then the lease is dissolved, because the second generation receives the usufruct directly from the endower, not from the first generation. Their entitlement to the endowment ended immediately upon their death, and nothing remained for them in it. As for the case of a deceased person who leased out his own property and then died, the heirs receive ownership directly from the deceased, and the deceased had full freedom regarding his property. This view was preferred by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him.

They nevertheless said: if the lessor is the one stipulated to have supervisory authority, the lease is not dissolved—whether this stipulation comes from the endower or from the Lawgiver. For example, the endower might say, “This is an endowment for my descendants, and its administrator is so-and-so,” naming him, whether he is one of the descendants or not. If this administrator then leases out the endowment for a period and dies, the lease is unquestionably not dissolved, because he leased the endowment under a specific authority granted by the endower.

Likewise, if the administrator of this endowment is the judge—for example, where the endowment has been designated for the poor, and the judge leases it out and then dies—the lease is not dissolved, because the judge is granted supervisory authority by virtue of his general jurisdiction.

Example: A man endows this house to his son and then to his son’s children. The son leases the house for ten years and dies after five years of the lease have elapsed. The endowment then passes to the son’s child. The author holds that the lease remains in force, and that the child is entitled to his share of the rent; that is, from the time of his father’s death, he receives the rent. But according to the second view, the lease is dissolved, and the child may require the tenant to vacate the house, increase the rent, or allow him to remain