When a legal ruling has been established by evidence that obliges one to act, it cannot be revoked except by other evidence that likewise obliges one to act in annulling it. The ḥadith of Thawbān is an evidence that calls for practice, whereas the ḥadith of Ibn ʿAbbās might be the abrogator—or it might itself be abrogated. Because this remains uncertain, such uncertainty neither establishes a ruling nor overturns knowledge that has already mandated action; this is the method of those who hold that doubt has no effect on certain knowledge.

Anyone who seeks to reconcile the two reports interprets the ḥadith that prohibits cupping as indicating mere dislike, and the ḥadith describing the Prophet’s cupping as lifting the previous restriction.

Those who set both reports aside because of mutual conflict declare cupping permissible for a person who is fasting.

As for vomiting: the majority of jurists maintain that whoever vomits involuntarily does not invalidate his fast, except for Rabīʿah, who held that it does. The majority also agree that whoever induces vomiting and then vomits does break the fast, except for Ṭāwūs.

The reason for their disagreement lies in what is thought to be a conflict between the ḥadiths transmitted on this issue and their divergent judgments about the soundness of those reports. Two narrations are cited in this regard:

1. The ḥadith of Abū al-Dardāʾ: “The Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—vomited and broke his fast.” Maʿdān said, “I met Thawbān in the mosque of Damascus and told him, ‘Abū al-Dardāʾ has narrated to me that the Messenger of Allah—peace and blessings be upon him—vomited and broke his fast.’ He replied, ‘He has spoken the truth; I was the one who poured the water for his ablution.’” Al-Tirmidhī declared this ḥadith of Thawbān authentic.

2. The ḥadith of Abū Hurayrah, reported by al-Tirmidhī and Abū Dāwūd: the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—said, “Whoever is overcome by vomiting while he is fasting is not required to make up the day.” It has also been transmitted as a statement of Ibn ʿUmar.

Thus, whoever deems both reports unsound holds that vomiting never invalidates the fast. Whoever takes the apparent sense of Thawbān’s ḥadith and gives it priority over the report of Abū Hurayrah rules that vomiting always breaks the fast, making no distinction between induced and uninduced vomiting. But whoever reconciles the two narrations—maintaining that Thawbān’s report is general and Abū Hurayrah’s is explanatory, and that the general must be interpreted in light of the specific—distinguishes between vomiting and self-induced vomiting; this is the view of the majority.

THE THIRD PILLAR OF FASTING: INTENTION (NIYYAH)

The discussion of intention involves a number of questions:
• Is intention a prerequisite for the validity of this act of worship, or not?
• If it is required, what level of specification suffices?
• Must the intention be renewed each day of Ramadan, or is the intention formed on the first night sufficient for the whole month?
• And if the legally accountable person does form the intention, at what time should it be made if