ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ḥizāmī from al-Mundhir ibn ʿAbd Allāh from Hishām ibn ʿUrwah from his father: that al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām said: ... and he mentioned it. Abū Nuʿaym also recorded it in "al-Maʿrifah" (1/209/2) through another chain from this ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Shaybah, without al-Zubayr's statement: "and I was expecting it..." etc. I said: This isnād is good, its narrators are trustworthy; Ibn Shaybah al-Ḥizāmī is among the shaykhs of al-Bukhārī, though some criticized him for his memory, and al-Bukhārī included his narration as corroboration as verified by al-Ḥāfiẓ. See my commentary on his biography in "Taysīr al-Intifāʿ"; it seems that—due to his good condition—his ḥadīth was accepted as they mentioned in the biography of Khālid ibn Ḥizām and affirmed it; like al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī in "al-Tajrīd", and al-ʿAsqalānī in "al-Iṣābah", and before them Ibn al-Athīr in "Usd al-Ghābah". Al-Wāqidī narrated it in another manner, as Ibn Saʿd said in "al-Ṭabaqāt" (4/119): Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar informed us, saying: al-Mughīrah ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Ḥizāmī narrated to me, saying: My father informed me, saying: Khālid ibn Ḥizām set out as an emigrant to the land of Abyssinia in the second instance; he was bitten on the way ... the ḥadīth; also without al-Zubayr's statement. This—despite being mursal—is very weak; due to the well-known condition of Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar al-Wāqidī. And through his route: al-Ḥākim recorded it (3/485) with other isnāds of his. In summary; the reliance is on the first chain; due to the trustworthiness of its narrators. However, there remains something I almost overlooked, which is that al-Mundhir ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Ḥizāmī was not authenticated by anyone other than Ibn Ḥibbān (7/518 and 9/176), and al-Ḥāfiẓ said: "acceptable"!