The second view holds that what nourished him was the sweet overflow of intimate discourse with his Lord and the lofty insights that filled his heart. The succession of these noble meanings occupied him so completely that he felt no need for ordinary food or drink. Had it been tangible food and drink, he would not have been regarded as one who fasts continuously, nor would he have said, “I am not like you.” Ibn al-Qayyim discusses this issue at length in al-Hady.

The jurists then differed over the legal status of continuous fasting (wiṣāl), arriving at three positions: that it is prohibited, that it is disliked, and that it is permissible for one who is physically able.

1. Permissibility for the able: This was the view of ʿAbd Allāh ibn al-Zubayr and a number of the early generations, such as ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī Nuʿm, Ibrāhīm ibn Zayd al-Taymī, and Abū al-Jawzāʾ.

2. Prohibition: This is the position of the three leading Imams—Abū Ḥanīfah, Mālik, and al-Shāfiʿī.

3. A nuanced ruling: Imām Aḥmad, Isḥāq, Ibn al-Mundhir, Ibn Khuzaymah, and a group of Mālikīs held that it is allowed only until the pre-dawn (suḥūr). Even then, the preferable course is to abandon it altogether in order to hasten the breaking of the fast, and it is disliked to extend it beyond a day and a night.

Those who deem it permissible argue that the Prophet ﷺ fasted continuously with his Companions for two days, which constitutes tacit approval; had it been unlawful he would not have allowed them to do so. They also cite ʿĀʾishah’s statement: “The Messenger of Allah ﷺ forbade continuous fasting out of mercy for them.” Thus his prohibition resembles his earlier dissuasion from standing in night prayer, lest it become obligatory, and he never reproached anyone who practiced it so long as it did not burden him.

Accordingly, if a person who fasts continuously does not intend to imitate the People of the Book and does not turn away from the sunnah of hastening to break the fast, he is not prevented from doing so.

Those who hold it forbidden base their case on the Prophet’s explicit prohibition, for a prohibition by default signifies unlawfulness. His own continuous fasting with them, they say, was not meant as approval but as a form of corrective discipline, as one wording of the report makes clear. When he forbade them and they persisted in asking, he fasted continuously with them to reinforce the prohibition, deter them, clarify the wisdom behind it, and expose the harm he was protecting them from. Once that became manifest, they abandoned the practice—and that was the aim.

As for ʿĀʾishah’s remark, “He forbade continuous fasting out of mercy for them,” it does not negate the possibility that the prohibition indicates unlawfulness; rather, it strengthens it. Part of his mercy toward them was to declare it unlawful. Indeed, every legal command and prohibition in the sacred law is founded upon mercy and compassion.