Explanation of the author's statement: "And the skin of a dead animal does not become pure through tanning."

The Shaykh : Then the author said "And the skin of a dead animal does not become pure through tanning". The skin of a dead animal does not become pure through tanning. Tanning is well known; it refers to cleaning the filth and dirt that was in the skin by means of substances added to the water, among which is *qirḍ*. *Qirḍ* is something similar to it, and Allah knows best. What we call it here is *al-karimah*; I do not know what you call it. In any case, this tanning means cleaning the skin and removing whatever impurity is in it. If the skin is tanned, the author says that it does not become pure through tanning. Here we ask: First, is the skin of a dead animal impure? Yes, the answer involves detail. If the dead animal is pure, its skin is pure. If the dead animal is impure, its skin is impure. Is there such a thing as a pure dead animal? For example, fish and locusts. It appears that fish usually do not have skin, but there is no harm; the dead state of fish is pure. The dead state of fish is pure based on the saying of Allah the Exalted: Ibn 'Abbas said: "Its game is what is taken alive, and its food is what is taken dead". There is no doubt in this; its skin is pure, and it is all pure, with no doubt. As for that which becomes impure by death, its skin becomes impure by it; it becomes impure by death because it falls under the general term "dead animal," does it not? Thus, it falls under the saying of Allah the Exalted: . It is not necessary that prohibition implies impurity. This rule is correct: prohibition does not imply impurity. For this reason, poison is forbidden but not impure... and *tutun* is forbidden but not impure, and intoxicants are forbidden but not impure, according to the stronger opinion. Therefore, prohibition does not imply impurity. We answer this by saying that Allah, Mighty and Majestic, gave the reason for what He said: "It is an impurity." This makes it clear that it is impure. So the dead animal is impure, and its skin is impure. But if we tan it, does it become pure or not? The scholars differed on this. Some scholars said that it does not become pure, and as you see, the school of thought is that it does not become pure through tanning. Why did they say that? Because the dead animal is impure in its essence, and that which is impure in its essence cannot be purified. For example, if you take a dog and wash it with soap and hot water seven times, does it become pure? No, it does not. That which is impure in its essence does not become pure, does it? What about dung, the dung of a donkey? If you wash it with the water of the seas, does it become pure? No. So they say that the skin is impure in its essence, and that which is impure in its essence cannot be purified. In reality, the reasoning is very clear that it does not become pure because its impurity is essential. As for that which becomes pure when its filth is removed, that is the ruling-based impurity, such as impurity that occurs on a garment and is then washed until it is gone. It is clear that this becomes pure. But as for the skin, it does not. So they relied on a clear analogy that it does not become pure through tanning. Now, suppose someone cuts a piece of meat from a dead animal, cooks it, and puts *qirḍ* in it and everything that cleans it. Does it become pure now? No, it does not become pure. So the skin is like it; it does not become pure. But this analogy is against the text. Yes, this analogy is against the text. What is the text? The text is the hadith of Maymunah (may Allah be pleased with her) that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) passed by a sheep being dragged . This is explicit: water and *qirḍ* purify it, and it is a dead animal being dragged. They wanted to return it to the desert, so he said, "Take its skin." They said, "It is a dead animal." He said, "Water and *qirḍ* purify it." After this, do we stop or not? But they said that this hadith is abrogated because it is narrated that 'Abdullah ibn 'Uqaym said: . So they said that this hadith abrogates the hadith of Maymunah. Allah the Exalted erases what He wills and establishes what He wills. It is clear. Now, the answer to this hadith: First, the hadith is weak, and it cannot be set against the hadith in Muslim. Second, the hadith is not explicit in abrogation; it is not an abrogating text because we do not know if Maymunah's sheep was before the death [of the Prophet] by a month, or perhaps before his death by days. And a condition of claiming abrogation is knowledge of the timing. If that is not established, there is no abrogation. Third, even if it is established that it is later, it does not contradict the hadith of Maymunah, because his statement "Do not benefit from the skin or the sinew" is understood to refer to the skin before tanning; it is understood to refer to it before tanning. And in this way, it is reconciled with the hadith of Maymunah. And by this, it becomes clear that the claim of abrogation is not correct for these three reasons: the weakness of the hadith, the lack of knowledge of the timing, and the possibility of understanding it as referring to what has not been tanned. So the hadith of Maymunah remains clear and not abrogated. But we still have the issue of the analogy and reasoning. What do you say? If you tan the liver, it does not become pure, but if you tan the skin, it becomes pure, and they are all parts of a dead animal. And we know that the wise Shari'ah cannot distinguish between two identical things. So how do we get rid of this analogy? The answer to this is from two angles. The first angle is that whenever a difference is established in the Qur'an or the Sunnah between two similar things, know that there is a difference in meaning, but you have not reached it, because your comprehensive knowledge of the wisdom of Allah is possible but not attainable. So whenever you find two rulings in two similar things in the Shari'ah, but the two rulings are different, know that there is a cause that necessitated their difference in ruling, but it does not follow from that that you know this cause. So what is your position in that case? Your position is submission. Second, we say that it is possible to distinguish between the meat, the fat, and the skin, because the presence of life in what is inside the skin, since the skin is like a container, is stronger than its presence in the skin itself. It is stronger because the skin, as you know, has a type of hardness, unlike the meats, fats, intestines, and what is inside them, which are not like it. So it does not contain the impurity for which the dead animal became forbidden and impure. For this reason, we say that it is given a ruling between two rulings. The first ruling is that what is inside the skin does not become pure through tanning, clearly, nor through cleaning. And what is outside the skin, such as hair, wool, and feathers, is pure. The skin is between them, so it is given a ruling between them. And by this, we know the elevation of the Shari'ah, and that it cannot distinguish between identical things, nor combine different things. And that the skin becoming pure through tanning is from the great wisdom, and that it becoming impure by death is also from the great wisdom, because it is not like hair, wool, and feathers, and it is not like meat, fat, intestines, and the like. And Allah knows best.
And the second is that it must be realized. If there is a dire necessity, but you benefit from something else, yes, then there is no dire necessity, and it is not permissible. And if there is a dire necessity, but it is not realized that it can be averted by it, then it is not permissible. And by this, we know that treating oneself with what is forbidden is forbidden, even though some of the common people say that treating oneself with what is forbidden is permissible because dire necessities permit what is prohibited. Treating oneself with what is forbidden is forbidden. The reason is that one may be healed without it, and many people have been healed without being treated; they were on the verge of death, and then Allah healed them. This is one point. Second, even if it is assumed that one is in a state of dire necessity, is the necessity averted by it? One may be healed, and one may not be healed. Even if the medicine is used, some people say that the cure for coughing is drinking donkey milk, and they say in the well-known rule: "The cure for coughing is the milk of the she-donkey".

The questioner : This is from the jurisprudence of the common people.

The Shaykh : This is from the jurisprudence of the common people. We say that this is not correct, because Allah may heal without this, and then there are other medicines by which one is healed. And the second is that one may drink the milk of the she-donkey, as they say, and yet not be healed. Would that they had said the cure for coughing is the milk of the she-camel; that would have been fine. But may Allah protect us. Now, if we have benefited from two rules: The first rule is that a pressing need permits what is disliked, and the second is that a dire necessity permits what is forbidden. Good.