Why is the rule "the specific takes precedence over the general" not applied to the hadiths about lengthening the garment below the ankles (إسبال الإزار), such as "The one who trails his garment out of pride, Allah will not look at him" and "Allah will not look at the one who drags his garment boastfully," in the same way that it is applied to the hadiths about performing ablution after eating food touched by fire or after eating camel meat, especially since Sheikh Ibn Baz linked the ruling to pride and its absence?

If it is possible to reconcile two pieces of evidence, then one must act accordingly. Thus, a general statement is interpreted in light of a specific one, and an absolute statement is interpreted in light of a restricted one. However, ablution (wudu') from what has been touched by fire, and ablution from camel meat, are not of this category. For camel meat invalidates ablution whether it is raw or cooked. As for ablution from what has been touched by fire, the majority of scholars have responded by saying that it is abrogated by the hadith of Jabir, or that what is meant by it is washing the mouth and hands. And interpreting the generality of the prohibition in the hadith of isbal (letting one's garment hang below the ankles) as referring to intentional arrogance is not correct, due to the existence of hadiths that remove blame for what is between mid-calf and the ankles, and state that whatever is below that is in the Fire.