upon two, and do not take authority over the wealth of an orphan." Narrated by Muslim (6).

Section: If a man dies without an executor and there is no ruler (hakim) in his town, the apparent position of Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, is that it is permissible for any man from the Muslims to take charge of his affairs and sell what there is a need to sell. Salih reported from him regarding a man in a foreign land where there is no judge, who died and left behind slave girls and wealth: Do you see it permissible for a man from the Muslims to sell that? He said: "As for usufructs and animals, if they are forced to sell them and there is no judge, then there is no harm. As for slave girls, it is more beloved to me that a ruler from the rulers oversees their sale." He only hesitated regarding the sale of slave girls as a matter of preference out of precaution, because their sale involves the legitimization of a private part (fardj), and he permitted the sale of that because it is a place of necessity.

Section: If he bequeaths to him to distribute wealth, he is not permitted to take anything from it. Ahmad stated this explicitly, saying: "If there is wealth in his hand for the poor and the avenues of righteousness, and he is in need of it, he shall not eat anything from it; he has only been commanded to execute it." Malik and al-Shafi'i held this same opinion. Abu Thawr and the people of opinion (Ahl al-Ra'y) said: If the testator says: 'I have granted you the authority to place my third wherever you wish, or wherever you see fit,' then he may take it for himself and his children. It is possible that this is permissible according to us, because the words of the testator encompass it. It is also possible that one should look at the circumstances; if they indicate that he intended for him to take from it, such as if he is among the group of those entitled to receive it, or if his habit was to take from such things, then he may take from it; otherwise, he may not. It is also possible that he may give to his children and all his relatives if they are entitled to it, but not to himself; because he is commanded to distribute, and he has distributed to those who are entitled, so it resembles the case where he gives it to a stranger. Our argument is that it is a transfer of ownership that he possessed through permission, so it is not permissible for him to be the recipient, just as if he were authorized to sell a commodity, it is not permissible for him to sell it to himself.