Section: Third, that no desire for the object arises on behalf of someone other than the child. If a desire for it does arise on behalf of another, such as if he gives his child something and people desire to transact with him and lend him debts, or they desire to intermarry with him, so they marry him—if he is male—or the female marries for that reason, then there are two narrations from Ahmad. The first is that he does not have the right to retract. Ahmad said, in the narration of Abu al-Harith, regarding a man who gifts property to his son: He has the right to retract, unless he has deceived people with it, for if he has deceived with it, he does not have the right to retract it. This is the school of Malik, because the right of someone other than the child has become attached to it, so in retracting it there is an invalidation of his right, and the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: "There shall be no harm and no reciprocated harm." In the retraction, there is harm. Also, because in this there is a ruse to inflict harm upon the Muslims, and it is not permissible to use a ruse for that. The second [narration] is that he has the right to retract, due to the generality of the report, and because the right of the person who marries [the child] or the creditor did not become attached to the substance of this property, so it does not prevent retraction of it.

Section: Fourth, that it does not increase with an inseparable increase, such as weight gain, growing older, or learning a trade. If it does increase, there are two narrations from Ahmad. The first is that it does not prevent retraction. This is the school of al-Shafi'i, because it is an increase in the gifted item, so it does not prevent retraction, like the increase before receipt, and the separable [increase]. The second is that it does prevent it. This is the school of Abu Hanifah, because the increase belongs to the donee by virtue of it being the growth of his property, and it did not transfer to him from his father, so he does not have the right to retract it, like the separable [increase]. If retraction is prevented for it, retraction for the original is prevented, so as not to lead to unpleasant joint ownership and the harm of partition, and because it is a retrieval of wealth by rescinding a contract without a defect in its substitute; thus, he is prevented from the inseparable increase, like retrieving the dowry by rescinding the marriage, or half of it by divorce, or the seller's retraction of the sold item due to the buyer's insolvency. It differs from returning for a defect in that the return is by the buyer, and he has consented to the substitution of the increase. And if the discussion is posited for when he sells one commodity for another,