The relationship between the ruling on Wudu after eating camel meat and the ruling on Wudu after food touched by fire.

Primary text

The command to perform Wudu after eating camel meat is not nullified by the narration concerning abandoning Wudu after touching food with fire. There are four arguments against the claim of abrogation (Naskh). First, the command regarding camel meat is either concurrent with or later than the abrogation of Wudu after food touched by fire, as the former is often mentioned alongside the prohibition concerning sheep meat (which was touched by fire). Second, the nullification from camel meat is specific to it being camel meat, not merely being cooked, as it nullifies Wudu even when raw. Third, the opposing hadith is general, while the hadith mandating Wudu for camel meat is specific, and the specific ruling takes precedence over the general one when reconciliation is possible. Fourth, the evidence mandating Wudu for camel meat is sound and widespread, whereas the opposing evidence lacks these qualities, making it incapable of abrogating the established ruling.