Answered by Shaykh Amjad Rasheed
If Ibn Taymiya was an imam of fiqh, why do the people of taqlid (imitation) not permit imitating him in in the issue of three divorces in a single sitting [h: where it says that it is one divorce whereas ijma` said that it counts as three]?
It is not correct to say that the people of taqlid (imitation) are the ones who forbade following Ibn Taymiya in the issue of divorce, rather the ones who forbade it are the imams, the jurists, the mujtahid imams, masters in many sciences to the point that they outdid Ibn Taymiya in fiqh and other subjects. Among the greatest of them is the mujtahid imam Shaykh al-Islam, and chief judge `Ali ibn al-Kafi al-Subki al-Shafi’I, and he has composed in writing a response to his issue on divorce in an encompassing book.
The criterion for deciding whether a scholar’s position is reliable is not simply his being an imam of fiqh, but rather the soundness of his evidence, while ensuring that he doesn’t contradict the Koran, the sunna, scholarly consensus (ijma`) or clear analogy. For if he contradicts one of these four, then, his proof is not correct even if he is deluded into thinking so. There is unanimous consensus that a divorce uttered three times counts as three divorces, not one, as claimed by Ibn Taymiya. Every proof that he has come with to support his position has been rebutted by the imams such as Al-Subki and others and they illustrated his falseness.
The leader of the believers in the hadith sciences, al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar explained in Fath al-Bari, after long and exhaustive research on this issue, the truth of the matter,
“The details of this issue are the same as the details in the issue of mut`a (temporary marriage), I mean by this, the saying of Jabir, This used to be done in the time of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him and in the time of Abu Bakr and in the beginning of Umar’s caliphate.’ He said, Then `Umar forbade us to do it and we refrained.’ The sound position on both issues is that mut`a is haram and that [h. a threefold divorce] counts as three divorces. This is because of the scholarly consensus (ijma`) that was reached in the time of `Umar, and it is not been recorded that anyone in the time of `Umar had opposed him in either case. And their scholarly consensus indicates the presence of an abrogating text, although it may not have been obvious to people before him, until it became apparent to all of them in the time of `Umar. So anyone who goes against this position is casting aside scholarly consensus. The vast majority (jumhur) of the scholars have agreed that any difference of opinion that arises about an issue after having had ijma` about it, is not given any significance.”
And Allah knows best.
Amjad Rasheed
[Translated by Sr. Shazia Ahmad]