and Ibn Ḥibbān, and the rest of its narrators are relied upon in the ṣaḥīḥ." meaning "Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim," but regarding Ḥabīb, al-Bukhārī said: there is some doubt about him. Ibn ʿAdī said: there is no objectionable ḥadīth in the texts of his narrations, but he has been inconsistent in the isnāds of what he narrates. However, Abū Ḥātim, Abū Dāwūd, and Ibn Ḥibbān deemed him trustworthy, so his ḥadīth is ḥasan at the very least, if Allāh wills, and the ḥāfiẓ said about him: "There is no harm in him." The ḥadīth is in "Musnad al-Ṭayālisī" (no. 438): Dāwūd al-Wāsiṭī, who was trustworthy, narrated to us, saying: I heard Ḥabīb ibn Sālim narrate it, but there is an omission in its text that should be corrected from "Musnad Aḥmad." Al-Haythamī said in "al-Majmaʿ" (5/189): "Aḥmad and al-Bazzār narrated it more completely, and al-Ṭabarānī narrated part of it in (al-Awsaṭ), and its narrators are trustworthy." It seems unlikely to me that the ḥadīth refers to ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, because his caliphate was close to the rightly-guided caliphate and did not follow two kingdoms: a biting kingdom and a tyrannical kingdom, and Allāh knows best