Ibn Khaldun says that the hadiths of the Mahdi are weak, so what do you say?

The questioner : First, Ibn Khaldun speaks about the hadiths of the Mahdi. What is your opinion regarding the hadiths of the Mahdi, saying 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 intend to say is not that he is not a specialist in hadith, but rather that he is not a scholar of hadith. Then, whoever reads his writings in his history or in the introduction to his history regarding the hadiths of the Mahdi will find there, in some of the hadiths, an acknowledgment of the authenticity of that portion. Therefore, many writers who have written on this issue err greatly, including the Shaykh of Qatar, if you have heard of him? ... Mahmud, this is it. He errs greatly, like this.The Shaykh : When they attribute to Ibn Khaldun that he weakened all the hadiths of the Mahdi, this is an error, not only regarding the Prophetic hadith, but also another error regarding Ibn Khaldun the historian. Then, the science of hadith in reality contains subtleties that have diverted many scholars from engaging with hadith, because it requires an effort and diligence that most people may not be able to manage, even if they are among the 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. How great is the difference between them? The difference is very vast. The one who writes a literary article, the ideas stored in his mind and thought, his pen flows with them; he does not need to review these books, which some people unjustly call "yellow books." He does not need to. While 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 review, at least to verify. As for that writer, he does not need to review; he writes and scribbles, as they say in our region of Sham, with the 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 reviews. Why? Because many of the hadiths are from the category that hadith scholars call "authentic through other means" or "good through other means." One of the scholars, for example al-Tirmidhi, if he says about a hadith, "a good hadith," and this is one of the peculiarities and subtleties that most scholars, and indeed many hadith scholars, do not notice. If al-Tirmidhi says about a hadith, "a good hadith," it means its chain of narration is weak. Have you heard of this? If he says about a hadith, "a good hadith," it means that its chain of narration is weak. I am saying that if he says about a hadith, "a good hadith," it means its chain of narration is weak, meaning we do not make a leap like gazelles, may Allah reward you. It means it is not authentic, meaning its chain of narration is not good, meaning it is not authentic. If al-Tirmidhi says about a hadith, "a good hadith," it means the hadith that al-Tirmidhi graded as good, its chain of narration is weak. How is this? This is a technical term, contrary to when he says about another hadith, "a good, isolated hadith," in which case he means a good hadith in its chain of narration. The word "isolated" specified the intended meaning of his saying "good." But if he strips the word "good" of the term "isolated," he means the text is good and the chain of narration is weak. Where did this grading of goodness come from? From his knowledge that this text has corroborations and other paths that elevated it from the weakness it had from this chain of narration. Therefore, for this reason, hadith scholars said: if a student of knowledge comes across a hadith whose chain of narration is weak, is it permissible for him to say, "a weak hadith"? They said, and they said, they said it is not permissible, because it may have another chain of narration. Either this other chain of narration is good in itself, or authentic in itself, or at least it makes this hadith with the weak chain of narration good or authentic through other means. Therefore, one does not have the authority to say that this is a weak hadith, but rather says, "a hadith with a weak chain of narration." Then they made an exception and said: except for a scholar who is well-established in the science of hadith, who is comprehensive, may Allah will it, in the paths of hadith, and then he did not find for this hadith except this chain of narration. Only for such a person is it permissible to say, "this is a weak hadith," due to the difficulty...