Tanning hide
If you tan the hide of a dead animal will it purify the hide?
According to the Hanaabilah if you tan the hide of a dead animal it will not purify the hide. They use the following hadith for evidence:
Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Ukaim:
"A letter came from the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) saying: 'Do not use the skins of dead animals, nor tendons.'"
[Jaami' al-Tirmidhi Hadith No. 1729]
They say the above hadith has abrogated the following hadith:
The freed slave-girl of Maimuna was given a goat in charity but it died. The Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) happened to pass by that (carcass). Upon this be said:
Why did you not take off its skin? You could put it to use, after tanning it. They (the Companions) said: It was dead. Upon, this he (the Messenger of Allah) said: Only its eating is prohibited. Abu bakr and Ibn Umar in their narrations said: It is narrated from Maimuna (may Allah be pleased with her).
[Sahih Muslim Hadith No. 363]
Those who oppose the Hanaabilah say that if you tan hide it purifies it and use the above mentioned hadith of Maimuna for evidence. They say the hadith is authentic and explicit that if you tan the hide of a dead animal it purifies it.
They rebut the Hanaabilah's claim that the hadith has been abrogated in the following way:
Some claim the hadith is weak. It cannot be used to oppose the authentic hadith of Sahih Muslim.
Second, they claim that for abrogation to come into effect one must know the date in history of the hadith in question. We do not know the date of the hadith of Maimuna and if it was later than the hadith of Abd Allaah bin 'Ukaim. It could have been a month before his death or more. Since we do not have knowledge of this, abrogation cannot come into effect.
Finally, even if we accept that the hadith of Abd Allaah 'Ukaim was later than the Hadith of Maimuna then it will be understood to mean that you are not to use the skins before they are tanned. By this means we can reconcile the two hadith and act on both of them.
Based on this it should be evident that the claim that the hadith of Abd Allaah 'Ukaim abrogated the hadith of Maimuna is not a valid claim.
It is also interesting to note the words of Imaam al-Tirmidhi at the end of the Hadith which are as follows:
[Abu 'Eisa said:] This Hadith is Hasan. This Hadith has been related to 'Abdullah bin 'Ukaim from some Shuyukh of his, and this is not acted upon according to most of the people of knowledge. And this Hadith has been related from 'Abdullah bin 'Ukaim, that he said: "A letter came to us from the Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) two months before he died."
He said: I heart Ahmad bin Al-Hasan saying: "Ahmad bin Hanbal followed this Hadith due to it mentioning that it was two months before he (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) died. Then Ahmad left this Hadith because of their Idtirab in its chain, since some of them reported it, saying: 'From 'Abdullah bin 'Ukaim from some Shuyukh of his from Juhainah.'"