Not in reality, so its goodness was impure, which is blood, and its badness was impure, which is urine and reflux. It was better that the impurities of odors should not make him taste, for it is from the world of the breath, so its impurity was by its nature, and so is it from every animal except that the realities of animals and their spirits are not as high in honor and status as the truth of man, so his slip was great. So they agreed without disagreement on the impurity of such a thing, and they differed regarding the rest of the urine of animals and their litter, and if everything is from nature, so whoever takes care of nature says that everything is impure, and whoever considers the status of honor and decadence said about the impurity of human urine and its litter and did not pardon him due to the greatness of his status and pardon those who are below him from the animals, I have told you about The cause of agreement and disagreement, praise be to God, and God says the truth and He guides the way.

( Chapter on the death of an animal that has no blood and on the death of a marine animal )

The scholars differed regarding these two dead bodies, so who says that it is pure and with it I say, and who says that dead sea dead and the uncleanness of land dead that has no blood except what has been agreed upon on its purity because it is not dead like vinegar worms and what is generated in food.

( Received it in the subconscious )

We have informed you of this purity above regarding this purity of blood. So whoever says that the dead animal that does not have Adam is pure is the innocence of the claim, because the life generated from blood in which the claim occurs, not in the life of all beings in which glorification of God is by His praise, because that life is pure in principle because it is about God without reason withholds it from God, and whoever says that the dead sea is pure, and if it has blood, then it is in God s knowledge, and there is no judgment on things in God s knowledge. From that on this issue ends the thirty-fourth part (In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful)

( Chapter of ruling on parts of what they agreed on is dead )

The scholars, may God be pleased with them, differed in the parts of what they agreed upon that it is dead, with their agreement that the meat from the parts of the carcass is dead. not dead

( The inner consideration has arrived in that )

Since the death that is considered in this issue is the emergency that eliminates the life that was in this place, we looked at the name of life. So whoever made life growth said that they were dead, and whoever made life sensation said that they were not dead, and who differentiated he said that the bone is felt, it is dead, and the hair is not felt, it is not dead. His growth by food and his sense by the animal spirit, they are dead, whether he expresses his growth through life or from sense. already dead, and whether life is growth or sense

( Chapter of benefiting from the skins of the dead )

Whoever says that it is originally tanned or not tanned, and who says the difference between being tanned and not tanned, and in its purity, there is a difference of opinion. When zakat is used, it means that it is permissible to eat from an animal, and they differed as to what is not used for zakat. So it is said that the tanner only purifies what the zakat does, and that the tanner replaces the zakat in declaring purity. The tanner cleanses all dead animals, pigs and others

[ The doctrine of Sheikh Al-Akbar in making use of the skins of dead animals and purifying them with tanning ]

Which I go to and say that it is permissible to benefit from the skins of all dead animals and that the tanner purifies them all, and I do not avoid any of the dead animals.

( Consideration reached in the subconscious )

We have made known to you the name of the dead animal, so benefiting from its skin is not prohibited, which is the use of the apparent meaning.