from the middle of a month, he completes that month by the count, and the rest by the sighting of the new moon, according to what we have mentioned. According to the second narration, he is not obligated to observe succession. This is the school of al-Shafi'i; because non-consecutive [days] are still called a year, so his vow encompasses them. Thus, he is obligated to [fast] twelve months by the sighting of the new moon if he wishes, and if he wishes, he fasts them by the count. And if he begins the month (9) from the middle of it, he completes it as thirty days. He is only obligated here to [fast] twelve months because it is possible to interpret the vow as a year that does not contain Ramadan, nor the days on which fasting is not permitted, so his vow is set based on what is valid for it (10), unlike when he specifies the year. This is like one who specifies a commodity in a contract, and then finds a defect in it; he does not have the right to exchange it. If he described it and then [found a defect in it] (11), he has the right to exchange it. He completes Shawwal by the count because he did not begin it from its start. If he fasts Dhu al-Hijjah from its start, he makes up four days, whether it was complete or incomplete, because he began it from its start. It is said: If it was incomplete, he makes up five days (12) to complete it to thirty, because he did not fast the whole month, so it resembles Shawwal. If he stipulates succession, its ruling becomes that of the specified [year].

1861 - Issue; he said: (And whoever vows to fast a month consecutively, and does not specify it, and then falls ill during part of it, then when he recovers, he continues from where he left off and performs the expiation of an oath. And if he wishes, he may bring a full consecutive month and no expiation is required of him. The same applies to a woman if she vows to fast a consecutive month and menstruates during it.)

Its summary is that whoever vows to fast consecutively without specifying [the time], then breaks the fast during it, does not escape one of two states: One of them is that he breaks the fast due to an excuse, such as menstruation, illness, and the like. This person has the choice between starting the fast [over] and having no liability, because he has performed the vowed act as required, or continuing from where he left off and performing an expiation, because the expiation is required for abandoning the vowed act, even if he is incapable, as evidenced by the fact that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered the sister of 'Uqbah ibn 'Amir to perform an expiation because of her inability to walk. Furthermore, a vow is like an oath; if he swore to fast consecutively and then did not bring it about consecutively, the expiation is required of him. It is only permitted for him to continue from where he left off here because breaking the fast due to an excuse does not interrupt succession in terms of legal ruling, as evidenced by the fact that if he breaks the fast during the two consecutive months of fasting due to an excuse, he is permitted to continue from where he left off.