shooting [the arrows] (al-nidal); because that which is permitted to be immediate and deferred is also permitted to be partly immediate and partly deferred, like the price, except that the description of the wheat is required so that it becomes known.

Section: If he stipulates that he must feed his companions the prize, the condition is invalid; because it is compensation for (10) labor, so no one other than the worker deserves it, just like compensation for returning a runaway slave, but the contract itself does not become void. Abu Hanifah held this view, whereas al-Shafi'i stated that it does become void. Our argument is that it is a contract whose validity does not depend on designating a substitute, so it is not invalidated by an invalid condition, like marriage. The Qadi mentioned that invalid conditions in a competition are divided into two categories: the first is that which violates a condition (11) for the validity of the contract, such as if it leads to ignorance regarding the compensation, the distance, or the like, in which case the contract is void because it cannot be valid if its condition is not met. The second is that which does not violate a condition (11) of the contract, such as if he stipulates that he must feed his companions or others, or stipulates (12) that if he outshoots the opponent he will never shoot again, or will not shoot for a month, or if they both stipulate that each or one of them may rescind the contract whenever he wishes after commencing the work, and similar things. These are void conditions in themselves, and there are two views regarding the contract associated with them: one is that it is valid, because the contract was completed with its pillars and conditions, so if the invalid addition is removed, the contract remains valid. The second is that it is void, because he offered the compensation for this purpose, and if he does not attain his purpose, he is not obligated to provide the compensation. In every instance where the competition becomes void, if the winner was the one who provided the prize, he keeps his prize, and if the other party was the winner, he receives the wages for his work; because it is work performed for compensation that was not delivered to him, so he is entitled to fair compensation, like an invalid lease.

Section: When the one providing the prize is not one of the competitors and says to them or to a group: "Whoever among you wins shall have ten," it is permissible; because [each one of them] (13) seeks to be the winner, so whichever of them wins is entitled to the ten. If they all arrive together, none of them gets anything, because there is no winner among them. If he says to two people: "Whichever of you wins shall have ten, and whichever of you finishes second (salla) shall have ten," it is not valid; because there is no benefit in seeking to win, so he will not strive for it due to the lack of incentive. If he says: "And whoever finishes second (salla) shall have five," it is valid; because each