authentic from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): the hadith of al-Bara' and the hadith of Jabir ibn Samurah. As for their hadith from Ibn Abbas, it has no basis; rather, it is from the statement of Ibn Abbas and is mawquf (attributed) to him. Even if it were authentic, our hadith would have to be given precedence over it because it is more authentic and more specific, and the specific (al-khas) is given precedence over the general (al-'amm). The hadith of Jabir also does not contradict our hadith due to its authenticity and specificity. If it is said: "The hadith of Jabir is later, therefore it acts as an abrogator (nasikh)," we say: Abrogation cannot be correctly established through it for four reasons. The first is that the command to perform wudu' from camel meat is subsequent to, or contemporaneous with, the abrogation of wudu' from what fire has touched. This is proven by the fact that he linked the command to perform wudu' from camel meat with the prohibition of performing wudu' from sheep meat, which is something fire has touched. Thus, either the abrogation occurred through this prohibition, or it occurred through something prior to it. If it occurred through this, then the command to perform wudu' from camel meat is contemporaneous with the abrogation of wudu' from what fire has altered, so how can it [be permissible that it] be abrogated by it? One of the conditions of abrogation is the lateness of the abrogator, and if the abrogation occurred before it, it is not permissible for it to be abrogated by what preceded it. The second reason is that eating camel meat necessitates wudu' because it is camel meat, not because it is something fire has touched; this is why it necessitates wudu' even if it is raw. Therefore, the abrogation of one aspect does not establish the abrogation of the other aspect, just as if a woman were prohibited due to suckling and due to being a stepdaughter; the abrogation of the prohibition due to suckling would not be an abrogation of the prohibition of the stepdaughter. The third reason is that their report is general and our report is specific, and a general report cannot be abrogated by a specific one because a condition of abrogation is the impossibility of reconciliation (al-jam'), and reconciliation between the specific and the general is possible by interpreting the general to apply to cases other than the specific instance. The fourth reason is that our report is authentic and well-known (mustafid), possessing the strength of authenticity, widespread transmission, and specificity, whereas their report is weak because it lacks these three aspects; therefore, it is not permissible for it to be an abrogator of ours. If it is said: "The command to perform wudu' in your report admits the possibility of it being recommended (istihbab), so we interpret it as such. It also admits the possibility that by 'wudu' [before food and after it],' he meant washing the hands, because when wudu' is attributed to food, it implies...