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

The questioner : ... The one who forgets to say the name of Allah says "Bismillah, in its beginning and its end" ... Does he say "Bismillah, in its beginning and in its end"?

The Shaykh : I did not notice the difference between the two texts, so I ask for it to be repeated?

The questioner : The old text that we always use, and I think it came ... "Bismillah, in its beginning and its end." The text found in the book of Ali al-Halabi is "Bismillah, in its beginning and in its end"?

The Shaykh : I mean, "Bismillah, in its beginning and its end" or "Bismillah, in its beginning and in its end," in its beginning ... .

The questioner : Correct me, Shaykh: the first one is "awlahu" (its beginning), not "awluhu" (its beginning)!

The Shaykh : Yes, the intended meaning is that what I actually memorize is this: "awlahu" (its beginning). As for "in its beginning," I do not recall it, but I cannot deny it without a thorough study. Not just any study, but a specific study. I mean, what is the difference? It is like a researcher, truly, is 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 that he is a person of legal capacity, or by the doctor's extreme care in examining this patient. Similarly, knowledge in the critique of hadith is exactly the same. For example, my primary concern is to know whether a hadith is authentic 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 "in its beginning and its end" or "in its beginning and not in its end"? As I said, this requires a thorough and specific study. Specifically, for this particular point, because narrations often differ in their wording. In that case, the report needs 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 the second one is also authentic ... No, no, I do not mean in its narration, but here I wanted to say in detail: it may be that this second authentic result turns out to be incorrect, and it is called in the language of hadith scholars a shadhdh (anomalous) hadith. For example, if a story or hadith is not established as having been repeated, and we have two narrations, one more correct than the other, and the other is authentic, then the authentic 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 authentic, 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 authentic or not. If it is weak, we are done with it. If it is authentic, we need to see if it is of the first type, which was not repeated, or the second type, which was repeated.