Thus ʿUmar judged it to be gambling because both men had put up stakes; had only one of them done so he would not have said they were “gambling,” for gambling exists only when there are two parties.

Section
Fifth proof: al-Bukhārī relates in his Ṣaḥīḥ (1) on the authority of Salama ibn al-Akwaʿ: “The Prophet ﷺ passed by a group of men from the tribe of Aslam who were competing with their bows in the marketplace. He said, ‘Shoot, O sons of Ishmael, for your forefather was an archer. Shoot, and I am with the clan of so-and-so.’ One of the two teams then stopped shooting. The Prophet ﷺ asked, ‘Why are you not shooting?’ They replied, ‘How can we shoot while you are with them?’ He said, ‘Shoot, for I am with all of you.’”

They say: He could not be “with” both sides unless he was acting as a muḥallil (a neutral third entrant); otherwise he would have been aligned with only one of them.

Section
Sixth proof: If both contestants put up their stakes and there is no muḥallil, the arrangement is gambling and therefore forbidden, because each of them is left suspended between either profiting or