a prize. Others hold that it is permissible for a prize to be offered, because racing on foot is beneficial in warfare, in charging and retreating; it is therefore useful. However, this view is open to the objection that, if we allowed prizes in these activities, they would become a means of trade—in the sense that people would conduct business through them—because they are inexpensive and do not require one to acquire a horse, prepare a spear, or anything similar. They would thus be turned into a trade, and people would become preoccupied with them to the neglect of more important matters. Hence, the benefit that one might anticipate from running is counterbalanced by the harm: people would become engrossed in it and then turn it into a trade. This is a strong objection.

If someone were to say: Horse racing, too, has now become a trade, while its benefit in warfare is slight in the present age. So, if the principle is applied consistently, you must prohibit it—that is, horse racing with a prize—because people have turned it into a trade.

We reply: This rests upon a principle mentioned by the scholars: when the Sacred Law expressly stipulates something that had a benefit at the time of the Prophetic mission, but the benefit it had at that time later disappears, do we follow the underlying meaning or the wording? The scholars differ on this. One example is barley and dried curds, which are expressly mentioned regarding zakat al-fitr. At that time, they were staple foods for people, whether they lived in the desert or in settled areas. At the present time, however, they are not staple foods. So do we follow the wording and say: this is something specified by the Sacred Law, and it is valid whether or not it is a staple food for people? Or do we say: if any one of these four is no longer a staple food, it is not valid? There are