This issue has several cases:

The first: that he appoints Zayd as executor, then appoints ‘Amr and says, “I have dismissed Zayd.” In that case, the executor is ‘Amr.

The second: that he says, “I appoint Zayd and ‘Amr as executors.” In that case, the executorship belongs to both of them.

The third: that he says, “I appoint Zayd as executor,” and then afterwards says, “I appoint ‘Amr as executor.” The established position of the school is that they share the executorship.

It is also said that the executorship belongs to the latter, for two reasons:

First: if two texts are issued which cannot be reconciled, the latter abrogates the former.

Second: appointing ‘Amr as executor entails dismissing Zayd and approving of ‘Amr.

If someone were to say: “He may have forgotten that he appointed Zayd as executor, such as when a long period has elapsed,”

we reply: Yes, let us suppose that he forgot. Yet appointing ‘Amr as executor entails that he approved of ‘Amr. If that entails the dismissal of Zayd, then it is a dismissal; and if we do not say that it does, then it is the initiation of a new executorship. Thus, the latter alone is the executor. This view is the stronger one, as we previously mentioned regarding the beneficiary of a bequest: the position of the school is that they share it, whereas the stronger view is that it belongs to the latter. But, as I said before—and I say it now for emphasis—when a person writes someone’s will, he should state: “This will abrogates what came before it,” so that he may spare those who come after him and prevent any confusion.

His statement, “Neither of them may act independently in a matter that has not been assigned to him,” indicates that he