essential. The purpose is not for this particular camel or horse itself to be the winner; rather, victory in reality depends on the quality of the horse or camel and the rider’s skill. A horse may be exceptionally good, yet be ridden by someone unskilled, so that it does not move properly; then the very same horse may be ridden by another man and perform well. This is something commonly observed. When people used donkeys as mounts and as a means of transport, you would find that, as soon as one rider mounted a donkey and merely shifted himself, the donkey would move; whereas another person would mount it, rebuke it, and strike it, yet it would not move.

His statement, “and that they be of the same type”: they must also be of the same type. That is, a horse race must be between two horses of one type: an Arabian against an Arabian, a baradhawn against a baradhawn, or a crossbred horse against a crossbred horse. If one races a horse against a mule, it is not permissible; and if the race is between an Arabian and a crossbred horse, it is not permissible. The same applies to camels: a race between Arabian camels and Bactrian camels is not valid, because they are different types. They must be of the same type.

The apparent meaning of the author’s words is that they need not be alike in sex. Thus, it is permissible for the race to be between a male camel and a she-camel, or between a mare and a stallion. This is especially unobjectionable with respect to a she-camel and a male camel, even though they differ from one another in endurance, patience, and strength.

His statement, “and the archers”: they too must be specified when the competition is in archery, because the objective is to ascertain their skill, and this cannot be achieved except by identifying them. Thus, for example, it is said: So-and-so, son of So-and-so, competes against So-and-so, son of So-and-so. If