So by which of the three recognized modes of textual indication(1) can any of this be inferred? For what the wording of the ḥadith actually conveys is that when two people race(2) and a third comes along and joins them, then: if he is certain in himself that he will outrun them, the transaction is gambling, because he has entered knowing full well that he will take their money; whereas if he joins them without being sure of winning—hoping for what they hope for and fearing what they fear—he is simply one of them, and his taking of the stake, should he beat them,(3)(4) is not gambling. Contracts are built on fairness: when all parties are equal in hope and fear, in potential gain and potential loss, that is the justice that sets the heart at ease. But when one party enjoys an exclusive advantage in profit or liability, or is certain of outstripping his two companions because of his own strength and their weakness, the arrangement is no longer just and people’s hearts will not find comfort in such a contest.

As for making it a condition that an outsider-for-hire—that is, a partner in profit yet free of any loss—be included, we have already explained that the ḥadith(5) does not require this in any respect. At most, if the ḥadith points to the muhallil at all, it only indicates that should a muhallil join, then it is a condition that he be of this description; it does not show that his participation is itself required, nor that he must necessarily possess these features.(6)