nor from the dictates of the Sharia. The legal implications of contracts are gleaned at times from the Lawgiver and at other times from the contracting parties, yet this outcome has been derived from neither.

If the muhallil comes in first, followed by one of the two stake-providers and then the third, the muhallil takes both stakes according to the two earlier views, and this is the correct position.

Another group (1) of the Shafiʿis said: the stake of the third is to be divided equally between the muhallil and the second, while the stake of the second is the sole right of the muhallil (2); for, they argue, since the muhallil and the second together outpaced the third, they should share his stake, whereas the muhallil alone outpaced the second, so that stake belongs to him alone (3).

This, too, is a misunderstanding (4), for the muhallil has outstripped them both, while the second has himself been outstripped—so how can a beaten contestant (5) share with the victor? Their claim that “he and the muhallil jointly outpaced the third” is not accepted: the victory secured by the first was shared with no one; he attained it on his own. The second’s precedence is nullified by the first’s; the second’s precedence is qualified, whereas the first’s is absolute—he alone is the true victor.