Al-Bukhārī also narrated it in his al-Tārīkh, as did Ibn Mājah (2364), al-Bayhaqī (10/159), and Ibn ʿAdī in al-Kāmil (1/411), through Ubayy ibn al-ʿAbbās, from Abū Bakr ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, from ʿAbd Allāh ibn ʿAmr ibn ʿUthmān, who said: 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 addition is anomalous or rejected. Such an addition cannot be accepted from Ubayy, for “he is weak,” as al-Ḥāfiẓ said in al-Taqrīb.

Two points of benefit:

The first concerns the transmission of the hadith. Al-Tirmidhī said after narrating it:

“They differed concerning Mālik in transmitting this hadith: some narrated it from Abū ʿAmrah, while others narrated it from Ibn Abī ʿAmrah. He is ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Abī ʿAmrah al-Anṣārī, and this is more correct in our view ...”

This is how the majority of Mālik’s narrators mention him, as you may see in al-Tamhīd (17/298) by the ḥadīth master of the Maghrib, Imam Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr—may Allah Most High have mercy on him.

The second point concerns hadith criticism. In Sharḥ al-Sunnah (10/138), Imam al-Baghawī, referring to the reconciliation between the hadith in question and the hadith, “The best of people are my generation ...”—which includes: “Then there will come after them people who give testimony without being asked ...”—and which has been cited in this series (699 and 700) with various wordings and chains, said:

“They differed regarding how the two hadiths are to be reconciled. It was said ...”

He then cited a number of views. In my opinion, the strongest is that the second hadith concerns false testimony; thus, there is no difficulty. And Allah is the Granter of success.