How can we reconcile between the Almighty's saying, "And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned," and His saying, "The food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you"?

The Almighty's saying: "{This day [all] good foods have been made lawful for you. And the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you}" is general in permitting the slaughtered animals of the People of the Book. However, there are other verses that prohibit what has had other than Allah's name mentioned upon it, or what has not had Allah's name mentioned upon it. To reconcile these verses, the issue is discussed in two sections:

The First Section: The ruling on a slaughtered animal of the People of the Book over which other than Allah's name was mentioned: There is a conflict between the generality of the verse "{And the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you}" and the generality of the verses prohibiting what has been dedicated to other than Allah. The majority opinion favors the prohibiting verses, while some prefer the verse of permissibility. The preponderant view is that the verses of prohibition are stronger, due to the Prophet's (peace be upon him) saying: "Sin is what wavers in your soul," and giving precedence to averting harm over gaining benefits.

The Second Section: The ruling on a slaughtered animal of the People of the Book over which neither Allah's name nor any other name was mentioned: There are two interpretations for "{And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned}": either it means what has been dedicated to other than Allah, or it is to be taken literally. If it is taken literally, then there is a conflict between the generality of the verse "{And the food of those who were given the Scripture is lawful for you}" and the generality of "{And do not eat of that upon which the name of Allah has not been mentioned}." The majority of scholars lean towards permitting the food of the People of the Book in this case. The preponderant view is that the verse of permissibility is stronger because it is less specific, and because it abrogates or specifies the verse in Surah Al-An'am which was revealed later.

Summary of the cases regarding the slaughtered animal of the People of the Book: 1. If Allah's name was mentioned over it: It is lawful without dispute. 2. If it was dedicated to other than Allah: It should not be eaten, based on scrutiny. 3. If Allah's name and other names were combined: It should not be eaten. 4. If there was silence and no name was mentioned: The majority allows it, and this is the correct view. 5. If the matter is unknown (slaughtered by an individual): It is permissible to eat according to the majority, and this is the correct view, unless the person from the People of the Book is known for eating carrion.