Is there a necessary connection between ritual impurity and prohibition?

The Shaykh : There is no necessary connection between something being forbidden and it being ritually impure, and the reverse is entirely correct; that is, every ritually impure thing is forbidden, but not every forbidden thing is ritually impure. Every ritually impure thing is forbidden, but not every forbidden thing is ritually impure. Intoxicants are undoubtedly forbidden, as are silk and gold, but these are not ritually impure in this way.
We also say regarding cologne or the like, that it is not permissible to use it; it is forbidden, but it is not ritually impure because there is no evidence of its impurity, and the original state is purity.

The questioner : But do we consider the evidence to be the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not mention it when he ordered the pouring out of intoxicants, saying it should not touch the garment or anything of that sort?

The Shaykh : This is well known and has its own discussion. We said there are proofs in his statement (peace be upon him) when he asked them to... and to slit the wine skins. When intoxicants were forbidden, they said there was benefit in them. He said: or something to that effect. So he approved the use of these wine skins and that they were not ritually impure, in response to their saying, "Why are you tearing them?" He did not say, "Because they are ritually impure and cannot be used." He approved their statement, but he did what he did as retribution for the sanctities of Allah. Yes.