I said: it is apparent from Ibn ʿAdī's words that in the elevated narration from Khālid ibn Ṭahmān (Ḥabīb ibn Abī Ḥabīb), he suggests that the omission is from the copyist. Then he mentioned this in the biography of Ḥabīb ibn Abī Ḥabīb, the owner of the anmāṭ, and I do not see that he has a connection to this ḥadīth, especially as he is from a later generation, being from the followers of the followers, having narrated from Qatādah and others. So he is either Ḥabīb ibn Abī Ḥabīb al-Bajalī as explicitly stated in the narration of al-Tirmidhī, or Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit as in the narration of al-Tirmidhī and others, but it appears in the narration of Ibn ʿAdī: "from Ḥabīb - Abū Ḥafṣ said: and he is al-Ḥadhdhāʾ." Perhaps al-Ḥadhdhāʾ is a nickname for Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit according to Abū Ḥafṣ, who is ʿAmr ibn ʿAlī al-Fallās the ḥāfiẓ, so it would be a rare benefit not mentioned in the biography of Ibn Abī Thābit. And Allāh, Glorified and Exalted, knows best. In summary: the ḥadīth revolves around Ḥabīb ibn Abī Thābit or Ḥabīb ibn Abī Ḥabīb, and both are trustworthy, but the first is more famous and reliable, except that he is known for tadlīs, so if the ḥadīth is his, its flaw is tadlīs. And if the ḥadīth is that of Ibn Abī Ḥabīb al-Bajalī - as al-Bayhaqī decisively stated, as will be mentioned - its flaw is the confusion of Khālid ibn Ṭahmān, the narrator from him, but it is strengthened by Ṭuʿmah's corroboration of him, and it is also strengthened if the ḥadīth is preserved from both Ḥabībs, as is apparent and not hidden to one with insight. Second: then al-Tirmidhī said: "Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAyyāsh narrated this ḥadīth from ʿUmārah ibn Ghaziyyah from Anas ibn Mālik from ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb from the Prophet (ṣallá Allāhu ʿalayhi wa-sallam) similar to this. And this is a ḥadīth that is not preserved, and it is mursal, and ʿUmārah ibn Ghaziyyah did not meet Anas ibn Mālik."