; but when either of them—or anything comparable—is undertaken with the aim of supporting Islam, it becomes an act of obedience, and taking the prize in that case is taking it by right, not by falsehood.

The foundational rule concerning wealth is that it may be consumed only lawfully; it must not be consumed wrongfully (1), that is, in a way that yields no sound benefit.

In the hadith of Rukānah, one of its chains states explicitly that the wager was posted by both contestants and that there was no muhallil (2); the other chain (3) does not contradict this. Indeed, it has never been the custom of the Arabs—or of any other people, even to this day—for only one of the competitors to put up the stake (4). What is universally known among people is that the wager comes from both sides, and it is ingrained in their very nature and instinct that a stake from only one side is gambling and therefore forbidden. People naturally look down on the one who offers nothing, despise him, and regard him as a miserly, tight-fisted, contemptible fellow.

What further shows that the wager in this story was from both sides is that, when the Prophet ﷺ defeated Rukānah and took a sheep from him, Rukānah asked to wrestle again—his sole motive being to win back the sheep. He had no desire to risk losing a second or a third animal. Had the staking been on Rukānah’s side alone, he would have had no way to recover (5) the sheep he had already lost: if he were defeated, he would forfeit yet another sheep, and if he prevailed, he would gain nothing. In such a situation he would never have sought to return to a contest in which he was inevitably the one who had to pay.