resolved upon it from the night” (1); and, “No deed counts for the one who has no intention, and there is no reward for the one whose act lacks sincerity” (2), and the like—this would have been the sounder analogy. The true purport of such reports is to deny, in the eyes of the Law and in practical reckoning, the very validity of the acts they describe; whenever anything is exempted from that denial, it is only because a counter-evidence has required the exemption.
They further say: “As for your claim that this is a juʿālah (a contingent payment) for a permissible activity and is therefore lawful like every other juʿālah,”
the reply comes in two parts:
First, your argument is overturned by all the other cases in which you have forbidden staking wagers on
(1) Reported by al-Tirmidhi, no. 730; Abu Dawud, no. 2454; Ibn Majah, no. 1700; al-Nasaʾi, nos. 2331–2334; Ahmad, Musnad, 6/287; and others.
Scholars disagreed whether the report is marfuʿ (attributed to the Prophet) or mawquf (stopping with the Companion); the sound position is that it is mawquf, as affirmed by Ahmad, al-Bukhari, Abu Hatim, al-Nasaʾi, and others.
See Kitab al-Siyam in Ibn Taymiyyah’s Sharh al-ʿUmdah, 1/177–182, no. 153; and al-Irwaʾ, 4/25–30, no. 914.
Note: MSS H and T read “al-niyyah” (intention) instead of “al-siyam” (fasting).
(2) Reported by al-Bayhaqi, al-Sunan al-Kubra, 1/41, and al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, al-Jamiʿ li-Akhlaq al-Rawi wa-Adab al-Samiʿ, 1/491–492, no. 693, on the authority of Anas ibn Malik with both clauses of the statement.
The chain is weak because one of the relatives of Ibn al-Muthanna al-Ansari in the isnad is unnamed.
A similar report is transmitted from Abu Dharr as a marfuʿ hadith by al-Daylami, 5/181, no. 7894 (cited in Ibn Hajar’s Tasdid al-Qaws); it is rare.
It is also narrated from ʿUmar ibn al-Khattab as a mawquf report containing only the first clause, recorded by Abu Bakr al-Ansari in his Mishyakha al-Kubra, 3/ no. 600, and elsewhere; its chain is weak due to a break in transmission.