the game was caught outside Medina and then brought into it. The same applies to the hadith about the wild animal, if it is authentic. Even assuming that the two conflict, the case would be comparable to that of declaring Medina a sanctuary, for the hadiths concerning its sanctuary status were narrated by Abū Hurayrah and others who became Companions relatively late, whereas the Prophet’s visit to Abū Talha took place in the early period after the Hijrah. Alternatively, when two texts conflict, one establishing a departure from the original ruling and the other negating that departure and maintaining the original ruling, the former takes precedence. Giving it precedence requires the ruling to be determined only once, whereas giving precedence to the text that maintains the original ruling entails two changes in the ruling.

Thus, if it were said that the incident reported in the hadith of Abū ʿUmayr occurred after the hadiths declaring Medina a sanctuary, this would mean that he had prohibited it and then permitted it. If, however, the incident is assumed to have occurred earlier, this would entail only that he prohibited it after it had been permissible. There is no doubt about this. And Allah knows best.

Section

As for marriage, there is no doubt that the position of the scholars of Medina—that marriages arranged to make a woman lawful again for her former husband, and reciprocal exchange marriages, are invalid—conforms more closely to the Sunnah than the position of those scholars of Iraq who do not invalidate them. For it is authentically established {that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, cursed the man who marries a woman to make her lawful again for her former husband, and the man for whom this is done},