As for the former possibility, it is supported by the fact that he was from Kufa, as Qays ibn Muslim was also from Kufa, though Sahl Abu ʿAttāb, who narrated from him, was from Basra, as will be mentioned. As for the latter, the situation is the reverse: he was from Basra, as was the one who narrated from him, though his shaykh was from Kufa, as you have seen. I was therefore unable to determine conclusively which one he was. Al-Haythamī, however, was definite about it, though I do not know what justified that conclusion. Yet he fell into a remarkable error when he said (2/148):

“Al-Ṭabarānī also narrated it in al-Kabīr, and its chain includes Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān al-Minqārī, who is abandoned. Reports from Aḥmad differ concerning his declaring him trustworthy, but the correct view is that he deemed him weak. And Allah knows best.”

I say: Al-Haythamī confused Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān, the Quran reciter from Kufa, with Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān al-Minqārī from Basra. The former is the abandoned one, unlike the latter, as you have learned; and it is regarding the former that reports from Aḥmad differ—not al-Minqārī. Consult his biographical entry in al-Tahdhīb, if you wish.

Fourth: Sahl Abu ʿAttāb, namely Sahl ibn Ḥammād Abu ʿAttāb al-Dallāl al-Baṣrī. He was trustworthy and among the narrators relied upon by Muslim and the four Sunan compilers.

Fifth: Shabāb al-ʿUsfurī—this was his nickname; his name was Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ al-ʿUsfurī. He was trustworthy, one of al-Bukhārī’s shaykhs, and among those whose reports he cited as proof in his Ṣaḥīḥ.

Sixth: ʿAbd Allah ibn Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal. He was a well-known trustworthy narrator, relied upon by al-Nasāʾī.

I say: This source documentation makes it clear that all the narrators in the chain are unquestionably trustworthy except Ḥafṣ ibn Sulaymān. Thus, if he was al-Minqārī, as al-Haythamī definitively maintained, then the chain is authentic, as we stated initially; otherwise, it is not.