If one forgets to say the name of Allah when eating, should he say: "Bismillah" at the beginning and at the end?

The questioner : The one who forgets to say the name of Allah should say: "Bismillah, Bismillah" at the beginning and the end... should he say "Bismillah" at the beginning and at the end?

The Shaykh : I did not notice the difference between the two texts, so I hope for a repetition?

The questioner : The old text that we always use, and I think it came... "Bismillah" at the beginning and the end. The text found in Ali's bookAl-Halabi : "Bismillah" at the beginning and at the end?

The Shaykh : Yes, meaning "Bismillah" at the beginning and the end, or "Bismillah" at the beginning and at the end, at the beginning...

The questioner : Correct meThe Shaykh : The first one is "awlahu" not "awluhu"!

The Shaykh : Yes, the point is that what I actually memorize is this "awlahu," but I do not remember "fi awlihi," yet I cannot deny it without a thorough study. And not just any study, but a specific study. I mean, what is the difference? The researcher is truly like a doctor. A doctor examines a patient for an illness he complains of, but he may be suffering from other illnesses. Naturally, he does not notice them unless directed to them, either by the patient's request, considering he is a person of legal capacity, or by the doctor's extreme care in examining this patient. So it is with knowledge in the critique of hadith. For example, my first concern is to know whether the hadith is valid or not, so that we do not fall into the problem of attributing to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) what he did not say. But I wonder, is it "at the beginning and the end" or "at the beginning" or "at the end"? This, as you said, requires a thorough and specific study, specifically for this particular point. This is because narrations often differ in their wording, and at that time, the report requires a specific study to see which is more correct, this one or that one. And then, if the result shows that one is more correct than the other, but this second one is also valid. No, no, I do not mean in its narration, but here I wanted to say in detail: it may be that this second valid result turns out to be incorrect and is called in the language of hadith scholars a shadhdh (anomalous) hadith. For example, if a story or hadith is not established to have been repeated, and we have two narrations, one more correct than the other, and the other is valid, then the valid one becomes weak because that one is stronger than this one. But if the story or supplication was repeated by the Messenger, it is possible that he said it one time and said it another time. Here we say this one is more correct and this one is valid, and both are permissible. For this reason, we say it requires a thorough and specific study. Thorough, so we know whether the second narration is valid or not. If it is weak, we are done with it. If it is valid, we need to see if it is of the first type that was not repeated, or of the second type that was repeated.