Second: it is not abrogating, because we do not know whether the incident involving the sheep in the hadith of Maymunah occurred a month before his death or only a few days before it. One of the conditions for affirming abrogation is knowledge of the chronological sequence.

Third: even if it were established that it came later, it would not conflict with the hadith of Maymunah, because his statement, “Do not derive any benefit from carrion, neither from its hide nor from its sinews,” is understood to refer to a hide before tanning. Thus, it may be reconciled with the hadith of Maymunah.

If someone were to ask: How can you say that if flesh is tanned it does not become pure, whereas if hide is tanned it does become pure? After all, they are all parts of a dead animal, and we know that the wise Shariah cannot distinguish between things that are alike.

The answer is from two perspectives:

First: whenever a distinction between two similar things is established in the Quran and the sunnah, then know that there is a meaningful difference between them, though you have not discovered it. This is because it is impossible for you to encompass the wisdom of Allah; your stance, therefore, must be one of submission.

Second: it may be said that a distinction can be made between flesh and hide. Life permeates what lies within the hide more fully than it permeates the hide itself, since the hide possesses a degree of firmness unlike flesh, fat, intestines, and what lies inside it. Thus, it is not alike, and it does not contain the same degree of impurity—for which reason carrion has been deemed unlawful and impure—as is found in flesh and the like.

Therefore, we say that it is assigned an intermediate ruling between two rulings:

The first ruling: whatever lies within the hide does not become pure through tanning.