Section

What we are aiming at is that Ahmad’s inclusion of the report transmitted by Sufyan b. Husayn from al-Zuhri about the dakhil in horse racing—that is, the added third entrant in the racing contract (1)—does not of itself mean that he considered the report sound, or even ḥasan.

As for the fact that his legal opinion happens to comport with it, this (2) can be understood in two ways.

The first—and it is the clearer (3)—is that he based it on his general principle that when a weak hadith is all he has on a given issue and nothing opposes it, he will act upon it.

The second possibility is that he simply followed Saʿid b. al-Musayyib in the matter, the weakness of Saʿid’s view not having become apparent to him. Ahmad held Saʿid in very high esteem; indeed, he once said, “He is the most knowledgeable of the Successors.”

In the narration recorded by Abu Talib he said: “With regard to archery I also maintain that there must be a muḥallil, just as with the two horses; the analogy is one and the same. The same applies to camels—the analogy is one and the same, and the stake is one (4)(5).”

The outward sense of these words is that he adopted the ruling solely on the basis of the transmitted report, and it was not hidden from Ahmad—