it is permissible, and it is as though Mālik treated prevailing custom in such cases as the equivalent of an explicit condition—namely, that the donor expects recompense equal to the gift. Because of this, the Mālikī jurists disagreed about the ruling when the donor is not satisfied with what the donee offers in return. One opinion says that the gift becomes binding if the donee pays the item’s market value; another maintains that it is not binding unless the donor is actually pleased—an opinion attributed to ʿUmar, as will be mentioned later. If the donor’s satisfaction is made a condition, no sale has come into effect; this latter view is the one most commonly reported from Mālik. If, however, the donee is compelled to pay the value, a sale has in fact taken place. Mālik construes the gift as one made in expectation of recompense only when disagreement arises, particularly when the circumstances point in that direction—for example, when a poor man gives to a rich man, or to someone presumed to have accepted only with a view to reciprocation.

Gifts of Usufruct
Some gifts pertain to usufruct for a fixed term; these are called ʿāriyah, minḥah, and similar names. Others are granted for the lifetime of the beneficiary; this is known as ʿumrā, as when a man grants another the right to live in a house for as long as he lives.

The scholars have taken three positions regarding ʿumrā:

1. It is an outright gift of the corpus itself (raqabah). This is the view of al-Shāfiʿī, Abū Ḥanīfah, al-Thawrī, Aḥmad, and a number of others.
2. The beneficiary acquires only the usufruct; when he dies the corpus reverts to the donor or to the donor’s heirs. This is the position of Mālik and his companions, who add that if the donor explicitly mentions the beneficiary’s descendants, the property reverts to the donor or his heirs once those descendants cease to exist.
3. If the donor says, “It is ʿumrā for you and your descendants,” the corpus becomes the property of the beneficiary; but if descendants are not mentioned, the corpus returns, upon the beneficiary’s death, to the donor or his heirs. This is the view of Dāwūd and Abū Thawr.

The roots of this disagreement lie in apparently conflicting prophetic reports and in the interplay between explicit conditions, customary practice, and those reports.

As for textual evidence, two ḥadīths are cited:
• The first, whose soundness is agreed upon, is the report Mālik narrates from Jābir, that the Messenger of God—may God bless him and grant him peace—said:
“Whoever is granted an ʿumrā for himself and his descendants, it belongs to the one to whom it is given; it shall never revert to the giver, for he has bestowed a gift in which inheritance now operates.”
• The second is the ḥadīth of Abū al-Zubayr from Jābir, who said that the Messenger of God—may God bless him and grant him peace—declared:
“O Assembly of the Anṣār, keep hold of your property and do not make it ʿumrā. Whoever is granted something for the span of his life, it is his during his life and after his death.”