compensation, then it constitutes divorce without compensation as well. Yet none of al-Shāfiʿī’s followers has said that it explicitly denotes divorce without compensation; at most, it is an indirect expression. Although this view is closer to the truth than the first, it too is weak.

The third view

Khulʿ is an annulment, whatever wording is used, and does not count as one of the three divorces. Those who hold this view stipulate neither a particular expression nor the absence of an intention to divorce. This is what is transmitted from Ibn ʿAbbās and his followers. It is also what is transmitted from Ahmad ibn Hanbal and his early followers concerning khulʿ, whether one expression or another is used—“divorce” or anything else. Indeed, their statements indicate that it is an annulment, whatever wording is used, more explicitly than the word “divorce” conveys its own exclusive meaning.

As for al-Shāfiʿī, he did not report that any of the early generations distinguished between the word “divorce” and other expressions. Rather, when discussing the position of Ibn ʿAbbās, his followers, and others, he reported that ʿIkrimah said:

“Any separation effected through payment is not divorce.”

Al-Shāfiʿī said:

“I think that those who do not regard it as divorce say this only when the word ‘divorce’ is not used.”

It was on this basis that Muhammad ibn Nasr, al-Tahāwī, and others stated that they knew of no disagreement concerning khulʿ effected with the word “divorce.” Yet it is well known that conjecture of this kind cannot serve as a basis for reporting the views of the early generations, or for setting aside their statements, their knowledge, and their clear proofs that all these expressions are treated alike. As for Ahmad, his statements clearly indicate that he does not make the particular wording a consideration or distinguish between one expression and another, and he follows Ibn ʿAbbās in this