from this perspective: it was recorded by Ibn Qāniʿ in the biography of Sahl in "al-Muʿjam," and by al-Ṭabarānī in "al-Muʿjam al-Kabīr" (6/88/5551) and "al-Awsaṭ" (1/174/2/3230), and by al-Bayhaqī in "Shuʿab al-Īmān" (3/401/3884). I said: This isnād is good with what follows it, its men are trustworthy, the men of Muslim; except for ʿAbd Allāh ibn Ṣāliḥ, he is among the shaykhs of al-Bukhārī as you see, and more than one mentioned that he narrated from him in "Ṣaḥīḥ," like al-Mundhirī at the end of "al-Targhīb" (4/286), and al-Dhahabī in "al-Kāshif," and he said in "al-Mughnī": "The correct view is that al-Bukhārī narrated from him in the Ṣaḥīḥ." And he said following al-Mundhirī: "Ṣāliḥ al-ḥadīth, he has anomalies." And al-Ḥāfiẓ said in "al-Taqrīb": "Truthful but makes many mistakes, reliable in his book, and he was heedless." He symbolized that al-Bukhārī narrated from him in a suspended form, and mentioned in "Tahdhīb" following its original, that al-Bukhārī used him as evidence in "Ṣaḥīḥ"; but in "Muqaddimat al-Fatḥ" (pp. 414-415) he traced the ḥadīths that al-Bukhārī narrated from him with the phrases: ḥaddathanā, or: qāla lī, or qāla—bare—from nine places in "Ṣaḥīḥ," and it became clear that most of them were for following or as evidence, and few were for argumentation. And Allāh knows best. But he said after presenting the statements of the imams about him between critic and supporter: "I said: The apparent words of these imams indicate that his ḥadīth was initially sound, then it changed..