his being made to oscillate between a state in which he profits and remains safe, or one in which he pays and remains safe?! Just as you spared him all liability when he is outpaced, so that he might stand apart from the two contestants, we have barred him from any profit when he outruns them, for precisely the same reason.

Accordingly, this view is the inverse of yours in meaning, yet identical to it in rationale; and every objection you advance against us when he wins and takes nothing, we advance against you when he loses and pays nothing.

They continue: The ḥadith contains nothing that necessitates this view, nor yours, nor anything that (1) invalidates either of the two positions, so you cannot use it to refute our stance. What remains (2) is to determine which of the two opinions is nearer to taking the contract out of the realm of gambling—assuming, that is, that the presence of a muhallil does in fact remove it from gambling.

As for the ruling on the muhallil himself, it is unrelated to the ḥadith, save that he must be their equal (3) in archery and riding, and that he is secure only if he outstrips them.

Section

Those who deny the intrusive muhallil say: Observe these divergent opinions and approaches, their disagreements over the muhallil, how they clash with and contradict one another. The unsoundness of the derivative rulings and their necessary consequences points to the unsoundness of the underlying principle itself; and whatever is not from Allah is inevitably marked by much disagreement,