Third: The very foundation of this contract, when both contestants put up a stake, is justice, and justice means that each (1) of the two racers enjoys no advantage over the other: if he comes in first, he takes the prize; if he comes in behind, he pays. Now, if the muhallil takes nothing when he wins yet is made to pay when he loses, such an arrangement is hardly just.

It is as though the advocate of this view (2) is assuming that the purpose of introducing a muhallil is simply to render the wager lawful for the others, not for himself—as the majority have asserted—and that, for this reason, he must not take anything from either of them. For were he to collect upon winning he would no longer be a muhallil but merely one of the two parties. Yet, just as it would be permissible for him to collect if he wins, it would likewise be permissible for him to pay if he loses; in that case one could simply have him put up a stake along with them and thus step out of the role of muhallil altogether. Otherwise, how can he be required to pay when he loses while being barred from collecting when he wins?

The proponent of that position might counter: “You yourselves say that if the muhallil wins he takes the prize, and if he loses he is exempt from payment, and you do not regard this as injustice; you make it a special privilege of the muhallil so that he is distinguished from the two stakers. He either gains, or at the very least emerges unscathed although defeated, whereas either staker, even when beaten, must pay. On what basis, then, do you denounce the one who adopts the opposite view (3)? His distinctive feature, he contends, is that the muhallil must pay when he comes in behind and never gains when he wins; for were he to gain he would cease to be a muhallil. If the distinctive quality of the muhallil is that he is never placed in a position where he both stands to gain and to pay, what difference is there between