"he was frequently mistaken, with gross errors..." Thus, it would have been more appropriate for him to classify the shaykh along with the narrator from him in "the weak narrators." This al-Walīd is not Ibn Abī Mālik al-Hamdānī al-Dimashqī, who is trustworthy. I pointed this out because the biographical entry appeared in "al-Mustadrak" and its "Summary" as "al-Walīd ibn Abī Mālik," and I feared it might be confused with the biographical entry. Third: Muḥammad ibn Qays, the client of Sahl, is also unknown because no one narrated from him except the unknown al-Walīd, as previously explained. As for what is mentioned in "al-Jarḥ wa-al-Taʿdīl" (4/1/62) that ʿAbd al-Karīm ibn Abī al-Mukhāriq also narrated from him, it is an error. Al-Ḥusaynī followed this in his book, and al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar critiqued him in "al-Taʿjīl" (375/969) by saying: "ʿAbd al-Karīm only narrated from him through the intermediary of al-Walīd, as it is with Aḥmad from the path of Ibn Jurayj... and he mentioned the ḥadīth." Al-Bukhārī also mentioned it in his book, and Ibn Ḥibbān in "his trustworthy narrators" (5/373) through the narration of al-Walīd ibn Mālik only. When you understand this, it becomes clear to you that Ibn Ḥibbān also erred in mentioning Muḥammad ibn Qays in "his trustworthy narrators" because it is through the narration of an unknown about him. Despite this evident weakness in the isnād of the ḥadīth, al-Ḥākim left it uncorrected, followed by al-Dhahabī, and then Ibn al-Mulaqqin in his book "Mukhtaṣar Istidrāk al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī ʿalá Mustadrak Abī ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥākim," and he did not mention it at all!