Does al-Bukhari's silence in his history count as authentication?

The questioner : Yes, my Shaykh, regarding what I asked you about al-Bukhari's silence.

The Shaykh: What?

The questioner : Al-Bukhari's silence in the history, and then I mentioned that it is not considered, it does not count as authentication.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : So I remembered that it was Abu al-Barakat Ibn Taymiyyah.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : And Ibn al-Qayyim quoted from him in al-Zad, saying: "The weakness of 'Ikrimah ibn Ibrahim can be questioned, and the reason for the weakness can be requested, for al-Bukhari mentioned him in the history and did not criticize him as is his custom, and his custom is to mention the critics and the criticized."

The Shaykh : This statement is not sound, this statement is not sound, and it seems to be a statement issued from the door of good opinion of al-Bukhari. As for the reality of Imam al-Bukhari in the history, it is not his custom to criticize, rather he rarely authenticates and rarely criticizes. Therefore, I propose to some students of knowledge to devote themselves to investigating this issue and tracking the narrators whom al-Bukhari mentioned in the weak or whom he weakened in other books, to show that many of them he included in the history and was silent about them. Therefore, this text from Abu al-Barakat Ibn Taymiyyah, in truth, should be the incentive to investigate this issue.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : And this is what I have in my possession.

The questioner : Is it sufficient, if we track the weak, is it sufficient to break this rule that al-Bukhari's silence counts as authentication, the existence of one or two narrators, or three, or something like that?

The Shaykh : The matter is not one or two. First, and second, we do not have a text from Imam al-Bukhari that whoever he was silent about in the history is trustworthy in his view, until such a question is answered.