the abrogating text. Scholars agree that a later specific text takes precedence over an earlier general text. Thus, by the consensus of Muslims, a general text of this kind cannot take precedence over the specific text—even if there were a general wording here. How much more so when no general hadith has been transmitted from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, abrogating ablution after eating everything touched by fire. Rather, what is authentically established is:

“He ate a sheep’s shoulder, then prayed without performing ablution.”

Likewise:

“He was brought sawīq (roasted grain flour), ate some of it, and then did not perform ablution.”

This is an action and has no general scope. Ablution after eating sheep meat is not obligatory, by agreement of the imams whose teachings are followed. The previously cited hadith provides the evidence for this.

As for Jābir, he merely reported concerning the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him:

“The later of the two practices was to omit ablution after eating what had been touched by fire.”

This reports his action, not his words. If they saw him eat sheep meat and then pray without performing ablution, after he had previously performed ablution after eating it, it would be correct to say that omitting ablution was the later of the two practices. But knowing that he invariably omitted it would require constant companionship with him. Nothing in Jābir’s hadith indicates this; rather, what he reported was its omission on a particular occasion.

Moreover, omitting ablution on account of eating something touched by fire does not entail omitting it when it is required on another ground. As explained above, ablution after eating camel meat is not required because it has been touched by fire. Rather, the reason is specific to camel meat and applies whether it is raw or cooked. Thus, the requirement of ablution after eating camel meat and its requirement after eating what has been touched by fire overlap in scope: each is broader in one respect and narrower in another. The two grounds may coincide, so that the ruling has two causes, or either may occur independently of the other. This is analogous to ablution following the discharge of