Is total abstinence from eating meat considered extremism when taking into account the opinion of those who forbade eating "al-Jalalah," and is hunting from the wild permissible despite the possibility of animals having eaten impure things?

Eating impurities by an animal has two cases: - The first: That it eats them occasionally. This is permissible and there is no harm in it, because wild animals may eat impurities, and this does not affect the permissibility of eating them. The permissibility here is confirmed if the animal is not slaughtered soon. - The second: That it eats them permanently. The animal is then called a "Jallalah." The majority view is that it is disliked as a tanzih (dislike approaching prohibition), the Hanbalis hold it to be unlawful, and the Malikis hold it to be permissible. The preponderant view is that its ruling depends on the appearance of the impurity's effect in its meat or smell. If the effect appears, its meat is disliked; if it does not appear, there is no harm in it.

Therefore, refraining from eating all meats merely because this type of feed exists is an act of extremism.