These scholars differed over whether a woman who has obtained khulʿ must observe a waiting period of three periods or establish that she is not pregnant by observing one menstrual period. There are two views, both reported from Ahmad. According to one, she establishes that she is not pregnant by observing one menstrual period. This is the view of ʿUthmān, Ibn ʿAbbās, and Ibn ʿUmar according to the later of the two reports from him. It was also held by several of the early generations and is the position of Ishāq, Ibn al-Mundhir, and others. Reports to this effect are also related from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, in the Sunan collections through several good chains of transmission, which have been detailed elsewhere.

This is among the evidence cited by those who hold that khulʿ does not count as one of the three divorces. They argue that, if it did, the explicit text of the Quran would require a waiting period of three periods. They also cite this as evidence of the weakness of the report attributing to ʿUthmān the view that it constitutes one irrevocable divorce. For it is established from him through an acceptable chain of transmission that he required the woman to establish that she was not pregnant by observing one menstrual period. Had she been divorced, she would have been required to wait for three periods.

If it is argued, “Rather, ʿUthmān regarded her as divorced but required her to establish that she was not pregnant by observing one menstrual period,” then this is a view that no scholar has held. It is therefore more appropriate to follow ʿUthmān according to the established report from him—a position shared by Ibn ʿAbbās and supported by the Quran and Sunnah—than to follow a report whose narrator is unknown: the report of Jumhān al-Aslamī from him stating that he regarded it as one irrevocable divorce.

This report from ʿUthmān is the strongest report from the Companions available to those who regard khulʿ as one irrevocable divorce. Yet, besides its weakness, a contradictory position is established from him through an authentic chain of transmission. The two cannot be reconciled, since doing so would conflict with the scriptural text and scholarly consensus.