it is weak; therefore we challenge him to name which ḥadīth critics have ruled this report weak.”

I reply: We have already cited those who deemed the narration of Rawḥ ibn Ṣalāḥ—who alone transmitted it—weak, and that automatically renders the ḥadīth itself weak, as is obvious, unless it is supported by corroboration, which Abū Nuʿaym explicitly denied, or unless it comes through a different chain—but that is well-nigh impossible.

They went on to say: “Even if we grant that it is weak, its weakness is slight and does not prevent acting upon it, for it belongs to the kind of weak ḥadīth that the ḥadīth scholars and jurists allow one to act upon in matters of targhīb and tarhīb (encouragement and deterrence).”

I respond: There is nothing in this ḥadīth that relates to targhīb, nor does it describe the merit of a practice already established in the Law. It merely reports an issue whose ruling hovers between permissibility and impermissibility; thus, were it authentic, it would be establishing a legal judgement. You cite it solely as evidence for the permissibility of the contested form of tawassul. Once you concede that it is weak, you may not employ it as proof. I cannot imagine any rational person agreeing with you in classifying this ḥadīth under targhīb and tarhīb. Such is the plight of one who refuses to yield to the truth: he says what no sound mind would accept.

Ḥadīth 5
Umayyah ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Khālid ibn Asīd narrated:
“The Messenger of Allah ﷺ would seek victory by means of the indigent Emigrants.”

The opponents understand this ḥadīth to mean that the Prophet ﷺ would ask Allah to grant him victory and open the way for him through the weak and destitute among the Emigrants—and that, in their view, is precisely the disputed form of tawassul itself.