The Islamic Personality by Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī

The employee is divided into the specific (khaas) and the common (aam). The specific employee is the one who works for some one specifically or more in periodic work with specification i.e. he is the one assigned exclusively to the employer alone and is prevented from working for anyone else throughout the period of hiring. For example if one person or more hires a cook to cook for him specifically together with specifying the period, this cook is a specific employee. The common employee is the one who does not work constantly or works temporarily without stipulating specification upon himself i.e. he is the one not assigned exclusively to the employer. Rather it is permitted for him to work for other than the employer. If he were to hire an carpenter of house furniture without stipulating upon him that he should not upholster for another, then he is a common employee whether he was in your house or in his place and whether a time for upholstery was specified for him or not.

The specific employee deserves the wage by delivering himself in the period to discharge what he is charged with together with his capability in the work, whether he performed the work or not. His deservance of the wage is according to the period not according to the work. Therefore it is required from him not to work in the period of the hiring for other than his employer. If he worked for someone else, his wage is reduced in proportion to his work. The common employee deserves the wage upon the exact work like sewing, carpentry, painting; sailor etc. His deserving the wage is according to the work not according to the period.

The difference between the specific employee and the common employee in relation to the guarantee is that the specific employee is guaranteed so if something is destroyed in his hands accidentally and without his fault and negligence, there is no responsibility upon him. As for the common employee, either he destroys something by his action or not. If something is destroyed by his action he guarantees it whether he destroyed it deliberately or not. If something is destroyed without his action, it is considered. If it is something which is not possible to safeguard against, he is not responsible. Whereas if it is possible to safeguard against and he was not safeguarding, he is responsible. This is because the thing, in which the specific employee works, even if it is under his hand, is under the disposal of the employer not under the employee’s disposal. Accordingly his hand is the hand of the trustee contrary to the common employee where the thing he is working with is under his disposal i.e. under the employee’s disposal not under the employer’s disposal. Accordingly his hand is not the hand of the trustee but rather the hand of a disposer.

The difference between the two in relation to deserving the wage is that the specific employee deserves the wage if it is the hiring period and he is present for work, and his actual work is not a condition. The common employee does not deserve the wage except by work. The hiring period for the specific employee is either specified in the contract or unspecified. If it is not specified, the contract is invalid due to its ignorance. Each one of the two contractors may invalidate it at any time they wish, and for the employee is the comparable wage for the period of his service. If it is specified in the contract, and the employer invalidates the hiring before the end of the period and there is no excuse or defect in the employee obliging the invalidation like his illness or weakness in work, it is obliged upon the employer to pay the employee his wage to the completion of the period whether the employee was a servant or a farm worker or other than that. However if he invalidated the hiring due to an excuse or defect appearing in the employee obliging the invalidation, there is nothing upon him in paying the wage except till the time when the hiring was invalid