the principle they had formulated: “Breaking the fast is caused by what enters, not by what exits; and ablution is invalidated by what exits, not by what enters.” They declared the hadith of Abu Hurayrah, may Allah be pleased with him, to be weak, saying that it contradicts analogy in addition to having a weak chain of transmission.

The answer is to say: Where is the proof for this principle? Camel meat, for example, invalidates ablution even though it enters the body. They will say: “It invalidates ablution only according to the school of Imam Ahmad, so our principle remains sound.” We say to them: The emission of semen by a fasting person is something that exits, yet it invalidates the fast.

The correct view is that deliberately inducing vomiting invalidates the fast, because the hadith indicates this, and the principle they have established is unsound. Sound reasoning likewise dictates that it invalidates the fast, because when a person induces vomiting, he becomes weak and needs food and drink. We therefore say to him: During an obligatory fast—whether in Ramadan or otherwise—it is not lawful for you to induce vomiting except out of necessity. If you are compelled to vomit, then vomit, and replenish your body with whatever food and drink will restore its strength. Thus, this view is entailed by the hadith and by sound reasoning. As for their opinion, it conflicts with the textual evidence; and an opinion that opposes and contradicts the text is invalid and carries no weight. We say to the one who holds it: “Are you more knowledgeable, or is Allah?” Since this is Allah’s ruling, it is better than opinion.

His statement: “Or masturbates.”

That is, he seeks the emission of semen by any means, whether with his hand, by rubbing himself against the ground, or the like, until he ejaculates. His fast is thereby invalidated. This is the view held by the four imams: Malik, al-Shafi‘i, Abu Hanifah, and Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on them.