The third argument

He distinguished between the two regarding ablution and also regarding prayer in their resting places. This distinction is firmly established and remains in force. No text has been transmitted from him treating them alike regarding ablution and prayer, so the claim of abrogation is invalid. Indeed, Muslims’ adherence to this hadith regarding prayer requires adherence to it regarding ablution, since there is no difference between the two.

The fourth argument

He commanded ablution after eating camel meat, which entails ablution whether it is eaten raw or cooked. This precludes its having been abrogated.

The fifth argument

Even if a general statement had been transmitted from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, saying, “No ablution is required after eating anything touched by fire,” it could not be considered to abrogate this hadith, for two reasons:

First, it is not known that this hadith preceded that general statement. When a general text and a specific text conflict and their chronology is unknown, no scholar has said that the general text abrogates the specific one. Rather, either the specific text takes precedence—as is the well-known position of Mālik and al-Shāfi‘ī, and the position most commonly reported from Ahmad—or judgment is suspended. Indeed, even if it were known that the general text came after the specific text, the specific text would still take precedence.

(Second, we have already shown that this specific text came after the general text. Thus, if there were any abrogation, the specific text would be