"Ḥabīb ibn Ḥajar Abū Yaḥyá al-ʿAbsī al-Baṣrī, narrates from al-Azraq ibn Qays from Ibn ʿUmar. Mūsá ibn Ismāʿīl narrated from him." I say: Ibn Ḥibbān distinguished between them, but he is one, as indicated by the actions of the earlier scholars like al-Bukhārī (1/2/316) and Ibn Abī Ḥātim (1/2/308) and the later scholars like al-Ḥusaynī and al-ʿAsqalānī in "al-Taʿjīl" (5/180). Then they differed on the pronunciation of (Ḥabīb), whether it is the usual form with a single b, or (Ḥabīb) with a double b. The ḥāfiẓ mentioned both opinions without preferring one. However, he said: "And al-Bukhārī mentioned him at the end of those named (Ḥabīb) with a single b." I say: He failed to mention that Ibn Abī Ḥātim recorded him with a double b. Then I realized something I had overlooked following the ḥāfiẓ, which is that al-Bukhārī is the predecessor of Ibn Abī Ḥātim, for he included him—meaning al-Bukhārī—at the end of the letter (ḥāʾ) in "Bāb Ḥabīb" with a double b, so he is also the predecessor of Ibn Ḥibbān in distinguishing between this and the previous (Ḥabīb) with a single b. But Ibn Ḥibbān did not specify, he only hinted at it in a way that I did not notice, nor did the editor point it out, which is that he listed him uniquely among similar singular names! In general, the mentioned distinction between the two entries due to the difference in the name's pronunciation is not apparent, similar to the attribution: (al-ʿAbsī), as it appeared in the isnād of the ḥadīth—and the context is from Ibn Abī Shaybah—and it also appeared in the entry of (Ḥabīb) from "al-Thiqāt", contrary to the book of Ibn al-Sunnī, and to (the two books), meaning "al-Tārīkh" and "al-Jarḥ" and their supplements, like "al-Taʿjīl" and others, where they said: "al-Qaysī" which is the more likely. And Allāh knows best. This attribution was altered in "al-Musnad", so it became a shaykh for "Ḥabīb" like this: "Ḥabīb from Qays from Thābit"!