What is the Shaykh's opinion of those who say that all the hadiths of the Mahdi are weak, like Ibn Khaldun?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : There are two questions in this.
The Shaykh : Please, go ahead.
The questioner : The first is that Ibn Khaldun speaks about the hadiths of the Mahdi. What is your opinion of the hadiths of the Mahdi? He says that they are all weak.
The Shaykh : First, it is not hidden from you that Ibn Khaldun is a historian and a sage in history, not a scholar of hadith. And what I mean is not that he is not a specialist in hadith, but rather that he is not a scholar of hadith.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Then, whoever reads his writings in his history or in the introduction to his history regarding the hadiths of the Mahdi will find there an acknowledgment of the authenticity of some of them. Therefore, many writers who have written on this issue err greatly, including the Shaykh of Qatar, if you have heard of him.
The questioner : Al-Qaradawi.
The Shaykh : No, this Ibn Mahmud... he errs greatly, like thisThe Shaykh : when he attributes to Ibn Khaldun the weakening of all the hadiths of the Mahdi. This is an error, not only regarding the Prophetic hadith, but also another error regarding the historian Ibn Khaldun. Furthermore, the science of hadith contains subtleties that have turned many scholars away from engaging with hadith, because it requires an effort and diligence that most people may not be able to muster, even if they are people of knowledge and virtue. I give you an example between a scholar who writes a scientific research paper and a writer who writes a literary article: what is the difference between them?
The questioner : The gap is vast.
The Shaykh : Very vast. The one who writes a literary article has ideas stored in his mind and thought, and his pen flows with them. He does not need to consult those books that some people unjustly call "yellow books." He does not need to. Whereas the one who wants to write and compose a scientific article, especially in the end times, whose knowledge is in their lines and not in their chests, these people need to consult and at least verify. As for that writer, he does not need to consult; he writes, he scribbles. They say in our region of Sham, with this black pen, the proportion I mentioned between the scholar-writer and the literary writer is the proportion between the specialist hadith scholar and the scholar. It requires patience and many, many consultations. Why? Because many of the hadiths are of the category that the scholars of hadith call "authentic due to other evidence" or "good due to other evidence."
The Shaykh : Please, go ahead.
The questioner : The first is that Ibn Khaldun speaks about the hadiths of the Mahdi. What is your opinion of the hadiths of the Mahdi? He says that they are all weak.
The Shaykh : First, it is not hidden from you that Ibn Khaldun is a historian and a sage in history, not a scholar of hadith. And what I mean is not that he is not a specialist in hadith, but rather that he is not a scholar of hadith.
The questioner : ...
The Shaykh : Then, whoever reads his writings in his history or in the introduction to his history regarding the hadiths of the Mahdi will find there an acknowledgment of the authenticity of some of them. Therefore, many writers who have written on this issue err greatly, including the Shaykh of Qatar, if you have heard of him.
The questioner : Al-Qaradawi.
The Shaykh : No, this Ibn Mahmud... he errs greatly, like thisThe Shaykh : when he attributes to Ibn Khaldun the weakening of all the hadiths of the Mahdi. This is an error, not only regarding the Prophetic hadith, but also another error regarding the historian Ibn Khaldun. Furthermore, the science of hadith contains subtleties that have turned many scholars away from engaging with hadith, because it requires an effort and diligence that most people may not be able to muster, even if they are people of knowledge and virtue. I give you an example between a scholar who writes a scientific research paper and a writer who writes a literary article: what is the difference between them?
The questioner : The gap is vast.
The Shaykh : Very vast. The one who writes a literary article has ideas stored in his mind and thought, and his pen flows with them. He does not need to consult those books that some people unjustly call "yellow books." He does not need to. Whereas the one who wants to write and compose a scientific article, especially in the end times, whose knowledge is in their lines and not in their chests, these people need to consult and at least verify. As for that writer, he does not need to consult; he writes, he scribbles. They say in our region of Sham, with this black pen, the proportion I mentioned between the scholar-writer and the literary writer is the proportion between the specialist hadith scholar and the scholar. It requires patience and many, many consultations. Why? Because many of the hadiths are of the category that the scholars of hadith call "authentic due to other evidence" or "good due to other evidence."
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.