His statement, “and eating the meat,” includes both raw and cooked meat, since all of it is called meat. Excluded by his statement, “eating,” is the case of one who chews it without swallowing it: his ablution is not invalidated, because one who chews something and then spits it out is not said to have eaten it.

His statement, “specifically,” qualifies the meat, not the camel, because the expression “camel” renders “specifically” unnecessary.

Excluded by the word “specifically” are things other than meat, such as the stomach, liver, fat, kidney, intestines, and the like.

The evidence for this is as follows:

1. These things do not fall under the designation of meat. The proof is that if you instructed someone to buy meat for you, and he bought stomach instead, you would object to it. Thus, invalidation is restricted to meat itself—that is, the fleshy portion (1).

2. The basic presumption is that ritual purity remains intact, while including anything other than the fleshy portion is merely speculative; and certainty is not removed by speculation.

3. Ablution being invalidated by camel meat is a matter of devotional observance whose underlying wisdom is not known. Since this is so, it is not possible to draw an analogy between anything other than the fleshy portion and the fleshy portion, because one of the conditions of analogy is that the original case have a discernible effective cause. Analogy consists of assigning a subsidiary case the ruling of an original case on account of a common effective cause. Matters of devotional observance have no known effective cause. This is the well-known position of the school.

The correct view, however, is that there is no difference between the fleshy portion and the rest of the parts, and the evidence for this is: .