the oldest among them. The prayer was established, and they said, "Lead us in prayer, O Abū ʿAbd Allāh!" He replied, "I am not the one to lead; you are the Arabs, and from among you is the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam), so let one of you lead." Then one of the group stepped forward and prayed four rakʿahs. After completing the prayer, Salmān said, "What do we have to do with the four-unit prayer? Half of the four-unit prayer suffices us." It was recorded by ʿAbd al-Razzāq (4283), Ibn Abī Shaybah (2/448), and al-Ṭaḥāwī (1/242) with a chain of narrators who are trustworthy. If it were not for the ʿanʿanah of Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī and his mixing, I would have authenticated its chain. Shaykh ʿAbd Allāh al-Ghumārī's silence about it in his treatise "al-Raʾy al-Qawīm" (p. 30) is not commendable, especially since he confidently attributed it to Salmān in his other treatise "al-Ṣubḥ al-Sāfir" (p. 42)! Moreover, Ibn Ḥazm deviated in this matter as he often does in many others. He held the view that it is obligatory for the traveler to shorten the prayer behind a resident, arguing with the general evidence that the traveler's prayer is two rakʿahs, as mentioned in many authentic ḥadīths. It is not hidden from the scholars that this does not apply to our case, because the ḥadīth of the chapter specifies those general ḥadīths, with its various narrations, some by implication and some by explicit statement. It is not permissible to strike the specific evidence with the general, or to give precedence to the general over the specific, whether they are in the Book or in the Sunnah, contrary to some followers of the schools of thought. This is not the view of Ibn Ḥazm (may Allāh have mercy on him). It is likely that he did not recall this ḥadīth when he spoke on this issue, or at least he was not aware of the narrations that explicitly contradict it. Otherwise, he would not have opposed them, if Allāh wills. As for the narration of Muslim, it is possible that he was aware of it but did not consider it a proof due to its implication, which is not a proof according to him, contrary to the majority. Their view is correct as explained in the principles of jurisprudence. If he was aware of it..