Section: If a father gifts his son something, he acts in his stead regarding taking possession and acceptance if it is needed. Ibn al-Mundhir said: All those scholars of knowledge whom we remember have reached a consensus that if a man gifts a specific house or a specific slave to his young child, and takes possession of it for him from himself, and calls for witnesses upon it, the gift is complete. This is the view of Malik, al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, and the scholars of opinion (ashab al-ra'y). We have also narrated the meaning of this from Shurayh and Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz.

Then, if the gifted item is of a type that requires taking possession, it is sufficient for him to say: "I have gifted this to my son and have taken possession of it for him," because this renders acceptance unnecessary, as we have mentioned. His saying: "I have accepted it," does not suffice, because acceptance does not render the taking of possession unnecessary. If it is of a type that does not require it, it is sufficient for him to say: "I have gifted this to my son," and there is no need to mention taking possession or acceptance.

Ibn Abd al-Barr said: The jurists have reached a consensus that a father's gift to his young son under his guardianship does not require taking possession, and that calling for witnesses for it suffices in place of taking possession, even if his father is his guardian. This is based on what Malik narrated from al-Zuhri, from Ibn al-Musayyab, that Uthman said: "Whoever bestows a gift upon a young son of his who has not yet reached the age of taking possession for himself, and he makes that public and calls for witnesses upon himself, then it is valid, even if his father is his guardian."

Al-Qadi said: In the case of a gift to a son, it is mandatory for him to say: "I have accepted it." This is the school of thought of al-Shafi'i, because in their view, a gift is not valid except through an offer and an acceptance. We have mentioned before that the context of circumstances and their indications render the verbalization of acceptance unnecessary. There is no indication of acceptance more clear than the fact that the one accepting is the one who is gifting. Therefore, considering a verbalization that conveys no meaning—without any legal text (Shar') supporting it—is an arbitrary imposition that has no meaning, while also contradicting the apparent state of the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and his companions.

This is not a school of thought held by Ahmad. For he said, in the narration of Harb, regarding a man who called for witnesses regarding a share of his land, which was well-known, for his son, and he had no son other than him, he said: "It is more beloved to me that he says at the time of calling for witnesses: 'I have taken possession of it for him.' It was said to him: 'What if he forgot?' He said: 'If it was distinct, I have hope.'" Thus, Ahmad has mentioned that it is sufficient for him to say: "I have taken possession of it for him," and that he hopes it would be sufficient with [the child's] discernment to rely merely on calling for witnesses. This is in accordance with the consensus mentioned from the rest of the scholars. Some of our companions said: It is sufficient to use one of two expressions, either to say: "I have accepted it," or "I have taken possession of it," because acceptance renders the taking of possession unnecessary. The apparent meaning of the words of Ahmad...