They replied: This argument is even more binding upon the Ḥanafīs, for they permit staking a wager on questions of knowledge just as al-Ṣiddīq did when he bet on the Romans’ eventual victory; yet they also hold that a later general text abrogates an earlier specific one. Nevertheless, they have not treated the earlier, specific story of al-Ṣiddīq as abrogated by the later, general report transmitted by Abū Hurayrah: “No prize is permissible except in a camel race, a horse race, or arrow-shooting.” (1)

On this basis it could be said that the episode of al-Ṣiddīq’s wager simply does not fall under Abū Hurayrah’s ḥadīth at all; it was neither negated by it nor intended to be affirmed by it.

Accordingly, each of the two reports continues to be acted upon in its own right, for each retains its prima-facie meaning, and there is no contradiction between them. This is a sound resolution.

They continued: Here, then, is a sampling of our proofs that the presence of a third “neutral” contestant is not a condition for lawful racing wagers. If you possess anything that contradicts them, by all means present it; we stand ready to accept it if it can match these proofs, and ready to rebut it if it cannot. It is inconceivable that such proofs—indeed, even more numerous ones—should establish something invalid in the Sacred Law, something that would make permissible what Allah and His Messenger ﷺ have forbidden and assimilate gambling to the lawful, without there being clear, decisive answers to them or counter-evidences capable of standing against them. Whoever claims they are invalid must therefore produce detailed replies; otherwise, let him recognize his own limits, refrain from overstepping his station, and not