the Muslims grew accustomed to it and it became widespread among them—and it is inherently more useful in jihad than the other bow—its use is not considered reprehensible according to the stronger of the two scholarly opinions, or the view held by most scholars. For Allah Most High said:

“Prepare against them whatever strength you can muster, and horses held in readiness.”

This bow undoubtedly provides greater strength. It was not that the Companions had this bow available but chose the other instead; rather, they had no other bow. We must therefore consider their purpose in shooting with it: did they use it out of necessity, because they had no other, or because of some particular quality it possessed? Likewise, did those who disapproved of shooting with the Persian bow do so because of an inherent quality, just as one disapproves of unbelief and whatever necessarily entails it? Or did they disapprove of it because it was a distinctive emblem of the unbelievers, and thus disapprove of imitating them?

Similarly, when Jewish and Christian unbelievers wear distinctive clothing in yellow or blue, wearing it is prohibited because it involves imitating them, although without that association it would not be considered reprehensible. In countries where only unbelievers wear such garments, wearing them is prohibited; yet among Muslims accustomed to wearing them, doing so entails no harm.

For this reason, Ahmad and others disapproved of wearing black when doing so involved imitating those who commit injustice or assist in it. They also disapproved of selling it to anyone who would use wearing it to facilitate injustice. When, however, it entails no harm, it is not prohibited. Those among the Companions and Successors who disapproved of selling land subject to kharāj (land tax) did so because