Explanation of the author's statement: "And all of its parts are impure, except for hair and the like."
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh :"And all of its parts are impure; all of its parts are impure" the hand, the leg, the eye, the head; all the parts are impure due to the generality of the saying of Allah the Exalted [Al-An'am 6:145] and the term "carrion" applies to "every living creature" its exterior and its interior. The author says, "Now, does the skin fall under his statement 'all of its parts'?" We have already spoken about this, and that is his statement "and the skin of carrion does not become pure," because the implication of his statement "and the skin of carrion does not become pure" is that it is impure, which is clear.
The questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, not necessarily. This skin may not be considered one of the parts, or it may be considered one of the parts, but we have already spoken about it. He said "except for hair and the like". "Except for hair" means hair and the like, such as wool, camel hair, and feathers. These are four: hair, wool, camel hair, and feathers. Wool is for sheep, camel hair is for camels, hair is for goats, cows, and the like, and feathers are for birds. And the author's statement "its milk and all of its parts are impure", from this is excluded that which is pure in death. What is pure in death? Fish. Fish means every sea creature without exception, for its death is pure and lawful due to the saying of Allah the Exalted[Al-Ma'idah 5:96]. Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him) said "Its catch is what is taken from it alive, and its food is what is taken from it dead". Does lawfulness imply purity? Yes, there is no doubt that lawfulness implies purity. And does prohibition imply impurity? Now, does impurity imply prohibition? Yes. So we take three rules now: every lawful thing is pure, every impure thing is forbidden, and not every forbidden thing is impure. That is complete. Now, the sea creature is excluded entirely; its death is pure. Also excluded is the death of a human being, for it is pure due to the generality of the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and due to the generality of his saying Sahih al-Bukhari 283. And because when a man dies, he is washed; if he were impure, the washing would not have benefited him. Now, the third is everything that does not have flowing blood. Everything that does not have flowing blood, and the meaning is blood that gushes out when slaughtered or killed, such as flies, cockroaches, locusts, and the like. Yes, the lizard. Imam Ahmad said it has flowing blood, and the scorpion does not; the scorpion does not have blood.
The questioner : The lizard has blood.
The Shaykh : Yes, how does it have blood?
The questioner : If it is killed, what comes out comes out.
The Shaykh : But it affects the ground; it descends to the ground. Now, the mouse has a soul; it has blood that flows, so it is impure. Now, everything that does not have blood that flows when slaughtered is pure.
The questioner : ... they exclude, it became.
The Shaykh : From where?
The questioner : Because the animal is pure.
The Shaykh : It is pure in life, but we spoke about what is after death; it is impure after death. Now, what is the evidence for the purity of that which does not have flowing blood? The evidence is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the hadith of Abu HurayrahSahih al-Bukhari 3320. So his saying includes dipping it in hot water, and if it is dipped in hot water, it dies. If it were to make things impure, the Messenger would have ordered it to be poured out. Yes.
The questioner : ... then if that is from the impure?
The Shaykh : No, there is disagreement in this, which will come to us, if Allah wills, in the chapter on impurity. Now, these animals that are pure in life: the author says we are speaking about the animal that is pure in life, and the author says "its milk and all of its parts are impure". And we excluded from the carrion that which is pure in life, and that is three things. First, so, what is excluded from the carrion is what is pure after death, and that is three things: the sea creature, the human being, and that which does not have flowing blood, meaning that which does not have blood that flows. These are pure. Now, does the purity of a thing imply its lawfulness?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : No, it does not imply it. Its lawfulness implies its purity, but its purity does not imply its lawfulness. So, the dung of a camel.
The questioner : Is pure.
The Shaykh : Is it eaten?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Now, so, its purity does not imply its lawfulness. That which does not have flowing blood is pure, and its lawfulness is implied by it, no. Now, this is added to the three previous rules, making four rules: purity does not imply lawfulness. Now, the author says "all of its parts are impure, except for hair and the like". But they, may Allah have mercy on them, stipulated for hair and the like that it be cut, not pulled out. Cut means either with scissors or with a knife, and not pulled out. Why? Because if it is pulled out, its roots are congested with something of the carrion. And this is very clearly apparent in feathers. No, not in feathers, but in hair. It is not apparent on the surface, but in reality, it is the case, because it is embedded in the skin and has something in direct contact with the impurity. So we say it must be cut. And by this, we know that carrion is divided into three categories: hair and the like, which is pure; the flesh and what is inside the skin, which is impure, and tanning or anything else does not benefit it; and the third is the skin, which is a layer between them. And its ruling is not like that of this or that, but its ruling is between them. The jurists mentioned that the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, made the intestines, the stomach, and the tendons like tanning. This is a statement in the Arabic language.
The questioner : And the tendons.
The Shaykh : No, they made the intestines, the stomach, and the tendons like tanning. This is the expression. They made the intestines, the stomach, and the tendons like tanning. I think Husayn can translate this for us. The intestines are known, or not? And the stomach is known. He made the tendons, meaning strings, strings, like tanning, meaning in the position of tanning. And based on that, it becomes pure and it is permissible to use it in dry things according to the school of thought. But the author of al-Furu', may Allah have mercy on him, and he is one of the most famous students of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, especially in jurisprudence, says it is directed, no, it is directed, no. The meaning is that the one who sees, may Allah have mercy on him, that the most correct view, based on the school of thought or based on the stronger opinion in his view, is that it is not tanning. And what he said is directed, because the intestines and the stomach are from the solid parts of the carrion, and they do not become pure by this. Especially since he says it is made into a string, which is not tanned, because it is not tanned. So the correct view is what the author of al-Furu' held, that it is not. And on this occasion, the author of al-Furu', may Allah have mercy on him, says "it is directed" from his side. And the author of al-Ghayah, which is by Shaykh Mur'ay, may Allah have mercy on him, one of the later scholars, who compiled in it between al-Muntaha and al-Iqna', al-Ghayah al-Muntaha in combining al-Iqna' and al-Muntaha. If he wants to say something, he branches it from his side and says "it is directed," "it is directed." So the difference between the direction of the author of al-Ghayah and the direction of the author of al-Furu': did you understand? This will benefit you if you pass by what is in some marginal notes, "it is directed" such and such, so it is from the expressions of Mur'ay, the author of al-Ghayah, one of the later scholars. And if it is said "it is directed," it is from the speech of the author of al-Furu'. But between the direction and the direction, in terms of strength, reasoning, and evidence, there is a great difference. Meaning, the directions of the author of al-Furu', may Allah have mercy on him, are mostly based on rules and principles, while the directions of Shaykh Mur'ay, may Allah have mercy on him, are below the level of those. Yes. He says "except for hair and the like".
unless it be a dead animal or blood spilled out or the flesh of swine - for indeed, it is impure
إلا أن يكون ميتة أو دما مسفوحا أو لحم خنزير فإنه رجسThe questioner : ... .
The Shaykh : No, not necessarily. This skin may not be considered one of the parts, or it may be considered one of the parts, but we have already spoken about it. He said "except for hair and the like". "Except for hair" means hair and the like, such as wool, camel hair, and feathers. These are four: hair, wool, camel hair, and feathers. Wool is for sheep, camel hair is for camels, hair is for goats, cows, and the like, and feathers are for birds. And the author's statement "its milk and all of its parts are impure", from this is excluded that which is pure in death. What is pure in death? Fish. Fish means every sea creature without exception, for its death is pure and lawful due to the saying of Allah the Exalted
Lawful to you is game from the sea and its food
أحل لكم صيد البحر وطعامهThe believer does not become ritually impure, whether alive or dead.
المؤمن لا ينجس حيا ولا ميتاA believer never becomes impure.
إن المؤمن لا ينجسThe questioner : The lizard has blood.
The Shaykh : Yes, how does it have blood?
The questioner : If it is killed, what comes out comes out.
The Shaykh : But it affects the ground; it descends to the ground. Now, the mouse has a soul; it has blood that flows, so it is impure. Now, everything that does not have blood that flows when slaughtered is pure.
The questioner : ... they exclude, it became.
The Shaykh : From where?
The questioner : Because the animal is pure.
The Shaykh : It is pure in life, but we spoke about what is after death; it is impure after death. Now, what is the evidence for the purity of that which does not have flowing blood? The evidence is the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the hadith of Abu Hurayrah
If a house fly falls in the drink of anyone of you, he should dip it (in the drink) and take it out
إذا وقع الذباب في شراب أحدكم فليغمسه ثم لينزعهlet him dip it
فليغمسهThe questioner : ... then if that is from the impure?
The Shaykh : No, there is disagreement in this, which will come to us, if Allah wills, in the chapter on impurity. Now, these animals that are pure in life: the author says we are speaking about the animal that is pure in life, and the author says "its milk and all of its parts are impure". And we excluded from the carrion that which is pure in life, and that is three things. First, so, what is excluded from the carrion is what is pure after death, and that is three things: the sea creature, the human being, and that which does not have flowing blood, meaning that which does not have blood that flows. These are pure. Now, does the purity of a thing imply its lawfulness?
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : No, it does not imply it. Its lawfulness implies its purity, but its purity does not imply its lawfulness. So, the dung of a camel.
The questioner : Is pure.
The Shaykh : Is it eaten?
The questioner : No.
The Shaykh : Now, so, its purity does not imply its lawfulness. That which does not have flowing blood is pure, and its lawfulness is implied by it, no. Now, this is added to the three previous rules, making four rules: purity does not imply lawfulness. Now, the author says "all of its parts are impure, except for hair and the like". But they, may Allah have mercy on them, stipulated for hair and the like that it be cut, not pulled out. Cut means either with scissors or with a knife, and not pulled out. Why? Because if it is pulled out, its roots are congested with something of the carrion. And this is very clearly apparent in feathers. No, not in feathers, but in hair. It is not apparent on the surface, but in reality, it is the case, because it is embedded in the skin and has something in direct contact with the impurity. So we say it must be cut. And by this, we know that carrion is divided into three categories: hair and the like, which is pure; the flesh and what is inside the skin, which is impure, and tanning or anything else does not benefit it; and the third is the skin, which is a layer between them. And its ruling is not like that of this or that, but its ruling is between them. The jurists mentioned that the scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, made the intestines, the stomach, and the tendons like tanning. This is a statement in the Arabic language.
The questioner : And the tendons.
The Shaykh : No, they made the intestines, the stomach, and the tendons like tanning. This is the expression. They made the intestines, the stomach, and the tendons like tanning. I think Husayn can translate this for us. The intestines are known, or not? And the stomach is known. He made the tendons, meaning strings, strings, like tanning, meaning in the position of tanning. And based on that, it becomes pure and it is permissible to use it in dry things according to the school of thought. But the author of al-Furu', may Allah have mercy on him, and he is one of the most famous students of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, especially in jurisprudence, says it is directed, no, it is directed, no. The meaning is that the one who sees, may Allah have mercy on him, that the most correct view, based on the school of thought or based on the stronger opinion in his view, is that it is not tanning. And what he said is directed, because the intestines and the stomach are from the solid parts of the carrion, and they do not become pure by this. Especially since he says it is made into a string, which is not tanned, because it is not tanned. So the correct view is what the author of al-Furu' held, that it is not. And on this occasion, the author of al-Furu', may Allah have mercy on him, says "it is directed" from his side. And the author of al-Ghayah, which is by Shaykh Mur'ay, may Allah have mercy on him, one of the later scholars, who compiled in it between al-Muntaha and al-Iqna', al-Ghayah al-Muntaha in combining al-Iqna' and al-Muntaha. If he wants to say something, he branches it from his side and says "it is directed," "it is directed." So the difference between the direction of the author of al-Ghayah and the direction of the author of al-Furu': did you understand? This will benefit you if you pass by what is in some marginal notes, "it is directed" such and such, so it is from the expressions of Mur'ay, the author of al-Ghayah, one of the later scholars. And if it is said "it is directed," it is from the speech of the author of al-Furu'. But between the direction and the direction, in terms of strength, reasoning, and evidence, there is a great difference. Meaning, the directions of the author of al-Furu', may Allah have mercy on him, are mostly based on rules and principles, while the directions of Shaykh Mur'ay, may Allah have mercy on him, are below the level of those. Yes. He says "except for hair and the like".