The sounder opinion is that it is permissible, for a precise description takes the place of direct sight and inspection. In reality this does not amount to establishing an archer as a debt obligation; it is simply a contract for an archer defined by description, just as one may lease a described asset, marry a woman so described, or sell an absent item that has been described. Indeed, this case is even more deserving of permissibility, because the exchange here is purely bilateral, unlike the ordinary archery match.

Section
If one of the two teams says to a proficient shooter among them, “You do the shooting. If we defeat them, the prize is for us and for you; but if they defeat us, the liability falls on us alone, not on you,” the agreement is valid. The team is treated as though it were a single person, and it is not a condition that every member actually shoot; once some of them shoot and win or lose, the ruling applies to the whole team. At most, that shooter functions as a muḥallil (neutral participant).

Within the Shafiʿi school there are two views (1): the first is the one just mentioned; the second deems it invalid.

If it is objected, “A muḥallil does not, when he wins, take all the stakes by himself (2) nor does he share them, whereas here he shares the prize with others,” the reply is that, by virtue of him (3), they are now regarded as a single archer (4).

Should each of the two teams make the same arrangement with one of their own members, the same two views apply.