Companions of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, used to travel: some of us fasted and others did not; some prayed the full prayer and others shortened it. Those who fasted did not criticize those who did not, nor did those who prayed the full prayer criticize those who shortened it.” This is undoubtedly a lie. The scholars unanimously agree that Zayd al-ʿAmmī is an abandoned narrator. The authentic report from Anas concerns fasting alone.

This is further demonstrated by the fact that, when travelling with the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, they did not pray individually; rather, they prayed behind him. Fasting was different: a person might fast or refrain from fasting. Thus, this hadith is false. Even if al-Bayhaqī narrated it, this is among the matters for which he was criticized. Scholars observed that he did not examine the reports supporting his opponents as thoroughly as he examined those supporting his own position, and that he cited reports as evidence which, had his opponents cited them, he would have exposed as weak and criticized.

Despite his knowledge and religious devotion, what led him into this was the same thing that led others like him astray: seeking to make the reports from the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, agree with the position of one scholar rather than another. Whoever follows this path will have his arguments refuted, and a measure of unjustified partisanship will become apparent in him.

This is what happens when someone gathers reports and, in many instances, interprets them through demonstrably unsound interpretations to make them agree with the position he defends. Such is the practice of Abū Jaʿfar, the author of Sharh al-Āthār, although he narrates more reports than al-Bayhaqī. Al-Bayhaqī, however, scrutinizes reports and distinguishes the sound from the unsound more thoroughly than al-Tahāwī.

As for the hadith stating that “he, peace and blessings be upon him, used to shorten the prayer and pray it in full