- He says on p. 166:
“I say: … Your opponent could retort: ‘The truth is to be sought only in proofs that trace back to the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ, or to a certain consensus. At most, the evidence you have marshalled against your adversary is something over which he still contests with you. How, then, can you brand your opponent’s view as anomalous when you yourself have affirmed within it a point you have established? Even supposing you believe the correct opinion is what you have come to know, how can you be sure that you [will not](1) come upon something that overturns it—or that someone else will do so?
“Moreover, were an objector to tell you, ‘Everything you have cited in these chapters and the ones before them belongs to the task of a jurist who instructs people in the subsidiary, theoretical rulings of the Law, whereas you framed the book as a manual for sharʿī horsemanship. Yet these are purely fiqh issues. How, then, can you label them “horsemanship” merely because they touch on unlawful matters? Where are the rulings on war booty and the questions concerning the distribution of fayʾ? These too, by that reasoning, would be required, and the items demanded would multiply.’
“I have, in fact, prepared an index for this book in which I list its contents in summary form and then draw attention to matters that clarify this point; such an index is indispensable.
“For all the benefit it contains, the book has only a small share of military value. Whoever consults our work entitled Relief for the Afflicted concerning the Rulings of Warfare, its Hardships, its Requirements, and the Evils Entailed will know with certainty that naming the present work ‘Legal Rulings on Horsemanship’ is more fitting for it than claiming it teaches or even guides one to horsemanship.”