from people, which we are unable to comprehend. Otherwise, one might say: Allah has made feeding one needy person equivalent to one day of fasting in Ramadan, while in the expiation for zihar and for intercourse during a day of Ramadan, it is approximately equivalent to one day; so why has He made it different here?

We say: These are matters whose wisdom we do not comprehend, and Allah knows best.

His statement, “consecutively,” means one after another. If he fasts them separately, it does not suffice. Thus, if he fasts one day, breaks his fast the next, fasts one day, breaks his fast the next, and then fasts one day, he must still fast two more days, because there was a break between the two preceding days, so they are not valid.

What is the evidence for this, when Allah Most High says: “But whoever cannot find the means, then he must fast for three days,” and He did not say, “consecutively”? The basic principle is that consecutiveness is not required. When Allah Most High intended consecutiveness, He said: “Then he must fast for two consecutive months” [al-Mujadilah: 4]. And when He intended unrestrictedness, He said: “Then there is a ransom: fasting, charity, or sacrifice” [al-Baqarah: 196]. Here, however, He specified the number but did not mention consecutiveness.

The scholars said: The evidence for this is the recitation of Abdullah ibn Masud, may Allah be pleased with him: “Then he must fast for three consecutive days” (1). Ibn Masud’s recitation is authoritative. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Whoever wishes to recite the Quran fresh as it was revealed, let him recite it according to the recitation of Ibn Umm Abd” (2)—meaning Ibn Masud. Therefore, if his recitation is authentically established from him, it is established and constitutes proof. This, then, is the evidence; otherwise, we would have to leave unrestricted what Allah left unrestricted.