The second is that they do not become pure. This is the well-known position in Mālik’s school. Accordingly, tanned hides may be used for water but not for other liquids, because water does not become impure through such use. This is also the better-known of the two positions reported from Ahmad, adopted by most scholars of his school. However, the first position was the later of the two reported from him. As al-Tirmidhī related through Ahmad ibn al-Hasan al-Tirmidhī, Ahmad had followed the hadith of Ibn ʿUkaym but abandoned that position toward the end of his life.

Two arguments support this position. The first is their contention that these hides are part of animals that have died without lawful slaughter, and that no authentic report concerning tanning has been established. For this reason, al-Bukhārī did not include any mention of tanning among the Prophet’s words in the hadith of Maymūnah—may Allah be pleased with them all. These scholars challenged the reports transmitted by Muslim and others, being leading authorities qualified to exercise independent judgment in hadith.

They said: Ibn ʿUyaynah transmitted the mention of tanning from al-Zuhrī, yet al-Zuhrī permitted the use of hides from animals that had died without lawful slaughter even without tanning. This indicates that his narration contained no mention of tanning. They also criticized Ibn Waʿlah.

The second argument is their contention that the hadiths concerning tanning were abrogated by the hadith of Ibn ʿUkaym, namely the words of the Prophet (may Allah Most High bless him and grant him peace) in his letter to Juhaynah:

“I had permitted the use of hides from animals that died without lawful slaughter. But when this letter of mine reaches you, do not make use of either the hide or the sinews of such animals.”

Both these arguments are transmitted from Imam Ahmad himself in his responses and debates, in connection with the first, well-known position reported from him.