with the Companion omitted; rather, it strengthens it. The hadith is established as a report from Zayd ibn Aslam, but this version contains the wording, “If vomiting overcomes him.” As for the report concerning cupping, it is either abrogated or, in turn, abrogates Ibn ‘Abbās’s report that “he underwent cupping while in a state of ritual consecration and fasting.” Perhaps its provision concerning vomiting, if it includes deliberately inducing vomiting, is also abrogated.

This supports the view that the prohibition of cupping came later. When two texts conflict—one departing from the presumed original state and the other maintaining it—the former is more likely to be the abrogating text. The abrogation of one provision strengthens the case for the abrogation of the provision paired with it. More than one narrator transmitted it from Zayd ibn Aslam with the Companion omitted. Yahyā ibn Ma‘īn said: “Zayd ibn Aslam’s hadith is of no weight.”

Even assuming its authenticity, it would refer to someone overcome by vomiting, since vomiting is mentioned alongside wet dreams. Someone who experiences this involuntarily, as when asleep, does not break his fast, by unanimous agreement. By contrast, someone who masturbates and ejaculates does break his fast. The expression “wet dream” applies only to someone who experiences it in his sleep.

Some have supposed that analogy requires that nothing leaving the body should invalidate the fast, and that someone who deliberately induces vomiting breaks his fast only because some of the food is liable to return. They have also said that a menstruating woman’s fast being invalidated is contrary to analogy. We have explained at length in our discussion of legal theory that there is nothing in Islamic law