Al-Shāfiʿī has two opinions (1); what has just been mentioned is one of them.

The second opinion is that the matter must be expressly stated in the contract.

If the parties also have a settled custom regarding who shoots first, the contract is interpreted in line with that custom unless they stipulate the contrary.

Should they stipulate that a particular person is to open every volley (rashq), then that person is the one appointed. If they merely appoint him without adding “for every volley,” two possibilities arise. One is that he is deemed the starter for all the volleys, for once they have named him and no one else, it is understood that they intended him to begin every round. The other is that he is appointed only for the first volley, after which they cast a new lot for the remaining volleys; for his appointment was unrestricted, not general, and an unrestricted designation is satisfied by a single instance. Both interpretations are acknowledged within the Shāfiʿī school.

A third view, exceedingly remote, is also reported from them: that they must draw lots before each and every volley. The lengthiness, hardship, and the chilling of the archers’ hands entailed by this render the view unacceptable and invalid.

If they make no mention at all of who will begin the shooting, the contract is not void, for there is no reason to nullify it; this is the position of the majority. Al-Shāfiʿī, however, has another opinion—related by the Khurāsānī scholars—that the contract is invalid. And if one does not pronounce it void in the situation where no one (2) is designated, then the matter must be examined: if the stake is provided by both contestants or by