Scholars have also differed over the validity of khulʿ without compensation. There are two views, both reported from Ahmad.

The first holds that it is invalid. This accords with the position of Abū Hanīfah and al-Shāfiʿī and is the view preferred by most of Ahmad’s followers. The second holds that it is valid, as is the well-known position in Mālik’s school and the view preferred by al-Khiraqī. According to this view, the husband must intend divorce when using the term khulʿ. It then constitutes an irrevocable divorce, not an annulment, according to both reports. Ahmad—may Allah have mercy on him—expressly stated this. For if he allowed it to constitute an annulment without compensation, a man would have the power to annul his marriage on his own initiative without its counting as one of his three divorces. No scholar holds this view.

If that were permissible, it would necessarily mean allowing divorce without any numerical limit, as was the practice in the pre-Islamic period. In the early days of Islam, too, there was no limit to the number of divorces. If using the term “annulment,” or another expression, could effect separation without counting as one of the three divorces, that expression would be used instead of the word “divorce.” In substance, this would mean divorce without any numerical limit. This is untenable.

If it is argued, “It is an irrevocable divorce,” the reply is that this is even more untenable. For if the position is that a husband has the power to pronounce only a revocable divorce, not an irrevocable one, this argument fails. If, however, the position is that he has the power to effect an irrevocable divorce, then allowing him to do so using the term “annulment” without its counting as one of the three divorces would entail the very consequence that must be avoided: he could divorce his wife whenever he wished without its counting as one of his three divorces.

For this reason, scholars have not disputed that using the term khulʿ without compensation and without a request from the wife does not constitute an annulment. Their disagreement concerns only the case in which a woman asks her husband to grant her a single irrevocable divorce without compensation: is she entitled to this? There are two views.