Likewise, he would drink a steeped fruit drink for three days, and after three days he would give it to others to drink or pour it away, since by then it might become intoxicating. Indeed, he had ordered that a wine-drinker be put to death on the third or fourth occasion. All of this … (1) was to block the means to wrongdoing. Since people crave wine, keeping it—even for making vinegar—may lead to drinking it, just as drinking a little invites drinking much. This was therefore forbidden. Such, then, is the case of “gambling,” which is mentioned alongside “wine,” if we assume that the reason for its prohibition is the wrongful consumption of wealth, with the resulting harm and loss of benefit.

It is well known that people crave these games. When their desire for them grows strong, monetary stakes are introduced, as commonly happens. It would therefore be consistent with the Lawgiver’s ruling to forbid whatever leads to this, if it offered no overriding benefit. This differs from contests that may be beneficial, such as racing, wrestling, and the like. These offer an overriding benefit by strengthening the body, so they were not prohibited on that account. Nor has it been customary for people to earn money through them.

The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, drew attention to this meaning when he said:

“Whoever plays backgammon is as though he had dipped his hand into the flesh and blood of a pig.”

Dipping one’s hand into this invites eating pork: it is a preliminary step, a cause, and an inducement to eating it. If that is forbidden, then so too is playing a game that is a preliminary step, a cause, and an inducement to consuming wealth wrongfully.