it is narrated from Ibn ʿUmar, from ʿUmar, or from Ibn ʿUmar without mention of ʿUmar; it makes no difference, since the chain is connected to the Prophet in either case.

Nor does what al-Mizzī mentioned lend greater weight to ʿAbdullāh’s narration: that someone other than Abū Khālid al-Aḥmar narrated it from al-Muhājir but did not say, “from his grandfather.” This is because the identity of that other narrator is unknown. Even if we were to assume that he was trustworthy, the difference would not constitute a discrediting hidden defect, since—in both versions—the report ultimately rests on a Companion, as we mentioned above.

As for the text of the hadith, the critic did not identify the alleged discrepancy, contenting himself with a mere assertion. There is no apparent discrepancy, unless he means that the end of ʿAbdullāh’s narration contains an addition absent from al-Ṭabarānī’s narration through the two trustworthy narrators: “and He remits from him one million sins.”

Such an addition has no connection to inconsistency. Rather, it is assessed in light of the principle that “the addition of a trustworthy narrator is accepted,” or the principle that an addition is rejected when it conflicts with one who is more trustworthy or greater in number; this is the anomalous hadith. Whether the stronger view is one or the other, it does not impair the authenticity of the hadith itself. This is not the place to establish which of them is preponderant, since the discussion concerns refuting his claim of inconsistency in the text and chain, and that claim has been refuted, praise be to Allah. This was his second alleged defect.

I then noticed that the addition is an error by one of the copyists, for it merely repeats what precedes it. Its wording is: “and He erases from him one million evil deeds, and remits from him one million sins.” Perhaps the original wording was: “or remits …,” and so on.

As for the third, it is his statement concerning Abū Khālid al-Aḥmar: “There is some weakness in him due to his retention … In al-Taqrīb: ‘Truthful, but makes mistakes.’”

The response is from two angles:

First: The majority of hadith scholars declared this Abū Khālid trustworthy. It is sufficient for the reader to know that al-Bukhārī and Muslim both relied upon him in their two Ṣaḥīḥs. This does not conflict with there being some weakness in his retention,