the eldest of them. When the prayer was called, they said, “Step forward, Abu Abd Allah!” He replied, “I am not the one to step forward. You are Arabs, and the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, was from among you, so let one of you step forward.” One of the men then stepped forward and led them in four rak'ahs. When he had finished the prayer, Salman said, “What have we to do with four-rak'ah prayers? Half of four rak'ahs is sufficient for us.”
It was recorded by Abd al-Razzaq (4283), Ibn Abi Shaybah (2/448), and al-Tahawi (1/242), through a chain of transmission whose narrators are trustworthy. Were it not for Abu Ishaq al-Sabi'i's non-explicit mode of transmission and his later loss of precision, I would have declared its chain authentic. Thus, Shaykh Abd Allah al-Ghumari's failure to comment on it in his treatise al-Ra'y al-Qawim (p. 30) is not commendable—especially since, in his other treatise al-Subh al-Safir (p. 42), he categorically attributed it to Salman!
Moreover, Ibn Hazm—following his habit in many other issues—adopted an anomalous view in this matter. He held that a traveller praying behind a resident is obliged to shorten the prayer, citing the general proofs which establish that the traveller's prayer consists of two rak'ahs, as stated in many authentic hadiths. Yet it is well known to the scholars that this does not establish anything in the matter at hand, for the hadith cited in the heading specifies those general hadiths in its various narrations: some by implication, and others by explicit wording. It is not permissible to set aside a particular proof by appeal to a general one, or to give precedence to the general over the particular, whether both are found in the Quran or in the sunnah—contrary to some partisans of the legal schools.
This, however, was not Ibn Hazm's position, may Allah have mercy on him. What seems most likely is that he did not recall this hadith when discussing this issue, or at least that he did not come across the narrations whose explicit wording indicates the contrary. Otherwise, Allah willing, he would not have opposed them. As for Muslim's narration, it is possible that he did come across it but did not regard it as evidence because it indicates the ruling only by implication. Implication is not proof according to him, contrary to the majority; and their position is correct, as explained in the science of legal theory. If he had come across it