and here are some notes: First: Ibn al-Jawzī limited himself to mentioning this weak chain, and he missed the good chain of Kāmil ibn al-ʿAlāʾ! Second: The esteemed brother Waṣī Allāh did not notice in his commentary on the book "al-Faḍāʾil" the omission of (Abū Ṣāliḥ) from the isnād of Abū Nuʿaym, even though he attributed it to "ʿIlal al-Dāraquṭnī" and Ibn al-Jawzī, and it is established in it! Third: He did not clarify the severe weakness of al-Ḥaḍramī, and merely stated that they weakened it due to Mūsá! Fourth: and this is more important than all the preceding -: he said after declaring the isnād of "al-Faḍāʾil" good from the path of Kāmil ibn al-ʿAlāʾ: "And it was also narrated by Aḥmad (2/513) with two authentic isnāds, and al-Ḥākim... and al-Ṭabarānī... both from the path of Kāmil"! So you see he differentiated between the isnād of Aḥmad and the isnād of those mentioned after him, while it is the same! Its basis is on Kāmil. Worse than that: he claimed that Aḥmad had two isnāds for it - and both authentic!! - This is a gross error from someone like him; for it is with Aḥmad only from the path of Kāmil, and in the place he referred to as previously mentioned, and here is the clarification: Aḥmad said: "Thana Aswad ibn ʿĀmir: Thana Kāmil and Abū al-Mundhir: Thana Kāmil Abū Kāmil said: I - meaning - from Abū Ṣāliḥ from Abū Hurayrah ... Thana Abū Aḥmad - with his isnād - from Abū Ṣāliḥ: Thana Abū Hurayrah ..."