What the author has mentioned here is the well-known position of the school.

They reasoned that each day is an independent act of worship. This is why, for example, the invalidity of one’s fast on Monday does not invalidate one’s fast on Sunday.

Some scholars hold that, in any fast for which continuity is stipulated, the intention made at its beginning suffices, unless the continuity is interrupted by a valid excuse, in which case one must renew the intention. Accordingly, if a person intends on the first day of Ramadan to fast the entire month, this suffices for the whole month, unless an excuse arises that interrupts the continuity—for instance, if he travels during Ramadan. When he resumes fasting, he must renew his intention.

This is the sounder view. If you were to ask all Muslims, every one of them would say: “I intend to fast from the beginning of the month to its end.” Thus, even if the intention is not literally formed on every night, it is considered to be present by legal implication, since the presumption is that the intention has not been interrupted. This is why we said that, if the continuity is interrupted for a permitted reason and one then resumes fasting, the intention must be renewed. This is the view that brings reassurance to the heart, and people cannot reasonably be expected to act upon any other.

Question: A man is required to fast two consecutive months. According to the position followed by the author, he must form a new intention for each day. According to the view we have chosen, however, he is not required to do so, because continuity is required in this case. Once he begins abstaining at its outset, he is legally considered to remain in the state of intention until he completes it. Therefore, if he forms the intention when he begins fasting the two consecutive months, it suffices for all the days, unless he interrupts it due to an excuse and then resumes fasting, in which case he must renew the intention.

Based on this view, if a man were to sleep after Asr during Ramadan,