Moreover, a prohibition can be lifted only by His making the thing lawful, and He has made the eating of good things lawful only for believers, saying:

“There is no blame upon those who believe and do righteous deeds for what they have eaten,”

and the rest of the verse. He also says:

“Livestock have been made lawful for you, except what is recited to you, without your being permitted to hunt.”

And He says:

“They ask you what has been made lawful for them. Say, ‘Good things have been made lawful for you,’”

through to His words:

“The food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them.”

This addresses the believers. Hence He says:

“The food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you,”

then says:

“And your food is lawful for them.”

If whatever has been made lawful for us were also lawful for them, there would have been no need for this statement. His words, “And your food is lawful for them,” do not include what has been forbidden to them, just as His words, “The food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you,” do not include things forbidden to us which they regard as lawful, such as game hunted within the Sacred Precinct and animals slaughtered with the invocation of a name other than Allah’s.

Does their food which has been made lawful for us include what has been forbidden to them but not to us—for example, when they slaughter camels? There is a well-known disagreement over this. The established position in Mālik’s school—which is also one of the two positions in Ahmad’s school—is that it is forbidden. The position of Abū Hanīfa and al-Shāfiʿī, and the other position in Ahmad’s school, is that it is lawful.

Is the legal basis that they did not intend a valid ritual slaughter, or that it is not part of their food? There is disagreement over this.