has nothing to do with practical horsemanship. Moreover, had I included in the book a systematic exposition of these questions and established the correct view in each of them on the basis of sound proof, (1) I would simply have been doing what only the large, specialized manuals on the teaching of horsemanship are meant to do. What is really called for is that the author state—by way of preferring the opinion he deems correct with respect to the point under discussion—whether the Sacred Law allows wagering or not. I have deliberately refrained from teaching the technical routines which, if mastered exactly as their experts have laid them down, would enable a person to carry them out while remaining ignorant of the practical mechanics of the craft; (2) so how could wagering be lawful for him? And even if, for argument’s sake, the matter of liability were as he contends—when in fact it is not, according to the sound position of the school that you will find set forth in a concise and fitting manner—(3) his case would still fail. And Allah, exalted be He, grants success.

14. He says on p. 312: “I say: Every fine thing has some blemish, and the blemish of this composition is the excessive burden of its protracted discussion of knotty points that bear no relation to military action or to practical horsemanship. We have already noted that he is verbose and long-winded. Matters of this sort (4) belong to the domain of the jurist or the student of the jurisprudence of these disciplines; as for horsemanship itself, it is that which, when practiced according to the proper procedures, alters these rulings and others besides. As for the very act through which that practice is carried out—I mean its ruling that is binding in the Sacred Law,”