What happened between the two Imams, Al-Bukhari and Muslim, such that Muslim did not narrate from Al-Bukhari in his Sahih, and what is the truth behind Muslim's criticism of Al-Bukhari in the introduction to his Sahih, and are there any indications of their disagreement other than the story of the Kaffarat Al-Majlis (expiation for the sitting) hadith?

Imam Muslim acknowledged the superiority of his teacher, Al-Bukhari, and was influenced by him. He accompanied him, studied under him, benefited from his vast knowledge, and also defended him. This is confirmed by what Al-Daraqutni said: "Had it not been for Al-Bukhari, Muslim would not have gone nor come."

As for the story of the Hadith of the Expiation of the Sitting (Kaffarat al-Majlis), it is authentic. Al-Hakim declared this Hadith weak based on a narration attributed to Al-Bukhari. However, Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar pointed out that Al-Bukhari did not say: "I do not know any other Hadith in the world regarding this topic except this one Hadith," but rather he said: "I do not know [any other Hadith] with this chain of narration." The story indicates Al-Bukhari's precision and Muslim's benefit from him.

Regarding Muslim's critique of the view that stipulated the condition of [proven] meeting (liqya) in the mu'an'an chain, scholars differed on whom Muslim intended with this critique. Some said: Al-Bukhari, some said: Ibn al-Madini, and some said: both. Al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar held that Muslim meant both Al-Bukhari and Ibn al-Madini, as Al-Bukhari stipulated the certainty of a meeting, even if only once, for accepting the 'an'anah (narration with "on the authority of") of a narrator. Ibn Hajar believed this elevated Al-Bukhari's book.