I say: If this interpretation is valid in his case, then well and good; otherwise, it must be rejected, since it is an unexplained criticism—especially as it conflicts with the unanimous agreement that he was trustworthy and that his reports were relied upon. Foremost among those was his colleague Isma‘il ibn Abi Khalid, who described him as highly reliable, as mentioned above. His describing him as senile does not harm him, since it appears that he did not narrate while in that state. This is why they relied on his reports without qualification. Even if he did narrate in that state, Isma‘il was the person most knowledgeable about him, and would not have narrated from him under such circumstances. Accordingly, this hadith is among the most authentic hadiths, and the imams, both early and later, have successively declared it authentic.

First: Ibn Hibban, who included it in his Sahih, as mentioned above.

Second: al-Hakim, by including it in al-Mustadrak, as mentioned above. In its published edition, however, there is no explicit declaration of its authenticity from either him or al-Dhahabi. It appears, therefore, that this was omitted by the printer or copyist. For al-Hafiz cited in al-Fath (13/45) that al-Hakim declared it authentic, which is only fitting in view of its evident authenticity.

Third: al-Dhahabi, who said in his biographical notice on Lady ‘A’ishah in his great work Siyar al-Nubala’ (p. 60, with the annotations of Professor al-Afghani):

“This hadith has an authentic chain of transmission, but they did not record it.”

Fourth: al-Hafiz Ibn Kathir, who said in al-Bidayah, after attributing it—as al-Dhahabi had done—to Ahmad in al-Musnad: “This chain meets the criteria of the two Sahihs, but they did not record it.”

Fifth: al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar, who said in al-Fath, after attributing it to Ahmad, Abu Ya‘la, and al-Bazzar: “Ibn Hibban and al-Hakim declared it authentic, and its chain meets the criteria of Sahih.”