unlike the case of selling. If he hires him to sell for a specific man, it is as if he hired him to purchase specific garments. It is also possible that it is valid, because it is possible in general. If anything results from that, he is entitled to the fee; otherwise, the rental contract is void, just as if he had not specified the seller or the buyer.

Section: It is permissible to hire someone for his service, to serve him every month for a known amount, whether the hired person is a man or a woman, free or a slave. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, al-Shafi'i, and Abu Thawr, because deputization is permitted in this, and its worker is not restricted to being of those qualified for devotional acts (qurba). Ahmad said: "The monthly-hired worker attends the Eid prayers and Friday prayer, and he does not stipulate against that." It was said to him: "Does he perform the two-rak'ah supererogatory prayer?" He replied: "As long as it does not harm his employer." He only permitted him that because the times of prayer are exempted from the service, and this is why they are considered exempted in the case of the one in i'tikaf (seclusion) by leaving his i'tikaf for them. Ibn al-Mubarak said: "There is no harm in the hired worker performing the supererogatory rak'ahs." Abu Thawr and Ibn al-Mundhir said: "He does not have the right to prevent him from them." Ahmad said: "It is permissible for a man to hire a slave woman or a free woman for service, but he should turn his face away from looking; a slave woman is not like a free woman. He may not be in seclusion with her in a house, nor look at her while she is undressed, nor at her hair." He only said this because the ruling on looking after the hiring is the same as the ruling before it, and he differentiated between the slave woman and the free woman because they are different before the hiring, so they are the same after it.

898 - Issue: He said: "And when the lessor or the lessee dies, or one of them, the rental contract remains as it is."

This is the opinion of Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ishaq, al-Batti, Abu Thawr, and Ibn al-Mundhir. Al-Thawri, the People of Opinion (Ashab al-Ra'y), and al-Layth said: The rental contract is void upon the death of one of them, because the realization of the benefit becomes impossible upon death. This is because he acquired through the contract the realization of it upon the property of the lessor, so when he dies, his ownership of the property ends and it transfers to his heirs. Therefore, the benefits occur upon the property of the heir, so the lessee is not entitled to realize them, because he did not contract with the heir. And when the lessee dies,