Are gifts I gave during my life counted against a child's share?

Possession is a condition of the gift itself. Until the donee physically takes the thing, no ownership passes to him at all. Offer and acceptance on their own do not even oblige the donor to hand it over: the Mawsu’a says he keeps the choice of either permitting possession or withdrawing from the gift. The reasoning is that a gift is a pure act of bounty, and if it bound the donor to deliver, the donee could sue for delivery and the gift would turn into a contract of exchange. The two schools reach this by different routes on the form of words: the Hanafis hold the gift is constituted by the donor’s offer alone — acceptance and possession are needed for its effect, not for its existence — while the Shafi’is require both offer and acceptance, and confine the rule to a gift that is simple rather than implied or made for a return. For a family in Canada the effect is blunt: on this view a signed deed of gift with nothing handed over transfers nothing, and the asset is still in the estate.

Sources: al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Hiba” sec. 21 — the qabd question stated as a three-way split: “ikhtalafa al-fuqaha’u fi shtirati al-qabdi li-tamami al-hiba... li’l-fuqaha’i fi hadhihi al-mas’alati thalathatu aqwal”. Position one: “yara al-Hanafiyyatu wa’l-Shafi‘iyyatu wa riwayatun marjuhatun ‘inda al-Hanabilati anna al-hibata la tathbutu illa bi’l-qabd, fa-la yathbutu al-milku li’l-mawhubi lahu qabla qabdi al-shay’i al-mawhub”, and the donor keeps the choice of permitting possession or withdrawing (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Hiba” sec. 25 cont. — “dhahaba Abu Hanifata wa sahibahu Muhammadun wa Abu Yusufa ila anna al-qabula laysa ruknan fi sighati al-hibati wa innama rukhnuha al-ijabu faqat istihsanan”, the reasoning being that acceptance and possession are sought “li-thubuti hukmiha la li-wujudiha bi-nafsiha” (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya al-Kuwaytiyya, entry “Hiba” sec. 6–7 — the gift is mandub bi’l-ijma‘; and on its constituent elements, “dhahaba jumhur al-fuqaha’i ila anna arkana al-hibati hiya: al-‘aqidan (al-wahib wa’l-mawhub lah), wa’l-ma‘qud ‘alayh... wa’l-sigha”, “amma al-Hanafiyyatu fa-dhahabu ila anna rukna al-hibati huwa sighatuha” (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mughni, Kitab al-Hiba wa’l-‘Atiyya, mas’ala 4443 — “ghayra al-makili wa’l-mawzuni talzamu al-hibatu fihi bi-mujarradi al-‘aqd, wa yathbutu al-milku fi’l-mawhubi qabla qabdih... wa huwa qawlu Malikin wa Abi Thawr”; and the second narration from Ahmad that nothing is binding without possession, “wa huwa qawlu aktharu ahli al-‘ilm... wa’l-Shafi‘iyyi wa ashabi al-ra’y” (Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)) · al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Hiba” sec. 25 — the form of the gift: “dhahaba al-Malikiyyatu wa’l-Shafi‘iyyatu wa’l-Hanabilatu wa Zufar min al-Hanafiyyati ila anna rukna sighati al-hibati yatakawwanu min al-ijabi wa’l-qabul” (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) — both schools named together at the Mawsu’a’s first position, and each separately again on the form of words; al-Mughni independently names al-Shafi‘i and the ashab al-ra’y for the same rule.

Ownership passes on the contract; possession makes it binding. On the school’s settled position the gift is valid and owned as soon as it is made, so the donee may even deal with the thing before he receives it; what delivery adds is that the gift becomes irrevocable — and it must be delivery with the donor’s permission. Ibn Qudama states the rule for anything that is not sold by measure or weight and records that Malik held the same. The school is not monolithic: a weaker narration from Ahmad requires possession in every case, al-Khiraqi’s wording is read as requiring it for measured and weighed goods, and Ibn Hamid held that ownership hangs in suspense — if possession follows we know it belonged to the donee from the words, and if it does not it was the donor’s all along.

Sources: al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Hiba” sec. 21 — position two: “wa huwa al-madhhabu ‘inda al-Hanabilati anna al-hibata tasihhu wa tumlaku bi-‘aqdin, fa-yasihhu tasarrufun qabla al-qabd, wa talzamu al-hibatu bi-qabdiha bi-idhni al-wahib, wa la talzamu qablahuma”, on ‘A’isha’s report of Abu Bakr’s undelivered gift; Ibn Hamid’s mura‘a view (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mughni, Kitab al-Hiba wa’l-‘Atiyya, mas’ala 4443 — “ghayra al-makili wa’l-mawzuni talzamu al-hibatu fihi bi-mujarradi al-‘aqd, wa yathbutu al-milku fi’l-mawhubi qabla qabdih... wa huwa qawlu Malikin wa Abi Thawr”; and the second narration from Ahmad that nothing is binding without possession, “wa huwa qawlu aktharu ahli al-‘ilm... wa’l-Shafi‘iyyi wa ashabi al-ra’y” (Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)) · al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Hiba” sec. 21 — the qabd question stated as a three-way split: “ikhtalafa al-fuqaha’u fi shtirati al-qabdi li-tamami al-hiba... li’l-fuqaha’i fi hadhihi al-mas’alati thalathatu aqwal”. Position one: “yara al-Hanafiyyatu wa’l-Shafi‘iyyatu wa riwayatun marjuhatun ‘inda al-Hanabilati anna al-hibata la tathbutu illa bi’l-qabd, fa-la yathbutu al-milku li’l-mawhubi lahu qabla qabdi al-shay’i al-mawhub”, and the donor keeps the choice of permitting possession or withdrawing (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) — the Mawsu’a’s second position, expressly “the madhhab among the Hanbalis”, with the competing narrations named alongside it.

Possession is a condition of completion, not of validity. The Malikis are the only school to separate the two questions in so many words: the gift is valid on offer and acceptance, and taking possession is what makes it binding. Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam puts it as acceptance being a pillar and taking possession a condition. Because the gift is already valid, the donee is not left at the donor’s mercy: on the better known view he may compel the donor to let him take the thing, and may go to a judge to force it. The one trap is timing — if the donee delays taking possession until a debt has swallowed the donor’s property, the gift falls away, because by then the creditors’ claim has attached.

Sources: al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Hiba” sec. 21 — position three: “wa huwa madhhabu al-Malikiyya. Wa ‘indahum anna al-qabda laysa shartan fi sihhati al-hibati, bal inna al-qabda shartun fi tamamiha, fa-in ‘udima lam talzam ma‘a kawniha sahiha”; the donee may compel delivery “wa law ‘inda hakimin”; Ibn ‘Abd al-Salam: “al-qabulu wa’l-hiyazatu mu‘tabaran, illa anna al-qabula ruknun wa’l-hiyazata shart”; and the gift lapses if delivery is delayed until a debt encompasses the donor’s property (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhiyya, “Hiba” sec. 25 — the form of the gift: “dhahaba al-Malikiyyatu wa’l-Shafi‘iyyatu wa’l-Hanabilatu wa Zufar min al-Hanafiyyati ila anna rukna sighati al-hibati yatakawwanu min al-ijabi wa’l-qabul” (Ministry of Awqaf and Islamic Affairs, Kuwait) · al-Mughni, Kitab al-Hiba wa’l-‘Atiyya, mas’ala 4443 — “ghayra al-makili wa’l-mawzuni talzamu al-hibatu fihi bi-mujarradi al-‘aqd, wa yathbutu al-milku fi’l-mawhubi qabla qabdih... wa huwa qawlu Malikin wa Abi Thawr”; and the second narration from Ahmad that nothing is binding without possession, “wa huwa qawlu aktharu ahli al-‘ilm... wa’l-Shafi‘iyyi wa ashabi al-ra’y” (Ibn Qudama al-Maqdisi (d. 620 AH)) — the Mawsu’a’s third position, expressly “the madhhab of the Malikis”; al-Mughni independently names Malik for the rule that a gift binds on the contract.