and retreating. Do you not see that no share of the spoils is allotted for them? Only horses are suited to this, and it is for them that a share is allotted. It is established that the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, held races between them. Such competitions may be held for stakes, and these arrangements fall into three categories: one unanimously permitted, one unanimously prohibited, and one whose permissibility is disputed.

The unanimously permitted arrangement is for one of the competitors, whether there are two or more, to provide a prize that cannot revert to him under any circumstances, while none of the others contributes anything. If the person providing the prize is beaten, the prize goes to the winner. If he beats his opponent and there are no other competitors, the prize is a gift to those present.

If there are several competitors, the prize goes to the first of the others to finish after him. This arrangement is permissible in the same way as when the ruler provides a prize for whichever competitor wins. All scholars agree on its permissibility.

The unanimously prohibited arrangement is for every competitor, whether there are two or more, to contribute a prize. This is unanimously prohibited because it involves uncertainty, gambling, games of chance, and wagering forbidden by the Quran.

The disputed arrangement is for one competitor, whether there are two or more, to provide a prize while none of the others contributes anything, on condition that he recovers his prize if he wins, but that it goes to the winner if someone else beats him.

Different positions are reported from Mālik concerning this arrangement, while Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab considered it permissible. Another disputed arrangement is for each of two competitors to contribute a prize, on condition that the winner retains his own prize and takes his opponent’s, and that they admit a non-staking entrant whom they cannot be certain of beating. If that entrant beats them both, he takes both prizes.

Saʿīd ibn al-Musayyab permitted this arrangement, but Mālik did not. Mālik’s position on it did not vary as it did regarding the first arrangement mentioned above; for it involves less uncertainty than the arrangement preceding it. The two arrangements are alike in that the legal position of the person providing the prize in relation to his opponent in the former is the same as that of the person providing the prize in relation to the non-staking entrant in the latter. The same disagreement applies whether a group of competitors has one non-staking entrant among them, or two competitors have several non-staking entrants. However, the more non-staking entrants there are and the fewer competitors contributing prizes, the less uncertainty there is and the stronger the grounds for permissibility. It has been related from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him—