Explanation of the author's statement: "Like the mule and the donkey, the silkworm and its seed, the elephant, and the predatory animals that are suitable for hunting, except for the dog and insects"

The Shaykh : The author says "Like the mule and the donkey" and so on. The mule is an animal born from a donkey and a horse; it occurs when a donkey mounts a horse, and she gives birth to what is called a mule. It possesses the nature of donkeys and the nature of horses. Its ruling is that it is forbidden because it is born from what is lawful and what is forbidden in a way that cannot be distinguished, so the side of prohibition is given precedence. Do you understand this? When something is born from what is lawful and what is forbidden in a way that cannot be distinguished, the side of prohibition is given precedence. If someone asks how we give precedence to the side of prohibition, and why we do not give precedence to the side of permissibility, we say that avoiding the forbidden is obligatory, and it cannot be avoided except by avoiding the lawful. Is avoiding the lawful permissible or forbidden?

The questioner : It is permissible.
Another questioner: Forbidden.

The Shaykh : Avoiding the lawful, my brothers? It is permissible, it is lawful. Avoiding the lawful is permissible. Do you understand the reasoning? The scholars say that when the cause of permissibility and the cause of prohibition coincide in a way that they cannot be distinguished, the side of prohibition is given precedence. Why? Because avoiding the forbidden is, what? It is obligatory, and it cannot be avoided except by avoiding the lawful. And avoiding the lawful is permissible. So if I avoid the lawful, there is no blame on me, but if I commit the forbidden, there is sin upon me. For this reason, the side of prohibition is given precedence, and it is said that the mule is forbidden. However, it is permissible to sell it because the Muslims have been trading in mules from the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) until our time. Likewise, the donkey; is it permissible to sell it or not? It is permissible to sell it. What is the evidence? Consensus. The evidence is that the Muslims are in agreement on this; they have been trading in donkeys from the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) until this day.
If someone asks, what is the difficulty with the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) and the mule is forbidden and the donkey is forbidden? We say that the price of it is forbidden, meaning the price of that forbidden thing. For this reason, if a person buys a mule to eat it, it is forbidden, or is it permissible?

The questioner : It is forbidden.

The Shaykh : Yes, because it is forbidden for him, so it is not permissible for him to take a price for something that is forbidden. He is buying it not to eat it, but to ride it, and riding it and benefiting from it is lawful, so it does not contradict the hadith.
He said "and the silkworm". Silk is a type of silk, one of the finest silks. And it has worms; do you know what worms are?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : What are they? The worm is like the one found in the date. This worm, by the permission of Allah, produces this silk, and it wraps itself around it. It folds over itself until it is covered, then it dies and dries out. Then this silk is taken, but in huge quantities. The silkworm is permissible to sell, even though it is an insect, because it is beneficial. Likewise, the seed of this worm, which has not reached the stage of producing silk, is permissible to sell because it is beneficial. When? In the present or in the future?

The questioner : In the future.

The Shaykh : Because it is beneficial in the future, it is permissible to sell it. Likewise, it is permissible to sell the elephant and the predatory animals that are suitable for hunting. The elephant is well known; it is permissible to sell it because heavy loads are carried on it, so there is benefit in it. Likewise, the predatory animals that are suitable for hunting, such as tigers, leopards, and lions, if they are suitable, and also falcons and others. Every predatory animal, whether bird or livestock, if it is suitable for hunting, it is permissible to sell it because it is sold for a permissible benefit, so it is permissible like the donkey. Except for one; he said except for the dog, for it is not permissible to sell it, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) Even though the dog is suitable for hunting, did the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) not permit keeping it for three things: agriculture, livestock, and hunting? And yet, it is not permissible to sell it, even if he sells it for this purpose, meaning for hunting, it is not permissible.
If someone asks, how is the dog prohibited despite its benefits, while the predatory animals that are suitable for hunting are not prohibited? We say the distinction is by the text. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and it is not valid to analogize the predatory animals that are suitable for hunting to it, because they fall under the generality of the saying of Allah the Exalted and because they are less harmful than the dog, for if the dog licks a vessel, it must be washed seven times, one of which with soil, whereas for other predatory animals, the seven washes and the soil are not required. So the difference is apparent, and the analogy is prevented.
If someone asks, has it not been reported in what al-Nasa'i and others narrated regarding the exception of the hunting dog? We say yes, but the precise scholars among the people of hadith and jurisprudence said that this exception is anomalous and cannot be relied upon. Also, if this exception were authentic, the prohibition of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding the price of the dog would be from the category of idle talk, because a dog that is not used for hunting and not beneficial for agriculture or livestock cannot be sold. It cannot be sold. Therefore, it is established that the prohibition of the price of the dog is only for the dog that is what? That is beneficial and whose keeping is permitted. Okay, he says except for the dog and insects. Insects are not valid to sell, and the reason is that there is no benefit in them, so spending money on them is a waste of it. And and it is known from this reasoning that if there were benefit in them, it would be permissible to sell them. Do you understand? Because the ruling revolves with its cause in existence and absence. So if there is benefit in them, there is no harm. They said that among the benefits are leeches for sucking blood, and worms for what? For catching fish.