from them you eat.” But regarding “horses, mules, and donkeys,” He said: “for you to ride and as adornment.” Thus, Allah divided these animals into two categories: one category for which He mentioned certain benefits, and another for which He mentioned others. He mentioned horses alongside what is prohibited—namely, mules and donkeys—so, they argued, horses too must be prohibited. He also mentioned their purpose as riding and adornment; had eating them been permissible, He would have mentioned it, since that is the ultimate purpose of one who acquires them.

Were it not for the hadiths, this argument would have had some basis. But when the hadiths explicitly state that horses are lawful, this evidence cannot remain valid, for the sunnah explains and clarifies the Quran.

If you ask: Then why this division?

We say: Because the principal benefits of horses are riding and adornment. It also indicates—and Allah knows best—that horses should not be kept for food; rather, they should be kept for riding, adornment, and striving in the path of Allah. As for food, the grazing livestock suffice in their place: camels are larger in body and yield more meat than horses, as do cattle and sheep. Moreover, if horses were kept for food, they would become depleted, and their benefit in striving in the path of Allah would be lost.

This, and Allah knows best, is the wisdom behind their being mentioned alongside mules and donkeys.

“And the grazing livestock, chickens, and wild donkeys, …”

His statement, “and the grazing livestock”: they are camels, cattle, and sheep. They are called bahīmah (beasts) because they do not speak, so their condition is unknown to us. Consider a sheep in the house: if it becomes hungry, does it say, “Give me fodder”? No. Yet it may bleat; but when it bleats, must its bleating necessarily be a request for fodder? No,