the reliance of al-Bukhārī on the words of his teacher ʿAlī, and as for the statement of Ibn Maʿīn, he did not explain it, and perhaps he meant a specific ḥadīth. Nevertheless, al-Bukhārī did not include anything from him without having a corroborator or a witness for it.." Then he mentioned a corroborator and a witness for it as will be shown, and thus the ḥadīth is strengthened; otherwise, his defense of it is unconvincing. In fact, his bias towards al-Bukhārī is evident; for he overlooked the statements of other scholars mentioned in "al-Tahdhīb." Abū Ḥātim said: "There is some leniency in him; his ḥadīth is written but not used as evidence." Al-Dhahabī relied on this in "al-Kāshif" and mentioned nothing else. Ibn ʿAdī said: "Some of what he narrates is objectionable and not corroborated, and he is among those whose ḥadīth is written from the weak narrators." The ḥāfiẓ himself summarized this in "al-Taqrīb" saying: "Truthful but makes mistakes." This means he is in the fifth category according to him, as he explained in the introduction, which is for those whose ḥadīth is eligible for improvement by others. Therefore, the most likely from his previous words in "al-Fatḥ" is that al-Bukhārī did not include anything from him except in corroborations and witnesses. However, I have reservations about this generalization. And Allāh knows best. As for the corroborator, it is Abū ʿUthmān from ʿAbd Allāh ibn Dīnār with it