Explanation of the Book of Purification-05

The Shaykh : Then he said: "And from Abu Waqid al-Laythi (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

Whatever is cut from an animal while it is alive, then it is dead flesh.

ماقطع من البهيمة وهي حية فهو ميت

Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1480Hasan (Darussalam)

Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi narrated it, and al-Tirmidhi graded it as good, and the wording is his".
His statement: It is possible that it is a conditional noun, and it is possible that it is a relative pronoun. If it is a conditional noun, then his statement: is the answer to the condition, and it is joined with the particle "fa" (so/then) because if the sentence of the answer is not suitable to be a conditional verb, then it must be joined with "fa." And regarding this, Ibn Malik says:
"And join with 'fa' certainly the answer if it is made *** a condition, whether it is 'in' or other, it will not be made" And this has been composed in a well-known, famous verse that one of you will recite for us.
The student: ...

The Shaykh :"Nominal, conditional, verbal, circumstantial" Is that right? Yes?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Nominal, conditional, and what?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : That is, okay:
"Nominal, imperative, and with a static noun *** and with 'ma' and 'qad' and 'lan' and with the negation"
From which of the sentences that are with us?
The student: Nominal.

The Shaykh : Nominal, and if we make it a relative pronoun and say the meaning is that the one who is cut from the beast while it is alive is carrion, why is the particle "fa" joined with the predicate? They say because the predicate was a relative pronoun that conveys generality, so it became similar to the condition in its conveyance of generality and ambiguity, so the predicate was joined with "fa." Yes, I say that because the subject was a relative pronoun similar to the condition in generality and vagueness, the particle "fa" became joined with its predicate. So his statement: The beast is all animals that are beasts, and that is because the word "beast" is derived from ambiguity, and all animals are ambiguous; one does not know what they say. Even if some of the animals have specific sounds by which a person knows what they want, for example, you know the cat when it calls its young, and the rooster when it calls the chickens has a specific sound, but it does not speak. For this reason, all animals except humans are called beasts. And his statement: "It is carrion" means like the carrion of the beast. And the scholars derived a rule from this and said: "Whatever is cut from a living thing is like its carrion" So whatever is cut from an animal that becomes impure when it dies is impure, and whatever is cut from an animal that is lawful and pure when it dies is pure, and whatever is cut from an animal that is pure but not lawful when it dies is pure and not lawful, like what is cut from a human being. The carrion of a human being is pure, and whatever is cut from it is pure. So whatever is cut from an animal has the ruling of the carrion of that animal in terms of lawfulness and purity. This is the rule. Okay, let us now look at what is cut from a sheep while it is alive; is it like its carrion, impure or not impure?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Impure, forbidden. What is cut from a fish, brother? You?
The student: Pure.

The Shaykh : Pure, lawful or not, or forbidden?
The student: Permissible.

The Shaykh : Lawful, because the carrion of a fish is pure. Okay, what is cut from a locust?
The student: Lawful and pure.

The Shaykh : Lawful and pure, because its carrion is lawful and pure. Okay, what is cut from a human being, O Ibrahim?
The student: Pure.

The Shaykh : Pure and not lawful, because the carrion of a human being is pure and not lawful. Do you see if a person is in dire necessity to eat the flesh of a dead human being, what do you say?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : The scholars differ with two opinions, similar to what Ibn Jinni said!
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, some of the scholars said: If a person is in dire necessity to eat carrion, he may eat it, because the prohibition of the living is what? Greater than the prohibition of the dead. And some of them say: No, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So the prohibition remains, even if the living one dies.
Okay, let us take the benefits then. First: What is the cause of the hadith? The cause of the hadith is that when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) arrived in Madinah, he found them cutting the humps of camels and the tails of sheep, making them into a paste and cutting them from them while they were alive, so he said this. And knowing the cause of the hadith or the verse helps in understanding it; it helps in understanding the text. And from that: If we look at the apparent wording, this verse would indicate that the circumambulation between al-Safa and al-Marwah is from the permissible category and that there is no sin in it. But when we know the cause and that they were afraid of the circumambulation between them, we know that it does not indicate permissibility, but rather indicates the negation of the sin that they imagined. So knowing the cause has importance regarding knowing the meaning.