Section: There is no difference, according to what we have mentioned, between a gift (hibah) and a charity (sadaqah). This is the view of al-Shafi'i. Malik and the proponents of ra'y (the scholars of reasoned opinion) distinguished between them, as they did not permit retraction in charity under any circumstances. They argued using the hadith of 'Umar: 'Whoever gives a gift, and intends by it to maintain family ties, or [gives it] in the form of charity, then he does not retract it.' Our argument is the hadith of al-Nu'man ibn Bashir, for he said: 'My father gave me some charity, then my father retracted it and returned that charity.' Furthermore, there is the generality of the Prophet's (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) statement: 'Except the parent regarding what he gives to his child.' This is to be given precedence over 'Umar's statement; furthermore, it is specific regarding the parent, while 'Umar's hadith is general, so the specific must be given precedence.

Section: There are four conditions for the retraction of a child's gift:

The first is that it remains in the possession (milk) of the son. If it has exited his possession—whether by sale, gift, waqf, inheritance, or other means—the father may not retract it, because that would be an invalidation of the property of someone other than the parent. If it returns to the son for a new reason, such as sale, gift, bequest, inheritance, or the like, the father does not have the right to retract it, because it returned through a new acquisition that was not derived from his father; thus, he does not have the right to annul or remove it, just like [the property of] one who was never gifted. If it returns to him by the cancellation (faskh) of a sale, due to a defect, mutual rescission (iqalah), or the insolvency of the buyer, there are two views: One is that he has the right to retract it, because the cause for removal has been lifted, and the possession returned via the original cause, making it similar to the case where one cancels a sale due to the 'option of the meeting' (khiyar al-majlis) or the 'option of condition' (khiyar al-shart). The second view is that he does not have the right to retract it, because the possession returned to him after the possession of the one to whom it was transferred had become firmly established, making it similar to the case where it returned to him via a gift. As for if it returned to him due to a cancellation via the option of condition or the option of meeting, he may retract it, because the possession did not become firmly established.

Section: The second [condition] is that the item remains in the disposal (tasarruf) of the son, such that he has the right to dispose of its physical substance. If the son has sired a child from the slave-girl (istawlada al-amah), the father does not have the right to retract it, because ownership of her may not be transferred to anyone other than her master. If the son has mortgaged the item or become insolvent and been legally interdicted, the father does not have the right to retract it;