Cupping, traditionally known as Hijama, is an ancient therapeutic practice involving the application of suction cups to the skin, often used to promote healing and blood flow. Fasting, particularly the religious observance during Ramadan, requires abstinence from food, drink, and other specified activities from dawn until sunset. The intersection of these two practices creates a point of conflict for many observers. The question of whether this treatment invalidates the fast centers on the physical consequences of the most common form of the therapy while the body is in a state of deep metabolic restriction.
The Religious Mandate
The primary foundation for the ruling that cupping invalidates the fast stems from specific narrations attributed to the Prophet of Islam. One widely cited Hadith states clearly, “The cupper and the one for whom cupping is done both break their fast.” This text serves as the direct evidence used by some schools of Islamic jurisprudence to establish the practice as one of the actions that nullifies the fast during the day.
The religious text indicates a cessation of the fast for the patient, known as the mahjoom, and the practitioner, the haajim. The ruling for the patient is primarily based on the physical effect the procedure has on the body. For the cupper, the concern historically involved the possibility of accidentally ingesting blood, which would also break the fast. This traditional ruling addresses both parties involved in the therapy.
The Physiological Impact of Blood Loss
The core reason cupping is understood to break the fast is rooted in the physiological response to the resulting blood loss. Wet cupping, the method typically referred to in this context, involves making minor incisions in the skin to draw out a small amount of blood after the initial suction is applied. When an individual is already in a fasted state, their body is relying on stored energy and maintaining fluid balance. The withdrawal of blood, even a small volume, can disrupt this delicate balance.
The sudden loss of blood volume, known as hypovolemia, can trigger a compensatory response in the body. This involves an immediate drop in blood pressure and a corresponding increase in heart rate as the body attempts to maintain perfusion to vital organs. During a fast, the body’s reserves are limited, and dehydration may already be a factor. The combined effect of fluid restriction and blood volume reduction significantly increases the risk of adverse symptoms.
The body’s compromised state makes the individual highly susceptible to weakness, dizziness, and exhaustion. These symptoms can become severe enough to necessitate breaking the fast for recovery, which is the underlying rationale for the ruling. The procedure is seen as a direct cause of the fast’s invalidation because the physical debilitation forces the person to consume food or drink to regain strength.
Wet Cupping Versus Dry Cupping
The distinction between the two primary forms of cupping is essential for understanding the religious mandate. Wet cupping, or Hijama, is the invasive method that involves superficial incisions on the skin to extract blood after the initial suction. This is the specific practice that results in the physiological weakness discussed, and it is the practice referred to in the prophetic traditions that establish the ruling. The removal of blood, considered an exit of a substance from the body, triggers the invalidation of the fast.
Dry cupping, conversely, uses only the suction effect created by heated cups or a vacuum pump, but does not involve any cutting or bloodletting. This method aims to increase local blood flow and relax muscles without causing systemic blood loss. Because dry cupping does not result in the withdrawal of blood or subsequent physical debilitation, it is generally considered permissible and does not invalidate the fast.
Variations in Scholarly Interpretation
While the ruling that cupping breaks the fast is well-known, it is not a matter of universal consensus among all Islamic scholars and schools of jurisprudence. The ruling that it invalidates the fast is strongly held by certain schools, like the Hanbali school. They emphasize the literal interpretation of the Hadith, which explicitly names the cupper and the cupped as breaking their fast.
Other major schools, including the Hanafi, Maliki, and Shafi’i schools, hold the opinion that cupping does not inherently break the fast. They cite other narrations suggesting the Prophet was cupped while fasting, which they view as evidence that the prohibition was either abrogated or meant to be understood differently. This majority view often reconciles the conflicting texts by concluding that cupping is permissible but disliked (makruh) if it is feared that it will cause such weakness that the individual might have to prematurely terminate their fast.