The difference between the two is that, with respect to the appointing authority, this is one of the general contracts, since he acts therein as the representative of the entire community. Thus, the consideration of what is most beneficial is observed in granting him discretion. With respect to the appointee, however, it is one of the private contracts, since he enters into it on his own behalf; consequently, the rule of bindingness applies, and he may be compelled to continue in the office. If his remuneration is not specified in a manner valid under the law of wages, he is not bound by the term and may leave the office whenever he wishes, provided that he reports to his appointing authority when he leaves, so that the office is not left without someone to oversee it.

The second case is that the term is measured by the work itself. Thus, the appointing authority may say, “I appoint you to administer the kharaj of such-and-such district this year,” or, “I appoint you to administer the zakat revenues of such-and-such town this year.” In this case, the term of his authority is determined by the completion of his work. Once he completes it, his appointment ends. Before he completes it, however, the appointing authority may dismiss him, as we have explained; and his resignation depends on whether the remuneration is valid or invalid.

The third case is that the appointment is unrestricted, being defined neither by a period nor by a particular task. Thus, he may say, “I appoint you to administer the kharaj of Kufa, the tithes of Basra, or the protection of Baghdad.” This is a valid appointment even though its duration is unknown, because its purpose is to authorize the exercise of authority, not to establish the binding obligation recognized in contracts of hire.

Once the appointment is valid and the exercise of authority is authorized, his position will be one of two kinds: either continuing or intermittent. If it is continuing—such as authority over revenue collection, the judiciary, and the rights pertaining to mineral resources—his authority remains valid year after year unless he is dismissed.

If it is intermittent, there are two types. The first is that it is not customarily repeated every year, such as appointing someone to divide war booty. He is dismissed once he has completed that task and has no authority to oversee the division of any other booty.

The second type is that it recurs every year, such as the kharaj, which, once collected in one year, recurs in the following year. In such a case, is his appointment restricted to administering the current year, or does it extend to every year unless he is dismissed?

It may be held that his authority is restricted to the year in which he is serving. Once he has collected the kharaj or taken the tithes, his appointment ends, and he may not exercise authority in the following year except by virtue of a new appointment, since the designation is to be construed narrowly.

It may also be held that his authority extends to each year unless he is dismissed, on the basis of custom.

Chapter Five: The Remuneration of an Official for His Office

This is subject to three possible situations: first, that a known amount is specified; second, that an unknown amount is specified; and third, that neither a known nor an unknown amount is specified. If a known amount is specified, he is entitled to that amount when he fulfills the duties of the office properly. If he falls short in performing them, the extent of his shortcoming is taken into account. If the shortcoming consists in leaving part of the work undone, he is not entitled to the remuneration corresponding to that part. If it is due to treachery on his part despite his completing the work, he receives his full remuneration, while whatever he misappropriated is recovered from him.