Al-Hakim—who does not include this final clause, nor does al-Nasa’i—said: “Its chain of transmission is authentic.” Al-Dhahabi agreed with him, and al-Hafiz endorsed it in al-Fath (12/127).

Al-Hafiz likewise cited it without this clause in al-Talkhis (4/58), saying: “Abu Dawud narrated it, and its chain is good.”

I say: This is closer to the mark, for it includes Hisham ibn Sa‘d, who was “truthful, though prone to errors,” as al-Hafiz stated in al-Taqrib.

However, there is disagreement over whether Nu‘aym ibn Hazzal was a Companion. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr said in al-Isti‘ab: “The people of Medina related from him the account of the stoning of Ma‘iz al-Aslami. It has been said that he was not a Companion; rather, Companionship belonged to his father, Hazzal. This is more likely correct.”

His words, “the people of Medina,” conflict with what is found in Tahdhib al-Kamal and its derivative works, al-Dhahabi’s Tajrid, and al-‘Asqalani’s al-Isabah, for they mention no narrator from him other than his son Yazid. Al-Hafiz explicitly stated this in al-Taqrib, despite affirming decisively that he was a Companion, saying: “A Companion who settled in Medina; none narrated from him except his son Yazid.”

I say: Perhaps the reason for this discrepancy is the differing reports from Nu‘aym ibn Hazzal, as will follow.

Second: Al-Layth ibn Sa‘d said: from Yahya—namely, Ibn Sa‘id al-Ansari—from Yazid ibn Nu‘aym, from his grandfather Hazzal, that he had instructed Ma‘iz to go to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him ... the hadith in abbreviated form; it includes the hadith under discussion.

Al-Nasa’i (7278) and Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (23/126) recorded it.