scholars. Ibn 'Abbas said: The Jews do not eat the eel (jirri) (18). The Rafida concurred with them, and opposing them is correct.

Section: Regarding Ahmad, concerning a fish found in the belly of another fish, or in the crop of a bird, or locusts found in its crop, he said in one place: Everything that has been eaten once is not to be eaten. He said in another place: A floating fish (al-tafi) is more severe than this, yet Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) granted a concession for it (19). This is the correct view. It is the school of al-Shafi'i regarding what is in the belly of a fish, but not what is in the crop of a bird, because it is like excrement, and the excrement of a bird is, according to him, impure (najis). Our evidence is the statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him): "Two types of dead animals and two types of blood have been made lawful for us." Also, it is a pure animal in a pure place; no ritual slaughter (dhakah) is required for it, so it is permitted, just like the floating fish. The same derivation applies to barley found in the dung of a camel, the excrement of buffaloes (21), and the like.

1747 - Issue: He said: (And if impurity falls into a liquid, such as oil and its like, it becomes impure, and it may be used for lighting if one wishes, but its consumption and its price are not lawful.)

The apparent meaning of this is that if impurity falls into a liquid (1) other than water, it makes it impure, even if it is a large quantity. This is the apparent view of the madhhab. From Ahmad, there is another narration that it does not become impure if it is a large quantity. Harb said: I asked Ahmad about a dog that licked a pot of ghee or oil? He said: If it is in a large vessel, like a jar (hub) (2) or similar to it, I hope there is no harm in it; it may be eaten. If it is in a small vessel, it does not please me that it be eaten. He was asked about a dog that fell into vinegar of more than two qullas (water containers) and emerged alive? He said: This is easier than