He explains that the question has three possible configurations, sets them out, and then records eight different opinions on how the stake is to be offered, assigning each position to the scholar who held it. For every view he cites the proof and underlying rationale, and—more often than not—follows this with a critical assessment of the argument and the objections that may be levelled against its evidence.

He concludes with the words of those who deny the need for the outside “third competitor” (al-muḥallil al-dakhīl): “Reflect on these opinions and methods and their divergence concerning the muḥallil; notice how some collide with others and some contradict the rest. The unsoundness of the secondary rulings and their concomitants points to the unsoundness of the root ruling itself. Anything that does not come from Allah is bound to contain much discrepancy….” He then adds, “We say, as Jābir ibn Zayd said, that they were more learned than this.”

• Next he opens a chapter arguing that this is a contract in its own right.
• He then refutes its classification as a lease contract (ijarah) on ten separate grounds.
• This is followed by a refutation of its being treated as a juʿālah contract (1) on four grounds.
• He further rejects its inclusion under vows of devotion on ten grounds.
• He raises—and then dismisses—the possibility that it belongs to the category of vows made in obstinacy or anger.
• The chapter ends by disproving its classification as a mere promise or charitable donation, again on four grounds.

• After that he devotes a chapter to the question: is a wagering contract irrevocably binding (lāzim) or is it a revocable, non-binding agreement (jāʾiz)?