Section: An absolute gift does not necessitate a recompense, regardless of whether it is from a person to his equal, someone below him, or someone above him. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah. Al-Shafi'i stated that a gift to an equal or one of lower status follows our opinion. However, if it is for one of higher status, there are two opinions; one of them is that it necessitates a recompense, which is the opinion of Malik, based on the saying of Umar, may Allah be pleased with him: "Whoever gives a gift intending a recompense, he retains authority over his gift and may retract it if he is not satisfied with what he receives from it" (14). Our argument is that it is a donation by way of benevolence, thus it does not necessitate a recompense, just like a gift to an equal or a bequest. The hadith of Umar was opposed by his son and Ibn Abbas. If he compensates him for the gift, it becomes a new gift, not a substitute; whichever of them discovers a defect, he does not have the right to return it. If it turns out to be rightfully owned by someone else, its owner shall take it, and the recipient shall not return its substitute. If one stipulates a known recompense in the gift, it is valid. Ahmad explicitly stated this because it is a transfer of ownership for a known consideration, so it is like a sale, and its ruling is the ruling of a sale regarding the guarantee of liability, the establishment of the option to rescind, and pre-emption. This is also the opinion of the scholars of opinion (As-hab al-Ra'y). There is an opinion held by the companions of Al-Shafi'i that it is not valid because he stipulated in the gift that which contradicts its requirement. Our argument is that it is a transfer of ownership for a consideration, so it is valid, just as if one said: "I have transferred ownership of this to you for a dirham." For if he had left the transfer absolute, it would have been a gift, and when he mentioned the consideration, it became a sale. Abu al-Khattab said: It has been narrated from Ahmad that which suggests that the ruling of a gift should prevail in this case, so the rulings of sale peculiar to it do not apply. As for if one stipulates an unknown recompense, it is not valid, the gift becomes corrupt, and its ruling is the ruling of a corrupt sale. The recipient returns it along with its connected and disconnected increase, as it is the growth of the donor's property. If it has perished (15), he returns its value. This is the opinion of Al-Shafi'i and Abu Thawr. The apparent meaning of Ahmad's speech, may Allah have mercy on him, is that it is valid, and when he gives him a recompense for it that he is satisfied with, the contract is binding thereby. For he said, in the narration of Muhammad ibn al-Hakam: If the donor says, "This is for you on the condition that you recompense me," he has the right to retract it if he does not recompense him, because it is a condition. He also said, in the narration of Isma'il ibn Sa'id: If he gifts it to him by way of a recompense,