and consider some of the authentic ḥadīths that this (Ḥassān) has weakened with extreme ignorance in the corrections numbered (6, 11, and 13) at the end of the second volume of "Silsilat al-Aḥādīth al-Ṣaḥīḥah," the new edition, and correction (14), under which there is another authentic ḥadīth weakened by the one named (ʿĀdil) with extreme ignorance, indicating that he has no understanding. (Note): Then I came across the ḥadīth of Khufāf ibn Imāʾ in "Musnad Abī Yaʿlá" (2/207-208) through the chain of Yazīd ibn ʿIyāḍ from ʿImrān ibn Abī Anas from Abū al-Qāsim Maqsim, the client of Banū Rabīʿah, from al-Ḥārith who said: I prayed in the mosque of Banū Ghifār, and when I sat down, I began to supplicate and point with one finger. Then Khufāf ibn Imāʾ al-Ghifārī entered upon me while I was in that state, and he said: ... and he mentioned the ḥadīth. The commentator on it said—after weakening it due to Yazīd ibn ʿIyāḍ, and citing it from the narrations of Aḥmad and al-Bayhaqī—"And it is an isnād that appears to be disconnected, except that the narration we have here might help in identifying the unknown man and that he is the son of Khufāf. If that is the case, the isnād would be authentic"! Thus he said! And it is astonishing and strange for several reasons: First, there is no explicit mention in the isnād that al-Ḥārith is the son of Khufāf; rather, it appears that he is someone else. If it were so, he would have said: "My father Khufāf entered upon me" or something similar, and it would not be acceptable from him to say: "I prayed in the mosque of Banū Ghifār" while he is a Ghifārī! Second, even if it were explicitly stated that he is the son of Khufāf, the isnād would not be authentic, especially since Yazīd ibn ʿIyāḍ is in it and he has been weakened!