The second view is that fasting is not a condition for i‘tikaf. They cited as evidence the hadith of ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, and the fact that they are two separate acts of worship; thus, the existence of one is not a condition for the other.

This view is correct.

But what benefit is there in saying that it is valid without fasting when we have said that it is only prescribed in Ramadan, during its last ten nights?

The answer is that the benefit appears when a person is ill and is permitted to break his fast, so he does so, yet wishes to observe i‘tikaf during the last ten nights. There is no harm in this; in such a case, i‘tikaf is valid without fasting.

If someone were to ask: Can it be inferred from the Prophet’s making up his i‘tikaf in Shawwal that i‘tikaf was obligatory upon him?

The answer is that this cannot be inferred from it, because part of the Prophet’s guidance was that when he performed an act, he would maintain it. Thus, when he missed the sunnah prayer before Zuhr because a delegation came to him, he made it up after ‘Asr (1), and continued this practice.

His statement, “Both become binding through a vow,” means that fasting and i‘tikaf become binding through a vow. Whoever vows to fast a day must do so; whoever vows to observe i‘tikaf for a day must do so; whoever vows to fast while observing i‘tikaf must do so; and whoever vows to observe i‘tikaf while fasting must do so.

However, there is a difference between the latter two cases:

The first is that whoever vows to fast while observing i‘tikaf must remain in i‘tikaf from before dawn until sunset, because he has vowed to fast while observing i‘tikaf; therefore, the i‘tikaf must encompass the entire day.