as what we have mentioned. There is no difference between currencies and other items in what we have mentioned, and this is the view of Abu Hanifa and al-Shafi'i. Malik said: If he gifts him something that is identified by its specific nature, such as currencies, it is not valid unless he places it in the hands of someone else; because the father might waste it, or it might be lost for reasons beyond his control, and it is not possible to call witnesses for a specific thing by itself, so taking possession would be of no avail. Our counter-argument is that it is among the items whose gifting is valid, so if he gifts it to his young son and takes possession of it for him, it must be valid, just like trade goods (urud).

Section (7): If the one gifting to the child is someone other than the father from among his guardians, our companions said: It is necessary that he appoint an agent who accepts on behalf of the child and takes possession for him, so that the offer comes from him, while the acceptance and possession come from someone else, as in a sale. This is in contrast to the father, for it is permissible for him to make the offer, accept, and take possession, because it is permissible for him to sell on his own behalf. The correct view, in my opinion, is that the father and others are equal in this regard; because it is a contract that is permissible to be issued by him and his agent, so it is permissible for him to manage both its sides, like the father. It differs from sale, for it is not permissible for him to appoint an agent to buy for him, and because sale is a contract of exchange and profit-seeking, so he is suspected of bias when contracting for his own self, whereas a gift is purely a benefit with no suspicion therein, and he is a guardian over it, so it is permissible for him to manage both sides of the contract, just like the father. Furthermore, because sale is forbidden for him only due to the compensation he takes for his own self from the child's wealth, and here he is giving and not taking, so there is no basis to prevent him from this, or to condition it on appointing someone else, and because we have mentioned that the offer and calling for witnesses suffice in place of possession and acceptance, so there is no need for agency in them when he is independent of them.

Section: As for a gift from a child to someone else, it is not valid, regardless of whether the guardian gave permission for it or not; because he is legally restricted (mahjur) for his own benefit, so his charitable donation is not valid, just like the spendthrift (safih). As for the slave, it is not permissible...