As for the reports from ʿAlī and Ibn Masʿūd, they are extremely weak. The report from ʿUmar is inconclusive and provides no evidence for this position. By contrast, the report from Ibn ʿAbbās that khulʿ is a separation, not a divorce, is among the most firmly established authentic reports, as agreed by scholars versed in transmitted reports. This lends further support to those who regard it as an annulment, such as Ahmad and others.

Those jurists who followed the reports from the Companions describing it as one irrevocable divorce assumed that those reports were authentic. They did not possess the expertise in scrutinizing reports and distinguishing authentic from weak transmissions that Ahmad and other specialists possessed. They therefore thought that the Companions who disagreed with Ibn ʿAbbās and others like him were more eminent than he and more numerous. They did not realize that no contrary position had been authentically established from any Companion. Moreover, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said:

“O Allah, grant him understanding of the religion and teach him the interpretation of the Quran.”

What he deduced from the Quran on this question, and the evidence he drew from the Sunnah, reflected his consummate understanding of the religion and knowledge of Quranic interpretation. He also issued more legal opinions than any other Companion. Imam Ahmad was asked, “Which Companion issued the most legal opinions?” He replied, “Ibn ʿAbbās.”

He was the most knowledgeable and most learned in jurisprudence among the Companions of his generation. ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb would include him in consultation alongside the senior Companions—such as ʿUthmān, ʿAlī, Ibn Masʿūd, and others—something ʿUmar did not do for anyone else of his generation. Ibn Masʿūd said, “Had Ibn ʿAbbās reached our age, none of us would have been a tenth his equal”—that is, none would have attained a tenth of his level.

Those who transmitted his position on this question were among his most eminent students and those most familiar with his views, such as Tāwūs and ʿIkrimah. These two would visit him with his inner circle, unlike ʿAtāʾ, ʿAmr ibn Dīnār, and others like them, who would visit him with the general public. It is well known that a scholar’s closest associates