and I heard him recite from Sūrah al-Barāʾah: "They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allāh," [so I said: We do not worship them]? He said: ... and he mentioned it. The two additions are from al-Bukhārī and others, and the context is from al-Tirmidhī, who said: "A [ḥasan] gharīb ḥadīth, we do not know it except from the ḥadīth of ʿAbd al-Salām ibn Ḥarb and Ghuṭayf ibn Aʿyan; he is not well-known in ḥadīth." I said: He is the defect in the ḥadīth, which is the unknown status of (Ghuṭayf ibn Aʿyan). Ibn Ḥibbān mentioned him in "al-Thiqāt" (7/311) only through the narration of this ʿAbd al-Salām, and likewise, al-Bukhārī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim mentioned him, and they mentioned another narrator for him in "al-Tahdhīb," who is (Isḥāq ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Abī Furwah), but he is abandoned. As for the statement of al-Ḥāfiẓ about him: "I said: al-Dāraqutnī weakened him." I say: al-Dāraqutnī thought he was (Rūḥ ibn Ghuṭayf), as al-Dhahabī clarified by saying in "al-Mīzān": "al-Dāraqutnī weakened him and said: al-Qāsim ibn Mālik al-Muzanī narrated from him and said: Rūḥ ibn Ghuṭayf." Al-Dhahabī followed up by saying: "I say: I think this is another." I say: Al-Bukhārī and Ibn Abī Ḥātim, and those who came after them, proceeded with the distinction; they translated for the first (Ghuṭayf ibn Aʿyan) with the narration of ʿAbd al-Salām from him as mentioned earlier, then they translated for Rūḥ with another entry; al-Bukhārī said (2/1/308/1047):