—save that both parents acting together, and only they, may revoke a gift they have bestowed upon their child, so long as the child has neither incurred a debt nor entered into marriage. Once the child has gone into debt or married, the parents lose all right of revocation. This applies only while the father is alive; if he has died, the mother may not take back what she gave, for a gift made to an orphan has the legal status of charity.
The father may not repossess a gift he presented to his daughter, nor the bridal dowry (niḥla) he set aside for her, even if she marries and her husband divorces her before consummation. If the gifted item has changed form while in the child’s possession, the parents have no right to reclaim it. Likewise, if the child has sold it and taken the price, the parent has no claim to the proceeds.
When a parent gives a child gold coins, silver coins, or any other property and the child later blends it with similar property of his own, the parent can no longer revoke the gift and does not become a co-owner of a corresponding share.
If the mother has been appointed guardian (waṣiyya), she may take possession on behalf of her children of whatever she donates to them. If she is not the guardian, she may not do so—though Mālik’s wording shows some divergence on this point—and in any event she may not secure possession for them while their father is still alive. Some scholars maintain that she may perfect possession for them even without guardianship, yet still not during their father’s lifetime, even if she is a guardian, by analogy with the father’s authority when the children are orphans. The first view is the settled position of the Mālikī school.
A father is not permitted to give away any part of his minor child’s property that lies under his care, nor may he show favoritism when selling any of that property. Should he do so, he is personally liable: if he is solvent he must make restitution out of his own assets and has no recourse against the recipient. If he is insolvent, the minor may pursue compensation from whichever party—the father or the recipient—is easier to reach first; and if the father later becomes solvent, the child may not abandon his claim against him in favor of the other party.
If a father contracts his own marriage using his minor son’s wealth, and the son later comes of age and finds that property in the wife’s possession, he may not take it back. In Mālik’s view, such an act of the father is treated like a sale or other exchange concluded on behalf of the minor: the transaction itself stands, but the father is liable for its price, and the son may claim its full value from his father. Had the son already been of age, he would have been entitled to reclaim that property from