Explanation of the author's statement: "And food, and that which is respected, and that which is attached to an animal."

The Shaykh :"And food" Food for the children of Adam, and likewise food for the livestock of the children of Adam. What is the evidence? The evidence is that we say: since the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) forbade us from using bones and dung for cleaning ourselves because they are the food of the jinn and their beasts, and since humans are superior, it is even more appropriate to forbid using their food for this purpose. There is also another prohibition in this, besides the evidence and reasoning mentioned earlier, which is that it constitutes ingratitude for Allah's blessing. For Allah the Exalted created this for eating, not to be degraded in this manner, may Allah protect us from that. Thus, this falls under the category of ingratitude for blessings. So, there is evidence and reasoning, indeed two reasonings.

The questioner : Even if it is dry?

The Shaykh : Even if it is dry, as long as it is food for the livestock. Even if it is dry, contrary to what is implied by the wording of al-Shafi'i. So we say: any food of the children of Adam or of their livestock is forbidden to use for cleaning oneself. The apparent meaning of the author's words is that this applies even if it is leftover food, even if we have finished with it and no longer want it, such as broken bread and the like. It is not permissible to use these for cleaning oneself. Now, he says: "And that which is respected" Respected means that which has sanctity. It is not permissible to use it for cleaning oneself, such as books of knowledge, books of Islamic religious knowledge. It is not permissible to use them for cleaning oneself. Why? Because of the evidence: and piety is obligatory. Therefore, it is not permissible for a person to use something respected for cleaning oneself. The apparent meaning of the author's words is that this applies even if it is written in a language other than Arabic. First, even if it is written in a language other than Arabic, as long as its subject matter is respected, it is not permissible to use it for cleaning oneself. "And that which is attached to an animal" This means it is not permissible for a person to use something attached to an animal for cleaning oneself. Why do they say this? Because it has sanctity, because the animal has sanctity. So it is not permissible for a person to use the tail of a cow, or the ear of a donkey. Yes, because they are respected. And if its feed is forbidden to be used for cleaning oneself, how much more so is the animal itself? If you say that, based on your reasoning, it would not be permissible to clean oneself with water because the hand will touch the impurity, or not touch it but become contaminated by it and smell its odor, and there is the smell of impurity in your hand. On this basis, it would not be permissible to clean oneself with water. We say that some of the Salaf held this view, stating that cleaning oneself with water without preceding it with stones is not permissible, even if it is only because you contaminate your hand with impurity. Do you understand? What do I do with this view now? There are rubber gloves that you put your hands into. If you want to clean yourself, you take one of these gloves and clean yourself with it, carrying it with you. And if you want to wash it afterwards... But this view is very weak, and the Sunnah refutes it. The correct, explicit Sunnah from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is that he would suffice with cleaning himself [with stones]. And we say, in response to the hand touching impurity: this touching is for the purpose of removing the filth, and touching for the purpose of removal is not prohibited. Did you see? If you applied perfume while in the state of ihram, and I am in the state of ihram, it is forbidden. If, for example, someone put perfume on your forehead or head after you entered the state of ihram, you must remove it with your hand, and there is no sin on you and no expiation, because touching it here is for the purpose of removing it. Another man... this is an example. A second example, a third example: a man usurps a piece of land and walks on it one day. In the middle of the land, he remembers the punishment and retribution, and that a person carries this land from seven earths. So he repents to Allah with sincere repentance. A condition of sincere repentance is to immediately abandon the sin. This man says: what do I do? If I stay in my place, my staying is forbidden. And if I walk on the usurped land, I have used it in forbidden steps. What do I do? We say: bring a helicopter to lift you out. But when will it connect with the authorities? Now we say: this man's walking from the point where he repented until he exits does not incur sin, or does it? It does not incur sin, because it is for the purpose of getting rid of the forbidden, prohibited thing. So the point is that touching a thing to get rid of it cannot make a person sinful, because if we made him sinful for it, it would be from the category of imposing what is unbearable. And on this basis, we say: if someone raises the objection: how do you say that it is forbidden to use something attached to an animal for cleaning oneself, while you permit a person to touch that impurity with his hand when cleaning himself? The answer, O Rashid, yes, what is the answer?

The questioner : He did not do it to remove it.

The Shaykh : To remove it. So it is for the purpose of getting rid of it, not for the purpose of becoming contaminated by it. There is a difference between one who touches it to get rid of it and one who touches it to become contaminated by it. "And that which is attached to an animal" Now, is the animal impure or pure? It is all the same, the impure and the pure. So if a person uses the tail of his camel for cleaning himself, it is like if he used the tail of his donkey. Both are forbidden. Now, how many conditions are there? Seven. It is required that it does not come from the usual place, and that it be pure and clean, and not be bone. Now, do you consider dung and what is conjoined with it as one, because it falls within the scope of the negation, so it is "not bone"? Or do you consider each one as a separate condition?