Explanation of the Book of Purification-06
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :" And from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and him), he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: Sahih Muslim 366a Muslim narrated it, and the four [books] have: -meaning it becomes pure-
And from Salama ibn al-Muhabbiq (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Bulugh al-Maram 19 Ibn Hibban graded it as authentic.
And from Maymunah (may Allah be pleased with her), she said:Bulugh al-Maram 20 Abu Dawud and al-Nasa'i narrated it ".
These hadiths are regarding the ruling on skins that come from carrion: whether they become pure through tanning or not. The author included them in this chapter because skins are used as containers for water, fat, and other things.
The first one: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:Sahih Muslim 366a Al-Ihab is the skin before it is tanned. So he says: when the ihab, meaning the skin before its tanning, is tanned, it becomes pure. There is no doubt that he means the impure skin, because his statement "it becomes pure" after mentioning tanning indicates that it was impure before tanning. So the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) is discussing impure skins: when they are tanned, do they become pure or not? The hadith indicates that they become pure. Al-Ihab here is a generic noun with the definite article, so it implies generality. The wording mentioned in the four [books] supports this generality: Jami` at-Tirmidhi 1728Sahih (Darussalam) The point is that it supports the generality because "any ihab" is a conditional phrase, and an indefinite noun in the context of a condition implies generality. So any ihab that is tanned becomes pure. Likewise, Bulugh al-Maram 19 indicates that when the skin of a carrion animal is taken and tanned, it becomes pure.
And the hadith of Maymunah:Bulugh al-Maram 20 Al-Qirz is a seed that grows in the thorn tree and similar plants, used for tanning. So he said: This is known by the tanners.
If we look at the first three hadiths, we say that the hadith is general, and that any impure ihab that is tanned becomes pure, whether this ihab is from an animal whose meat is eaten and its impurity is due to the animal's death, or from an animal whose meat is not eaten. And if we look at the hadith of Maymunah, we find that the hadith is about what? About an animal whose meat is eaten. But do we say that we tie the generality to the specific cause, or do we say that mentioning an individual instance of a general rule does not necessitate specification? This is a point of disagreement among scholars. Some say that any skin that is tanned becomes pure, whether it is from an animal whose meat is eaten or not. Based on this opinion, if the skin of a dog is tanned, it becomes pure; the skin of a wolf becomes pure; the skin of a lion becomes pure; the skin of a snake becomes pure. Any skin that is tanned becomes pure. Many scholars adopted this, including the Zahiris, who said that any skin that is tanned becomes pure. This opinion has a degree of leniency for people, considering that there are now many shoes made from snake skins or other things whose consumption is forbidden. The second opinion is that the skin does not become pure through tanning, which is the opposite of the first. It does not become pure through tanning at all, even if it is the skin of an animal whose meat is eaten. They cited a weak hadith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wrote before his death by a month: "Do not benefit from carrion by its ihab or its sinew." But the hadith is weak and does not indicate abrogation. However, these people said that when it is tanned, its impurity is reduced, so it is permissible to use it for dry things, not wet things. Meaning, it is permissible to make it a container for grains, a container for dry things like coins and clothes, and the like. As for wet things, because in the opinion of these people, what is it? It does not become pure through tanning; it is impure. And the impure, when it touches something wet, makes it impure. The third opinion is that it distinguishes between the skins of animals that are made lawful by ritual slaughter and the skins of animals that are not made lawful by ritual slaughter. So the skins of animals that are made lawful by ritual slaughter become pure through tanning, and the skins of animals that are not made lawful by ritual slaughter do not become pure through tanning. An example of the first: the skin of a sheep. If a sheep dies and its skin is removed and tanned, the skin becomes pure and is used for dry and wet things, in water and milk, and everything. And if a wolf is killed and its skin is taken and tanned, it does not become pure; it remains impure. They reasoned that if ritual slaughter does not make this wolf lawful or purify it, then tanning is even less likely to purify its skin, unlike the sheep and its like. This opinion is a middle ground, meaning its essence is that if the skin of a carrion animal that is made lawful by ritual slaughter is tanned, it becomes pure. And if the skin of an animal that is not made lawful by ritual slaughter is tanned, it remains impure, but it is used for dry things because when used for dry things, its impurity does not transfer. The wordings of the hadith, as you saw, but we said: do we apply "any ihab that is tanned" or "when the ihab is tanned" to the specific cause of the hadith and say that his statement "the ihab" means the ihab of the sheep and its like, because he said that when they passed by a sheep being dragged?Sunan Ibn Majah 1664Sahih (Darussalam) Is the hadith now general or not general?
The student: General.
The Shaykh :Sunan Ibn Majah 1664Sahih (Darussalam) It is general, and the cause is specific. So do we say that it is restricted to the person who was in this condition, or is it general? The answer is that it is restricted to the person who was in this condition, the person for whom fasting caused him severe hardship like this man, so his fasting would be without benefit. Likewise, here, when he saw the sheep, he said: meaning like this sheep and its like And in that case, it is general in the situation that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) saw, meaning general with respect to what? To the sheep and what is eaten, because he only said that when he saw this sheep being dragged. The hadith has benefits, but I think we cannot [continue] now.
When the skin is tanned it becomes purified.
إذا دبغ الإهاب فقد طهرAny hide that is tanned
أيما إهاب دبغAnd from Salama ibn al-Muhabbiq (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
The tanning of a dead animal’s skin purifies it
دباغ جلود الميتة طهورهاAnd from Maymunah (may Allah be pleased with her), she said:
Some people dragging a (dead) goat passed by the Prophet (ﷺ). He told them, “Had you better taken its skin”. They said, “It is dead”. He said, “Water and the leaves of the Acacia tree will purify it”.
مر النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بشاة يجرونها فقال: لو أخذتم إهابها، فقالوا: إنّها ميتة، فقال: يطهّرها الماء والقرظThese hadiths are regarding the ruling on skins that come from carrion: whether they become pure through tanning or not. The author included them in this chapter because skins are used as containers for water, fat, and other things.
The first one: The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
When the skin is tanned it becomes purified.
إذا دبغ الإهاب فقد طهرAny skin tanned, then it has been made pure.
أيّما إهاب دبغ فقد طهرThe tanning of a dead animal’s skin purifies it
دباغ جلود الميتة طهورهاAnd the hadith of Maymunah:
Some people dragging a (dead) goat passed by the Prophet (ﷺ). He told them, “Had you better taken its skin”. They said, “It is dead”. He said, “Water and the leaves of the Acacia tree will purify it”.
أنّ النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بشاة يجرونها، فقال: لو أخذتم إهابها، فقالوا: إنها ميتة، فقال: يطهرها الماء والقرظWater and the acacia tree purify it
يطهّرها الماء والقرظIf we look at the first three hadiths, we say that the hadith is general, and that any impure ihab that is tanned becomes pure, whether this ihab is from an animal whose meat is eaten and its impurity is due to the animal's death, or from an animal whose meat is not eaten. And if we look at the hadith of Maymunah, we find that the hadith is about what? About an animal whose meat is eaten. But do we say that we tie the generality to the specific cause, or do we say that mentioning an individual instance of a general rule does not necessitate specification? This is a point of disagreement among scholars. Some say that any skin that is tanned becomes pure, whether it is from an animal whose meat is eaten or not. Based on this opinion, if the skin of a dog is tanned, it becomes pure; the skin of a wolf becomes pure; the skin of a lion becomes pure; the skin of a snake becomes pure. Any skin that is tanned becomes pure. Many scholars adopted this, including the Zahiris, who said that any skin that is tanned becomes pure. This opinion has a degree of leniency for people, considering that there are now many shoes made from snake skins or other things whose consumption is forbidden. The second opinion is that the skin does not become pure through tanning, which is the opposite of the first. It does not become pure through tanning at all, even if it is the skin of an animal whose meat is eaten. They cited a weak hadith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) wrote before his death by a month: "Do not benefit from carrion by its ihab or its sinew." But the hadith is weak and does not indicate abrogation. However, these people said that when it is tanned, its impurity is reduced, so it is permissible to use it for dry things, not wet things. Meaning, it is permissible to make it a container for grains, a container for dry things like coins and clothes, and the like. As for wet things, because in the opinion of these people, what is it? It does not become pure through tanning; it is impure. And the impure, when it touches something wet, makes it impure. The third opinion is that it distinguishes between the skins of animals that are made lawful by ritual slaughter and the skins of animals that are not made lawful by ritual slaughter. So the skins of animals that are made lawful by ritual slaughter become pure through tanning, and the skins of animals that are not made lawful by ritual slaughter do not become pure through tanning. An example of the first: the skin of a sheep. If a sheep dies and its skin is removed and tanned, the skin becomes pure and is used for dry and wet things, in water and milk, and everything. And if a wolf is killed and its skin is taken and tanned, it does not become pure; it remains impure. They reasoned that if ritual slaughter does not make this wolf lawful or purify it, then tanning is even less likely to purify its skin, unlike the sheep and its like. This opinion is a middle ground, meaning its essence is that if the skin of a carrion animal that is made lawful by ritual slaughter is tanned, it becomes pure. And if the skin of an animal that is not made lawful by ritual slaughter is tanned, it remains impure, but it is used for dry things because when used for dry things, its impurity does not transfer. The wordings of the hadith, as you saw, but we said: do we apply "any ihab that is tanned" or "when the ihab is tanned" to the specific cause of the hadith and say that his statement "the ihab" means the ihab of the sheep and its like, because he said that when they passed by a sheep being dragged?
It is not an act of righteousness to fast while traveling.
ليس من البرّ الصّيام في السّفرThe student: General.
The Shaykh :