The second is that whoever vows to observe i‘tikaf while fasting must observe i‘tikaf, even if only during part of the day—even for a single hour—because it is true to say that he observed i‘tikaf while fasting. Many students may not grasp the distinction in this matter.

This distinction is based on the view that i‘tikaf is prescribed at any time. If someone asks: What is the evidence that both become binding through a vow?

The answer is the Prophet’s saying, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him: “Whoever vows to obey Allah, let him obey Him” (1). Fasting is an act of obedience, and i‘tikaf is an act of obedience.

At times, however, a vow involving obedience is intended for one of four purposes: abstention, inducement, affirmation, or denial. In that case, it takes the ruling of an oath. So must it be fulfilled?

The answer is that the scholars say: It need not be fulfilled; rather, one may choose between fulfilling it and offering expiation for an oath.

An example of abstention is when someone says, “If I speak to so-and-so, then I owe Allah a vow to fast for a week,” and then he speaks to him. His intention was to refrain, not to perform an act of obedience; but he considered that his abstention would not be sufficiently ensured unless he bound himself with this vow.

The scholars therefore said: Its ruling is that of an oath. Thus, if he wishes, he may fast that week; and if he wishes, he may offer expiation for his oath, due to the Prophet’s saying, may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him: “Actions are only by intentions, and every person shall have only what he intended” (2).

An example of inducement is when he says, “If I do not speak to so-and-so today, then I owe Allah a vow—”