The Authenticity of the Hadith: There is no Mahdi except Isa ibn Maryam

Ahmadi Muslims present this specific hadith to demonstrate that the Mahdi and Jesus are not two separate individuals; rather, the Mahdi and Isa ibn Maryam are two titles for the same person.

While some scholars classify this narration as weak, a thorough examination of its chain proves that it is authentic.

The hadith in question is recorded in Sunan Ibn Majah as follows:

Yunus ibn ʿabd al-aʿla narrated to us; Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafiʿi narrated to us, saying: Muhammad ibn Khalid al-Jundi narrated to me, from Aban ibn Salih, from al-Hasan, from Anas ibn Malik, that the Messenger of Allah said:

“The matters will get extreme [by the day]. The world will grow in moral depravity and the people will increase in greed. The Hour will come only on the worst of people and there will be no Mahdi except Jesus, son of Mary.”

(Sunan Ibn Majah)

To establish the validity of this narration, it is necessary to analyze the reliability of its narrators.

Al-Hakim classified Muhammad bin Khalid al-Jundi as majhool (an unknown narrator), and al-Bayhaqi later followed this ruling. However, this assessment is incorrect.

Ibn Kathir mentioned that Muhammad al-Khalid al-Jundi is not an unknown narrator as al-Hakim claimed. Rather, it has been reported that Yahya ibn Maʿin declared him trustworthy.

Ibn Kathir states:

(Al-Nihaya fi al-fitan wal-malahim)

Yahya ibn Maʿin is considered as the ultimate authority in the science of Jarh wa Taʿdil.

Regarding his him, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal said:

“Yahya ibn Maʿin is the most knowledgeable of us regarding the narrators of Hadith”

(Tabaqat ʿUlamaʾ al-Hadith - Muhammad bin Abd al-Hadi al-Maqdisi)

Similarly, Al-Dhahabi recorded the following regarding Yahya ibn Maʿin in Tarikh al-Islam:

“ʿAli ibn al-Madini said: ‘The knowledge of the people has culminated in Yahya ibn Maʿin.’”

It is vital to note that Yahya ibn Maʿin was known for his strictness in evaluating narrators. He would declare a narrator weak based on the slightest criticism. Therefore, if a scholar of his caliber independently declares someone trustworthy, then one must hold firmly to his statement and adhere to his authentication.

Abd al-Haye al-Lucknawi explained this specific principle in his work al-Rafa wa al-Takmil fi al-Jarh wa al-Tadil:

“For there is a group among the leading scholars of al-jarḥ wa al-taʿdil who are strict in this field: they criticize a narrator for the slightest flaw and apply to him labels that should not be used, in the view of people of sound understanding. … Among them are Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī, al-Nasāʾi, and Yahya ibn Maʿin … “

He further elaborated on how to approach the rulings of such scholars by quoting al-Sakhawi:

“Some of them are overly strict in criticism (al-jarḥ) but cautious and firm in authentication (al-taʿdīl), and they may point out a narrator’s faults based on one or two or three mistakes. So if such a scholar independently declares someone trustworthy, then hold firmly to his statement and adhere strongly to his authentication."

Because Ibn Ma’in declared Muhammad Khalid al-Jundi trustworthy despite his strictness, this authentication stands as highly reliable.

Another important point is that Imam al-Shafiʿi is a narrator in this hadith's chain.

Imam al-Shafiʿi is not only a hadith scholar but is also recognized by many as a mujaddid. The fact that he directly narrated this hadith from Muhammad bin Khalid al-Jundi indicates that he considered him a trustworthy source.

Imam al-Shafiʿi would have verified the reliability of his narrator and the correctness of the report, acting upon the following Quranic injunction:

“O ye who believe! if an unrighteous person brings you any news, ascertain the correctness of the report fully, lest you harm a people in ignorance” (Surah Al-Hujurat)

It is unimaginable that a critic like Imam Shafi'i would take Hadith from an untrustworthy person.

Did Yunus ibn ʿabd al-aʿla engage in tadlis?

Some scholars, including Al-Dhahabi, stated that Yunus ibn ʿabd al-aʿla did not directly hear this hadith from Imam al-Shafiʿi. They suggested that Yunus may have performed tadlis by using the word "عن" instead of explicitly stating who narrated it to him.

However, Taj al-Din al-Subki firmly rejected Al-Dhahabi's view. He mentioned that Yunus did, in fact, use explicit terminology to confirm direct transmission.

He states: “But I say: The narrators from Yunus have explicitly stated that he said, "al-Shafiʿi narrated to us" (haddathana al-Shafiʿi).”

(Tabaqat al-Shafiʿiyya al-kubra - Taj al-Din al-Subki)

Because a group of narrators transmitted this hadith from Yunus using the explicit wording "حدَّثنا الشافعي" (al-Shafi'i narrated to us), it undeniably proves that Yunus heard this hadith directly from Imam al-Shafiʿi.

Furthermore, Yunus ibn ʿabd al-aʿla is recognized as trustworthy. He was a distinguished student of Imam al-Shafiʿi, who praised him highly.

In Tarikh al-Islam, Al-Dhahabi recorded the following regarding him:

It is narrated from al-Shafiʿi that he said: “I have not seen anyone in Egypt more intelligent than Yunus ibn ʿabd al-aʿla.”

An-Nasaʾi said: “He is trustworthy.”

Ibn AbI Hatim said: “I heard my father affirm the trustworthiness of Yunus ibn ʿabd al-aʿla and raise his rank.”

Ibn Abi Hatim said: No one criticized Yunus or found fault with him, except regarding his solitary narration from al-Shafiʿi concerning this hadith.

Al-Dhahabi said:

“Aban ibn Salih is truthful. I do not know of any fault in him. However, it has been said that he did not hear directly from al-Hasan.”

(Sharh Sunan Ibn Maja - al Suyuti)

This criticism is therefore not definitive, since it is expressed with the word قيل, rather than as a firm or affirmative judgment. There is no evidence that Aban bin Salih didn’t hear directly from Hasan al Basri. The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Moreover, Hasan al-Basri held the view that the Mahdi is ʿIsa ibn Maryam. His view is recorded in Kitab al-Fitan of Nuʿaym ibn Hammad through multiple routes:

(Kitab al-Fitan)

It further strengthens the hadith, as it demonstrates that his belief was deeply rooted in the very narration he transmitted.

In conclusion, all of this analysis indicates that the scholarly criticism of this hadith is weak, and that the hadith itself remains authentic. Some scholars were firm in rejecting it because it appeared to contradict other reports.