بَابُ قِصَّةِ ابْنِ صَيَّادٍStory of Ibn Sayyad

¹ His statement: “toward Ibn Sayyad”: He was a Jew from the Jews of Medina, or it is said he was an outsider among them. In his youth, he resembled the soothsayers, sometimes speaking the truth and often lying. Later, he embraced Islam, showed signs of piety such as performing Hajj and striving with the Muslims, but then displayed behaviors and made statements suggesting he was the Dajjal. Some said he repented and died in Medina, while others said he disappeared during the Day of Harrah. Ibn al-Malik said: There is disagreement about Ibn Sayyad’s status. Some said he was the Dajjal, but claims of his death in Medina are unverified, as it is narrated he disappeared during the Day of Harrah. As for the Dajjal not having children, not entering the two sacred cities, and being a disbeliever, this applies to the time of his emergence. Others said he is not the Dajjal, and it is reported that Jabir swore by Allah that Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal, having heard Umar ibn al-Khattab swear to this in the Prophet’s presence without his disapproval. However, the story of Tamim al-Dari suggests he is not the Dajjal. Indeed, Ibn Sayyad’s case was a trial from Allah, and Allah protected the Muslims from his evil. I say: This does not contradict Tamim al-Dari’s story, as it is possible the Dajjal has different forms, appearing in the physical world and imagination variably, while in the spiritual realm, he is bound by chains. The restraint on his full emergence may be due to the chains of prophethood and the bonds of the message. Allah knows best. Some scholars reconciled the conflicting narrations by stating that Ibn Sayyad was initially thought to be the Dajjal before the full clarification about the Dajjal’s nature came through Tamim al-Dari’s narration, which confirmed Ibn Sayyad was not him. The similarities between the descriptions of the Dajjal’s parents and Ibn Sayyad’s parents are not conclusive, as shared traits do not necessitate shared identity. Umar and his son’s oaths, unrebuked by the Prophet, were made before this clarification, driven by concern over Ibn Sayyad’s signs. (As stated in Al-Mirqat) ² His statement: “until they found him”: It is said that “until” here is a particle indicating the start of a new statement, signifying the end of an aim. His statement: “playing with children” describes the state of the object of “they found him.” (As stated in Al-Mirqat) ³ His statement: “I testify that you are the Messenger of the unlettered”: Qadi Iyad said this refers to the Arabs, as most were illiterate. While his statement is true in its explicit meaning, it implies a falsehood by suggesting the Prophet was sent only to the Arabs, not to non-Arabs, as some Jews claimed. If this was his intent, it was inspired by the lying spirit that came to him, a devil. (As stated in Al-Mirqat) ⁴ His statement: “Then Ibn Sayyad said, ‘Do you testify that I am the Messenger of Allah?’”: If it is asked why the Prophet (ﷺ) did not kill him for claiming prophethood in his presence, the answer, as stated by al-Bayhaqi and others, has two aspects: first, he was not yet of age, as chosen by Qadi Iyad; second, it was during the period of truce with the Jews and their allies, as affirmed by al-Khattabi, because the Prophet (ﷺ), after arriving in Medina, made a peace agreement with the Jews to leave them be, and Ibn Sayyad was either one of them or an outsider among them. (As stated in Al-Mirqat) ⁵ His statement: “Then he said, ‘I believe in Allah and His messengers’”: Al-Tayyibi said this is connected to “he rebuked him,” with “then” indicating a higher rank. The statement is made loosely, meaning, “I believe in Allah and His messengers, so consider whether you are among them.” This implies hesitation about whether he is a messenger, which is clearly invalid. The correct view is that he acted upon the implied meaning, as the Dajjal did, meaning, “I believe in His messengers, and you are not one of them, for if you were, I would believe in you.” (As stated in Al-Mirqat) ⁶ His statement: “I have hidden something”: Ibn al-Malik said the Prophet tested him to demonstrate to the companions that his state was false and that a devil inspired him. (As stated in Al-Mirqat) It is asked: How did he or his devil know part of what was in the mind? It is possible he spoke it to himself or a companion mentioned it, and the devil overheard. I say: More likely, it was mentioned in the heavens, and the devil stole it, as soothsayers do with other matters. (As stated in Fath al-Wadood) I say: It is preferable to say, as established in Hadith, that the devil flows through a person like blood, casting whispers and thoughts into the heart and accessing its inclinations. Thus, it is not far-fetched that he accessed part of what was in the Prophet’s heart (ﷺ). ⁷ His statement: “You will never exceed your limit”: Meaning, you will not surpass the capacity of soothsayers who receive a single word from the devil out of many, unlike prophets, to whom Allah reveals clear, complete knowledge of the unseen, or unlike the miracles granted to the righteous. The essence is that even if you know the hidden, you cannot exceed the limit set for you, as soothsaying does not elevate its practitioner beyond their station, even if they are correct. (As stated in Al-Mirqat) ⁸ His statement: “Abdullah ibn Umar”: It appears that what follows is a separate Hadith mentioned as an aside, hence the lack of a conjunction. (As stated in Al-Mirqat)

¹ His statement: “most harmful and least beneficial”: Meaning, with large canine teeth. The meaning is no boy is less beneficial than him. Al-Jazari said: The term “most harmful” is in the copies of Al-Masabih, meaning large-toothed or born with teeth. I have no doubt it is a scribal error for “most harmful thing,” as it is in Tirmidhi’s book, from which the author took it. This makes the conjunction “and least beneficial” smooth without strain, with the pronoun referring to “thing,” meaning least beneficial in any way. I say: This is supported by Ibn Hajar’s narration in his commentary on Bukhari, quoting Abu Dawud, which says, “a one-eyed boy, most harmful thing and least beneficial.” His statement: “His eyes sleep, but his heart does not”: Qadi Iyad said this means his corrupt thoughts do not cease during sleep due to abundant whispers, imaginations, and the devil’s influence, just as the Prophet’s heart (ﷺ) did not sleep from righteous thoughts due to continuous revelation and inspiration. (As stated in Al-Mirqat)

¹ His statement: “prominent canine teeth”: This Hadith supports the narration of “most harmful” in the previous Hadith. Allah knows best. (As stated in Al-Mirqat)

¹ Her statement: “May Allah have mercy on you”: This is a supplicatory phrase indicating the permissibility of such for the living, though current custom differs. (As stated in Al-Mirqat) ² His statement: “He will emerge from an anger he experiences”: Meaning, he will grow angry and emerge claiming prophethood. So, do not anger him, O Abdullah, or speak to him, lest he emerges and causes trials. Al-Tayyibi said: It means the Dajjal will emerge when angered. (As stated in Al-Mirqat)

¹ His statement: “The Prophet (ﷺ) did not disapprove”: Meaning, had it been incorrect, he would have disapproved. It is said that Umar meant Ibn Sayyad was among the deceivers who emerge, claim prophethood, or mislead people, not necessarily the Dajjal himself, as the Prophet (ﷺ) expressed uncertainty, saying, “If he is the one, and if he is not.” However, the apparent meaning of “Dajjal” refers to the ultimate Dajjal. The oath is permissible when based on strong supposition. A commentator said the Prophet (ﷺ) did not disapprove because he knew Ibn Sayyad was among the deceivers he warned about, as he said, “In my nation, nearly thirty lying deceivers will emerge,” and Ibn Sayyad, who claimed prophethood in his presence, was among them. Thus, Umar’s oath was not contrary to the truth, or he meant Ibn Sayyad had traits of the Dajjal. Allah knows best. (As stated in Al-Mirqat)