Does cupping break the fast of one who is fasting, and what is the ruling on the cupper?

The questioner : A questioner says: We heard from you, Honorable Shaykh, that cupping breaks the fast of the fasting person, based on the hadith: "The cupper and the one cupped have broken their fast." Is it true that the majority of scholars held that it does not break the fast and that it is disliked, citing other strong evidences that contradict this hadith, such as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) undergoing cupping while fasting? We ask for a detailed explanation of this issue. If cupping is among the things that break the fast, does the cupper fall under this based on the apparent wording of the hadith, and what is the status of the cupper in our time?

The Shaykh : The fact that cupping breaks the fast of the fasting person is indicated by the hadith of Shaddad ibn Aws that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) Imam Ahmad said it is an authentic hadith, and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah also authenticated it. He has a treatise that a student of knowledge should read; it is a small treatise called "The Reality of Fasting."
In it, he conducted a thorough investigation into cupping, applying kohl, injections, and many other very important matters. It contains principles and rules that benefit the student of knowledge. If this hadith is authentic, the cupper and the one cupped must be taken according to its apparent meaning, and it is not permissible to distort it.
As some scholars who do not hold that the cupper and the one cupped break their fast said, the meaning is that they nearly broke their fast. How did they nearly break their fast when the Messenger said "They broke their fast"? Some said they were backbiting people, so the Messenger said "The cupper and the one cupped broke their fast." How? How does the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) base the ruling on a description that does not exist, and we seek for him a missing description? That is, if we say they broke their fast because they were backbiting people, the ruling is based on what? On cupping, or on breaking the fast, or on backbiting? On backbiting. So how do we negate a description on which the Lawgiver based the ruling and consider a description on which the ruling was not based?
We also say to them: Does backbiting break the fast? No, backbiting is true that it contradicts the purpose and spirit of fasting, but it does not break the fast. Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him) said: If backbiting broke the fast, no fasting would remain for us, because no one fasts without backbiting except by the will of Allah. As for the hadith of Ibn Abbas that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) This was the Battle of al-Hudaybiyyah in Dhul-Qa'dah, and he did not enter Makkah. Likewise, the 'Umrah of al-Qada' was also in Dhul-Qa'dah, and his 'Umrah during his Hajj was in Dhul-Qa'dah. He entered Makkah in Ramadan during the Conquest while not fasting, having broken his fast. It is thus clear that the hadith "he underwent cupping while fasting and in the state of ihram" is not correct. As for "while fasting" alone, they said it is anomalous. Then, even if it were preserved, it would be interpreted as referring to what was before the abrogation, because the hadith of Shaddad is transmitted from the original ruling.
The scholars have mentioned that among the criteria for preference in case of conflict is transmission from the original ruling, because the one transmitting from the original ruling has additional knowledge. As for the cupper, does he break his fast in our time or not? The answer is that whoever among the scholars said that breaking the fast by cupping is a devotional act (ta'abbudi) whose cause is not understood, he holds that the cupper in our time breaks his fast like the one cupped, because this is devotional and we do not know the cause. And whoever holds that the ruling is based on a cause, as is the view of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), then the cupper in our time does not break his fast. This is because the cupper in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would suck the vessel containing the blood during cupping. Initially, there was a metal vessel with a very small, thin tube. When the cupper would cut the cupping site with a knife, he would place this vessel on the spot and suck it through the small tube to evacuate the air. When the air was evacuated, the blood would be drawn in until the vessel was full, and then it would fall off. So in the past, they would suck this tube in the vessel, and sometimes during the sucking, some blood would reach the cupper's throat without him realizing it. And the suspected thing sometimes attaches to the certain thing, meaning the suspected thing sometimes becomes certain. So according to the view of Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him), we say that the cupper in our time who cups with machines and has no contact with the blood does not break his fast. And what Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) held is more correct than saying the ruling is devotional, because if the ruling is based on a cause that the texts attest to, it must be linked to it in existence and absence. Unlike pure devotion: if someone asked you, "Why is the Zuhr prayer four rak'ahs and not eight?" what would we say? This is devotion; we have been commanded by Allah to perform this number, and we must do so. Yes.