I have bequeathed to you, and when my son grows up, he shall be my executor." This is valid, and so when his son grows up, he becomes his executor. Based on this, if he said: "I have bequeathed to you, and if my son repents from his dissoluteness, or returns from his absence, or recovers from his illness, or engages in knowledge, or reconciles with his mother, or reaches maturity, then he is my executor," the bequest to him is valid, and he becomes an executor upon the existence of these conditions.
986 - Issue: He said: (And if the executor is treacherous, an upright person shall be joined with him.)
The apparent meaning of this is the validity of the bequest to the dissolute person, and an upright person is to be joined with him. Likewise, if he were upright and his condition changed to treachery, he does not lose his position, and an upright person is joined with him. Ibn Mansur reported from Ahmad something similar to this; he said: "If the executor is suspected, it shall not leave his hand." Al-Marwudhi reported from Ahmad, regarding one who bequeathed to two men, neither of whom is fit for the executorship, and he said to the other: "Give it to me." He said: "Do not give him anything; this is not a place for a bequest." It was said to him: "Did the deceased not approve of him?" He replied: "Even if he approved of him." The apparent meaning of this is the invalidity of the bequest to him. The Qadi interpreted the statement of al-Khiraqi and the statement of Ahmad regarding keeping him in the executorship as meaning that his treachery occurred after the death. As for if his treachery was present at the time of the bequest to him, it is not valid, because it is not permissible to appoint a treacherous person over an orphan during his [the testator's] life, so it is the same after his death. Furthermore, the bequest is a guardianship and a trust, and the dissolute person is not of those qualified for them. Based on this, if the executor is a dissolute person, his ruling is the ruling of one who has no executor, and the judge oversees his estate. If his dissoluteness occurs after the bequest, his guardianship ceases, and the judge establishes an upright person in his place. This is the choice of the Qadi, and it is the opinion of al-Thawri, al-Shafi'i, and Ishaq. According to the view of al-Khiraqi:
(14) In A: "that". (15) In A: "to you". (1) In the original and A: "the bequest". (2) In A: "the other".
أوْصَيْتُ إليك، فإذا كَبِرَ ابنى كان وَصِيِّى. صحَّ؛ لذلك (١٤)، فإذا كبرَ ابنُه صارَ وَصِيَّه. وعلى هذا لو قالَ: وَصَّيْتُ لك (١٥)، فإن تابَ ابنى عن فِسْقِه، أو قَدِمَ من غَيْبَتِه، أو صَحَّ مِن مَرَضِه، أو اشْتَغلَ بالعِلْمِ، أو صالَح أُمَّه، أو رَشدَ، فهو وَصيِّى. صحَّتِ الوَصيَّةُ إليه، ويَصِيرُ وَصِيًّا عندَ وُجودِ هذه الشُّروطِ.
٩٨٦ - مسألة؛ قال: (وإذَا كَانَ الوَصِىُّ خائِنًا، جُعِلَ مَعَهُ أَمِينٌ)
ظاهرُ هذا صحةُ الوَصِيَّةِ إلى الفاسقِ، ويُضمُّ إليه أمينٌ. وكذلك إن كان عَدْلًا فتغيَّرت حالُه إلى الْخِيانةِ لم يَخْرُجْ منها، ويُضَمُّ إليه أمِينٌ. ونقلَ ابنُ منصورٍ عن أحمدَ نحوَ ذلك. قال: إذا كانَ الوَصِيُّ متهمًا، لم يَخْرُجْ من يَدِه. ونقلَ المَرُّوذِىُّ، عن أحمدَ، في مَن أوْصَى لرَجُلَيْن، ليس أحدُهما بمَوضِعٍ للوَصيَّةِ (١)، فقال للآخَرِ (٢): أعْطِنى. لا يُعْطِيه شيئًا، ليس هذا بمَوْضِعٍ للوَصِيَّةِ. فقيلَ له: أليس المريضُ قد رَضىَ به؟ فقالَ: وإن رَضِىَ به. فظاهرُ هذا إبطالُ الوَصِيَّةِ إليه. وحمَلَ القاضي كلامَ الخِرَقِىِّ وكلامَ أحمدَ في إبْقائِه في الوَصِيَّةِ، على أنَّ خِيَانتَه طَرَأَتْ بعدَ الموتِ، فأمَّا إن كانتْ خِيانتُه مَوْجودةً حالَ الوَصِيَّةِ إليه، لم تَصِحَّ؛ لأنَّه لا يجوزُ تَوْلِيَةُ الخائِنِ على يَتِيمٍ في حياتِه، فكذلك بعد مَوْتِه، ولأنَّ الوَصيَّةَ ولايةٌ وأمانةٌ، والفاسِقُ ليس من أهلِهما. فعلى هذا، إذا كانَ الوَصِىُّ فاسِقًا، فحُكْمُه حُكْمُ مَن لا وَصِىَّ له، ويَنْظُرُ في مالِه الحاكمُ. وإن طرأَ فِسْقُه بعدَ الوَصِيَّةِ، زالتْ وِلايتُه، وأقامَ الحاكمُ مُقامَه أمِينًا. هذا اختيارُ القاضي. وهو قولُ الثوريِّ، والشافعىِّ، وإسحاقَ. وعلى قولِ الْخِرَقِىِّ:
(١٤) في أ: "ذلك".(١٥) في أ: "إليك".(١) في الأصل، أ: "الوصية".(٢) في أ: "الآخر".
