Not in its reality, so its goodness was impure, which is blood, and its badness was impure, which is urine and dung. It would have been better not to impart any foul odors to it, for it is from the world of breaths, so its impurity was in terms of its nature, and so it is from every animal, except that the realities of animals and their spirits are not as high in honor and status as the realities of humans. So his mistake was major, so they agreed without disagreement on the impurity of such things, and they disagreed on the rest of the urine and dung of animals, and if all of them were from nature, then whoever observed nature said that all was impure, and whoever took into account the status of honor and decadence said that human urine and dung are impure, and he did not pardon him because of his great status and pardoned the animals who were below him. I explained to you the reason for agreement and disagreement, and praise be to God, and God speaks the truth and He guides the

The scholars differed regarding these two dead animals. Some say that they are pure, and this is what I say, and some say the purity of a sea dead animal and the impurity of a land dead animal that has no blood, except for what has been agreed upon as being pure because it is not dead, like vinegar worms and what is generated in grafted foods, and some say that land dead animals are impure. And the sea is nothing but that which has no blood.

We have informed you of what was mentioned above regarding this purity regarding the consideration of blood. So whoever says that the dead animal of Adam is pure, then he is acquitted of the claim, because the life generated from blood is in it, and not in the life of all existing beings, through which there is glorification of God with His praise. That life is pure in principle because it is from God without any reason that would obscure it from God. And whoever says that a dead sea animal is pure, even if it contains blood, then it is in the knowledge of God, and there is no ruling on things in the knowledge of God. Rather, rulings relate to them if they appear in their essence, which is their emergence from knowledge into sensory existence. Like this, the rest of what they disagreed about in this issue is considered. End of Part Thirty-Four

The scholars, may God be pleased with them, differed regarding the parts of what they agreed upon to be dead meat, while agreeing that meat is one of the parts of dead meat. We have explained the consideration of meat in pork, and they differed regarding the bones and hair. So who says that they are dead, and who says that they are not dead, and I say so. It is said that bones are dead and that hair is not dead.

Since the death considered in this issue is the emergency that removes the life that was in this place, we looked at what is called life. So whoever makes life growth says that they are dead, and whoever makes life sensations says that they are not dead, and whoever makes a difference says that the bone feels is dead. And poetry does not sense, it is not dead. Whoever sees its growth through food and its sense through the animal spirit are dead, whether he expresses life through growth or sense. And whoever sees its growth through his Lord, not through food, and his perception of sensible things through his Lord, not through the senses, has not paid attention to the intermediary because of its annihilation through the witnesses of the origin that is its creator, even if he sees that the truth is his hearing and sight. It is the essence of his senses, and it is not true for him that he is dead at all, whether life consists of growth or of senses .

Whoever says that it is to be benefited from at all whether it is tanned or not, and who says that there is a difference between being tanned and not being tanned, and there is disagreement regarding its purity. Whoever says that tanning purifies it, and who says that tanning does not purify it, but rather it is used on dry land. Then those who went to That the tanner is a purifier. They agreed that it is a purifier for what the slaughter is performed on, meaning that it is permissible to eat from animals. They differed regarding what the slaughter is not performed on. Some say that the tanner only purifies what the slaughter is performed on, and that the tanner is an alternative to the slaughter in order to confirm the purity. And there are those who say that the tanner works on the purification of dead bodies. Animals except the pig. It is said that the tanner purifies all the dead animals of pigs and other animals .

We have made you aware of the name of a dead animal, as benefiting from its skin is not forbidden, which is the use of what is apparent. Whoever takes the rulings by the apparent meaning without interpretation or departing from the apparent ruling that the word indicates, there is no objection to that, and there is no argument against us for whoever says what it indicates . < /p>