the property of the lessee. The employee has no right to dispose of it; thus, he may not work for another man during that period, because that time belongs exclusively to the lessee. A shared employee, on the other hand, is not exclusive to the lessee; he has opened his door to everyone. Thus, in the case of a tailor, for example, so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so may all come to him, each wanting him to sew a garment for him.

Thus, the difference between a private employee and a shared employee is this: one whose service is assessed by time is a private employee, while one whose service is assessed by the work is a shared employee.

Another difference is that the benefit of a private employee belongs to the hirer for the duration of the lease, whereas the benefit of a shared employee does not belong to him.

Can the two be combined? That is, can I employ this man for a specific task, saying to him, for example, “I wish to hire you for five days to sew such-and-such number of garments for me”?

The answer is no, because the specific takes precedence over the general. So long as his term has been specified by time, he is a private employee, even if you have assigned him a particular task. The lease would then be invalid; this is the position of the madhhab.

The correct view, however, is that it is permissible to combine a specified period with a specified task, because this serves an interest. Some people use this in construction contracts, saying: “You are to complete this house within one year; if the year passes, a deduction of such-and-such will be made for each day.” The sound view is that this is permissible, provided that the stipulated period is reasonable—such that the house can in fact be built within that time. But if it can be built in one year and he says, “Within six months,” then this is not permissible, because it involves excessive uncertainty.