Moreover, when someone gives an undivided share whose gift is unanimously held valid—such as a share in indivisible property—or a share whose gift is disputed, according to those who permit it, such as Mālik, al-Shāfi‘ī, and Ahmad, and it is duly taken into possession and held by the recipient of the gift or charitable donation, it thereby becomes binding by the consensus of the Muslims. The recipient may then exercise all rights of disposal permitted in jointly owned property. He may sell it or give it away; alternatively, the donor and the recipient may agree to divide its use by allocating separate areas or periods of time. They may also rent it out together, as co-owners do with the owner of the share that was not given away. If the donor exercises his rights by residing alongside the recipient, whether under an arrangement dividing their use or otherwise, this neither diminishes nor invalidates the gift. Whoever says otherwise has contravened the consensus of the Muslims.

As for the matters set out by the jurists of Mālik’s school in their books—stipulating an option; holding that the property’s remaining in the donor’s possession, whether through rental, borrowing, or otherwise, invalidates the taking of possession; holding that the recipient’s taking possession is invalidated if the property returns to the donor shortly afterwards, while there is disagreement if it returns after a longer period, such as a year; and holding that the gift becomes void if the donor falls ill or becomes insolvent before possession is taken, and similar matters—these all concern the donated property itself.

The same applies to their disagreement over whether the donor may be compelled to deliver possession. According to Abū Hanīfah and al-Shāfi‘ī, he may not be compelled, whereas according to Mālik, he may. Two positions are reported from Ahmad concerning unfair pricing.

All these and similar questions concern the donated property itself, whether separately owned or an undivided share. As for the half that remains in the donor’s ownership, they agree—with an agreement necessarily known among scholars of Islamic law as part of the religion of Islam—that the owner’s exercise of his rights over it does not invalidate the gift or the possession previously taken of the donated share. They also agree that these two co-owners may exercise their rights just as other co-owners do. Any student of jurisprudence who imagines that