Islam permitted betting on horses without being resolved, as required by the previous news, and what the judge mentioned from the three aspects. Al-Shafi’i and other scholars mentioned the following:
Al-Shafi’i – may God be pleased with him – said about what Al-Muzni narrated in his summary: The race is three: the ruler or a non-governor gives him from his money, and that is to race between the horses to an end, so he makes something known to the former, and if he wants he made for the prayer and the third and the fourth, this is permissible and made for those who are not He has a bug.
And the second combines two faces, and that is like two men wanting to keep their bows ahead, and it is not permissible except with a analyzer, which is to place it between them, and it is not permissible until he is a competent mare for the two horses, who are not safe to precede them. , and the analyzer runs between them, and if they are preceded by the two precedence, and if one of them precedes the analyzer, the previous one will gain his money, and take the precedence of its owner, and if they come to two levels, one of them is not preceded by its owner, and whether they are a hundred, and they include a analyzer in the same way.
And the third is that one of them precedes his owner, and if his owner precedes him, he takes precedence, and if his owner precedes him, he scores his precedence.
One of the different aspects in it is that the governor or someone else who got the first race has a mare in the arena, so he comes out first on the premise that he has already imprisoned his predecessor. And if the previous one has already taken it, then most scholars allow this condition, and it is one of the sayings of Malik and some of his companions.
This is the saying of al-Shafi’i, al-Layth, al-Thawri, and Abu Hanifa, when they said: They are the first to rule the kingdom of their masters, and they are in it on their terms. Malik rejected that in the other narration, and some of his companions, Rabi’ah and al-Awza’i, and said that his precedent cannot be traced back to him. Malik said: It is only eaten by those who are present, if he has already taken it out, if there is not a third with the contestants, and if there is a third with them, then the one who follows it, then he will take it out if he precedes, and if someone else has preceded it, then it is for him without dispute. So, according to them, this departed from the meaning of gambling in general, and joined the first; Because its owner has taken it out of his possession altogether, and preferred to pay it.
On the other hand, there is a meaning of gambling and danger. Because once it returns to the exit of one of them, and once out of it to the other. The judge’s words are over.
So it was revealed in the protection of the analyzer that if the analyzer came with one of them and then the other came, the ruling according to the Shafi’is is that the one who intercourse with the analyzer gets his money, and as for the one for the other, it belongs to the analyzer or to him and to the one who intercourse with him, and they are two aspects of the latter. And if one of them precedes and then the second analyzer comes, then the second case is for the analyzer in the clearest of two ways, and this is what happened in the case, which is an illusion and a problem with the first; Because if he shares it with him when he comes with him later, then it is more important to join him if he precedes him. Rather, the issue of purity is that the absolute precedent that came before the analyzer is unique to him, and he is the one who corrected it in Al-Sharh and Al-Rawdah, as well as correcting it in Al-Minhaj.
Perhaps the one who fell in the space on which I stood is not supported, and he said in the explanation about the one who corrected him in the editor that he is weak, and he said in the kindergarten that he is nothing. These three aspects depart from the correct school of thought stipulated that it is not permissible for the analyzer to stipulate the exclusion from the two sides for those who precede the analyzer, unlike Ibn Khairan, and some of them narrated it in a statement. And here is another origin, which is that if we release the condition of money for the former, such as the prefix absolute, or deal with someone who precedes another, and if it is preceded by another, then it has two sides: the first is more correct, then it must be the remainder of the latter because it precedes the last.
And if three races and upwards, then according to Shafi’is it is not permissible to stipulate for the second what was stipulated for the first, and it may be stipulated for him without it in the most correct of the two ways. Disagreement, so the first is the highest, and the hadeeth of “halal” testifies to him, for he gave the first three garments, the second two garments, and the third a garment, to the end of the above.
One of the conditions for placing a bet in the competition is that the horses are close in precedence over each other, so when the condition of one of them is achieved in the first place, the betting in that is a gambling that is not permissible. Therefore, if it is something that often interrupts its gender, such as the pronoun with non-pronouncing and the godfather with others, then it is not permissible to bet in such matters, and the Messenger of God, peace and blessings of God be upon him, explained what is implied from the race alone from what is not implied.
