it strikes it with its paw; then, if it desires it, it eats it, or else leaves it. This is a benefit. Hence the jurists said that it is permissible to sell a cat (1). However, it is narrated in Sahih Muslim that the Prophet, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him, forbade the sale of cats (2). The scholars therefore differed on this matter.

Some of them permitted it, interpreting the hadith containing the prohibition as referring to a cat from which there is no benefit, since most cats are prone to causing harm. But if we find a domesticated cat from which benefit is derived, then the view that its sale is permissible is clearly sound, because it has a benefit.

As for “the sale of carrion,” carrion does have a permissible benefit, but only in cases of necessity; hence, its sale is prohibited.

Thus, the benefit must be permissible without need. Should we say, “without necessity,” or is it sufficient to say, “without need”?

The answer is the latter, because if it is only permissible in a case of necessity, then it is even more clearly impermissible [to sell].

But if an item has a benefit that is restricted rather than unrestricted—such as the hide of carrion after it has been tanned—then the well-known position of the madhhab is that it may not be used for every purpose; rather, it may only be used for dry substances. Accordingly, they say that its sale is invalid, because its benefit is not unrestricted, but restricted. Thus, it is stipulated that the benefit must not be restricted. If it is restricted, then its sale is invalid, because the buyer does not thereby acquire the right to unrestricted use. However, the stronger view concerning the hide of carrion is that, if tanning renders it pure, its sale is valid.