because there is no disagreement among all scholars that, if a man promises another man a specific gift from his wealth and then does not give him anything, the judge will not compel him to hand it over (1).

He then raised an objection against himself, saying:

“If it is asked: ‘Why did the Prophet ﷺ single out the permissibility of prize money in the particular events in which he allowed it, when what is being paid creates no binding obligation upon the giver’s property—and when gifts, after all, are lawful both for competitions and for other situations?’ ”

He answered:

“The Prophet’s special permission for prize money in those specified contests was not meant to make the stake itself compulsory; rather, it was granted because the activity is a permitted form of recreation, unlike other diversions (2). It was not intended to render the competitor who pledged the prize unconditionally liable to fulfil his promise.”

The proof for this view is that putting up money for a contest is a voluntary donation—like any promise—so fulfilling it is recommended, not obligatory. The donor is not offering it in exchange for something; no counter-value comes back to him for the money he gives. It is simply a gift and a voluntary contribution to whoever wins, just as one might promise a sum of money to the first person who memorises a surah or a chapter of jurisprudence.

They therefore say: Voluntary donations are encouraged to be fulfilled, but they cannot be enforced by the courts.

If it is then objected to these scholars that the Prophet ﷺ confined the concession to the three types just mentioned—