Continuation of the explanation of the hadith: (… It was said: O Messenger of Allah, what do you say about the fat of carrion, for it is used to coat ships, to anoint skins, and people use it for lighting?)

The Shaykh : We continue now:
First, their saying: "O Messenger of Allah" … It was said. The speaker is unspecified, and it does not concern us to know who the speaker is in such matters, because the important thing is the issue and the ruling, whereas the specific person is generally not needed. This is the general rule, so this formula always comes: "It was said, O Messenger of Allah" because they do not focus on the speaker. The most important thing is knowing the statement and the ruling.
And their saying: "O Messenger of Allah" is this address to which Allah guided them in His saying: meaning, do not say "O Muhammad." Describe him with what Allah tasked him with and what is specific to him in description, which is "O Messenger of Allah." For this reason, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade anyone to use his kunya (patronymic) so that no one would share with him in being addressed. For example, if someone says "O Abu al-Qasim," it might be thought that he is the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). For this reason, many scholars specified the prohibition of using his kunya to his lifetime only, so that no one would share with him. If people are addressed as "O Abu al-Qasim," one who does not know him might think that this is the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
So, this is part of the etiquette of the Companions: they say "O Messenger" and no one addresses him by his name unless he is ignorant, like a Bedouin who comes to Madinah and says "O Muhammad."
Now, secondly, he says: "What do you say about the fat of carrion" This construction is found frequently in the Qur'an: "Arayta" (Have you seen?). Its meaning, in general terms, is "inform me," "inform me," because the implied meaning is "Have you seen such and such? Then show me what you saw," meaning "inform me."
As for the grammatical analysis, we say that "ra'a" here is a cognitive verb, and "shuhum" (fats) is its first object, while its second object is omitted and is usually an interrogative sentence. Yes, so here we say "shuhum" is the first object, and the second object is omitted: "Arayta shuhum al-maytah" (Have you seen the fat of carrion) "fa-inna" (for it is) "tutla biha al-sufun" (coated with it the ships), "wa-tudhan biha al-julud" (and anointed with it the skins), "wa-yustahabb biha al-nas" (and people use it for lighting), "is it permissible?" "Is it permissible?" Then what do we estimate as the subject? Some scholars said, "Is it permissible to do this with it," meaning to coat the ships with it and use it for lighting, yes, and to anoint the skins with it. Or "is it permissible to sell it," "is it permissible to sell it." The scholars (may Allah have mercy on them) differed on what is estimated as the subject: is it the sale or these benefits? The correct view is that it is the sale, because the context is about the sale, and because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not speak about these things they asked about until it could be said, "Have you seen this, is it permissible?" He did not speak about the prohibition of the benefits at all; he was only speaking about the sale. But when they saw these benefits, they thought that these benefits necessitate the permissibility of its sale, just as the benefits of the idhkhar (a type of grass) necessitated the permissibility of gathering it in the Haram . So they thought, may Allah be pleased with them, yes, they thought, may Allah be pleased with them, that these benefits necessitate the permissibility of the sale, just as the benefits of the idhkhar necessitated the permissibility of gathering it. And as we know now, all these hadiths mentioned by the Messenger regarding the prohibition of Makkah, and this hadith was mentioned during the days of the Conquest. So the Companions, as it seems, recalled what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) had granted as a dispensation regarding the permissibility of gathering the idhkhar for its benefits. So they thought that these benefits necessitate what? The permissibility of the sale, and that this would be a specification of the general prohibition of carrion. This is the correct, established view in the hadith: that what is being asked about is not these benefits, but rather its sale, which these benefits necessitate the permissibility of. Do you understand? Now he says: "What do you say about the fat of carrion" "Shuhum" is the plural of "shahm" (fat). Some said that "shahm" is white meat, and some said "shahm" is well-known. Which is more correct?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: The second.

The Shaykh : The second is more correct, because if you are told "shahm is white meat," one would go around asking, "Where is the white meat?" He would look around the sheep for white meat, yes, he might not know what white meat is. Then there might be white meats like, for example?
The student: Chicken.

The Shaykh : Rabbits, chicken, and fish, yes. In any case, it is said that "shahm" is well-known. As for "maytah" (carrion), it is the carrion that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) referred to in his saying:
Then they gave the reason, and he said: meaning the fats The ships, the sea vessels, are coated with the fat by anointing them. Why? So that the wood does not absorb water, because if the wood absorbs water, it becomes heavy and the ship sinks. And if this coating of fat is on the walls of the ship, it prevents the wood from absorbing water, so the ship remains protected by this coating from absorbing water. He said: Which skins?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, the skins that are tanned, because the oil softens them, because the oil softens them. Now he said: "Yustahabb" means they make it into lamps, meaning oil lamps. How is that done? They put it in the fat when they melt it, they put a wick made of cloth in it, then they pour it into the top, and then it lights up as long as this fat or oil remains. And we hear people talking about this, and although we did not experience it, it was used until recently, and people used it, yes. So much so that in some of our wills, someone bequeathed that the mosque lamp be lit, even if the sa' (a dry measure of about 3 kg) of lard cost a riyal. A sa' of lard, yes, a riyal. The riyal at that time for them was…
The student: One hundred riyals.

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: One hundred riyals.

The Shaykh : More than one hundred riyals, a lot. In any case, this lighting means putting the melted fat in a container and placing a wick in it, and the fire is lit at its top, and it becomes a lamp. So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said: No, meaning it is not permissible, because the question was about permissibility. And what is not permissible?
The student: The sale.

The Shaykh : We said there are two opinions among the scholars: one is that this work is not permissible, i.e., coating the ships, using it for lighting, and anointing the skins. And it was said, rather, it is the sale, and that is the correct view. In fact, the context specifies it, the context of the hadith. Then he said, "It is forbidden," meaning the sale. Why is the sale of carrion forbidden? Because carrion is forbidden, because carrion is forbidden, and the permissibility of its sale for these purposes necessitates its circulation among people and its being treated with contempt, because as it is said, "When touch becomes frequent, feeling decreases." Now, then the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said at that time: "Qatal" (May Allah fight) means "destroy" and it is said to mean "curse." And cursing is expulsion and distancing from the mercy of Allah. And that "qatal" means "curse" is far from the etymology, because "qatal" is derived from what?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : From "qatala" (to kill), and it does not contain any of the letters of cursing except the lam, and there is no etymological connection, neither major, minor, nor medium. But we say that the meaning of "qatal" is "destroy," because whoever fights Allah, or whom Allah fights, is certainly destroyed. So the supplication for fighting, i.e., Allah fighting these people, means the supplication for destruction, and this is appropriate for the root of this word. Even though many exegetes interpret fighting or killing as cursing, like His saying: meaning they were cursed, yes. But the most apparent is that the intended meaning of fighting is destruction, because interpreting a thing with what matches its root is preferable to interpreting it with something distant. Now.
Then he said: The Jews are those who claim to follow Moses (peace be upon him), and they are from the Children of Israel. But why were they described or labeled with this name? It is said that it is a reference to their grandfather, Yehuda, one of the sons of Jacob, and that with Arabization it changed to Yahud with a dal. It is also said that it is from "had" (returned) because they said meaning "we have returned," that is, we have returned. In any case, whether it is this or that, the Jews are known for cunning and deception, just as they did with the fish. When fishing was forbidden to them on the day of the Sabbath, Allah (Mighty and Majestic) tested them, so the fish would come to the surface of the water on the day of the Sabbath in large numbers, but on days other than the Sabbath they would not come to them. So they devised a scheme and placed nets on Friday, so the fish would come on the day of the Sabbath and enter the nets. Then, when Sunday came, they came and took them, saying, "We did not fish on the day of the Sabbath." So Allah (the Exalted) punished them with a punishment befitting their sin: He turned them into monkeys, because the monkey is the closest to the human being, just as their action was close to being valid, meaning its appearance was that it did not involve fishing. This monkey is close to the human being; its form is the form of a human being, but its meaning, here? It is an animal. Good.
So the important point is the Jews , and fats are more general; fats are more general, meaning it includes the fats of carrion and other than the fats of carrion. And it is known that Allah (Mighty and Majestic) forbade them the fats from cattle and sheep. Allah forbade them the fats of cattle and sheep , so the fats were forbidden to them except for these things. But what did they do? He says This is a scheme, a scheme against the prohibitions of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) invoked against them that Allah would fight them, as a warning against their action and to deter from it, because whoever acts as they acted deserves what they deserve, since humans are equal before Allah . So the sinner from this Ummah, by what the Children of Israel sinned, is likely to be overtaken by the punishment that overtook the Children of Israel.