whether the increase was prescribed in Mecca, as al-Ghumari claims, or in Medina, as indicated by the hadiths cited above. Thus, his statement (p. 12), “These are three hadiths that explicitly state that the traveller’s prayer is shortened from four rak‘ahs, for remitting half the prayer means reducing it by half after performing it in full had been obligatory for him,” does not contradict what I have mentioned, nor does it contain any proof to support his deviation.

3. As for the five explicit hadiths, they are in fact four, since the third and fifth both revolve around al-Hasan al-Basri, in mursal form. All of them are weak and rejected. Through them, he has practised as much concealment in transmission upon the readers as concealment permits, making them imagine that some of their chains are sound and that their texts are explicit—though he is not truthful in this. Here is a brief and detailed clarification:

In brief: all five hadiths are rejected, due to the weakness of their chains and their contradiction of the authentic hadiths, which do not mention that the rak‘ahs of Zuhr, ‘Asr, and ‘Isha’ were made four. Some of them explicitly state that the prayer was prescribed as two rak‘ahs each; it was retained as such while travelling and increased while resident.

As for the detailed discussion, I say, seeking Allah’s help:

1. As for the first hadith: he cited it (p. 13) through Abu Bakr ibn ‘Amr ibn Hazm, from Abu Mas‘ud al-Ansari, who said: “Gabriel came to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and said: ‘Rise and pray.’ This was at the sun’s decline, when it had passed the zenith. So the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, rose and prayed Zuhr as four rak‘ahs...” He then mentioned the same concerning the ‘Asr and ‘Isha’ prayers. He said: “It was narrated by Ishaq ibn Rahwayh in his Musnad according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs.”