Al Ishfaq 'ala Ahkam al Talaq - الإشفاق على أحكام الطلاق

This book is considered a primary reference in "Comparative Jurisprudence" regarding Personal Status issues. Its content and methodology can be detailed as follows:

1. Reason for Authorship:

The book was a response to the Egyptian Personal Status Law (No. 25 of 1929) and the influence of the opinion stating "three divorces in one phrase count as one" on some scholars and courts. Al-Kawthari saw this as a departure from the consensus of the Salaf (predecessors) and the Four Schools. He wrote this treatise out of "Ishfaq" (fear/compassion) for the rulings of religion lest they be altered, and to protect marital sanctity and lineage.

2. Issues Addressed:

• The Issue of Triple Divorce: He extensively discusses the ruling on a man who tells his wife "You are divorced thrice" or repeats the phrase in a single sitting.
• Hadiths on the Subject: He conducts a deep hadith analysis of divorce narratives, particularly the Hadith of Ibn Abbas in Sahih Muslim (relied upon by opponents), clarifying its interpretation and meaning according to the majority. He also examines the ruling of the "Hadith of Rukanah."
• Consensus (Ijma): Al-Kawthari proves that the validity of the triple divorce is what the Companions, the Successors, and the Four Imams acted upon, considering the opposing view an "anomaly" (Shadh) not to be relied upon.

3. Methodology and Style:

• The book features a strong dialectic tone. Al-Kawthari does not merely present his opinion but deconstructs the arguments of his opponents (especially Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim) point by point.
• He utilizes linguistic, legal theory (Usul), and Hadith (both chain and text) evidence to prove that the majority opinion is the truth, while the opposing view is based on weak narrations or interpretations.

4. Scholarly Value:

The book serves as an "arsenal" of arguments for those adopting the traditional (madhhab-based) view on divorce. It is essential for anyone wishing to understand the depth of the jurisprudential dispute on this issue, far from superficial discourse.

This book is considered a primary reference in "Comparative Jurisprudence" regarding Personal Status issues. Its content and methodology can be detailed as follows:

1. Reason for Authorship:

The book was a response to the Egyptian Personal Status Law (No. 25 of 1929) and the influence of the opinion stating "three divorces in one phrase count as one" on some scholars and courts. Al-Kawthari saw this as a departure from the consensus of the Salaf (predecessors) and the Four Schools. He wrote this treatise out of "Ishfaq" (fear/compassion) for the rulings of religion lest they be altered, and to protect marital sanctity and lineage.

2. Issues Addressed:

• The Issue of Triple Divorce: He extensively discusses the ruling on a man who tells his wife "You are divorced thrice" or repeats the phrase in a single sitting.
• Hadiths on the Subject: He conducts a deep hadith analysis of divorce narratives, particularly the Hadith of Ibn Abbas in Sahih Muslim (relied upon by opponents), clarifying its interpretation and meaning according to the majority. He also examines the ruling of the "Hadith of Rukanah."
• Consensus (Ijma): Al-Kawthari proves that the validity of the triple divorce is what the Companions, the Successors, and the Four Imams acted upon, considering the opposing view an "anomaly" (Shadh) not to be relied upon.

3. Methodology and Style:

• The book features a strong dialectic tone. Al-Kawthari does not merely present his opinion but deconstructs the arguments of his opponents (especially Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim) point by point.
• He utilizes linguistic, legal theory (Usul), and Hadith (both chain and text) evidence to prove that the majority opinion is the truth, while the opposing view is based on weak narrations or interpretations.

4. Scholarly Value:

The book serves as an "arsenal" of arguments for those adopting the traditional (madhhab-based) view on divorce. It is essential for anyone wishing to understand the depth of the jurisprudential dispute on this issue, far from superficial discourse.