Al-Furūsiyya - Ibn al-Qayyim - (الكتاب/277)

and it was likewise the preference of Abū ʿAlī ibn Khayrān among the Shāfiʿīs, while Abū l-Maʿālī al-Juwaynī even cites it as an opinion attributed to al-Shāfiʿī himself.

According to this view, if one of the two stake-providers finishes first, the second comes in after him, and the muhallil arrives third, the winner claims only his own stake and not the other man’s stake; he does not acquire it, because the muhallil did not enter on the latter’s behalf—he entered solely to render the prize lawful for himself—and the muhallil does not acquire it either, for he did not win. Thus, the money remains the property of its original owner.(1)(2)(3)

This is unsound; for that owner has been outpaced—how, then, can his money remain intact when he has lost? What benefit, moreover, reaches the victor? How is it that if he is beaten his money is taken, yet when he beats his companion he does not take his companion’s money?(4)

Likewise, if the muhallil and one of the two stake-providers outpace the third, the one who finishes first takes only his own stake, while the other stake, according to them, goes exclusively to the muhallil, since he entered only to make the prize lawful for himself should he come in ahead—and he has indeed beaten the third.

This, too, is defective; for the first contestant has likewise beaten that second one, and he and the muhallil have jointly outstripped him. How, then, can the muhallil take that stake alone when both he and the first contestant shared in defeating him? It is obvious that such a result does not follow from the contract or from the stipulated condition,(5)

(1) The passage from the words “ahadihima” (one of them) up to “sabaq” (what preceded) is supplied from manuscript Z. (2) Manuscript M reads “li-ann” (because), whereas H reads “fa-innahu la yujawwizu; li-anna al-muhallil” (for he does not deem it permissible, because the muhallil…). (3) Manuscript M has “la yujawwizu lil-muhallil” (he does not permit it for the muhallil), while H has “wa-la yujawwizu al-muhallil” (nor does the muhallil permit it). (4) Manuscript M reads “li-ann” (because), whereas H reads “fa-innahu” (for he). (5) Sourced from manuscript Z.

واختيار أبي علي بن خَيْرَان من الشافعية، وحكاه أبو المَعَالي الجُوَيْنِي قولًا للشافعي. وعلى قول هؤلاء إذا سبق أحدهما ثم جاء الآخر بعده ثم المحلل أحرز السابق سبق (١) نفسه خاصة دون سبق الآخر؛ فإنه لا يحرزه؛ فإن (٢) المحلِّل لم يدخل لأجله هو، وإنما دخل ليحلَّ السبق لنفسه، ولا يحرزه المحلِّل (٣) أيضًا؛ لأنه لم يسبق، فيبقى على ملك صاحبه. وهذا فاسد، فإن (٤) صاحبه مَسْبُوق، فكيف يَسْلَم وهو مسبوق؟! وأي فائدة حصلت للسابق؟! وكيف يُؤخذ ماله إن غُلِب، ولا يأخُذُ مالَ صاحبه إن غَلَبَه؟! فإن سبق المحلَّل وأحد المخرِجين للثالث، أحرز السابق سَبَق نفسه، وكان سَبَق الآخر للمحلِّل وحده عند هؤلاء؛ لأنه إنما دخل ليحلَّ السبق لنفسه إذا جاء سابقًا، وقد سبق الثالث. وهذا فاسد أيضًا، فإن الأول قد سبق هذا الآخر أيضًا، واشترك هو والمحلِّل في سبقه، فكيف ينفردُ المحلِّل بسبقه مع اشتراكه هو والأول في سبقه؟! ومعلومٌ أن هذا ليس من (٥) موجب العقد والشرط، ولا

(١) من قوله (أحدهما) إلى (سبق) من (ظ). (٢) في (مط) (لأن)، وفي (ح) (فإنه لا يجوزه؛ لأن المحلل). (٣) في (مط) (لا يجوزه للمحلل)، وفي (ح) (ولا يجوزه المحلل). (٤) في (مط) (لأن)، وفي (ح) (فإنه). (٥) من (ظ).