it appears as (Abū Yaḥyá al-ʿArābī) and it seems to be an error by the printer or copyist, and the correct name is (Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ghazāl). and his statement: "And I do not know him..." in "al-Thiqāt" is: "I do not know his father nor his grandfather." and perhaps this is correct. then the ḥāfiẓ said following what was mentioned: "I said: among the Companions is 'Muṭīʿ ibn al-Ḥakam', for whom Ibn Mandah narrated from the path of Muṭīʿ ibn so-and-so ibn Muṭīʿ ibn al-Ḥakam from his father from his great-grandfather the aforementioned ḥadīth first." likewise, Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr mentioned Muṭīʿ among the Companions, with the kunya Abū Muslim, a poet son of a poet." I said: I did not see him in "al-Istīʿāb" by Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, neither in the names nor in the kunyas, and the ḥāfiẓ himself did not mention him in either in "al-Iṣābah." And Allāh knows best. in summary, Muṭīʿ al-Ghazāl is different from Muṭīʿ al-Anṣārī according to Ibn Abī Ḥātim and his father, and it appears from the actions of al-Bukhārī and Ibn Ḥibbān that they are one, because they did not mention anyone else, and he is the one they narrated from his father from his grandfather this ḥadīth. so the defect of the ḥadīth is either from those above him, which is apparent from the words of Ibn Ḥibbān where he said after it: "Muḥammad ibn al-Qāsim and the people of Kūfah narrated from him, I do not know his father nor his grandfather, and the report is not authentic from another path, so it is considered." or from the narrator from him, Muḥammad al-Qāsim, who is Abū Ibrāhīm al-Asadī al-Kūfī, whom Ibn Abī Ḥātim translated (4/1/65) by narrating from a group of trustworthy people about him, and narrated from Ibn Maʿīn that he said: "Trustworthy, I have written from him." and from Abū Ḥātim who said: "He is not strong, I do not like his ḥadīth."