before its extraction, or hired an oculist to treat his eye, and it healed or the eye was lost. It must be assumed that there were no heirs among his kin who could step into his place in realizing the benefit, because the heir steps into the place of the deceased. Al-Qadi interpreted this to mean that the lessor took possession of the camel and prevented the heirs from utilizing it; were it not for that, the contract would not have been voided, because it is not voided by an excuse concerning the lessee while the object of the contract remains intact, just as if the lessee of a house were imprisoned and prevented from living in it. This is not correct, because if he prevented the heir from utilizing it, he would not be entitled to any fee. This differs from the case where the lessee is imprisoned, because the object of the contract is its utilization, and this is not despaired of due to imprisonment, for in every moment it is possible for him to be released from prison and utilize it, and it is possible for him to appoint a deputy to realize the benefit for him, either for a fee or otherwise. This is unlike the deceased, for his ability to utilize it personally or through a deputy has lapsed, so it resembles the cases we mentioned.

Section: If the beneficiary of an endowment (waqf) leases the endowed property for a period and dies during it, and it passes to those after him, there are two opinions. The first is that the lease is not voided, because he leased his property during the time of his authority, so it is not invalidated by his death, just as if he had leased his unrestricted property (milk talq). The second is that the lease is voided for the remainder of the duration, because we have clarified that he leased his property and the property of another, so it was valid regarding his property but not the property of another, as if he had leased two houses, one of which belonged to him and the other to someone else. This is because the benefits after death are the right of another person, so his contract regarding them is not valid without ownership or authority, unlike unrestricted property, for the heir owns it.