as for the first, it is because he is from Kūfah, and Qays ibn Muslim is also from Kūfah, but the narrator from him is Sahl Abū ʿAtāb from Baṣrah, as will be mentioned. as for the latter, it is the opposite, for he is from Baṣrah and the narrator from him is also from there, but his teacher is from Kūfah, as you have seen. therefore, I could not definitively say it was him. As for al-Haythamī, he was certain of it, though I do not know what justified it for him. However, he fell into a strange error, saying (2/148): "It was narrated by al-Ṭabarānī in 'al-Kabīr', and in it is Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān al-Munqarī, who is abandoned. There is a difference in the narration from Aḥmad regarding his reliability, and the correct view is that he weakened him. And Allāh knows best." I said: al-Haythamī confused Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān al-Qārī from Kūfah with Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān al-Munqarī from Baṣrah. The first is the one who is abandoned, unlike the latter, as you have known, and he is the one about whom there is a difference in the narration from Aḥmad. not al-Munqarī, so refer to his biography in "al-Tahdhīb" if you wish. fourthly: Sahl Abū ʿAtāb, who is Sahl ibn Ḥammād Abū ʿAtāb al-Dallāl from Baṣrah, and he is trustworthy, among the men of Muslim and the four. fifthly: Shabāb al-ʿAṣfarī, this is his nickname and his name is Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ al-ʿAṣfarī, and he is trustworthy, among the teachers of al-Bukhārī and those whom he used as evidence in "Ṣaḥīḥ". sixthly: ʿAbd Allāh ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, he is a well-known trustworthy person, relied upon by al-Nasāʾī. I said: from this analysis, it becomes clear that all the men of the isnād are trustworthy without doubt, except for Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān. If he is al-Munqarī, as al-Haythamī asserted, then the isnād is authentic as we said initially, otherwise it is not