The first is judged on a clean hit. The second is judged on nearness to the target: whichever arrow lands closer is credited, and any that fall farther away are disregarded.

If there is a customary measure among the contestants for what counts as “close,” the unrestricted wording of the contract is interpreted according to that custom and takes on the force of an explicit stipulation. If no such usage exists, they must specify the distance that will be credited—whether a cubit, a span, or something similar.

Should they leave the agreement absolute, merely saying, “Whichever of us lands an arrow nearer to the target shall be credited,” without defining the distance, the contract is invalid, for every degree of closeness can be bettered by another, and thus the amount to be credited remains unknown (1).

The Shāfiʿīs mention two further opinions (2):

1. The contract is valid, and “closeness” is estimated at one arrow’s length. This, however, is arbitrary and lacks evidentiary support.
2. Scoring proceeds by cancelling each arrow with the one that lands nearer to the mark, so that only the nearest is counted.

Abū al-Maʿālī al-Juwaynī said: When both contestants’ arrows land within the admissible range, and one of them has arrows that are “near” and “nearer,” while even his farther arrow is closer than his opponent’s nearest, do we credit all of his arrows, or do we nullify the farther one in favor of the nearer?