Ninth Principle: al-Mundhirī’s silence about a report in al-Targhīb is not an endorsement of its authenticity.

The basic rule is that a weak ḥadith may not be cited without stating its condition, as will be clarified later. Some people therefore imagine that whenever al-Mundhirī keeps silent about a narration in al-Targhīb wa’l-Tarhīb this shows he does not regard it as weak. Shaykh Sayyid Sābiq adopted this assumption for more than one report, yet it overlooks the notation system al-Mundhirī himself set out in the book’s introduction, where he said (p. 4):

“If the isnād is ṣaḥīḥ (sound), ḥasan (fair), or close to either of them, I prefix the citation with the word ‘ʿan’ (‘from/on the authority of’). I do the same when the report is mursal (the Companion is missing), munqaṭiʿ (disconnected), muʿḍal (two consecutive links missing), or the chain contains an unnamed narrator, or a weak narrator who has been declared reliable, or a reliable narrator who has been declared weak, while the rest of the transmitters are trustworthy or are subject to criticism that does not harm; or when the report is transmitted as marfūʿ (traced back to the Prophet) but the correct view is that it is mawqūf (a Companion’s statement); or connected whereas the correct view is that it is mursal; or when its isnād is weak yet some of its editors have authenticated it or graded it fair. In all such cases I also begin with ‘ʿan,’ after which I point out its being mursal, interrupted, muʿḍal, or name the disputed narrator, saying, for example, ‘So-and-so narrated it from So-and-so,’ ‘through the route of So-and-so,’ or ‘its chain contains So-and-so.’

If, however, the chain includes someone described as a liar, forger, accused of fabrication, unanimously abandoned, severely weak, ‘his narrations are gone,’ ‘ruined,’ ‘discarded,’ ‘worthless,’ ‘very weak,’ merely ‘weak,’ or if I have found no statement attesting to his reliability so that the ḥadith cannot possibly be upgraded, I begin it with the word ‘ruwiya’ (‘it is reported’) and I mention neither that narrator nor what has been said about him at all. Thus a weak isnād is indicated by two signs: my prefixing it with ‘ruwiya’ and my omitting any further comment on it at the end.”

I have examined this statement in detail—highlighting its brevity, ambiguities, and the objections that can be raised—in the introduction to Ṣaḥīḥ al-Targhīb; consult it, for it is extremely important.