it is not possible to mandate the fee from his estate. Our view is that it is a binding contract, so it is not voided by the death of the contracting party while the object of the contract remains intact, just as if he married off his slave woman then died. What they mentioned is not valid; for we have already mentioned that the lessee has taken possession of the benefits, and the fee is fully owed by him at the time of the contract. Furthermore, their argument would force the same consequence if he married off his slave woman and then died. If what they mentioned were correct, the obligation of the fee here would be for a reason originating from the lessee, and thus it would be obligatory upon his estate after his death, just as if he had dug a well and something fell into it after his death, he would be liable for it from his wealth because the cause for that originated from him during his lifetime; it is the same here.

Section: If the lessee dies and he has no heir who can step into his place to realize the benefit, or if he is absent—such as one who dies on the road to Makkah and leaves behind his camel which he had rented, while he has nothing else upon it to carry, and no present heir to stand in his place—the apparent meaning of Ahmad’s words is that the rental contract is void regarding the remainder of the duration, because an overwhelming circumstance (amr ghalib) has occurred that prevents the lessee from the benefit of the object, which is analogous to a case where it was usurped (ghasb). Also, because the continuation of the contract is harmful to both the lessee and the lessor; for the lessee would be obligated to pay the rent without receiving any benefit, and the lessor is prevented from disposing of his property while it is apparent that he cannot collect the rent. It has been reported from Ahmad, regarding a man who rented a camel and the lessee died during some part of the journey, that if the camel returns empty, he is entitled to the amount that had become due to him, and if his load and saddle are upon it, he is entitled to the rent up to that location. The apparent meaning of this is that he ruled for the dissolution of the contract regarding the remainder of the duration when the lessee dies and there is no benefit remaining for him; because the realization of the benefit became impossible due to a decree from Allah, the Almighty, so it is similar to the case where someone hires another to extract his tooth and he heals, or it falls out