The author of al-Jawāhir (1) states: “This is the view most widely attributed to him.”

The second opinion is that of those who allow it on the condition that a muḥallil is present; this is the position whose proponent we have just mentioned.
As for permitting both contestants to stake money without a muḥallil, we know of no followed imam who has ever held that view.

They add: As for your evidence from the wording, “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ wagered,” and from the claim that the term murāhana follows the mufāʿalah pattern whose literal sense demands two parties, that reasoning does not bind us. People likewise say: sāfara (so-and-so set out on a journey), ʿāqaba (he punished) the thief, or ṭāriqa (he repaired) the sandal—and that, may Allah grant you well-being, is sufficient.

As for the purely conceptual arguments (2):
All the rational considerations and corollaries you have advanced we reject with a single response: their premises are unsound, for they conflict with the texts we cited that establish the necessity of a muḥallil (3). There is therefore no need to answer each one individually.

This is the utmost to which that group has clung, the limit of their investigation and proof.
They conclude (4): It has become clear that we have the stronger claim to the legal proofs—both their transmitted wording and their deeper meanings.