regarding the choice between them (55), lots are drawn between them. If one of them says, "I choose first, and I will put up the wager, or my companions will put it up," it is not permissible; because the wager is only merited by winning, not in exchange for one of them favoring [the other] with something.

Section: If one of the leaders produces the wager from his own wealth, and his party wins, there is nothing due from his party, because he placed it upon himself and not them. If he stipulates it (56) upon them, it is due from them in equal shares, and it goes to the other party (57) in equal shares, [for those among them who hit the target and those who did not, according to one of the two views, just as it is upon the other party in equal shares] (58). In the other view, it is divided among them according to the amount of hits. One who did not hit the target among them has nothing; because entitlement is by virtue of hitting, so it is in proportion to it, and it is specific to those from whom it was found, unlike the losers, for it became obligatory upon them due to their commitment to it, and they are equal in that.

Section: Whenever the shooting contest is between two parties, it is stipulated that the number of arrows (rishq) must be divisible among them without a remainder, and they must be equal (59) in it. If they are three, it must be that he has a third; if they are four, it must be that he has a fourth, and likewise for any increase; because if it is not so, a remainder or more will remain among them (60), which the group cannot share.

Section: If they are two parties, and a man enters with them whom they do not know in one of the parties, and he is skilled at shooting, it is permissible. If he is not skilled, the contract regarding him is void, and whoever was placed in opposition to him is removed from the other party; because each one is placed in opposition to another, or one of the leaders chooses one, and the other chooses another in opposition to him. Does it become void regarding the rest? There are two views, based on the principle of splitting the transaction (tafriq al-safqa). If we say: it does not become void, each party has the option due to the partiality (61) of the transaction regarding them. And if