contracts that employ riba-based ruses; for every one of the parties in them is merely a borrowed figure, not the true objective of the bargain—the objective lies elsewhere. He is like a grammatical particle whose sole function is to serve the meaning of another word. It is already established with respect to the muḥallil in marriage and in the ʿīnah sale that the same prohibition applies, and it is reported about the marriage muḥallil (1) that he is “a hired billy-goat,” because he (2) is not sought for the contract itself; he is only brought in as an outsider to make lawful what Allah the Exalted has forbidden.

They say: If it is sinful for the two bettors to put up the stake, then the muḥallil’s entry to make it lawful is exactly like the marriage muḥallil—no different at all (3); and if their paying the stake becomes permissible with him, it is even more deserving of permissibility without him.

They further contend: The muḥallil must be entering either to make the activity lawful, or to make the payment lawful, or to make the consumption (4) of the stake lawful; all three alternatives are invalid.

– The invalidity of his “legalizing” the activity is obvious, for the activity itself is lawful by unanimous agreement (5).

– The invalidity of his “legalizing” the payment is just as clear, because, according to those who stipulate a muḥallil (6) for this contract, the payment is a juʿālah, and offering a reward within a juʿālah does not