The answer to the claim that the hadith "The one who performs cupping and the one who is cupped have broken their fast" is not due to the cupping itself, but for another reason. Mentioning its parallels in the Sunnah.

The Shaykh : If someone were to say that the statement: could mean that they broke their fast for another reason, namely that they were backbiting people, the answer is: because their fast was deficient. The reply to this is that this possibility is invalid, for it necessitates considering what the Lawgiver did not specify and nullifying what the Lawgiver did specify. If we were to accept this possibility, would breaking the fast by cupping or by something else? Answer, everyone! If breaking the fast by something other than cupping were valid, then the Shari'ah would have attached the ruling to a description that was not intended and nullified the intended description. This interpretation is no different than what some of them said regarding the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): and his statement (peace and blessings be upon him): where they said that the intended meaning is one who abandons it while denying it. In reality, this interpretation is a transgression against the text, because it nullifies the description to which the Lawgiver attached the ruling and considers a description that the Lawgiver did not specify. Thus, it is a transgression against the text in two ways: first, nullifying the description to which the Lawgiver attached the ruling, and second, considering a description not mentioned in the text. Furthermore, one who denies the prayer is a disbeliever, whether he abandons it or not. The one who denies the obligation of the prayer is a disbeliever, whether he prays or not. If we were to suppose that a man says he prays at every time and prays in the mosques with the congregation, but says that this prayer is not obligatory, but rather a recommended practice, we would say that this man is a disbeliever, even though he has not abandoned the prayer in any case. I tell you that some scholars, may Allah forgive them, sometimes interpret the texts with a distant interpretation, and that is due to what they believed. A similar case is what came in the hadith of the woman from al-Makhzum, a woman from the Banu Makhzum tribe, who used to borrow items and then deny it. What does "borrow" mean? She would take it as a loan. When the owner came to ask for the item, she would deny it and say, "I did not take anything." So the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered her hand to be cut off because she denied the loan. Some scholars say that the hand of one who denies a loan is not cut off, but this hadith was either reported with something omitted, or it is implied that she used to borrow items and deny them, thereby stealing, so the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered her hand to be cut off. This is undoubtedly far from the truth, because it nullifies the description to which the Lawgiver attached the ruling and mentions another description not mentioned in the hadith. However, the reason for such actions by some scholars is that they used to believe before they sought evidence. It is obligatory for a person to seek evidence and then believe, making the evidence the one followed, not the one following. And what else? Now, how many have we taken? Eating and drinking, intercourse, I don't mean eating and drinking, ejaculation, the exit of blood by cupping, vomiting. These are seven.