—may Allah have mercy on him—and this is a position in which he stands alone among the legal schools. Imam Ahmad’s being alone among the schools does not mean that his view is weak, for the strength of a view does not lie in its being held by the majority; rather, it depends on what the Sacred Law indicates. If Imam Ahmad alone holds a view supported by the Sacred Law, then he is with the community. (1)

Question: Are venesection, incision, nosebleeding, and similar matters—such as donating blood—to be treated in the same way as cupping?

Venesection is the cutting of a vein, while incision is the slitting of a vein. If one cuts it lengthwise, it is incision; if one cuts it crosswise, it is venesection.

According to the madhhab, these are not treated as analogous to cupping, because rulings that are purely devotional are not subject to analogy. This is a principle of legal theory: “Purely devotional rulings are not subject to analogy,” since one condition of analogy is that the original case and the new case share the same effective cause. If that cause is unknown, then no analogy can be made. Thus, they say that the breaking of the fast by cupping is a purely devotional ruling; consequently, venesection, incision, nosebleeding, and similar matters are not included under it. These are therefore permissible for one who is fasting, whether the fast is obligatory or voluntary.

According to the view held by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah—may Allah have mercy on him—the effective cause for the fast being broken by cupping is known. He therefore says that venesection and incision invalidate the fast. Likewise, if someone deliberately causes his nose to bleed, so that blood comes from his nose, intending thereby to relieve pressure in his head, his fast is invalidated by that. His view—may Allah have mercy on him—is closer to what is correct.

As for the exaggeration of the common people, such that if a person uses the siwak and his gums bleed