with; because it is an indefinite noun in an affirmative statement, and it is only general in negating that which competition is not permitted with (10), due to it being an indefinite noun in the context of negation. Furthermore, even if it were general, it would be interpreted according to what competition was traditionally known for and what the Law (al-shar‘) came to urge one to learn, which is what we have mentioned.

1775 - Issue: He said: (And if they wish to compete, one of them brings forth [the wager] and the other does not; if the one who brought it forth wins, he secures his wager and takes nothing from the one who was beaten. And if the one who did not bring it forth wins, he secures his opponent’s wager.)

The summary of this is that when competition occurs between two individuals or two factions, it either involves compensation from both of them or from someone else. [If it is from someone else] (1), you examine it: if it is from the Imam, it is permissible, whether it is from his own wealth or from the Bayt al-Mal (Public Treasury), because that contains a benefit and encouragement toward learning the skills of Jihad, and an advantage for the Muslims. If it is from (2) someone other than the Imam, it is permissible for him to offer compensation from his own wealth. This is the view of Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi‘i. Malik said: It is not permissible to offer compensation from other than the Imam, because this is something needed for Jihad, and thus it is reserved for the Imam, like the appointing (3) of public offices and the commissioning of commanders. Our argument is that it is an expenditure of his wealth in something that contains benefit and proximity [to Allah], so it is permissible, just as if he were to purchase horses and weapons with it. As for if it is from both of them, it is a condition that the prize be from one of them to the exclusion of the other, such that he says: “If you beat me, you get ten, and if I beat you, you owe nothing.” This is permissible. It was narrated from Malik that it is not permissible because it is gambling. Our argument is that one of them is specifically liable for the wager, so it is permissible, just as if the Imam had brought it forth. What he mentioned is not valid, because gambling is that neither of the two parties is safe from either gaining or losing; here, there is no risk for one of them, so it is not gambling. Thus, if the one who brought forth the wager wins, he secures his wager, and he has nothing against his opponent, and if the other wins, he takes (5)