They further argued: Moreover, the aim of a race is only (1) instruction, training, and exercise (2) in horsemanship and archery. Its purpose is not the acquisition of wealth, as is the case in sales, leasing, or reward-based contracts, where each party intends nothing but money. Here, the Legislator’s intention in permitting this contract is the action itself, not the money. A monetary prize was sanctioned solely because it is the most effective (3) means of motivating people; for when the incentive to enter a race is the hope of prize money and victory, desire is stirred more strongly. Yet in this contract no one receives money except by way of risk-taking. It is evident that the desired objective is attained to a greater degree without the muhallil (the third participant who puts up no stake) than with him, and that the element of risk with a muhallil is the same as—if not greater than—the risk without him. This is self-evident and beyond dispute (4). Thus the muhallil stands between two possibilities: either he brings no benefit (5), or the benefit of the race is more complete without him; in either case, stipulating his presence necessarily invalidates the condition.

They also said: Furthermore, when the prize is offered by one of the two competitors, his real aim is to prevent the other from claiming it and to keep it away from him, as though he were saying, “You will never be able (6) to defeat me, and I shall prove your inability by putting up a reward for you so as to heighten your apprehension….”