Sulayman ibn Hayyan, Abu Khalid al-Ahmar: there is some weakness in him due to his retention ... In al-Taqrib: “Truthful, but makes mistakes.”

I say—in reply to the second alleged defect: This is how he summarily asserted inconsistency, whereas he should have explained it to people rather than concealing it. By inconsistency in the chain of transmission, he means what he quoted (p. 26) from al-Mizzi’s Tuhfat al-Ashraf (8/58):

“Abu Khalid al-Ahmar narrated it from al-Muhajir [sic] ibn Habib, from Salim, from his father, from his grandfather; while others narrated it from al-Muhajir [sic] but did not say, ‘from his grandfather.’”

He then mentioned the previously cited narration of Abdullah ibn Ahmad, from which what was explained earlier had been omitted, including its attribution to the Prophet.

I say: This assertion alone is sufficient to demonstrate that the claimant has no knowledge of the scholarly principles of hadith criticism. Not every discrepancy in a chain of transmission or in the text of a hadith is considered a discrediting hidden defect by the scholars. Rather, this requires that the differing versions be of equal strength, such that one cannot be preferred over another. That is not the case here.

As for the chain of transmission, you have learned that the report of Abu Khalid al-Ahmar hinges on Ibn Abi Shaybah’s narration from him. Ibn Abi Shaybah narrated it through Ubayd ibn Ghannam and al-Hadrami—both trustworthy, the latter being among the well-known hadith masters—affirming the mention of the grandfather, namely Umar, and tracing the hadith back to the Prophet.

Abdullah ibn Ahmad differed from them—assuming that the book al-Zuhd is free of omissions—for he did not mention, “from his grandfather.”

It is evident to anyone discerning in this field that the report of two trustworthy narrators outweighs that of one trustworthy narrator. This is even if we assume that the two reports are contradictory, whereas this is not so; for whether the preponderant version is that