ibn-maaja and hakem have brought one tradition from the holy prophet (s.a.w.a.) as such:- 'it will not be long when difficulties and problems will dominate the people and the world shall turn away from its inhabitants and the people will resort to greediness. the hour shall not be established but upon the wicked and Mahdi is not but isa-ibn-maryam.
ibn-hajar quotes hakem as saying:
"this traditions did not distrurb me as such but rather astonished me greatly."
baihaqi says: 'only muhammad-ibn-khalid has narrated this tradition'.
hakem says: 'he (i.e. muhammad-ibn-khalid) is unknown and there exists differences in the chain of transmission of traditions narrated by him.'
nesa'ee too rejects such traditions.
in the 10th volume of da'erat-ul-ma'aref (page 475) the author after narrating the afore-said tradition mentions the views of ibn-maaja as such: imam qurtabi says:- 'this tradition is not inconsistent with what the previous traditions have mentioned about Mahdi because, this tradition only aims to respect the dignity of isa-ibn maryam (a.s.) over Mahdi. that is to say, there is no Mahdi but isa from the view-point of .his position of immaculateness and perfection. so it does not contradict existence of Mahdi. it is identical to this saying that there is no stalwart but ali. moreover, this view can be supported with the tradition which says that Mahdi is from my progeny; he shall fill the earth with justice and will emerge along with isa (a.s.) who shall help him in the killing of dajjal at a place called «lad» in the
the author of «eqdud-durar» in the preface of his afore-mentioned book writes as such: «and amongst the people, there are those who reckon that Mahdi is none other than isa-ibn-maryam, the pure and holy. so i told them - the one who denies the emergence of Mahdi is not actually referring to hazrat isa because there is no reason to believe that that reference is made to him and the one who thinks that Mahdi is the same as isa ibn-maryam and insists on the authenticity of this tradition has indeed made the zeal of prejudice and error to bring him to the point of precipice. thereafter he says - "even though this tradition may be proverbial among the people yet, how can it be considered authentic when the traditionists have rejected it." after accurately examining its references and deliberating on its authorities if a person still relies on this tradition, it will be a matter of grave falacy.
the proof of this statement is that imam abu abdur rahman has emphasised on its denial and his view is worthy of acceptance because the tradition returns back to muhammad-ibn-khalid jundi. moreover, imam abul-faraj jauzi narrates in his book «elal-mutanahiya» the weakness of this tradition from the words of hafez abi bakr baihaqi who said:- «this tradition is connected to jundi and he is an unknown person. moreover, jundi narrates from aba'an-ibn aiyaash and he too is a rejected and un-laudable person. aba'an too narrates from hassan and he from the holy prophet (s.a.w.a.) and there is an interval in his transmission (i.e. all the sources have not been narrated). anyhow, there is no reason to consider this tradition to be authentic.
baihaqi narrates from his master, hakem naishabouri (and his words are sufficient enough to make you understand the technique of tradition and the position of its narrators) as follows: