al-Bukhārī narrated it in "his History," Ibn Mājah (2364), al-Bayhaqī (10/159), and Ibn ʿAdī in "al-Kāmil" (1/411) through the route of Ubayy ibn al-ʿAbbās from Abū Bakr ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn ʿUthmān: Khārijah ibn Zayd informed me, he said: ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī ʿAmrah informed me from Zayd ... with it. Ubayy added: Khārijah ibn Zayd!! This is an anomalous or objectionable addition; Ubayy cannot bear this addition from him, as "he is weak," as al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb." Two benefits: The first: in the narration of the ḥadīth; al-Tirmidhī said after narrating it: "They differed regarding Mālik's narration of this ḥadīth: some narrated from Abū ʿAmrah, and some narrated from Ibn Abī ʿAmrah; he is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī ʿAmrah al-Anṣārī; and this is more correct according to us..." and he is the one mentioned by most narrators from Mālik, as you see in "al-Tamhīd" (17/298) by the Ḥāfiẓ of the West, Imām Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, may Allāh have mercy on him. The second benefit: in the understanding of the ḥadīth; Imām al-Baghawī said in "Sharḥ al-Sunnah" (10/138), indicating the reconciliation between the ḥadīth of the chapter and the ḥadīth: "The best of people are my generation... - and in it - then there will come after them people who bear witness without being asked to bear witness..." - which is produced in this series (699 and 700) with different wording and routes -; by saying: "They differed in the way of reconciling the two ḥadīths; it was said..." and he mentioned statements; the most plausible to me is that the second ḥadīth is understood to refer to false testimony; thus, there is no problem. And Allāh is the one who grants success