Here are several observations:

First: Ibn al-Jawzi confined himself to mentioning this feeble route and overlooked the sound route through Kamil ibn al-ʿAlaʾ.

Second: In his annotation on al-Faḍāʾil (Virtues), the esteemed brother Waṣiyy Allah did not notice the omission of Abu Salih from Abu Nuʿaym’s chain of transmission, even though he attributed it to ʿIlal al-Daraqutni and Ibn al-Jawzi, where Abu Salih is in fact mentioned.

Third: He did not make clear the extreme weakness of al-Hadrami, contenting himself with saying that both of them judged it weak because of Musa.

Fourth—and this is more important than all the preceding points—after judging the chain of transmission in al-Faḍāʾil through Kamil ibn al-ʿAlaʾ to be good, he said:

“Ahmad also transmitted it (2/513) through two authentic chains of transmission; and al-Hakim ... and al-Tabarani ... both through Kamil.”

Thus, he differentiated between Ahmad’s chain of transmission and that of those he mentioned afterwards, although they are one and the same: they all hinge on Kamil.

Worse still, he claimed that Ahmad had two chains for it—both authentic! This is a gross error from someone like him, for Ahmad recorded it only through Kamil, in the passage to which he referred above. Here is the clarification:

Ahmad said: “Aswad ibn ʿAmir narrated to us: Kamil narrated to us; and Abu al-Mundhir: Kamil Abu Kamil narrated to us. He said—meaning that it was narrated—from Abu Salih, from Abu Hurayrah ... Abu Ahmad narrated to us—through his chain—from Abu Salih, who said: Abu Hurayrah narrated to us ...”