is carrion, for they are unanimous that the flesh of a dead animal counts as carrion.
They then disagreed about bone and hair. Al-Shāfiʿī holds that both bone and hair are carrion; Abū Ḥanīfah maintains that neither is carrion; while Mālik takes a middle course, saying that bone is carrion but hair is not.
The root of their disagreement is the different criteria they adopt for what may properly be called “living” among the functions of the body. Whoever deems growth and nourishment to be functions of life will say that once bone and hair have lost the ability to grow and be nourished they are dead, hence carrion. Whoever restricts the term “life” to sensation will say that bone and hair are not carrion, for they possess no sensation. And whoever differentiates between the two ascribes sensation to bone but not to hair.
Whether bone actually has sensation is itself disputed; physicians are divided on the point. A further indication that mere nourishment and growth are not the kind of life whose absence renders something carrion is their consensus that anything cut from a beast while it is alive is carrion, on account of the Prophet’s statement—peace and blessings be upon him: “Whatever is severed from a living animal is carrion.” Yet they also agree that hair cut from a living creature is pure. Had the label “carrion” applied to everything that lacks nourishment and growth, one would have to call an uprooted plant carrion, for plants do possess nourishment and growth. Al-Shāfiʿī can respond that the nourishment whose absence entails the term “death” is the nourishment found in organisms endowed with sensation.
Issue Three
They differed over the permissibility of using the hides of carrion. One group allowed benefit from such hides absolutely, whether they have been tanned or not. Another group held the contrary view, forbidding any use whatsoever even after tanning. A third group drew a distinction, permitting use if the hide has been tanned and prohibiting it if it has not, regarding tanning as a purifying process; this is the position of al-Shāfiʿī and Abū Ḥanīfah.
From Mālik there are two reports: one agrees with al-Shāfiʿī’s position, while the other holds that tanning does not purify the hide, though it may still be used for dry substances.
Those who consider tanning a purifier agree that it is effective for the hides of animals whose flesh becomes lawful through ritual slaughter, i.e., animals whose meat is permissible to eat. They disagree, however, about hides for which slaughter is of no consequence. Al-Shāfiʿī maintains that tanning purifies only the hides that are subject to slaughter, serving as a substitute for slaughter in conferring purity. Abū Ḥanīfah, by contrast, holds that tanning is effective for the hides of all dead animals except the pig.
Dāwūd went further, declaring that tanning purifies even the hide of a pig.