The followers of al-Shafi‘i have two views, corresponding to the two positions. Regarding competition in birds and boats, they have two views based upon the two views regarding competition on foot and wrestling. As for us, we rely on what Abu Hurayrah narrated, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “There is no wager except in an arrowhead, a camel’s foot, or a hoof.” Recorded by Abu Dawud (3). Thus, he negated the wager in anything other than these three. It is possible that what is intended by this is the negation of the prize (ju‘l), meaning the prize is not permissible except in these three. It is also possible that it intends the negation of competition for compensation, as it is necessary to interpret the report in one of these two ways due to the consensus on the permissibility of competition without compensation in matters other than (4) these three. In any estimation, the hadith is a proof for us. Furthermore, other than these three, there is no need for them in Jihad (5) in the same way there is a need for these; therefore, competition for compensation is not permissible in them, just as it is not for throwing stones or lifting them. Once this is established, what is meant by nahl (arrowhead) is arrows of the crossbow and bow and nothing else (6), by hafir (hoof) is horses exclusively, and by khuff (camel’s foot) is camels exclusively. The followers of al-Shafi‘i said: Competition is permissible with everything that has a point, such as javelins, and there are two views regarding [spears and swords] (7), and two views regarding elephants, mules, and donkeys; this is because javelins, spears, and swords have points, elephants (8) have a foot (khuff), and mules and donkeys have hooves, so they enter into the generality of the report. To this, we respond that these animals in which there is disagreement are not suitable for charging and retreating, one does not fight on them, and no portion of the spoils is assigned to them. The people of Islam do not fight on elephants, and spears and swords are not shot; therefore, competition for compensation is not permissible with them, just as with cattle and shields (9), and the report is not general regarding what competition is permissible

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 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)