and one of them is away, the possession effected by the one who is present counts for both himself and the absentee. If, when the absentee arrives, he accepts the gift, it is confirmed; if he refuses, his share reverts to the donor.

If a donor gives something to an absentee, calls witnesses, and then relinquishes the item, the gift is valid. Some authorities, however, say it is not valid until the object is handed over to someone able to take possession on the absentee’s behalf.

When the article is currently on loan, the borrower’s ongoing custody counts as possession for the donee; the same holds true when a slave is assigned to serve someone—the person served is deemed to be holding the slave’s person on behalf of the one to whom the master has given him. In these cases an explicit verbal acceptance is required, otherwise the gift is invalid.

The tenant’s possession, by contrast, is not considered possession for the donee—unless the donor himself takes it back under a lease. Neither the custody of a pledge-holder nor that of an usurper is regarded as possession for the donee.

If a seller involved in an invalid sale gifts the sold item to someone other than the buyer, the gift is effective provided that this occurs before the trading session breaks up; the buyer’s holding of the item does not count as possession for the donee. Should he make the gift only after the session has ended, the gift is of no effect. This is the position of Mālik and the distilled opinion of his school concerning invalid sales, shared by the scholars of Medina and others.

A mere change of markets is not deemed to cause forfeiture in this matter—or in any other—so long as the object itself can still be found intact.

Finally, if immediately after making the gift the donor rents the very article from the donee, keeps it in his own hand, and dies while still holding it, the gift is void.