then the muhallil has only reinforced (1) that gambling, strengthened it, and fixed it in place; his presence (2) does not remove the agreement from being gambling, in either form or substance. After lengthy reflection, no observer (3) can discover any reason why the contract should cease to be an unlawful consumption of wealth, or how it could be transformed from a wager and game of chance into a juʿālah or hire contract—­as though, by his mere addition, the wine of this transaction had been turned into vinegar and its prohibition rendered lawful!

Has the just Sharia ever distinguished between two identical things without a differentiating factor (4) between them, or joined two opposites? Has it ever forbidden an act for a given cause, then permitted it while that very cause remains—or even increases—without an overriding benefit to counterbalance it?

And what has this borrowed intruder added to the agreement except further harm? He has only increased the risk, stirred the competitors’ aversion to it, devoured their money while feeding them nothing—though their welfare is the very matter under consideration. As for him, he is either safe or a winner: if he loses, he is untouched; if he wins, he profits. The one who has staked his own money—wealth bound to his very liver, the twin of his soul (5)—loses and must pay if he is defeated, and when he defeats his opponent the muhallil will not let him rejoice in his victory; rather, he takes a share of the prize, provided he has equaled him in outstripping the other competitor (6).