Section: Subsidiary issues arising from this disagreement
The Shāfiʿī jurists state:

Sub-issue
If we adopt the opinion that the contract is binding, an explicit acceptance is indispensable. If we adopt the opinion that it is merely permissible, must acceptance still be declared? There are two views on this; the authoritative view is that acceptance is not required.

Sub-issue: Is it valid to stand surety for the stake?
There are two analytical approaches:

1. If we regard the contract as binding, suretyship is valid; but if we regard it as merely permissible, the validity of the suretyship itself is disputed—two opinions.
2. Even if we regard the contract as binding, there remain two opinions, identical to those concerning the guarantee of a liability not yet due but occasioned by its cause. For the stake is never owed until victory is achieved, by unanimous agreement, whether we say the contract is permissible or binding. (1)