while showing him special consideration, keeping his interests in view, exposing him only to profit, and shielding him from loss—advantages that his two companions do not enjoy. (1)

They said: Whoever reflects upon the higher aims of the Law and the wisdom and benefits it embodies will know that the matter ought by rights to be the very opposite.

They also said: A rational person does not put up a reward (juʿl) except for an act that he himself intends (2); he would never pledge it for something he dislikes. He offers it for a benefit that returns to him—such as mending his garment, building his house, or bringing back his runaway slave—or for another’s benefit, such as ransoming a captive, emancipating a slave, or enabling a woman to obtain khulʿ. These are two legitimate objectives. Thus, when an outsider provides the racing prize, he spends his money for a purpose that concerns him, namely to strengthen military readiness in the path of Allah (3). If one of the two competitors themselves puts up the stake, that too serves this purpose. How, then, can it be said that he may pledge the reward only on the condition that he be the loser—so that if he wins he gets nothing—whereas he may not pledge it when he might lose, and if he wins he would receive something?!

To clarify: when the contributor of the prize is one of the two contestants, fairness (4) demands of him that he not offer it except on two conditions:

The first: that the stake comes out of his pocket if he is defeated.