The cause of their divergence is the clash of the transmitted reports on the matter. In the ḥadīth of Maymūnah there is an unconditional permission to benefit from a dead animal, for it recounts that the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—passed by a carcass and said, “Why did you not make use of its hide?”

By contrast, the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUkaim contains an unconditional prohibition, for it states that the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—wrote: “Do not make any use of the hide or sinews of a dead animal.” Ibn ʿUkaim added, “That was one year before his death.”

Some reports instruct that one may benefit from such hides after tanning and forbid it before tanning. The most reliable text in this chapter is the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās in which the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said: “When a hide is tanned it becomes pure.”

Because these reports differ, people have differed in how to interpret them.
• One group sought reconciliation in light of the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās, distinguishing between tanned and untanned hides.
• A second group treated the evidence according to the principle of abrogation, adopting the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿUkaim as the final ruling because it explicitly dates from one year before the Prophet’s death.
• A third group preferred (tarjīḥ) the ḥadīth of Maymūnah, reasoning that it contains information not found in the ḥadīth of Ibn ʿAbbās and that the latter does not in fact imply a prohibition of benefit before tanning; benefit and purity are not identical—for everything pure may be used, but not everything that can be used is necessarily pure.

Issue Four
The scholars unanimously agree that the blood of land animals is impure, but they differ concerning the blood of fish and, likewise, small quantities of blood from non-marine animals.

• Some hold that fish blood is pure; this is one of the two opinions reported from Mālik and the view of al-Shāfiʿī.
• Others hold that it is impure, following the general rule regarding blood; this is Mālik’s position in the Mudawwanah.
• A further group regards small amounts of blood as excused.
• Another maintains that small and large amounts share the same ruling. The first of these views is the majority position.

The reason they disagree over the blood of fish is their disagreement about its carcass. Whoever includes fish carcasses within the general prohibition likewise includes its blood, whereas whoever excludes its carcass excludes its blood by analogy. A weak report is cited in this context in which the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said: “Two kinds of carrion and two kinds of blood have been made lawful for us: locusts and fish, and the liver and the spleen.”