Some jurists ruled that kissing is disapproved for a young man but permissible for an old man, while others deemed it objectionable across the board.

Those who granted a concession relied on the report of ʿĀʾishah and Umm Salamah stating that
“the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—would kiss while he was fasting.”

Those who disliked it did so because it may lead to intercourse.

A small minority went further and said that a kiss itself invalidates the fast. They cited the report transmitted from Maymūnah bint Saʿd:
“The Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—was asked about kissing for a person who is fasting, and he replied, ‘Both of them have broken their fast.’”
Al-Ṭaḥāwī recorded this narration but declared it weak.

As for any of these acts that occur through overpowering desire or out of forgetfulness, their rulings will be discussed later under the section on things that nullify the fast.

With regard to matters explicitly mentioned in the texts over which the scholars disagreed, they are cupping and vomiting.

Cupping is the subject of three opinions:

1. A group maintains that it breaks the fast and that refraining from it is obligatory; this is the view of Aḥmad, al-Awzāʿī, and Isḥāq ibn Rāhwayh.
2. Another group holds that it is merely disliked for the fasting person and does not invalidate the fast; this is the position of Mālik, al-Shāfiʿī, and al-Thawrī.
3. A third group says that it is neither disliked nor does it break the fast; this is the view of Abū Ḥanīfah and his associates.

The cause of their disagreement is the conflict between the transmitted reports. Two ḥadiths are cited:
• The first is narrated through Thawbān and through Rāfiʿ ibn Khadīj, in which the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said, “The cupper and the one being cupped have both broken their fast.” Aḥmad regarded the narration of Thawbān as authentic.
• The second is the report of ʿIkrimah from Ibn ʿAbbās: “The Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—had cupping done while he was fasting.” This ḥadith of Ibn ʿAbbās is sound.

Faced with these two ḥadiths, the scholars adopted three methodological approaches:

1. Preferring one text over the other (tarjīḥ).
2. Reconciling the two texts.
3. Setting both aside when they conflict and reverting to the original presumption of permissibility when the abrogating text cannot be identified.

Those who opted for preference upheld the ḥadith of Thawbān, arguing that it establishes a ruling, whereas the ḥadith of Ibn ʿAbbās lifts a ruling. In the view of many scholars, a text that imposes a ruling is given precedence over one that removes it because