Sulaymān ibn Ḥayyān Abū Khālid al-Aḥmar; he has some weakness in terms of his memory... In "al-Taqrīb": truthful but makes mistakes. I say—in response to the second issue—: this is how he summarized the claim of inconsistency, and he should have clarified it for the people and not concealed it! By inconsistency, he means a chain of transmission as mentioned (p. 26) by al-Mizzī in "Tuḥfat al-Ashrāf" (8/58): "And Abū Khālid al-Aḥmar narrated it from al-Muhājir (thus) ibn Ḥabīb from Sālim from his father from his grandfather—and others narrated it from al-Muhājir (thus) without saying: from his grandfather." Then he mentioned the narration of ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad previously discussed, from which what was previously explained was omitted, including the elevation of the ḥadīth. I say: this claim alone suffices to indicate that the claimant has no knowledge of the scholarly ḥadīth principles, because not every difference in the chain or text is considered a critical defect by scholars. Rather, it is required that the aspects of inconsistency be equal such that no aspect can be preferred over another, and this is not realized here. As for the isnād; you have known that the basis of Abū Khālid al-Aḥmar's ḥadīth is on the narration of Ibn Abī Shaybah from him, and he narrated it from ʿUbayd ibn Ghannām and al-Ḥaḍramī—both are trustworthy, and the latter is among the well-known preservers—affirming the grandfather who is ʿUmar; elevated. ʿAbdullāh ibn Aḥmad differed with them—assuming the integrity of the book "al-Zuhd" from omission—; he did not mention: "from his grandfather." It is not hidden from one insightful in this science that the narration of the two trustworthy individuals is preferred over the single trustworthy one, and this is if we assume contradiction between the two narrations, which is not the case; because whether the preferred is that