Fourth: The prize must be precisely known, for it is property involved in a contract, and the Sharia requires that such property be specified just as it is in every other contract.
Fifth: The transaction must be free of the taint of gambling. This is achieved when the stake is offered by only one party; if both contestants put up money, the contest is impermissible unless a third rider—the muḥallil, who contributes nothing—joins the race.
2 – Ibn al-Qayyim, discussing this fifth condition in his book al-Furūsiyyah, writes:
“This condition has no basis in the Sacred Law. I do not know of any Companion who required a muḥallil. As for the wording, ‘Whoever brings a horse between two horses,’ it is not a statement of the Prophet ﷺ but of Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyib. Permitting the race without a muḥallil is what is implied by the report from Abū ʿUbaydah ibn al-Jarrāḥ. Even if the report were authentic, its wording shows that when two people race and a third joins them, if he is certain he will beat them the contest is gambling, because he has entered knowingly to take their money. But if he joins without being sure of victory—hoping for what they hope for and fearing what they fear, like either of them—then taking their stake is not gambling.”
3 – If the prize money comes from the ruler, from someone who is not taking part in the race, or from only one of the two competitors, it is permissible for it to be offered and for the winner to accept it. If both contestants provide the stake, the earlier difference of opinion applies, and the stronger view is that it is permissible without a muḥallil.
4 – Dr. ʿUmar al-Ashqar states: “What Ibn al-Qayyim said is correct, because the hadith invoked to justify this stipulation is not authentic, and because each competitor putting up a stake equal to that of his opponent is closer to fairness.”
I say: Al-Albānī likewise graded the hadith weak in Irwāʾ al-Ghalīl.
5 – Shaykh ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Saʿdī says: “The sound position is that racing on horses, camels, and in archery with prize money is permissible, even if both competitors contribute the stake, and that a muḥallil is not required. Their rationale—that the condition is needed to remove the resemblance to gambling—is an argument that…"