—or by what line of reasoning, what wisdom, what conceivable interest (1) could possibly oblige this?

• They said: Rather, the entry of the muhallil between them harms them and brings them no benefit; it adds nothing but loss. If he outstrips them he eats up their money, whereas if they outstrip him they take nothing from him. But if they do not bring him in, then whichever (2) of the two beats the other takes his stake, and if neither outsprints the other each one keeps his own property. This is more equitable, for the victor gains by his effort while the defeated party pays because he risked his money against whoever might best him. As for the muhallil, if he wins he profits, and if he loses he walks away unscathed, whereas the one who put up the stake, if he loses, must pay.

• They said: Therefore, sound analogy requires that the contract is invalidated by the presence of the muhallil.

• They said: Moreover, in your own view the muhallil is contrary to analogy; you have only tolerated him out of necessity, so much so that Abu al-Hasan al-Amidi (3) said, “It is not permissible to have more than one muhallil, even if the competitors were a hundred.”

• They said: The need is satisfied by that single muhallil; and had this muhallil been truly intended and the contract produced a benefit through him, it would not be contrary to analogy—he would be like one of the two parties.

• They said: It is well-known that the muhallil is not the object of the contract; the intended parties are his two companions. Yet you have treated the muhallil, who was never meant by this (4) agreement,