when it is his own companions—those most familiar with his ḥadith—who transmit it, and a more distant narrator comes along alone, contradicting them. Would you not concede that those companions know his ḥadith better than this solitary, anomalous transmitter?!
Section
They say, “That is our answer to the ḥadith from the angle of its chain.”
As for the answer from the angle of its meaning, we will meet you halfway (1), concede that the ḥadith is sound, and then show that it provides you with no proof whatsoever for stipulating the muhallil (the ‘neutral’ participant who is supposed to make the wager lawful) in the manner you have described. Its wording does not establish that requirement—indeed, it does not even establish its permissibility. For there are four opinions under which a participant might be deemed a muhallil:
- that the two original competitors both put up the stake;
- that he himself puts up nothing;
- that the competitors be three or more in number;
- that if he wins he takes the prize, but if he is beaten he pays nothing (2).
By Allah—how astonishing! From where in the ḥadith can any of these points be extracted?!