it is valid, because its possession is possible, and no one other than the usurper has the ability to take possession except with the permission of the donor. If the owner appoints the usurper as an agent to hand it over, it is valid. If the donee appoints the usurper as an agent to take possession on his behalf, and he accepts, and a duration passes in which possession is possible, it becomes possessed, the donee owns it, and the usurper is absolved of his liability. If we say that possession is not a condition for a gift, then for that which does not require possession, it is possible that the ability to deliver is not required for the validity of its gift. This is the view of Abu Thawr, because it is a transfer of ownership without compensation, resembling a bequest. It is also possible that its gift is not valid, because its sale is not valid, so its gift is not valid, like a fetus in the womb. The same ruling is derived for the gift of a bird in the air or fish in the water if they are owned.

Section: The gift of a fetus in the womb or milk in the udder is not valid. This is the view of Abu Hanifa, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr, because it is unknown and impossible to deliver. Regarding wool on the back of an animal, there are two views, based on the validity of its sale. Whenever he gives permission to shear the wool or milk the sheep, it is a form of permissibility. If he gifts the oil of sesame before it is pressed, or its olive oil, or its dregs, it is not valid. This is the view of al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, and the Ashab al-Ra'y, and we know of no one who disagrees with them. The gift of non-existent property is not valid, such as what his tree might produce or his slave-woman might bear, because a gift is a contract of transfer of ownership during one's lifetime, so it is not valid in any of this, just like a sale.

Section: Ahmad said in a narration by Abu Dawud and Harb: The gift of unknown property is not valid. He also said in a narration by Harb: If he says, "I gift you a sheep from my sheep," it is not permitted. This is the view of al-Shafi'i. It is possible that if the ignorance is on the part of the donor, it prevents validity, because it is gharar (uncertainty) on his part. But if the ignorance is on the part of the donee, it does not prevent it, because there is no gharar on his part; therefore, knowledge of what is gifted to him is not considered regarding his rights, similar to a beneficiary of a bequest.