in a better position than his two companions who were actually meant by the contract, though the matter (1) ought surely to be the very opposite. Giving priority to the interests of the two stake-givers for whom the contract was drawn up is more entitled to consideration than safeguarding the position of this muhallil, who was neither intended nor has he put anything forward. The muhallil enjoys benefit in two possible outcomes and remains safe in the third, whereas each of the other two gains in only one scenario and loses in the other. Thus he ends up better off than they are, while upon them devolve (2) the harm, the scant profit, and the intrusion of a third party who consumes (3) their wealth—losses from which the muhallil, an unintended interloper, is completely exempt. You have therefore assigned the harm to the very contestants whom the Prophet ﷺ encouraged to take up riding and archery, and reserved the removal of that harm and the added benefit for this gratuitous borrower who was never intended.

They said: This entails two points:

First, that such a contract departs from fairness, the pivot on which all contracts turn. How could the Wise Lawgiver legislate in contractual matters something that conflicts with justice, while forbidding what justice itself demands?

Second, that the one who yearns to perform a deed beloved to Allah and His Messenger—seeking to practice archery and riding so as to ready himself for jihad—is placed in a (4) worse position than this outsider who has put up nothing and entered merely on loan, yet you have granted him preferential consideration.