I said: if this interpretation is correct regarding him, otherwise it is rejected because it is an unexplained criticism, especially since it contradicts the consensus of everyone on his reliability and using his ḥadīth as evidence, foremost among them his companion Ismāʿīl ibn Abī Khālid, who described him as reliable as previously mentioned. It does not harm him that he described him as senile, because it appears he did not narrate in this state. Therefore, they used his ḥadīth without reservation. And if he did narrate in that state, Ismāʿīl was the most knowledgeable about him, so he would not narrate from him in such a condition. Based on this, the ḥadīth is among the most authentic, and thus the imams have consistently authenticated it, both in the past and present. The first: Ibn Ḥibbān, as he included it in his "Ṣaḥīḥ" as previously mentioned. The second: al-Ḥākim by including it in "al-Mustadrak" as mentioned before, and the printed version does not explicitly state its authentication by him or by al-Dhahabī. It seems it was omitted by the printer or the copyist, as al-Ḥāfiẓ mentioned in "al-Fatḥ" (13/45) that al-Ḥākim authenticated it, which is appropriate given its clear authenticity. The third: al-Dhahabī, as he said in the biography of Lady ʿĀʾishah in his great book "Siyar al-Nubalāʾ" (p. 60 with the commentary of al-Ustādh al-Afghānī): "This is a ḥadīth with a sound isnād, and they did not include it." The fourth: al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Kathīr, who said in "al-Bidāyah" after attributing it, like al-Dhahabī, to Aḥmad in "al-Musnad": "And this isnād is according to the criteria of the two Shaykhs, and they did not include it." The fifth: al-Ḥāfiẓ Ibn Ḥajar, who said in "al-Fatḥ" after attributing it to Aḥmad, Abū Yaʿlá, and al-Bazzār: "Ibn Ḥibbān and al-Ḥākim authenticated it, and its isnād is according to the criteria of the Ṣaḥīḥ."