depend on a muḥallil, whether he comes from one side or from both, for at most the contract is a juʿālah offered by each party, and its lawfulness is in no way contingent upon a muḥallil—just as if each of the two men (1) had a runaway slave and each said to the other, “If you bring my slave back, you shall have ten coins.” In their view, putting up the prize money is exactly like (2) that case; they class it among juʿālah agreements.

As for claiming that his presence makes the stake permissible, that, too, is invalid (3). If eating the stake is forbidden without the muḥallil, it remains forbidden after he enters the contract, for he has no power to render lawful what is unlawful for both parties. And if it is not forbidden by the very entry (4) of the muḥallil, then it was never forbidden without him; his participation has no effect on their transaction or on removing the element of risk in their agreement. If his entry does not harm them, it certainly does not benefit them.

They further argue: Allah, Exalted be He, has forbidden maysir in His Book just as He has forbidden wine. Maysir is gambling, and its prohibition must be either because of the activity itself, or because it involves consuming wealth (5) unlawfully, or because of the combination of both. There is no fourth alternative.

Whichever reason applies, none of them exists in the disputed contract; it is free of all three. Competitive contests in the Sacred Law fall into three categories: