ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ḥizāmī, from al-Mundhir ibn ʿAbd Allāh, from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah, from his father: al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām said: ... and he mentioned it.

Abū Nuʿaym also recorded it in al-Maʿrifah (1/209/2), through another route from this ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Shaybah, but without al-Zubayr’s statement, “I kept expecting him ...,” and so on.

I say: This chain is good, and its narrators are trustworthy. Ibn Shaybah al-Ḥizāmī was one of al-Bukhārī’s shaykhs. Some scholars criticized his memory, and al-Bukhārī narrated from him only as corroboration, as al-Ḥāfiẓ established. See also my comments on his biographical notice in Taysīr al-Intifāʿ. It seems that, owing to his acceptable standing, they regarded this report as admissible, mentioning it in the biography of Khālid ibn Ḥizām and affirming it decisively—such as al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī in al-Tajrīd, al-ʿAsqalānī in al-Iṣābah, and, before them, Ibn al-Athīr in Usd al-Ghābah.

Al-Wāqidī narrated it by another route. Ibn Saʿd said in al-Ṭabaqāt (4/119): Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar informed us; al-Mughīrah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ḥizāmī narrated to me; my father informed me: Khālid ibn Ḥizām set out as an emigrant to the land of Abyssinia on the second migration, and was bitten on the way ... the hadith—also without al-Zubayr’s statement.

This report, besides being mursal, is extremely weak because of the well-known condition of Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Wāqidī.

Al-Ḥākim also recorded it through his route (3/485), with other chains from him.

In sum, the primary reliance is upon the first route, because its narrators are trustworthy.

Yet one point remains that I nearly overlooked: al-Mundhir ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥizāmī was not declared trustworthy by anyone other than Ibn Ḥibbān (7/518 and 9/176), while al-Ḥāfiẓ said: “Acceptable!”