at his hands.” (1)

His wording thus indicates that a small number of hadiths did escape his criticism.

We say: Even if only one hadith were authentic, it would suffice as proof concerning the Mahdi. How much more so when the hadiths concerning him are authentic and mass-transmitted?!

Shaykh Ahmad Shakir said in response to Ibn Khaldūn: “Ibn Khaldūn did not properly understand the hadith scholars’ maxim, ‘Adverse criticism takes precedence over accreditation.’ Had he examined and understood their statements, he would not have said what he did. He may indeed have read and known them, but he sought to classify the Mahdi hadiths as weak because he was under the sway of the political views prevalent in his era.” (2)

He then explained that what Ibn Khaldūn wrote in this section concerning the Mahdi was riddled with errors in the names of narrators and in his reporting of hadith defects. He offered the excuse that these errors may have arisen from copyists and the negligence of proofreaders. Allah knows best.

For the sake of brevity, I shall cite here what Shaykh Muhammad Rashid Rida said concerning the Mahdi, as a representative example of the views of others who denied the Mahdi hadiths.

May Allah have mercy on him, he said: “As for the contradictions among the Mahdi hadiths, they are more pronounced and more evident; reconciling their various reports is more difficult; more people reject them; and the grounds for doubt concerning them are more apparent. Consequently, al-Bukhari and Muslim did not deem any of these reports worthy of inclusion in their two Sahih collections. These reports have been among the greatest causes of corruption and strife among Muslim peoples.” (3)