First: the contestant who would ordinarily come out ahead (1) may likewise walk away unscathed, neither defeating nor being defeated.

Second: the very possibility of this third outcome does not remove the element of risk; what was a gamble between two alternatives has simply become a gamble among three.

They also said: Moreover, when only one party puts up the stake, the person who receives the money under this contract takes it in a way that Allah and His Messenger love—namely, by learning the skills that He loves: archery, accurate shooting, and horsemanship. When both parties contribute the stake, each is either helping or being helped to attain this pursuit that is pleasing to Allah, so each of them receives the money by the same avenue as his companion. The ground for taking the money is one and the same. Therefore, if taking it is forbidden when they both contribute, it must also be forbidden when only one contributes; and if it is permissible when one contributes, it must necessarily be permissible when they both do. There is no distinction between the two cases that would justify declaring one of them merely lawful—indeed, recommended and beloved to Allah and His Messenger—while branding the other gambling and games of chance, which Allah and His Messenger detest!

By Allah, how astonishing! What sense, what wisdom could draw so sharp a line between two cases that are full brothers?

They further said: What usually happens is that the winner takes the money only by virtue of his victory, and this rationale