or more. This view occupies a middle position between the view that prohibits it absolutely and the view that permits it absolutely. Nevertheless, the master’s permission is still necessary, because if the slave accepts the executorship, he will spend a considerable amount of time administering it, taking away part of the time due to his master. Thus, the master’s permission is indispensable.

His statement, “his master”: it is permissible to say “his master,” because this is restricted mastery. What is prohibited is absolute mastery, for that belongs to Allah alone. As for restricted mastery, there is nothing wrong with it. Thus one may say, “the master of these people,” or “the master of such-and-such a clan.”

His statement: “If he appoints Zayd as executor and then appoints ‘Amr after him, without dismissing Zayd, they share the executorship, and neither of them may act independently in a matter that has not been assigned to him.” These two names—Zayd and ‘Amr—are commonly used as examples by jurists, grammarians, and others because of their brevity: each consists of three letters with a silent middle letter, making it easy on the tongue.

Thus, if he says, “I appoint Zayd as executor to spend one-fifth of my wealth on charitable causes,” then later says, “I appoint ‘Amr as executor to spend one-fifth of my wealth on charitable causes,” we say: if he says, “I have dismissed Zayd,” then the executorship belongs to ‘Amr. If he does not say so, then it belongs to both of them. This is what the jurists—may Allah have mercy on them—have stated. If it belongs to both of them, they share in administering it, and neither may act independently without consulting the other.

Accordingly, when the testator dies, in the preceding example we give both men the bequest—namely, the one-fifth—and say to them: “Administer it in the manner he stipulated, and neither of you may act independently of the other in any matter, because he assigned it to both of you.”