TheGrobe wrote:
If both sides of the wager had perfect information about the contest itself, clearly the wager would not take place to start with.
Exactly.
Islam and chess
Sort:
I was able to come to peace with the prohibition on gambling. But the hardline stance on booze and loose women is what ultimately sent me back to the cozy, loving arms of the Norse gods.
Fezzik wrote:
For those quoting dictionary and wiki definitions of gambling, you are really missing the point. Those have no weight whatsoever in a discussion of whether Islam considers chess for compensation "gambling".
This really isn't an issue for the non-faithful, non-Muslims to judge. It's a difficult enough issue for Muslims without infidels on some chess site second-guessing them. They have spent centuries considering what constitutes gambling.
And yes, I am an infidel to Islam also.
What makes you think that we all are ? You are acting on incomplete information.
Further, Islamic theology (kalam) has traditionally admitted the use of logical reasoning, and both Muslims and non-Muslims can participate in a logical discussion of what constitutes gambling.
C'mon Cpawn, no need to be coy.
Atos wrote:
Elroch wrote:
Atos wrote:
As pointed out, it depends on the definition of gambling. Playing with stakes / bets placed might be gambling or close, which is not approved in Islam. (Nor, I believe, in Christianity.) This is likely the form of playing for money that the scholars cited were alluding to. Other forms of playing for financial compensation need not be considered gambling.
I believe you are incorrect in suggesting that Christians consider all competitive activities for money forbidden. This would preclude Christians entering most chess tournaments (where a fraction of entry fees make up the prizes), as well as most other competitions with an entry fee and money prizes.
I believe that I said that gambling is not allowed, not that "all competitive activities for money" are.
What type of definition makes Bingo not gambling?
Feb 28, 2011
0
#47
GorillaCookies wrote:
bigpoison wrote:
C'mon Cpawn, no need to be coy.
Sorry to disillusion you bigpoison, but not the person youre looking for.
He's not the messiah ...
Fezzik, I accept your apology for calling me "some infidel on a chess site."
Atos wrote:
Fezzik, I accept your apology for calling me "some infidel on a chess site."
Odin still loves you, even if you rape, pillage, and play chess. Probably more, then.
Feb 28, 2011
0
#50
echecs06 wrote:
Gambling is different than playing FOR money. If I win a tourney and get money for my efforts, I DIDN"T gamble. If I bet on who is going to win a match, then it is GAMBLING. Gambling implies an element of chance. I can play a professional soccer match and get paid for it, I can also bet on a soccer match which are two different things.
But playing in a tournament with a prize is different still, no? You're not being paid to play in the sense of a teacher being paid for a lesson. Yet you are also not entering a lottery.
Abu Moosaa Al-Ash'aree
said: 'It is only a sinner who would play chess.'
Hey, Abu , Checkmate ! (No disrespect... well maybe a little.)
i used to play chess with a muslim. he was quite devout actually. a better player too.
Feb 28, 2011
0
#53
echecs06 makes a good point. Atos, ask any chess professional whether they think chess is a "game of chance" and they'll answer in the negative (if they don't just sneer at you). Examples of games of chance are roulette, craps and bingo.
Elroch, it would be nice if you followed the discussion more carefully. echess wrote that: " Gambling is different than playing FOR money. If I win a tourney and get money for my efforts, I DIDN"T gamble. If I bet on who is going to win a match, then it is GAMBLING. "
That doesn't disagree with what I was saying, nor do I disagree with what he said in the above. What you seem to be missing is that betting on who is going to win a match is not essentially different when one of the players is you.
Feb 28, 2011
0
#55
Well apart from my standard advice to ignore religion (in all form) and its followers, if one receives money that is deemed verboten, can't one simply donate it to charity and be absolved of this heinous crime? My dad said that, when he was a student, there were muslim students who would enjoy of London's casinos. On the rare occasions that they won anything, they would donate it to a fund to send their parents to the hajj (or whatever it's called).
A little post-medieval pragmatism here, people 
Fezzik wrote:
Echecs is wrong, as someone else already pointed out.
If you pay an entry fee in order to play in a tournament, you are, effectively, placing a wager. Your expectation of a return on that wager is irrelevant to the moral conditions of gambling according to (many) Islamic scholars.
Now, if you are invited to a tournament and all expenses have been paid, the question is more difficult to my infidel mind.
What I was refering to (and maybe echess although I can't be sure) is that if there is a source of funding other than the players' own purses, such as sponsorhip or viewing fees etc., then you are being rewarded for your chess playing and not snatching money from opponents. This couldn't be considered gambling then. To pay a small fee to cover such expenses as the room, chess sets, the arbiter (pun intended) seems just as permissible as to invest in any other business.
p.s. I can't really say whether or not most Muslims agree with this exact position, but I have the right to express my opinion.
echess, calm down. Religion is not going anywhere in 2011, any more than it did in 1011, or 2010. Also both the religious and the secular have more pressing problems than chess right now, so this is meant to be an intellectual discussion.
When I pay an entry fee to play in a chess tournament I am not gambling. I am simply paying for services rendered : certain number of rated games, place to play, etc.... If I bet with my opponent on an individual game or bet with someone on how I might finish or who will win the tourney then I am gambling.
padman wrote:
echecs06 wrote:
I could not help laughing, when I lived in Algeria and my arab school mates would call me "infidel". My faith ( FIDES in Latin) was probably sronger than theirs, and yet I was the one to be called " IN-fidel" "without faith". Have all a...blessed day!
They called you infidel because you don't have faith in the Islamic ideology. They think you have a false religion and are going to fuel Hellfire. Keep laughing.
Or perhaps because they were adolescents ?
Try teaching in a high school anywhere in the world and you will see what this age is like. Or maybe just read chess.com.
Correct. And chess involves no chance on the part of the players, only skill. Chess is a game without a random element. The practical consequence is that in chess there is (at least one) absolute best move which produces at least a certain result (and exactly that result if the opponent does not make a mistake). Every win in chess is exploitation of a crucial error by the opponent. To say there is a chance element in chess is (to a game theorist) like saying there is a chance element in arithmetic: in truth there are only right answers and wrong answers.
I'm not disputing this, but the ultimate outcome of the contest is unknowable prior to the game. The game of chess may have perfect information, the contest itself does not.
Even in a game of perfect information there are limits to our ability to assimilate and use that information depending on its complexity, and as a result we resort to approximations and educated decision making. It is in these approximations that the risk is introduced, and where there's risk involved in an outlay of money for a speculative return, there's gambling. Incidentally, it is also in these approximations where the perfect information game of chess becomes an imperfect information contest bewteen two imperfect players.
If both sides of the wager had perfect information about the contest itself, clearly the wager would not take place to start with.