he comes in as a taker who gives nothing; then if his taking of the prize in this manner is a rightful taking, the taking of one who both gives and receives is even more rightful. How, then, can it be said that a man who takes without giving deserves the prize, while a man who both gives and takes does not, when their exertion is identical?!

They also say: Further, when the two contestants put up their stakes together, the consumption of that wealth is either lawful or unlawful. If it is lawful, the muḥallil is unnecessary; and if it is unlawful, the mere arrival of the muḥallil cannot render it lawful, for the muḥallil has not removed the very cause that made taking the money (1) without him wrongful, as has already been shown.

They further argue: If the muḥallil finishes first along with one of them, you must either say that the muḥallil alone receives the prize or that he shares it with the other winner.

The first option is impossible, for both crossed the finish line together and exerted equal effort; awarding the whole prize to the muḥallil when their claims are identical is sheer injustice.

If you say instead that they share it, you are driven into the very dilemma you fled from; for every objection you raised in the case where there is no muḥallil stands here unchanged. When two men outstrip a third, they are equivalent to a single man who outstrips another, and therefore they share in his stake. If there is no objection to this arrangement, then the arrangement you forbade carries no objection either; and if the forbidden arrangement is objectionable, the same objection applies here without distinction. Should you claim that some difference exists, present it to us, for we are ready to accept it if