to an astonishing degree and made obvious errors. He also said that Ibn Khaldūn had failed to understand the hadith scholars’ statement, ‘Criticism of a narrator takes precedence over declaring him trustworthy.’ Had he examined their statements and understood them, he would not have said any of what he said.”

Second: Ibn Khaldūn opened the chapter he devoted to the Mahdi in his Introduction by saying:

“Know that it has been widely held among Muslims at large throughout the ages that a man from the Prophet’s household must appear at the end of time, uphold the religion, and make justice prevail. The Muslims will follow him, and he will take control of the Muslim realms. He will be known as the Mahdi. The emergence of the Dajjāl and the subsequent signs of the Hour attested in authentic reports will follow his appearance. Jesus will descend after him and kill the Dajjāl, or descend alongside him and help him kill the Dajjāl, and will pray behind the Mahdi. In support of this, they cite hadiths recorded by the leading scholars, which those who deny this have criticized and have sometimes sought to counter with other reports.”

I say: Ibn Khaldūn’s own testimony here is that belief in the Mahdi’s emergence has been widely held among Muslims at large throughout the ages. Could he not accept in this matter what people throughout the ages have accepted, as he himself acknowledged? Is this not an aberrant position, given his knowledge that Muslims at large hold the opposite view? Could all these people have agreed upon an error? This is not a matter of independent scholarly judgment, but one of the unseen, which no one may affirm except on the basis of evidence from the Book of Allah or the Sunnah of His Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The evidence is on their side, and they are the specialists in this field.

Third: Before presenting the hadiths, he said: “We shall now mention here the hadiths reported on this matter.” At their conclusion, he said: “These, then, are the hadiths recorded by the leading scholars concerning the Mahdi and his emergence at the end of time.” Elsewhere, after that, he said: “We have covered, to the best of our ability, all the reports concerning the Mahdi transmitted by the hadith scholars.”

I say: A great deal escaped his notice, as becomes clear by consulting the reports from the leading scholars that al-Suyūtī included in al-‘Arf al-Wardī fī Akhbār al-Mahdī. Indeed, among those he missed is the hadith Ibn al-Qayyim cited in al-Manār al-Munīf from al-Hārith ibn Abī Usāmah, of which he said: “Its chain of transmission is good.” It has already been mentioned with its chain of transmission and a summary of the assessments of its narrators.

Fourth: He said: “A number of leading scholars have recorded the hadiths concerning the Mahdi.” He named them and the Companions to whom they traced these reports, then said:

“Those who deny them may challenge their chains of transmission, as we shall mention. However, it is well known among hadith scholars that criticism of a narrator takes precedence over declaring him trustworthy. Thus, if we find some narrators in these chains criticized for inattentiveness, poor memory, weakness, or unsound views, this impairs the hadith’s authenticity and weakens it. Do not say that such criticisms might also apply to narrators in the two Sahīh collections, for there has been a continuous consensus within the Muslim community to accept these two works and act upon their contents. This consensus affords the strongest protection and the best defense. Other works do not enjoy the same standing in this regard as the two Sahīh collections, so we may find grounds for criticizing their chains of transmission on the basis of what has been transmitted from the leading hadith scholars on this matter.” End of quotation.

I say: Ibn Khaldūn cited some of the hadiths