And if it is said that the prize becomes lawful to him only because he put up no stake, we reply: if the award(1) is deemed lawful for him despite his not contributing, then it is even more deserving—indeed more obvious—that it be lawful for the one who did contribute; for the contributor’s payment is an additional act of kindness and virtue. Such beneficence ought not to become a cause for his deprivation, while another man’s refusal to contribute becomes the means for taking and enjoying the prize. How then,(2) can it be forbidden to the benevolent contributor yet permissible to the outsider who offered nothing? Does the revealed Law—and yes,(3) both reason and sound analogy—indicate anything but the very opposite?

They further contend: once the muḥallil enters,(4) one of three statements must be true: either the element of risk that necessitated prohibition has disappeared,(5) or it remains unchanged, or it has increased.

The first is impossible, for the risk was formerly between two parties and has now become shared among three, as explained earlier. The second entails that the muḥallil’s presence is not required at all. The third entails that the contract is invalid. This is plain and needs no reflection.

They also say: moreover, each of the two contestants, without the muḥallil, expected that he might forfeit his own stake