They have been discussed by those who disapprove of (the...

They have been discussed by those who disapprove of (the matter) and have often been refuted by means of certain (other) akhba-r.[^70] Ibn Khaldun in his discussion on the aha-di-th concerning the Mahdi- (‘a) says that those who reject the coming of the Mahdi- have criticised these reports, which he acknowledges have been narrated on the authority of some of the prominent companions of the Prophet and have been recorded in all authoritative Sunni books, whose names he has mentioned.

He writes: Hadith scholars acknowledge negative criticism to have precedence over positive criticism. If we find that some person in the chain of transmitters is accused of negligence, poor memory, weakness or poor judgement, it affects and weakens the soundness of the hadith. It should not be said that the same faults often affect the persons (mentioned as authorities) in the two Sahi-hs (Bukha-ri- and Muslim).

The general consensus of hadith transmitters confirms the soundness of the contents (of the two Sahi-hs) as presented by Bukha-ri- and Muslim. The uninterrupted general consensus in Islam also confirms the acceptibility of (the two Sahi-hs) and the necessity of acting in accordance with their contents. General consensus is the best protection and defence.

Works other than the two Sahi-hs are not on the same level with them in this respect...[^71] He goes on to quote, one after another, several of the aha-di-th from the Prophet concerning the Mahdi- (‘a), along with the chain of transmitters as found in the orginal sources, and tries to find fault with them in a manner which is clearly artificial. One of the aha-di-th which he criticises is the narration that Ibn Hanbal has recorded on the authority of ‘Abdulla-h bin Mas‘ud.

Ibn Khaldun then directs his attack at ‘Asim bin Abi- al-Najud even after acknowledging him to be “one of the seven authoritative Qur’a-n readers.”[^72] To deflect criticism from his assumption, he writes: Were someone to argue that (Bukha-ri- and Muslim) published traditions of his, (we should reply that) they published them when there were also other (authorities for the same tradition), and that they did not use him as their basic authority.[^73] The annotator of the Musnad, Ahmad Muhammad Sha-kir, finds the criticism of Ibn Khaldun unconvincing and rejecting it, writes: Ibn Khaldun attempted something for which he was not qualified and ventured into an arena which was not his domain.