of staking prizes offered by whichever contestant chooses to do so.

They say: As for your remark, “A man is not truly content to see his property consumed,” once he has willingly bound himself to give it up should he be defeated, it is lawful for the victor to take it on the basis of that voluntary undertaking, for no one compelled him to make it. It is comparable to someone who vows that if Allah returns his missing relative safely he will give so-and-so such-and-such in charity; when the condition is fulfilled, he is obliged to hand over what he pledged, and it is lawful for the other to receive it even though it was not given with wholehearted pleasure.

They add: What the Lawgiver forbade of consuming a Muslim’s wealth without his good pleasure (1) applies only when he is coerced (2) into surrendering it. But if he offers it and commits himself of his own accord, the ḥadith does not apply.

Section
• Another group held that it is permissible for only one of the two contestants to put up the stake, saying, “If you beat me, you will have such-and-such,” while it is disliked for him to say, “If I beat you, you owe me such-and-such.” Thus he may lawfully be the donor, but it is disliked for him to be the claimant.
This was the view of Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī, ʿIkrimah, the client of Ibn ʿAbbās, and a number of the pupils of ʿAbd Allāh ibn Masʿūd.

Ibrāhīm ibn Yaʿqūb al-Saʿdī stated in his book al-Mutarjam: “Abū Ṣāliḥ told us, Abū Isḥāq informed us, from al-Aʿmash, from Ibrāhīm, who said: ‘ʿAlqamah owned a gelding on which he used to wager.’ I asked Ibrāhīm, ‘How would they go about that?’”