The following response may be given to these two proofs:

As for Jabir’s hadith, “The final ruling was to abandon ablution after eating anything touched by fire,” it does not conflict with the hadith requiring ablution after eating camel meat—let alone abrogate it. This is because it is general, and a general text is interpreted in light of a specific text, by the agreement of the scholars. Thus, those cases for which there is evidence specifying an exception are excluded from it. Nor is abrogation to be claimed when reconciliation is possible, because to claim abrogation when reconciliation is possible is to invalidate one of the two proofs, even though it is not invalid.

The purpose of Jabir’s hadith is to clarify that ablution after eating food touched by fire is not obligatory. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had commanded ablution after eating that which had been touched by fire, and this command is authentically reported from him. Jabir therefore said, “The final ruling was to abandon ablution after eating anything touched by fire.”

When the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) commands something but himself does otherwise, this indicates that the command is not obligatory.

Some scholars established an unsound principle, toward which al-Shawkani (1) inclined: if the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) commands something but does otherwise, then his action is deemed exclusive to him, while the command remains binding upon the Ummah according to its apparent implication of obligation.

This is weak, because the Sunnah of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) includes both his statements and his actions. If his statement appears to conflict with his action, then, when reconciliation is possible, no exclusivity is to be asserted, for we have been commanded to follow his example in both word and deed; and it is not permissible to interpret it as