In his book قصص الحيوان في القرآن, pages 58-64, Ash-Sha`raawi brings up an observation that should have been claimed as an abrogation within 5:3 but apparently wasn't. Here is the verse for reference,
That issue is the parsing of the exception إلا ما ذكيتم
(except what you have purified). Does the exception apply to all types of meat listed before it, or to a subset of them?
He cites the ruling of Ali, may God have been pleased with him, that if one catches a livestock which is dying of lack of Oxygen, المنخنقة
, of a beating, الموقوذة
, or a fall, المتردية
, before it dies then says the name of God on it and slaughters it such that blood comes out, then it is a lawful slaughter and is permitted to eat. Ibn Abbaas ruled likewise and included an animal that is dying after an attack by another animal, النطيحة
. Ibn Abbaas additionally asserted that the exception "except what you have purified" does not apply to dead animals, spilled blood, or swine meat. At-Tabari agrees and adds animals that were dedicated to other than God, ما أهل لغير الله به
, as well as what a lion started eating, if the animal has not yet died and was purified by proper slaughter. That was the ruling of Qataada, An-Nakh`i, Taawoos, Ubaydullah ibn Umar, Ad-Dhahhaak and Ibn Zayd.
The grammatical issue of what an exception applies to if it follows a conjunction of words has been discussed in the literature but was not decided. As we showed in the 24:5/24:4
abrogation claim, some scholars have maintained that it applies to all words in the conjunction, while others insisted it only applies to the last one. Here we have a selection within the conjunction to which the exception applies. A new opinion! But I agree with it. I think that exceptions must be reconciled with all other mentions of the subject matter in the Quran in order to fully comprehend them.