"Asad ibn ʿAmr disagreed with him regarding the name of (Rūḥ ibn Ghaṭīf), as he called him (Ghaṭīf); and he erred in that." I said: From this investigation, it becomes clear: First, that (Ghaṭīf ibn Aʿyan) is different from (Rūḥ ibn Ghaṭīf). Second, that it was this (Rūḥ) whom al-Dāraqūṭnī weakened, contrary to what was attributed to him by the ḥāfiẓ as previously mentioned, and al-Dhahabī pointed to this by saying in "al-Kāshif": "Some have criticized him"; referring to al-Dāraqūṭnī, and indeed it was (Rūḥ) who was criticized as you have learned. Third, that what al-Dhahabī attributed in "al-Mīzān" to al-Dāraqūṭnī, saying about (Rūḥ): "al-Qāsim narrated from him..."; is an error on al-Dāraqūṭnī, and the one who narrated that from al-Qāsim was actually (Asad ibn ʿAmr) as al-Dāraqūṭnī explicitly stated, so take advantage of this investigation; you may not find it elsewhere. It becomes clear from the above that the flaw in this isnād is the unknown status of Ghaṭīf ibn Aʿyan, which al-Tirmidhī indicated by saying about him: "He is not well-known." At this point, the following question arises: How does his deeming him unknown align with his grading the ḥadīth as good? My answer is twofold: First, the mentioned grading does not appear in the copy from which we are quoting, but rather it is an addition I benefited from "Takhrīj al-Kashshāf" by al-Ḥāfiẓ al-ʿAsqalānī (75/108), and "al-Durr al-Manthūr" by al-Suyūṭī (3/230). The other: Perhaps it is due to the supporting narration reported by Abū al-Bakhtarī who said: