if either of them acts independently in a matter specifically assigned to him, there is no problem. For example, if he says, “I appoint Zayd and ‘Amr as executors over one-fifth of my estate for charitable causes, with Zayd responsible for distributing it among students of knowledge,” then Zayd is the one responsible for that, because he was specifically designated. And if he says, “Let ‘Amr be responsible for distributing it among those in need of marriage,” then ‘Amr is responsible for this. We proceed in matters of executorship according to what the testator’s words entail.
“No executorship is valid except with respect to a specified disposition which the testator owns, such as settling his debt, distributing his third, and looking after his minor children, ……”
His statement, “No executorship is valid except with respect to a specified disposition which the testator owns,” means that the appointment of an executor is valid only with regard to a specified disposition which the testator identifies and over which he has authority. If it concerns an unspecified disposition, it is not valid. Does the same apply if he makes an unrestricted appointment and mentions no disposition at all? Both possibilities may be entertained. For example, he may say, “I appoint so-and-so as executor over one-fifth of my estate,” without mentioning anything further. The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that the executorship is not valid, because what is the executor to do?
However, the stronger view is that the executorship is valid, and the executor is told: Do what custom requires, or do what you consider best among charitable matters, even if custom dictates otherwise. The prevailing custom in our time—followed by most people—is that, if someone says, “I appoint an executor over one-fifth or one-third of my wealth,” it is allocated to a sacrificial animal, a Ramadan dinner, and similar expenditures customarily known to people. But if the executor considers it preferable to spend it on building mosques, printing needed books, marrying off those in need, and assisting students of knowledge, then this is better than a sacrificial animal that is slaughtered and over which the heirs dispute.
In earlier times, when wealth was scarce, people would dispute