quran recited is an excellent innovation. You follow his innovated Sunnah and we do too.

Wahhabi: This Hadith [of good Sunnah in Islam] is about prophetic Sunnahs.

Sunni: Brother how can I introduce a prophetic Sunnah in Islam and earn equal reward like the one who follows it? Isn’t prophetic Sunnah already part of Islam? And if I teach someone prophetic Sunnah have I introduced it in Islam? If answer to all is no then how this Hadith can refer to prophetic Sunnahs which are already part of Islam. This Hadith is about those Sunnahs which are not part of Islam but are made part of Islam and one who innovates a good Sunnah in Islam and those who follow the good innovative Sunnah will earn equal reward. In this context we have Taraweeh of entire month, under a single Qari, performed in Masjid and Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) making all instances of three Talaq into three. He even removed exceptions of virgin girl Talaq being one and three Talaq of emphasis. And regarding Taraweeh of entire month … Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) said it is an excellent innovation. Therefore Sunnahs of rightly guided Caliphs does not refer to prophetic Sunnahs but to innovative Ijtihadi good Sunnahs which rightly guided Caliphs introduced into Islam.

Wahhabi: Brother this Hadith is actually referring to actions of companions. Contextually poor Bedouins came to Madinah and Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) encouraged companions  to give Sadaqah to them. This statement is about a companion who had started off the process of giving Sadaqah and those who were encouraged by his actions to give Sadaqah. To tell them of their reward Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466, here.] I don’t understand why you’re distorting this Hadith. It perfectly fits into context of historical event.

Sunni: Let me ask you something very simple. Did the companion who started off process of giving Sadaqah and those who followed did they introduce Sadaqah in Islam: Or was it already part of Islam and they acted on it?

Wahhabi: It was already part of Islam I believe.

Sunni: Yes! Sadaqah was already part of Islam and the companion who started the ball rolling and those who followed his example did not introduce it in Islam. If something is already part of Islam then our action on it does not mean we have introduced it in Islam. It is common sense. Do you agree with this?

Wahhabi: What other choice do I have Brother! I have already said it was part of Islam. Brother just make your point and don’t beat around the bush. [I had to go to attend my son so we continued in next meeting.]

Sunni: You could have said Sadaqah was not part of Islam and companions by giving Sadaqah introduced a new practice in Islam. But that would be self defeating for you because this would prove that we Muslims can introduce things into Islam which were not already part of it on condition that they do not contradict spirit of Islam. You took the route that it was already part of Islam then my question to you is how does prophetic statement refer to the historical context? You will have to agree it doesn’t in fact you have previously said Sadaqah was already part of Islam. This is indirect admission that prophetic statement does not fit the historical context. And there is something else that does not fit the historical context and that is statement which followed it: “And he who introduced some evil practice in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without theirs being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466, here.] Later part of Hadith has no connection with giving Sadaqah. Why should the first part of Hadith apply contextually to historical event and not this part.  Did the companions introduce an evil Sunnah in Islam? If not and you reason no but he was just warning them if they did introduce evil practice in Islam they would be responsible like the one who starts it off. Precisely Brother this logic can also be applied to ”… good Sunnah in Islam …” part of Hadith also because we already know nothing was introduced in Islam by companions and Sadaqah was already part of Islam. Hence Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) was using the event to tell the companions; if you introduce some good Sunnah in Islam you will and those who follow will equally be rewarded for it. And this would prove that both parts, good Sunnah and evil Sunnah, both do not apply to historical events rather Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) used the event as an excuse to issue a teaching for benefit of Muslims.

Wahhabi: This has gone on for so long that I actually forgot why we even discussed this Hadith.

Sunni: We started discussion on this Hadith because I was proving that Sunnah of Khulafah Rashideen (i.e. rightly guided Caliphs) are innovated good Sunnahs and not prophetic Sunnahs. And I quoted this Hadith to argue that Sunnah of Caliphs is interpreted in light of; whoever introduces good Sunnah in Islam. And I pointed Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made distinction between his Sunnah and Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs by saying follow my Sunnah and Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs.

Wahhabi: There are two reasons why I find your point of view hard to accept: i) You said: “Sunnahs (i.e. practices) innovated via Ijtihad by Caliphs could have been challenged and rejected. Result of this would be strife in Ummah so Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) instructed us to follow their innovated practices (i.e. Sunnahs).” Your justification is based on Qiyas. Evidence of Hadith saying the same would convince me. ii) The main reason is that you said Muslims can introduce innovations INTO Islam. Brother the right to legislate religion is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). How can you say and believe Muslims can innovate into Islam good Sunnahs/Biddahs. If this was permissible there would be countless Islams. You’re opening the gate of misguidance and innovations wholesale. You’re very persuasive Shaytan I can give you that. I am beginning to loose my patience with you Brother.

Sunni: OK! My best possible approximation is bothering you. Brother when you’re asked why Khanzir is prohibited in Islam by disbelievers. What do you say to them? Its dirty and filthy animal. Where did you get this answer from Quran or Sunnah? You have looked at its behaviour and gave best possible/likely reason due to which it was prohibited in Islam. When a Kafir enquires from you why isn’t woman allowed to marry four men like man is allowed four wives. What do you say? O the men wouldn’t know who is father of which child. Is this stated in Quran/Hadith or you have deduced best possible/likely reason why it has been prohibited? But in context of Hadith of follow my Sunnah and Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs I exercised liberty which everyone else does so and you’re hurting in your guts. Are the rules not same for you and me? When you deduce a best possible reason according to your own intellect and understanding of environment its all HALAL but I am Mujrim (i.e. criminal) if I did the same. Just to unhurt your guts. I take my statement and instead say; tough cookies mate. Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said you should follow his Sunnah and innovated Sunnahs of rightly guided Caliphs; and tough cookies. You don’t deserve WHY. Obey Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam).

Wahhabi: Lolz. That wasn’t my main point Brother. Deal with the main point.

Sunni: The right to legislate religion is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) told His Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) the following: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466, here.] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) legislated that any who introduces into Islam something which was not already part of it the innovator of good Sunnah and those who follow his good Sunnah all will get equal reward. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) the Lord of universe, the legislator of religion of Islam and maker of its rules has informed us and told us there is reward for introducing good Sunnahs into Islam. Who do you think; you’re challenging His authority and prohibiting what He permitted? Are you rival of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? Have you elevated yourself to a status of Rabb/Ilah to abrogate and void religious injunctions of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala)? There is no Ilah/Rabb beside Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and you’re obliterated al-Batil.

Wahhabi: The gate of Prophet-hood is closed and none can add, or alter, or abrogate any teaching of Islam. Wahi (i.e. revelation) has ceased and anyone who claims revelation is an al-Kadhab (i.e. the Liar) and a Dajjal (i.e. impostor). Are you opening the closed gate of Prophet-hood? Or are you saying revelation can be received by non-Prophets?  How can you add to Islam without a Prophet and without revelation? You’re crazy in head for sure but not crazy enough to believe Wahi can be received by non-Prophets. By believing innovations in Islam are allowed and due to it by default you’re opening the closed gate of Prophet-hood and claiming Wahi is sent to one who innovates a good Sunnah in Islam. This leads to conclusion you’re actually claiming those who innovated in Islam are Prophets. Shia indirectly ascribed Prophet-hood to their Imams and you Barelwis are their brothers and you’re no better. You’ve indirectly ascribed Prophet-hood to innovators. [Hold your rage until tomorrow. Lolz. He signed out.]

Wahhabi: Salam Alaykum. I am here for about an hour and half then I will have to go. You can continue from where I left off.

Sunni: Wa Alaykum salam. Brother Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) taught this principle: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466, here.] And despite this Hadith fact is Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is last Prophet after him no Prophet will be born and then sent as a Prophet/Messenger. Wahi is only received by Prophets and no non-Prophet person receives Wahi from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). When all this and Hadith of good Sunnah is true then natural conclusion should be and must be that introduction of good Sunnah in Islam does not require birth of another Prophet after Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) and does not require coming of Wahi from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) via Jibraeel (alayhis salam).

Wahhabi: You’re *uc*ing pissing me off. How else something can be part of Islam then you senseless moron?

Sunni: Khabeeth if you can’t take Islam destroying your evill innovation then just quit. Otherwise stop using profanity.

Wahhabi: Brother you know what you’re saying is outrageous. Who do you think will not react to what you’re saying?

Sunni: A Deen educated Muslim will not react but would fully agree with me. If you’re not understanding something just wait. Do you think I am an idiot? This far I have substantiated everything I have claimed and I will explain how innovated good Sunnahs can be made part of Islam without claim of Prophet-hood and without need of Wahi.

Wahhabi: OK! Go on then Brother. The suspense is killing me.

Sunni: Your objection to Hadith stems from your misunderstanding about Islam. The Hadith says, reward is for good Sunnahs introduced in Islam, and you assume these good Sunnahs are made part of core of Islam, the fundamental Islam; which was revealed via Wahi to Prophet Muhammad (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Innovated good Sunnah cannot be part of core/fundamental Islam which was revealed to Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) because condition for being part of that is Wahi and Nabuwah.

Wahhabi: Exactly that’s what I am saying Brother.

Sunni: There are two Islams: i) Fundamental Islam/Core Islam - of Wahi and Nabi/Rasool, ii) Ijtihadi Islam – not revealed as part of Wahi but derived from Core Islam.

Wahhabi: Can you give an example of each so I can grasp it better?

Sunni: Fundamental Islam is Islam which is Quran and Tafsir of Quran known to us as prophetic Sunnah. An example of Ijtihadi Islam would be; Books of Hadith, or Taraweeh. Sahih Bukhari composed of prophetic Sunnahs. It is composed of Core Islam but Sahih Bukhari itself is not part of Core Islam. There is no verse or Hadith in which it is stated read Sahih Bukhari therefore it is not part of core Islam but it is composed of it.

Wahhabi: I still don’t see why Bukhari would be considered part of Islam and as a good Sunnah in Islam. To be honest with you; you’re confusing me Brother Ali.

Sunni: Is Sahih Bukhari an Islamic book?

Wahhabi: If it wasn’t Islamic then why would it be so widely read.

Sunni: Is it Islamic or un-Islamic?

Wahhabi: Islamic!

Sunni: Is there a verse in which Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) or a Hadith in which Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said read Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim … to learn religion of Islam?

Wahhabi: No!

Sunni: Is Surah Ikhlas a Islamic Surah or un-Islamic?

Wahhabi: Brother what are you going on about? Do you really need my answers on these?

Sunni: Brother Sami’ullah can you just go along and answer the stupid questions.

Wahhabi: It is Islamic! Now can you make your point.

Sunni: Brother point is Surah Ikhlas is part of core Islam revealed via Wahi and you said it is ISLAMIC. Meaning you judged it to be part of Islam. With regards to Sahih Bukhari you also said it is Islamic but it is not revealed rather Imam Bukhari strived hard. His Ijtihad which resulted Sahih Bukhari you have termed ISLAMIC. Even though it was not revealed via Wahi. Point I am making is that alif can be said to be part of Islam in sense of Prophet/Messenger receiving revelation. And noon can be said to be part of Islam even though it is Ijtihad of a righteous Muslim. This establishes in our understanding there are two ways  in which something can be made part of Islam: i) Via Wahi to a Prophet/Messenger, ii) Via Ijtihad of Mujtahid when his Ijtihad is supported by what was revealed via Wahi.

Wahhabi: If I got it right then you’re saying; good innovation is not part of revealed Islam but innovation is connected via umbilical cord with revealed Islam therefore it is judged to be part of Islam.

Sunni: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “He who introduced some good practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466, here.] He did not mean to say; whoever introduces a good Sunnah in core Islam … He was actually talking about Ijtihadi innovative good Sunnahs made part of Islam because their justification is from core Islam. These good innovated Sunnahs are made up of matters which were revealed in core Islam. We have Taraweeh as example of this. Three day in leadership of a Qari in Masjid was Sunnah but entire month, in Masjid, under leadership of Qari was not part of core Islam but its foundation (i.e. Asl) is from core Islam therefore it is judged part of Islam. End. [About umbillical cord comment I said:] I couldn’t have phrased it better myself brother.

Wahhabi: What is the umbillical cord that connects them then?

Sunni: Umbilical cord in good innovation would be teaching of Quran/Sunnah.

Wahhabi: I made the connection but I lost it again. Lolz.

Sunni: OK! I am about to give a example by creating a good innovation. It might help. Call this innovation, Dua Namaz, and it involves reciting after every Salah; Surah Fatihah x3, Surah Ikhlas x3, Surah al-Kauthar x3 and then supplicating Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Surah Fatihah, Surah Ikhlas, Surah al-Kauthar, and Dua; all serve as umbillical cord between Quran/Sunnah and Dua Namaz.

Wahhabi: OK! I am totally confused now. How can the umbillical cord also be same as the innovation itself?

Sunni: Umbilical cord is; Surah Fatihah, Surah Ikhlas, Surah al-Kauthar and Dua. Dua Namaz is; Surah Fatihah x3, Surah Ikhlas x3, Surah al-Kauthar x3 and Dua at the end of Salah. Note specific repetition of three for each mentioned Surah and then Dua after each Salah is not part of Islam but each in their own right is part of core of Islam. Visual example would be imagine big sign board with neon lights in big writing it says Dua Namaz and in smaller writing; i) Surah Fatihah x3, ii) Surah Ikhlas x3, iii) Surah al-Kauthar x3, iv) and Dua. Now imagine a giant book labelled, Islam, and from this giant book four electrical cables are connected to and powering each of four. In other words revealed Islam, core Islam, is powering Dua Namaz but it is not Dua Namaz.

Wahhabi: Allah Hafiz. Until we meet again. Salam Alayqum.

Sunni: This proves  innovated good Sunnah can be deemed as part of Islam if they are derived from core Islam. And Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs are innovated good Sunnahs which are deemed to be part of Islam because they emerge from core Islam. Same principle applies to Mawlid, Khatam, Geeyarweenh … These itself are not part of core Islam but are derived from various teaching of core Islam therefore are deemed as being part of Islam.

Wahhabi: I have to go. Brother it is work time I need to get ready and go. Salam Alaykum. [He signed out. I had to finish the train of thought so I E-Mailed the following to him.]

Sunni: Well I have actually finished my response on subject of Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs and I believe I have convincingly responded to all of your points. So I will sum up the over-all point. You argued Talaq Thalathah was legalized and made effective as three during Khilafat of and by Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu). I responded saying we are under instruction to follow Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs. And I explained that Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs if it instructs us to follow innovated Sunnah of a Caliph then prophetic instruction is binding upon us therefore three Talaq in one breath is three. If Sunnah of rightly guided Caliphs prophetic Sunnah which a Caliph implements as law then it means Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) implemented prophetic Sunnah of three Talaqs meaning three. We also discussed meaning of introducing good Sunnah in Islam and it was established good Sunnah in Islam can only be an innovation which was not already part of Islam but is made part of Islam. We also debated on if we incorporate innovated good Sunnah into [core] Islam revealed via Wahi to a Nabi/Rasool. It was established that innovated good Sunnah is made part of Islam because it incorporates and becomes a whole by borrowing Quranic and prophetic teachings. In other words innovated good Sunnah in Islam is amalgamation of Quranic, or prophetic Sunnahs, or combination of both. Three Talaq issued in an instant even if it is an innovation and Ijtihad of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) it has a precedent from prophetic Sunnah. Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) looked at prophetic precedent where he counted three Talaq in an instant as three and made judgement that from now on all three Talaqs without exception will be counted as three. This is principally no different from Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) taking three day practice of Taraweeh under a Qari in Masjid and legalized it for entire month of Ramadhan. In three Talaq case he legalized it for every instance of three Talaq and in case of Taraweeh he legalized three day practice of Taraweeh for entire month. Principally he did exactly the same in both places. Taraweeh is accepted by you because Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah didn’t object and three Talaq being counted as three in every case is objected/disbelieved by you because Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah has objected/disbelieved and understood Deen of RasoolAllah (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) better then Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu). End. I am sorry but I am not done yet. I levelled the charge at you/your Wahhabi-kind that by you prohibiting innovative good Sunnahs in Islam you’re all indirectly elevating yourself as lords/gods against Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala). Because the right to legislate religion and make Halal and Haram is of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and by prohibiting what He has legalized you’re indirectly and unjustly claiming Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah. So in return you levelled charge that I/We are claiming/attributing prophet-hood for those who introduced good innovations into Islam. End. Even before your accusation I had proven to you that Islam allows good Sunnahs to be introduced into Islam. What remained was your misunderstanding about how an innovation can be made part of Islam. You thought we believe innovation is made part of core-Islam the Islam revealed via Wahi to a Nabi/Rasool. I had established this is definitely not the case. Instead we mean something which is derived from Quran/Sunnah and which linguistically is said to be Islamic because it is derived from it like we say Sahih al-Bukhari is Islamic book; or it is said Bukhari is part of Islam. So I refuted your charge and logically and scripturally established my belief and understanding why we cannot be accused of opening closed gate of Wahi; or accused of ascribing prophet-hood to scholars. This brings me to what I expect from you in our next meeting. I want you to respond to my allegation and justify why you’re not setting your self as a rival of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) by prohibiting what He has allowed and attempting to void His teaching. On second thought I am going to tone that down. I want you to prove/reason why you’re not exercising right of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) by prohibiting innovative good Sunnahs in Islam which He has allowed. [End of E-Mail.]

Wahhabi: You can accuse me of what you like. I don’t care.  I need to address the real issue.

Sunni: Brother this discussion will be posted online just make note of that.

Wahhabi: More of a reason to respond to real issue. How sneaky are you! You have me tangled in other subjects but yourself you respond to everything. On top of that you’re dictating what I need to respond to. GTFOH! [I believe he just cursed again.]

Sunni: As you wish but don’t cry later on.

Final Episode – Three Talaq Is An Innovation And Every Innovation Is Misguidance:

Wahhabi: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said every innovation is misguidance: “And he would join his forefinger and middle finger; and would further say: ‘The best of the speech is embodied in the Book of Allah, and the best of the guidance is the guidance given by Muhammad. And the most evil affairs are their innovations; and every innovation is error.’" [Ref: Muslim, B4, H1885, here.] Three Talaq in one sitting is an innovation regarding which you will not even disagree. Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said: “Narrated Aisha: Allah's Messenger said: ‘If somebody innovates something which is not in harmony with the principles of our religion, that thing is rejected.’" [Ref: Bukhari, B49, H861, here] Three Talaq in one sitting clearly goes against Quranic and prophetic teaching. I want to see how do you reconcile three Talaq in one sitting being an [evil] innovation and but yet accepted.

Sunni: I agree three Talaq issued; in one instance, in one sitting, in one breath, in one instance is a rejected [evil] misguided innovation. The real issue is that does this rejected innovative three Talaq invalidate Nikkah?

Wahhabi: Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) said innovation is rejected then how can we accept it and invalidate Nikkah?

Sunni: Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) a companion and an Aalim, a Mujtahid agreed that it is rebellion against instruction of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and a sinful action but it invalidated marriage despite this: “When Ibn Umar was asked about a man who divorced his wife when she was menstruating, he would say: ’If it is the first or second divorce, the Messenger of Allah would tell him to take her back and keep her until she has menstruated again and purified herself, then divorce her before having intercourse with her. But if it was three simultaneous divorces, then you have disobeyed Allah with regard to the way in which divorce should be conducted and your wife has become irrevocably divorced.’" [Ref: Sunan Nisa’i, B27, H3587, here.] “Nafi said: When Ibn Umar was asked about person who had given three divorces, he said: "Would that you gave one or two divorces, for the Prophet ordered me to do so. If you give three divorces then she cannot be lawful for you until she has married another husband (and is divorced by him)." [Ref: Bukhari, B63, H189, here.]
 “Mujahid said: I was with Ibn Abbas. A man came to him and said that he divorced his wife by three pronouncements. I kept silence and thought that he was going to restore het to him. He then said: A man goes and commits a foolish act and then says; ‘O Ibn Abbas! Allah has said: ‘And for those who fear Allah, He (ever) prepares a way out.’ Since you did not keep duty to Allah I do not find a way out for you. You disobeyed your Lord and your wife was separated from you. Allah has said ‘O Prophet! When you divorce women divorce them in the beginning of their waiting period.” [Ref: Abu Dawud, B12, H2192, here.] “The Prophet said: 'Allah has given His verdict regarding you and your wife.' So they carried out Lian in the mosque while I was present there. When they had finished, the man said: "O Allah's Messenger! If I should now keep her with me as a wife then I have told a lie about her. Then he divorced her thrice before Allah's Messenger ordered him, when they had finished the Lian process. So he divorced her in front of the Prophet." Ibn Shihab added: "After their case, it became a tradition that a couple involved in a case of Lian should be separated by divorce. … prescribed for him." Ibn Shihab said that Sahl bin Sa`d As'Saidi said that the Prophet said (in the above narration), "If that lady delivers a small red child like a lizard, then the lady has spoken the truth and the man was a liar, but if she delivers a child with black eyes and huge lips, then her husband has spoken the truth." Then she delivered it in the shape one would dislike (as it proves her guilty).” [Bukhari, B63, H229, here] “Yahya related to me from Malik that he had heard that a man said to Abdullah Ibn Abbas: ‘I have divorced my wife by saying I divorce you a hundred times. What do you think my situation is?’ Ibn Abbas said to him: ‘She was divorced from you by three pronouncements, and by the ninety-seven, you have mocked the ayat of Allah.’" [Ref: Muwatta Malik, B29, H1153, here.] They judged all gave these verdicts because in the time of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) three Talaqs issued in one breath were deemed to be three [except in case of virgin getting three Talaqs in one breath] and a companion narrates this fact: “Abu al-Sahba said to Ibn Abbas: Enlighten us with your information whether the three divorces (pronounced at one and the same time) were not treated as one during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger and Abu Bakr. He said: It was in fact so, but when during the caliphate of Umar people began to pronounce divorce frequently, he allowed them to do so (to treat pronouncements of three divorces in a single breath as one).” [Ref: Sahih Muslim, B9, H3493, here.] This is same companion whom you quoted to justify three Talaq were actually one during life of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), Khilafat of Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and during first period of Khilafat of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu): In this Hadith he has flatly and categorically refuted your claim of three Talaq were one in this period. In fact Ahadith explain only three Talaq which was one during that period was three Talaq issued to a virgin. And in Khilafat of Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) he even revoked that and made this even three.

Wahhabi: Brother if one Hadith states it is one and then other says it was not this proves there is contradiction in Ahadith. I told you I will have to research your evidences and then I will answer you.

Sunni: Brother you have had long enough time prepare and respond. You’re using that just as an excuse to avoid responding to evidence. Why are you continuing to discuss when truth of this evidence can sort dispute? Don’t you think it is more important to investigate them first?

Wahhabi: I can trust you or what you quote from websites. Barelwis are Mushriks and they cannot be trusted. You people have introduced so many forms of innovative worships like Khatams, Geeyarweenh, Chaliswan, Teeja, and countless other innovations. You acting on another innovation won’t add much weight to your sins nor dent your reputation in anyway. I know you’re lying. I bet you these Ahadith which you’re quoting only exist in Barelwi-fied books of Ahadith.

Sunni: Brother you’re so blind to truth if it hit you in face danced in front of you screaming I am truth you will completely blind to it. You said Sunnis are Mushrikeen and Sunnis have innovated acts of worship and we introduced innovations. Brother you don’t know how to determine innovation, worship, and you definitely don’t know our beliefs and practices to make a/any judgment so stop making tall claims and don’t hurt your hereafter.

Wahhabi: Are you taking the p**s? lolz. If we Ahle Hadith don’t know what Ibadah is and what Biddah then who else is suppose to know. We are people of Quran and Hadith. Your sect derives their understanding and Islam from books of Fiqha instead of Quran/Sunnah. So if anyone doesn’t know what Islamic teaching of Biddah and Ibadah are then it’s your sect. Proof is in the pudding. You Barelwis are disgusting people because you worship graves and introduced innovations. We we only follow Quran/Sunnah and have not introduced a single innovation. No one from us worships any grave, or tree, or Pir, or anyone else. And you think we don’t know what Biddah is and what Ibadah is? Are you high or something! I dare you to test me.

Sunni: Tall claims from short man. Claim of guidance from a Mubtadi (i.e. innovator).

Wahhabi: GTFOH! You know I would crush you. Go on ask me a question then you MORON.

Sunni: Stop swearing! I have been very civil with you.

Wahhabi: Moron means stupid person. I just said the truth. Are you going to test me or not?

Sunni: Read what I ask you carefully.

Wahhabi: You’re not asking me question about quantum mechanics so it can’t be hard. Just ask.

Sunni: It begins. As a principle any ritual-act which has not been sanctioned as ritual-act of worship in two primary sources even though individual or great multitude of people may define as worship is not worship. It is an innovation and is to be rejected. How can those who have innovated their own ways to worship their gods be guilty of worshiping their gods when their methods of worship are innovations? How can they be judged as worshippers of idols/gods?

Wahhabi: What the hell would they be if not Mushrikeen for worshipping their false gods!

Sunni: OK! I will try to be clearer.

Wahhabi: OK!

Sunni: We both agree issuance of three Talaq in an instant is an innovation. We both agree ritual-acts of polytheists such as Hindus, or worshippers of Satan are acting on innovations. You agree?

Wahhabi: Yeah!

Sunni: On issue of innovative three Talaq you say marriage contract is intact. When a Hindus performs ritual-acts for their idol/gods to worship them you say this innovated act is ritual-act of worship of an idol and proof of their Shirk. Also when a Jahil Muslim prostrates to a grave, or performs Tawaf around a grave; you charge them of engaging in Shirk; even though you acknowledge their action is an innovation. If innovation is rejected and rejected three Talaq keeps Nikkah intact then how does rejected [misguiding] innovation invalidate Islam of Muslim for an alleged act of Shirk? And how does rejected [misguiding] innovation result in Hindu being guilty of worshiping his idol god?

Wahhabi: Hindu takes idol as his god so he is guilty of Shirk anyway.

Sunni: I didn’t say he isn’t I asked is he guilty of worshiping idol-god due to his innovated acts of worship with which he worships his idol? Secondly a Muslim who doesn’t profess Ilahiyyah/Rububiyyah for anyone and you merely on basis of some actions judge them to be Mushrik would he be Mushrik and guilty of worshiping creation on account of his innovation?

Wahhabi: You’ve turned out to be bigger MORON then I thought you were. You’re being even more stupid then typical Barelwi Mushrikeen.

Sunni: Why are you getting abusive Brother? I am only testing your knowledge of Ibadah and Biddah.

Wahhabi: You call this testing my knowledge. You’re supporting and defending Shirk with this. You want me to acknowledge Shirk is not offensive in Shari’ah. You’re enemy of religion of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala).

Sunni: I am not supporting Shirk. I am merely trying to establish you’re a nobody who has no knowledge of Quran/Sunnah.

Wahhabi: Moron! Ask me another question. I do not want to answer this question and become a party indirectly supporting Shirk.

Sunni: Question was and is – if rejected innovation doesn’t invalidate Nikkah then how rejection can innovation invalidates Islam of a Muslim. And how can a Hindu be guilty of worshiping an idol due to his rejected innovation?  Let me spell this out: You have two choices: i) Innovated three divorces end marriage despite being innovation just as innovated acts of worship dedicated to idols amount to worship and end belief in Islam. ii) Or alternatively hold to position that three Talaq in one instant does not end marriage contract because it is innovation and also profess ritual-acts performed by polytheists as token of worship are not worship because these are innovations. You cannot and should not be inconsistent. Innovation in one place is good enough to invalidate belief in Islam. And then same innovation in another incident isn’t good enough to end marriage. Why this contradiction?

Wahhabi:  Do you know what you’re saying moron? It sounds like you have bloody lost your mind.

Sunni: Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jammah is consistent in methodology; we hold to position that innovative ritual-acts of worship performed by Mushrikeen are acts of worship and proof of Shirk. If a Muslim was to perform these innovated ritual-acts after affirming Ilahiyyah/Ma’budiyyah to worship an idol, grave, tree, Wali, Nabi with belief and intention of worship then his belief in Islam be void. And this is no different from judgment that innovative three Talaq in an instant voids marriage contract.

Wahhabi: Talaq is an innovation which does not invalidate belief in Islam so how can I charge someone of Kufr/Shirk. Are you stupid or something? Worshipping Ghayrullah is an innovation which does invalidate belief in Tawheed because of which we charge you Mushrikeen of Kufr/Shirk.

Sunni: Brother you’re missing the point. When you believe innovation is rejected and cannot be accepted then even if it is innovation misguidance, or innovation Kufr/Shirk, it is rejected. And as par your rule such innovation should not be used to invalidate belief in Islam.

Wahhabi: You’re ***cking stupid. I can’t believe you are introducing doubts in matters which are clear cut Kufr/Shirk. You’re agent of Shaytan. I am not discussing with you. Dumb-donkey you will only ruin my Eman. You’re Mushrik, a filthy Kafir. You deserve to be killed as an apostate. D**kh**d hope you rot in hell. You S.O.B. [He signed out.]

Sunni: What triggered you! I am sorry Brother if I was hitting too hard but seriously you didn’t have to scream this loud in pain. Ouch!

Wahhabi: Salam Alaykum. Can you unblock me on WhatsApp? [Via E-Email he requested I unblock him. I unblocked him.]

Sunni: Salam Alaykum.

Wahhabi: Wa Alaykum Salam. I misunderstood your intent so I just want to apologize. I thought you were insinuating Shirk isn’t Shirk because it is innovation.

Sunni: Was that all or is there anything else?

Wahhabi: I was intending to respond to something’s if you’re interested.

Sunni: Don’t have too much hopes of response from me. If you write something worthy of responding to me will via E-Mail.

Wahhabi: Would you be interested in an exchange on subject of Ilm ul-Ghayb? Forget Ilm al-Ghayb topic just refute or explain my evidence so it does not contradict with your position. That was your own principle.

Sunni: You’re not getting respect of exchanging knowledge [on subject of Ilm al-Ghayb] with me twice.

Wahhabi: Lolz. I have apologized Brother Ali. I felt really bad afterwards.

Sunni: Truth is Brother you started abusing me because you could not meet academic challenge. Nor you could live with truth of Islam destroying your office of legalizing illicit Nikkah bureau. Your Khariji kind has always resorted to threats to life, killing, abusing, and making Takfir of Muslims. You are no different. The best I could do for you were to attempt to educate you about prophetic teaching and I have done that. Best you could do was abuse, insult me and you have done that throughout this discussion. I tolerated it because of my intention was for your betterment and best for my hereafter. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) is best of planners. Truth came it conquered and exposed the weakness of Kufr. Nothing from your argument silenced me except your abuse. You should consider abusive tirades as your strongest argument. Salam Alaykum. [I blocked him after this message.]

Polytheist Insults Revelation Of Quran And Prophet Muhammad:

A Mushrik said Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) repeats magical stories of pre-Islam era and what he claims is from Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) in reality is invention of human/creation. So he belittled revelation of Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and insinuated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is guilty of lies and deception. Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) with eight other qualities mentions two in following verse: “Cruel, moreover, and an illegitimate pretender.” [Ref: 68:13] Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) reveals insulter of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) is illegitimate. Why am I telling you this? What connection does it have with the subject?

Ghayr-Muqallideen Scholarship Directly/Indirectly Insulting:

Trait of Khawarij and certainly of Wahhabis is that they are directly and indirectly in insult Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Authors of insulting statements are guilty of direct insult of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi in his books Taqwiyat ul-Iman and Sirat e Mustaqeem clearly and knowingly authored statements which were insulting Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) but in guise of championing Tawheed. And an example of indirect would be using insulting statements written by Shaykh Shah Ismail Dehalvi and defending such statements arguing/believing there is nothing wrong with them. Vast majority of Ghayr-Muqallideen are guilty of indirect insult/disrespect. Irrespective of direct/indirect involvement reality is both sides are insulting and argue in defence of their insults.

Apples Of Then And Now Not Falling Far From Tree:

Wahhabi Ghayr-Muqallideen do not believe three Talaq in one sitting amounts to end of marriage. Consequently when such incident occurs Wahhabi keeps his illicit relationship with his ex-wife. Any children born after three Talaq technically are illegitimate. These Ghayr-Muqallideen insulters/Gustakh choosing three Talaq not ending marriage is quite telling about their inner state. Quranic verses points to an illegitimate person choosing path of insult and in context of Ghayr-Muqallideen we have insulters choosing path illegitimacy. An apple doesn’t fall far from tree.

Conclusion:

Ghayr-Muqallideen of Pakistan believe all-three Talaq delivered in one breath, in one sitting, in an instant are one. Yet it was established from Ahadith that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) legitimized end of marriages when such incidents took place. The only true exception exercised by Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) – where three Talaq intentioned three became one – was in case of virgin woman getting such Talaq. He made such Talaq as one and which Hadhrat Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) even revoked during his Khilafat. And we are commanded to follow Sunnahs of rightly guided Caliphs. Evidence employed by Ghayr-Muqallideen is of a companion divorcing his wife three times and he was asked how many Talaq he intentioned he said just one. And Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) made him take oath and returned his wife to him. Ahadith establish Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu), Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and everyone else judged three Talaq to be three and invalidate Nikkah due to it. Other Wahhabi argument is that three Talaq in one sitting is an evil misguiding innovation hence it cannot be used to judge validity of Nikkah because it was supposed to be rejected. My response to Wahhabi was Istighathah according to you is an evil misguiding Shirki innovation yet you invalidate Tawheed and Islam of Muslims due to it. Why misguiding innovation should be employed in one instance to invalidate Islam/Tawheed but not to invalidate Nikkah. If innovation was rejected in meaning that it cannot be used to make a judgment then in both cases it should be rejected similarly. And even though three Talaq in one sitting is a misguiding innovation but despite this Ibn Abbas (radiallah ta’ala anhu), Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu), rightly guided Caliph invalidated Nikkah. This difference between Sahabis and Wahhabis is because Sahabis understood what innovation is; how it is to be rejected; but same cannot be said about Wahhabis. Evil innovation is rejected in hereafter by Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala) and innovator will not get reward for it. It is also to be rejected by Muslims because it should not be acted/believed instead we Muslims should act/believe in teaching of Quran/Sunnah. Rejection of misguiding innovation does not require that we reject it absolutely. Evil innovation is accepted as evidence; and judgment based on it is valid and accepted.

Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen.
Muhammed Ali Razavi.