What are the rulings consequent upon the anomalous readings (qira'at shadhdhah), and are they treated like Ahad narrations (hadith al-ahad), and does Ibn Mas'ud's reading ("three consecutive days") necessitate consecutive fasting for the expiation of an oath (kaffarat al-yamin)?

The correct recitation (Qira'ah) is any recitation that conforms to Arabic, even in one aspect, and conforms to the Uthmanic Mus'haf, even as a possibility, and whose chain of transmission (Isnad) is authentic. Scholars differed regarding the validity of using a "Shadhdh" (uncommon/anomalous) recitation as a proof. The majority held that it is permissible to use it in deriving Sharia rulings if its chain of transmission is authentic, because it functions like Ahad (single-narrator) hadiths. Some scholars, however, held that it should not be used as a proof if it independently establishes a new ruling, but it may be used if it is explanatory and its chain of transmission is authentic. Others, on the other hand, maintained that it is absolutely impermissible to use it as a proof, because its narrator only transmitted it as Qur'an, and if it is not established as Qur'an, then it is not established as a narration.

Based on this disagreement, scholars differed regarding the obligation of consecutive fasting for the expiation of an oath (Kaffarat al-Yameen). One group held it to be obligatory, based on the recitation of Ibn Mas'ud, "mutatabi'at" (consecutive). Others held that it is not obligatory due to the absence of evidence for the condition of consecutiveness, and they rejected using Ibn Mas'ud's recitation as proof, stating that it is not a حجت (proof) according to their madhhab and that its abrogation has been established. It is preferable for the fasting for the expiation of an oath to be consecutive, as a precaution and to discharge one's obligation.