Section: Crops and fruits that have been watered with impurities (62) or fertilized with them are prohibited. Ibn Aqil said: It is possible that it is disliked, not prohibited. It is not ruled to be impure, because the impurity undergoes transformation (istihala) within its interior, and thus becomes pure through transformation, like blood that transforms in the organs of an animal into flesh and becomes milk. This is the opinion of the majority of jurists, including Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi'i, because Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas used to manure (63) his land with human excrement and say: "A sack of excrement is a sack of wheat" (64). The urra is human excrement. Our position is what was narrated from Ibn Abbas, who said: We used to lease the lands of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) and we would stipulate to them that they should not manure them with human excrement (64). Also, because it is nourished by impurities and their parts rise within it, and transformation does not purify it. According to this view, it becomes pure if it is watered with pure water, like the jallālah animal if it is confined and fed with pure substances.

1739 - Issue: He said: (And whoever is compelled to [eat] carrion, he shall not eat of it except that which he is secure (1) against death by).

The scholars are in consensus on the prohibition of carrion in the state of choice (2), and on the permissibility of eating from it in a state of necessity. The same applies to all other prohibited items. The basis for this is the saying of Allah the Exalted: "He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him" (3). It is permissible for him to eat what sustains his life and by which he is secure against death, by consensus. It is prohibited to eat more than what satisfies hunger, also by consensus. Regarding eating to satiety, there are two narrations; the more evident of the two is that it is not permissible. This is the opinion of Abu Hanifah, one of the two narrations from Malik, and one of the two opinions of al-Shafi'i. Al-Hasan said: He may eat the amount that keeps him alive, because the verse indicated the prohibition of carrion and excepted what one is compelled to eat; so when the necessity is repelled, eating is no longer permissible, just as in the initial state. And because, after sustaining his life, he is no longer compelled, so eating is not permissible for him according to the verse. This is confirmed by the fact that after sustaining his life, he is like he was before he was compelled, and at that point eating was not permissible for him, and thus it is the same here.