Section

Muhammad ibn al-Mawwāz expressed differing views on whether taking the gift back after it has become unavailable for return requires knowledge of its value. The correct position according to Ibn al-Qāsim’s doctrine is that its value must be known, since, according to him, the recipient may return the gift itself only by mutual consent. As for accepting something else in its place after it has become unavailable for return, knowledge of its value is not required if we hold that the recipient may give goods in recompense at that stage, as we have understood Ibn al-Qāsim’s doctrine. If, however, we hold that he may give goods in recompense at that stage only by mutual consent, its value must be known. This is how the question should be resolved. There is no basis for Muhammad ibn al-Mawwāz’s differing views on whether knowledge of the value is required when returning the gift itself after it has become unavailable for return. And Allah knows best.

All this applies when the recipient accepts the donor’s statement that he intended recompense for his gift. If, however, the recipient denies this, there are three possible cases:

First: it is apparent that the donor intended recompense for his gift.

Second: it is apparent that he did not intend recompense.

Third: his intention is unclear—whether he intended recompense or something else.

If it is apparent that he intended recompense, the gift is governed by the rules for a gift made in expectation of recompense, which have already been discussed.

If it is apparent that he did not intend recompense, he is not entitled to any recompense for it.

If his intention is unclear, his statement that he intended recompense is accepted. According to one view, he must swear an oath; according to another, no oath is required—as we shall explain, Allah willing.