what the minor necessarily requires in terms of clothing and food, the acceptance of a gift on his behalf, and litigation on behalf of the deceased regarding what is claimed for him or against him; because it is burdensome to require their joint action in these matters and delaying them would be harmful, so independent action is permitted. Our view is that he associated them both in the authority, so neither of them may act independently, just like two agents. We agree with what Abu Yusuf said; indeed, he placed the authority in both of them to act jointly, so it is not partitioned, just as if he had appointed two agents or explicitly stated to the two executors that they should not act except jointly. Consequently, what he said is invalidated by these two scenarios, and what Abu Hanifah said is also invalidated by them. If their joint action becomes impossible, the judge shall appoint a trustworthy person in place of the absent one.

Section: Regarding who is eligible to be a recipient of a bequest and who is not. A bequest is valid to a man who is sane, Muslim, free, and upright ('adl), by consensus. It is not valid to a madman, nor a child, nor is the bequest of a Muslim to a disbeliever valid, without any disagreement that we know of; because the madman and the child are not among those qualified to manage their own properties, so they cannot exercise authority over others, and the disbeliever is not among those qualified to hold authority over a Muslim. A bequest to a woman is valid according to the opinion of most scholars. This was narrated from Shurayh. This is the opinion of Malik, al-Thawri, al-Awza'i, al-Hasan ibn Salih, Ishaq, al-Shafi'i, Abu Thawr, and the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y). 'Ata' did not permit it, because she cannot be a judge, so she cannot be an executor, like the madman. Our view is what was narrated that 'Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, made a bequest to Hafsah. Furthermore, she is among those qualified to bear witness, so she resembles a man, and it is different from the judiciary, for which completeness in constitution and ijtihad is required, unlike the bequest. A bequest to a blind person is valid. The companions of al-Shafi'i hold a view that a bequest to him is not valid, based on their premise that his sale and purchase are not valid, so the meaning of authority is not found in him. This is not conceded to them, especially since he can appoint an agent for that, and he is among those qualified for bearing witness, authority in marriage, and authority over his young children, so the bequest to him is valid like the sighted person.