permissible for someone whose debt would be diminished thereby. Thus, if a person possesses only ten riyals and owes ten riyals, he may not give away those ten riyals, whether as charity or otherwise, because the debt must be repaid, whereas these voluntary gifts are not obligatory; and what is obligatory takes precedence.

His statement, “to another,” is the object of the phrase “transfer of ownership.” That is, it means that, during his lifetime, a person voluntarily transfers ownership of his known property to another. In other words, a person voluntarily transfers ownership of his property to someone else while alive. Voluntarily means that he takes nothing in exchange for it.

His statement, “his property”: property is anything tangible whose benefit is lawful without need.

His statement, “transfer of ownership,” excludes a loan for use, for although a loan for use is a voluntary act, it is not a transfer of ownership.

His statement, “transfer of ownership,” indicates a condition: the donee must be someone capable of owning property. Thus, it is not valid to make a gift to Gabriel, peace be upon him, because he is not capable of owning property.

His statement, “his property,” excludes another person’s property, because a person cannot voluntarily give away what belongs to someone else.

His statement, “known,” excludes what is unknown. However, this is not correct. The correct view is that it is permissible to give an unknown item as a gift, because no consequence follows from this: if the donee finds that the gift is substantial, he has gained; and if he finds it to be small, he suffers no harm and has still gained. Thus, if someone gives another a fetus in the womb as a gift, it is valid according to the view we have chosen, namely, the validity of giving an unknown item as a gift.