—a principle whose invalidity has already become clear.

If, however, one of the two stake-givers wins while the other finishes in a dead heat with the muhallil, the muhallil goes away empty-handed, the winner keeps his own stake, and—concerning his right to his companion’s stake—the same two opinions remain. (1)

Let the discerning reader reflect on the corruption and contradiction embedded in these derivative rulings (2), for they arose solely from the requirement that a muhallil be present; they are inseparable from that premise, and the unsoundness of the consequence proves the unsoundness of the premise.

When some of those who upheld the muhallil condition noticed the flaw in these rulings, they proposed: “If the muhallil wins, he receives nothing, but if he is beaten, he must pay.” Certain Ḥanafīs have mentioned this, and it is cited by Ibn al-Saʿātī in his Commentary on Majmaʿ al-Baḥrayn and by Ibn Baldajī in his Commentary on al-Mukhtār. (3)

So contemplate this wide disparity and blatant disagreement regarding this foreign, borrowed element. Whatever truly comes from Allah is never afflicted by such glaring contradiction and abundant divergence: “Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would surely have found in it much inconsistency” (4:82). Weigh these discordant branches and the conflicting opinions attached to them against the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ, and the principles, axioms, wisdoms, and benefits of the Sharia. Submit them to the evidence; do not make the evidence submit to them—testing the proofs against these rulings only to reject the proofs when they do not conform—as is the habit of many whose share of knowledge is scant.