Al-Furūsiyya - Ibn al-Qayyim - (الكتاب/97)

And the term rihān is built on the morphological pattern fiʿāl, which in Arabic implies that payment should come from both sides. Because of this, the Prophet ﷺ invalidated, in the wagering contract, the participation of the jalab and the janab, yet he did not invalidate the two parties’ (1) joint contribution of the stake (sabq), even though clarifying (2) its ruling is far more important than clarifying the matter of the jalab and the janab by a wide margin.

They say: “If having the two contestants pay the consideration were forbidden and amounted to gambling, the involvement of a muḥallil (third-party ‘legalizer’) would not make it lawful; for this muḥallil cannot render lawful a stake that Allah the Exalted and His Messenger ﷺ have forbidden, nor is the harm inherent in paying it removed by his inclusion—indeed, it only grows, as we shall explain. Thus, if the contract without him is gambling, then with his inclusion (3) it is still gambling, because the very factor that—according to you—(4) makes it gambling when both parties pay remains fully operative when the muḥallil takes part. How, then, can the contract be gambling in one scenario yet lawful in the other when the identical rationale is present in both?

Nor do you offer any distinction; and if you did, (5) that distinction would show that the contract without him entails less risk and is closer to validity, as we shall mention, God willing.

They further claim: “The muḥallil’s entry into this contract is just like the muḥallil who intervenes for a woman divorced three times, or the muḥallil inserted into a buy-back (ʿīnah) sale and similar transactions…"

(1) Manuscript Ẓ reads “ishtiratahima” (their stipulation), while manuscript Ḥ reads “wa la yubṭil is̆tirākahuma” (and their joint participation is not invalidated). (2) This wording is absent from manuscripts Ḥ and Maṭ. (3) The segment from “bal tazīd” (rather, it increases) to “bidukhūlihi” (by his entering) is supplied from manuscript Ẓ; in Maṭ, the word “qimār” (gambling) is missing from the phrase “ayḍan qimār” (also gambling). (4) Omitted in manuscripts Ḥ and Maṭ. (5) Manuscript Ẓ reads “dhālik” (that).

والرِّهان على وزن فِعال، وهو يقتضي أن يكون من الجانبين، فأبطل النبي ﷺ في عقد الرهان الجَلَبَ والجَنَب، ولم يبطل اشتراكهما (١) في بَذْل السْبَق، مع أن بيان (٢) حكمه أهمُّ من بيان الجلب والجنب بكثير. * قالوا: ولو كان إخراج العِوَض من المتراهنين حرامًا، وهو قمار؛ لما حلَّ بالمحلِّل؛ فإن هذا المحلِّل لا يُحِلُّ السَّبَق الذي حرَّمه الله تعالى ورسوله ﷺ، ولا تزول المفسدة التي في إخراجها بدخوله، بل تزيد كما سنبيّنه، فإنْ كان العقد بدونه قمارًا فهو بدخوله (٣) أيضًا قمار، إذ المعنى الذي جعلتموه لأجله (٤) قمارًا إذا اشتركا في الإخراج، هو بعينه قائم مع دخول المحلِّل، فكيف يكون العقد قمارًا في إحدى الصورتين، وحلالًا في الأخرى، مع قيام المعنى بعينه؟! ولا تذكرون فرقًا؛ إلا كان (٥) الفرقُ مقتضيًا لأن يكون العقد بدونه أقلَّ خطرًا، وأقرب إلى الصحة، كما سنذكره إن شاء الله تعالى. * قالوا: ودخول المحلِّل في هذا العقد كدخول المحلِّل في النكاح للمطلِّق ثلاثًا، وكدخول المحلِّل في عقد العِيْنَة ونحوها من

(١) في (ظ) (اشتراطهما)، وفي (ح) (ولا يبطل اشتراكهما). (٢) ليس في (ح، مط). (٣) من قوله (بل تزيد) إلى (بدخوله) من (ظ)، وسقط من (مط) (قمار) من قوله (أيضًا قمار). (٤) سقط من (ح، مط). (٥) في (ظ) (ذلك).