Continuing to mention the benefits of the hadith: (Indeed, Allah and His Messenger have forbidden the sale of intoxicants, carrion, pork, and idols . . . ).

The Shaykh : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
I think we are still discussing the benefits of the hadith of Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: We mentioned that this is general in all circumstances, meaning it is not permissible to sell intoxicants from a Muslim to a Muslim, nor from a disbeliever to a Muslim, nor from a Muslim to a disbeliever. As for the sale of intoxicants among disbelievers, they are left to do so because they believe it is lawful. We have previously explained what intoxicants are, and we said that anything that covers the mind for the sake of pleasure and enjoyment is included.
Now, does the sale of intoxicants include the case of dire necessity and the case of no necessity? We said it includes both. So if a person is in dire necessity to drink intoxicants, as the jurists mentioned, to remove a piece of food stuck in his throat, it is not permissible to sell it to him. Rather, it is obligatory for whoever has some of it to give it away for free to save this person in dire necessity.
Now, what is similar to intoxicants or more harmful than it, such as opium, hashish, narcotics, and the like, is measured by it. Is smoking, or the use of tobacco, measured by it or not?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Huh?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, it does not intoxicate, it does not intoxicate, and I think it also does not narcotize. However, it falls under what comes in the sale of carrion, in the sale of carrion or pork. But in the sale of carrion, it is close.
He said: Meaning, the sale of carrion is forbidden. And as we know, this is a general term because it is a singular noun with the definite article, and the original rule for a singular noun with the definite article is that it is comprehensive and general. Because it does not exit comprehensiveness except by evidence, such as being for a specific reference or to indicate a specific reality. So every carrion, its sale is forbidden, and all of the carrion, its sale is forbidden. So we have two generalities: a generality for all carrions, where we said every carrion, its sale is forbidden, and a generality for the carrion itself, where we said all of the carrion, its sale is forbidden.
As for the first, which is the generality in the entities of the carrions, something is excluded from it. What is excluded is what is lawful in its death, such as fish and locusts, for their sale is lawful.
If someone asks, where is the evidence for excluding this from the generality? We say the evidence is first, the Sunnah.
And second, the meaning. As for the Sunnah, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said in the context of this hadith: So it is known from this reasoning that the carrion whose sale is forbidden is the forbidden carrion, due to his saying: Is that clear? As for the meaning, we say that the sale of carrion is forbidden because no benefit is derived from it. And the lawful carrion, benefit is derived from it, or not? Yes, benefit is derived from it. And what is beneficial in a lawful manner, the Shari'ah cannot prevent its sale, because that would be restricting people from general benefit from it. Because if we said that this thing is lawful but its sale is not permissible, it means we have restricted, or not? We have restricted people by forbidding benefit from it, so it becomes that no one benefits from it except whoever has it in his hand, or if he gives it as a gift or charity or the like. So what is excluded from this?
The student: The lawful carrion.

The Shaykh : The lawful carrion, like fish and locusts, and you have known the evidence and the reasoning for that.
Now, the second generality is our saying that all of the carrion, meaning all parts of the carrion, is forbidden, its sale is forbidden. This is also not on its generality, because something is excluded from it. What is excluded is what life does not make lawful, and its sale is lawful by consensus, such as hair, wool, fleece, and feathers. The sale of these is lawful by consensus because they do not fall under the term "carrion." For this reason, they are sheared and benefited from. If they were from the carrion, then if they were sheared, no benefit would be derived from them, because what is cut from a living creature is like its carrion. Now, so what is excluded from the carrion is what life does not make lawful. Yasser, for example?
The student: Like the hair and ...

The Shaykh : Wait, we counted four.
The student: Their hairs and their wools and their feathers.

The Shaykh : Ah
The student: Three.

The Shaykh : We counted four. May Allah reward you. Do not wrong us. May Allah reward you with good if you forgot!
The student: ... their wools and their hairs and their skins.

The Shaykh : No.
The student: ...
Another student: Shaykh?

The Shaykh : Allahu Akbar! Either you deny what we said, or you include what we did not say!
The student: Their fleeces.

The Shaykh : Their fleeces, their fleeces, here. Now, these four, what is the difference between them, Nasser? What is the difference between them?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Glory be to Allah! Yes?
The student: The fleece is for sheep.

The Shaykh : The fleece is for sheep.
The student: The wool is for camels.

The Shaykh : And the wool is for camels.
The student: And the hair is for goats.

The Shaykh : Goats and cows, yes.
The student: And the feathers are for birds.

The Shaykh : For birds, understood.
The student: ... Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes, the fleece is for sheep, the wool is for camels, the hair is for cows and sheep, and the feathers are for birds.
The student: The hair?

The Shaykh : For birds.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes, the sheep have the fleece.
The student: You said the hair is for cows and sheep.

The Shaykh : No, no, we said cows and goats, cows and goats. Now, so we understood these four are permissible to sell. If the beast dies, for example, and a person shears its fleece or hair or wool, he has the right to sell it. And likewise, if he cuts its feathers, he has the right to sell it by consensus, because life does not make it lawful. Now, are the hooves sold or not?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : The hooves of the beast are in the position of the nails for a human.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: No, Shaykh ...

The Shaykh : Now, does life make them lawful?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : It appears that they are of the same kind as the nail, of the same kind as the nail. Some are made lawful by life and are painful, and some are not. So what is made lawful by life, like the nail, its sale is permissible if benefit is derived from it. And if no benefit is derived from it, its sale is prevented, not because it is a part of the carrion, but because spending money on it is a waste of money. Now, the bones of the carrion, the bones of the carrion, is their sale permissible?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : No, because they fall under the generality of the word "carrion." And the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) chose the permissibility of selling the bones, reasoning that life does not make the bone lawful because there is no blood in it, and the prohibition of carrion revolves around the blood. For this reason, if the animal is of a kind that has no blood, its carrion is?
The student: Lawful.

The Shaykh : No, pure. Say it, say it is pure. Do not say it is lawful, because this is a problem if you say it is lawful. Only say it is pure. What has no blood, its carrion is pure. So the bones are pure, and if they are pure, their sale is permissible. But the majority of the scholars are against his opinion, and his opinion is closer to the wording of the hadith, because the carrion, in reality, when "carrion" is said, nothing comes to mind except that it is a term comprehensive of all the carrion. And the Shaykh al-Islam's saying that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said: and the bones are not eaten. The answer to that is to say, but they can?
The student: They are eaten.

The Shaykh : They can be eaten, they can be eaten, yes. Now, does this include the skin? The skin of the carrion or not?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : We say the hadith includes it, because the skin is a part of the carrion that life makes lawful. So it is not permissible to sell the skin of the carrion, even if it is flayed and separated from it, because it is a part of it. So just as it is not permissible for me to sell its hand or its leg if I cut it off, it is not permissible for me to sell its skin if I flay it. Is that clear? Now, does this include the case where the skin is tanned?
The student: Yes ...

The Shaykh : Yes?
The student: No.

The Shaykh : Now, some scholars say that it includes the case where it is tanned, and this is based on the fact that it does not become pure by tanning, and that it is not benefited from except in dry things. And this is the famous view of the school of thought, the Hanbali school, that it does not become pure by tanning and is not benefited from except in dry things after tanning. And the correct view is that it becomes pure, the correct view is that it becomes pure by tanning, and that it is benefited from in dry and liquid things, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) passed by a sheep being dragged, dead, and said: And he said: And this indicates that tanning purifies it and makes it lawful, where he compared it to slaughter, where he compared tanning to slaughter. And on this opinion, we say it is permissible to sell it after tanning, because it is a substance whose benefit is permissible in a general, comprehensive manner, so its sale is permissible after tanning.
Now, is the sale of the skins of predatory animals permissible after tanning?
The student: It is not permissible.

The Shaykh : This is based on whether the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): includes what slaughter does not make lawful, such as predatory animals, or is it restricted to what slaughter makes lawful, due to his saying: And there is disagreement among the scholars on this as well. But if we say that the skins of predatory animals become pure by tanning, then their sale is permissible, like the skins of carrion.
Now, if someone says, if you say it becomes pure by tanning, then say its sale is permissible before tanning, just as you say the sale of a contaminated garment is permissible. Do you understand this?
The student: Yes.

The Shaykh : Or is there two opinions on this?
The student: ...

The Shaykh : If someone were to say: If you claim that it becomes pure through tanning and that its sale and use are permissible after tanning, then you should also claim that its sale is permissible before tanning, by analogy to a garment that has become ritually impure. For if a ritually impure garment is sold, is its sale permissible or not? It is permissible because it can be purified; it can be purified and used. So treat the skin of a dead animal before tanning like a ritually impure garment, like a ritually impure garment, and say that its sale is permissible.