When the two bettors bring in a muḥallil who takes but never pays, their hearts are not disposed—nor do they consent—to give him any money, for he stands to gain while shouldering no liability. He is merely an outsider foisted between them: a gratuitous intruder from whose presence they reap no benefit, whereas the harm he causes them is what actually occurs (1). This feeling is well-known among competitors; they can barely tolerate such a hanger-on except with reluctance and aversion, and they deem his admission ill-advised.

They add: The natural repugnance toward him and the fact that people of sound reason do not approve his participation indicate that it is displeasing to God. Everything that is good in the sight of God and His Messenger is naturally approved (2) by people of sound disposition; their very nature attests to its goodness and to its harmony with the dictates (3) of reason—especially when its benefit is manifest.

They further contend: What demonstrates that the contract without the muḥallil is more lawful, and therefore more deserving of permissibility, than the one that includes him is that racing and archery competitions are (4) part of the broader preparation for jihad.