What is the ruling on one who vowed to fast two consecutive months upon the fulfillment of a matter, then retracted and vowed to fast two months every other day, then retracted and vowed to fast one year, and the matter has not yet been fulfilled? And which vow must be fulfilled? And is the reward for fulfilling a vow multiplied compared to performing an act of obedience without a vow? And what is the difference between them?

A conditional vow is reprehensible, and it may even be forbidden, but it must be fulfilled when the condition is met. Performing acts of obedience without a vow is better, for the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: "Indeed, vows do not bring forth good; they only extract from the miser."

Al-Shanqeeti is of the view that vows of proximity are of two types: 1. Conditional upon the attainment of a benefit: This is the type that is prohibited, because it is not purely for the sake of Allah, and "a vow does not avert anything from destiny." 2. Not conditional upon a benefit: This is the type that is encouraged, and those who fulfill it are praised.

This detailed explanation reconciles the evidence and clarifies the reason for the prohibition of vows.

Fulfilling Conditional Vows: The first vow (fasting for two consecutive months): This is obligatory and cannot be revoked or nullified. The second vow (two months by fasting one day and breaking fast one day): If the intention was the first two months with a change in description: It does not necessitate anything new, and the condition of consecutiveness does not disappear. If the intention was for two other months: This is a new vow that must be fulfilled if its condition is met. In this case, one would fast for two consecutive months, and for two other months, one day on and one day off. The third vow (fasting for a year): If the intention was to add to and include the previous vows, then one is obligated to fast for a year, and this suffices for the first two vows if two consecutive months are fasted within it. Ruling on fasting for a year: Consecutiveness is not obligatory: This is the view of the Hanafis, Malikis, and Shafi'is. Ramadan and the days prohibited from fasting are made up. Consecutiveness is obligatory: This is one narration from Ahmad. Some scholars disliked the vow of fasting for a full year (perpetual fasting) and recommended an expiation for breaking an oath instead.

Summary of the three vows: If one fasts for a full year, it suffices for all three vows if two consecutive months are fasted within it. If the year-long fast is broken without consecution between two months: One is obligated to fast for two consecutive months for the first vow.

Comparing the reward of fulfilling a vow with the reward of obedience without a vow: Obedience performed without a vow is better, because a conditional vow is reprehensible. So, obedience whose obligation is established by the original Sharia is better. A vow does not bring forth good; it only extracts from the miser, and one should not make a vow to draw closer to Allah through acts of obedience.