And on this basis, if one of the two contestants crosses the line first, the muhallil follows him, and the third comes in last, then—according to the first two opinions—the winner lays claim to both stakes by virtue of his victory, whereas according to the position now under discussion, the third’s stake goes to the muhallil; for he entered only so that he himself might lawfully claim the stake, and he has indeed outpaced the third.

Section

• Another group said: When the two contestants each put up a stake, the race is not valid without a muhallil; however, if the muhallil beats them both, he takes nothing from either of them, and if they both beat him, he must pay them.
  This is a reported view within the Hanafi school. Ibn Baldaji cites it in his Sharh Mukhtār al-Fatwā, stating in the chapter on the muhallil (1): “It has been said regarding the muhallil: if they both beat him, he pays them, and if he beats them both, he takes nothing from them.” He then adds, “This view is also permissible.”
  Such are the commentator’s exact words, and Ibn al-Saʿātī likewise records them in his commentary on his Majmaʿ al-Baḥrayn (2).
  This arrangement is highly problematic and contravenes foundational principles on several counts:
  First: he must pay when he loses, yet he gains nothing when he wins.
  Second: he is made liable when no liability truly attaches to him; and were he to put up a stake himself, he would cease to be a muhallil and the contract would need another muhallil in his place.