that he said:

“Only eating carrion has been forbidden.”

He subsequently prohibited wearing its hide before tanning. This explains his words in the hadith of ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Ukaym:

“I had permitted you to use the hides of dead animals. But when this letter of mine reaches you, do not make use of their hides or sinews.”

The earlier concession concerned using hides without tanning, as a group of the early generations held. The prohibition thus revoked the earlier concession. As for using them after tanning, he never prohibited that. Accordingly, the later of the two positions reported from Ahmad was that tanning purifies the hides of dead animals. But does tanning take the place of ritual slaughter, purifying the hides of animals lawful to eat, or the place of life, purifying the hides of animals that were pure while alive, but not others? There are two views. The sounder is the first: tanning purifies whatever ritual slaughter purifies, because the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—forbade the use of the hides of predatory animals in a hadith.

Moreover, those who disagree concede that wine may be used to extinguish fires and for similar purposes, even though the command to avoid wine is more emphatic. If wine may be destroyed in a way that yields benefit, then destroying impure substances in a way that yields no benefit is all the more permissible. They also concede that carrion may be fed to hawks and falcons, so using it as fuel is all the more permissible.

As for the objection, “This poses a risk of coming into contact with impurity,” the answer is that contact with impurity when needed is permissible, provided one purifies one’s body and clothing for prayer and similar acts. Thus, it is permissible to cleanse oneself with water after relieving oneself, despite direct contact with impurity. This is not disliked according to the sounder of the two positions reported from Ahmad, and this is the view of most jurists. The second position is that it is disliked.