The second argument

Even if the expressions “polytheistic women” and “disbelieving women” are understood to include women of the People of the Book, the verse in Sūrat al-Mā’idah is specific and was revealed later. It was revealed after Sūrat al-Baqarah and Sūrat al-Mumtahanah, by scholarly consensus, as stated in the hadith:

“Al-Mā’idah was among the last portions of the Quran to be revealed, so regard as lawful what it declares lawful and as forbidden what it declares forbidden.”

The Muslim scholars agree that a later specific text takes precedence over an earlier general text. However, the majority say that it explains the earlier text, making clear that the case excluded by the specific text was never intended by the general wording. Another group says that the ruling concerning that case was abrogated after having been prescribed.

The third argument

If we suppose that both texts are specific, then one text prohibited meat slaughtered by the People of the Book and marriage to their women, while the other permitted both. Here, the text permitting them must be given precedence for two reasons.

The first is that Sūrat al-Mā’idah was revealed later, by scholarly consensus, and therefore abrogates the earlier text. It cannot be argued that this amounts to abrogating the ruling twice, because engaging in those practices before their prohibition was not based on a revealed legal pronouncement permitting them. Rather, it was due to the absence of a prohibition, just as with drinking wine, eating pork, and similar practices.

A newly introduced prohibition does not constitute abrogation of a ruling based on the presumption of continuity. Thus, the Prophet’s prohibition—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—of

“every fanged beast of prey and every bird with talons”

did not abrogate what is indicated by the words of Allah Most High:

“Say: ‘I do not find in what has been revealed to me anything forbidden to one who would eat it’”—and the rest of the verse—

namely, that before this verse was revealed, Allah, Mighty and Majestic, had prohibited only these three categories. For this verse negated the prohibition of anything other than those three up to the time of its revelation, without establishing the lawfulness of