Al-Khiraqi held the view that the heir stands in the legatee's place regarding acceptance and rejection, because it is a right that was established for the deceased, and thus is established for the heir after his death, according to the Prophet's statement (peace be upon him): "Whoever leaves behind a right, it belongs to his heirs." This is analogous to the option of rejection due to a defect. Abu Abd Allah ibn Hamid held the view that the bequest becomes void, because it is a contract that requires acceptance; so if the person entitled to accept dies before doing so, the contract is void, like a gift. Al-Qadi said: "This is the standard analogy (qiyas) of the school of thought, because it is an option that is not compensated for, thus it is voided by death, similar to the option of the session (khiyar al-majlis), the option of stipulation, and the option of taking by pre-emption (shuf'ah)." The proponents of individual opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y) said: "The bequest becomes binding on the heir and enters their ownership by legal rule without acceptance, because the bequest was already binding from the side of the testator, and the option only belonged to the legatee; so when he dies, his option is extinguished and it enters into his ownership, just as if he had purchased something stipulating an option for himself, and he died before its expiration." Our argument, regarding the fact that the bequest does not become void by the death of the legatee, is that it is a contract binding from one of the two parties, so it does not become void by the death of the person who holds the option, like a mortgage contract or a sale in which an option is stipulated for one of the two. Furthermore, it is a contract that does not become void by the death of the one who made the bequest, so it does not become void by the death of the other, similar to what we have mentioned. It differs from a gift and a sale before acceptance in the two aspects we have mentioned: namely, that it is permissible (revocable) from both parties, and it becomes void upon the death of the one who made the offer. It is not correct to draw an analogy to options because the option is not extinguished, and the contract becomes binding; thus, the view of the proponents of individual opinion is the counterpart to our issue. Our argument for refuting their statement is that it is a contract that requires the acceptance of the beneficiary, so it does not become binding before acceptance, like a sale or a gift. Once this is established, the heir stands in the place of the legatee in matters of acceptance and rejection, because any right that a person possessed at the time of their death does not become void by death, so the heir stands in their place regarding it. Accordingly, if the heir rejects the bequest, it becomes void; and if he accepts it, it becomes valid, and ownership is established thereby.