Vomiting, Acid Reflux, and Cupping While Fasting القيء والحموضة والحجامة للصائم

Questioner: The second question: acid reflux, O Shaykh, (audio unclear) which the common people call (audio unclear) — is it to be treated by analogy with vomit? I mean, in terms of swallowing it, as [something] entering this cavity (jawf)?

As for acid reflux: first, vomit — there is disagreement over whether it invalidates wudu or not, and the correct view is that it does not invalidate wudu. The hadith "He vomited, so he made wudu" is [taken] as recommendation, not obligation, because it is a bare action, and a bare action is taken as recommendation, not as obligation. Had it been obligatory, the Prophet ﷺ would have commanded it, because people need [to know] such a thing.

As for fasting, the majority say: whoever vomits deliberately must make up [the fast], and whoever is overcome by vomit has no make-up upon him. They take as evidence the hadith of Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet ﷺ said: "Whoever makes himself vomit deliberately, let him make up [the fast]; and whoever is overcome by vomit, there is no make-up upon him." But this report is defective (ma'lul); the greatest of the hadith masters (huffaz) declared it defective. Al-Darimi mentioned in his Musnad that the people of Basra (audio unclear). And 'Isa ibn Yunus was criticised because of this hadith. Imam al-Bukhari, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and other hadith masters declared this hadith defective, and (audio unclear) this report.

Had it been established, Abu Hurayrah would not have given fatwa contrary to it; for Abu Hurayrah used to give fatwa that vomit does not invalidate the fast even if it is deliberate. This is the position of Ibn 'Abbas and a group of his students. As for the statement of al-Khattabi and others that the scholars are agreed by consensus that deliberate vomiting breaks the fast, this is not accurate. Many of these consensuses (ijma'at) reported in matters of fiqh are not sound. How can a consensus be established when Abu Hurayrah disagrees, Ibn 'Abbas disagrees, a group of Ibn 'Abbas's students disagreed, and groups among some of the jurists of the schools disagree on this matter?

This acid reflux: if it is equivalent to vomit, it is joined to it [in ruling] — names do not change realities or remove meanings. But if it is merely a sensation of taste, or of saliva, and the like, then this has nothing to do with vomit. We know that the jurists call one thing qay' [vomit] and another thing qals [regurgitation], and qals is less than vomit. The jurists express qals as "what does not fill the mouth." Indeed, what is called qals, a person does not swallow it while he is fasting, deliberately. And if (audio unclear) came out while he is able to expel it... But if he is unable to [expel it], it does not harm him. If he is able to expel it, then swallowing it is forbidden for him, because in this case it has separated from the throat; he must expel it, and swallowing it is forbidden for him, [because] (audio unclear) he has taken in new food.

Therefore, whoever holds back the vomit before it reaches the throat, this does not harm him. But if it came up to the throat and then he sent it back, this breaks his fast, because he is equivalent to one who has eaten food — even though returning vomit is prohibited in the first place, because the Prophet ﷺ said: "The one who takes back his gift is like the dog that vomits and then returns to its vomit." The Muslim does not take back vomit; he spits it out and expels it. Even if he is in prayer and is overcome by vomit, he breaks off the prayer, and this is a concession for him, so that he can set himself right and clean himself. If he catches it in a tissue or the like, there is no harm in that. But he has no concession to swallow it. If he is in prayer and is fasting, and it came out to the mouth and then he swallowed it, his prayer and his fast are both invalidated. Yes.

(An exchange with an attendee follows, partly unclear; the speakers are not clearly distinguished in the recording.) May Allah be good to you — al-Khattabi, may Allah have mercy on him, did not really mean this. He said "the scholars are agreed," and he did not mean... the proof being that he did not mean the [whole] community: the Hanbali school is agreed on this meaning, al-Khattabi is a Shafi'i and the Shafi'is agree with the Hanbalis, and the Hanafis agree with the three schools. The Malikis? Yes, the well-known [position] is that they agree with the majority, but there is detail among some of the Maliki jurists. Expelling it? No, no, no — deliberately expelling vomit, the preponderant view is that it does not invalidate the fast.

The preponderant view is that deliberately expelling vomit does not invalidate the fast, for two reasons. The first reason is that there is no evidence for it; the evidence cited a little earlier, we said, is defective — the greatest of the hadith masters declared it defective. And fasting is part of the religion of the Muslims and (audio unclear) of Islam, so one does not move away from the default except with evidence. Had this broken the fast, [the Prophet ﷺ] would have explained it with a general explanation. And we do not say to people (audio unclear) without clear evidence.

The evidence for the second reason is that this is something that goes out, not something that enters. Ibn 'Abbas said: "Breaking the fast is from what enters, not from what goes out." (audio unclear) Some people object to this principle, saying: menstruation is something going out, not entering, and the woman breaks her fast by it. We say: first, menstruation is agreed upon by consensus, with no dispute over it. Second, the reason [in menstruation] is not merely that it is something going out. Do you see — if blood other than menstruation came out of her, would she [break her fast]? She breaks her fast because of it being menstruation, not because of its being merely something going out, so that you could give this as the reason.

Others objected with cupping (hijamah), for Imam Ahmad, may Allah exalted have mercy on him, held that it breaks the fast, and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah exalted have mercy on him, chose that. This too is disputed. The correct of the two views of the scholars is that cupping does not break the fast of the one fasting; and if he [would be weakened] during the day, he avoids it. 'Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Layla said: "Some of the Companions of the Prophet ﷺ told me that the Prophet ﷺ forbade cupping and continuous fasting (wisal) for the one fasting, but did not make them forbidden, out of consideration for his Companions." And in al-Bukhari, he said: Adam ibn Abi Iyas narrated to us, he said: Shu'bah narrated to us, from Thabit al-Bunani, he said: I said to Anas, "Did you dislike cupping for the one fasting?" He said: "No, except on account of weakness." And Ibn 'Umar used to be cupped during the day; when he became weak, he would be cupped at night. The evidences with this meaning are many, indicating that cupping does not break the fast of the one fasting. And in al-Bukhari: "He was cupped while he was fasting."

As for the hadith "The one who cups and the one cupped have broken their fast": a group of the scholars held to it, although they differed over the reason for the one who cups [breaking his fast]. Some of them took [the view] that the one cupped breaks his fast but did not take [that view] regarding the one who cups. Some said: this applies when blood enters his mouth as a result of the suction. Others said: because he is assisting in breaking the fast, and the one who assists in breaking the fast breaks his fast. And other things were said. In any case, the correct view about this hadith is that it is abrogated by the evidences mentioned above, and this is what Imam al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy on him, held: he holds that cupping does not break the fast of the one fasting.

On this basis, drawing blood (audio unclear) during the day in Ramadan does not harm, because this is something going out, and nothing has entered his cavity. The evidences have come clearly that the things that break the fast are eating, drinking, and intercourse — this is what is established as breaking [the fast] — and menstruation for the woman, which is not specific to preventing the fast; it prevents fasting and prayer. And joined to eating and drinking is whatever has their meaning, such as the nutritional [drip] that substitutes for eating and drinking, because there is no difference.

النص العربي الأصلي