al-Harra) with the report of Hassān ibn Abd al-Rahmān, because Isfahan was conquered during the caliphate of Umar—as Abū Nuaym records in his History of Isfahan—whereas approximately forty years elapsed between Umar’s killing and the event of al-Harra.

“It may be understood that Hassān’s father witnessed the incident this many years after the conquest of Isfahan. The response to ‘when’ in his statement, ‘When we conquered Isfahan,’ would then be omitted, with the implied meaning: ‘I began visiting it regularly and returning to it, and then the incident involving Ibn Sayyād occurred.’ Thus, the conquest of Isfahan and Ibn Sayyād’s entry into it did not take place at the same time.” (1)

Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyya stated: “The case of Ibn Sayyād was unclear to some of the Companions, who consequently thought that he was the Dajjāl. The Prophet ﷺ withheld judgment concerning him until it later became clear to him that Ibn Sayyād was not the Dajjāl, but merely belonged to the class of soothsayers who experience satanic states. That was why the Prophet would go and test him.” (2)

Ibn Kathīr said: “The point is that Ibn Sayyād is unquestionably not the Dajjāl who will emerge at the end of time, because of the hadith of Fātima bint Qays al-Fihriyya, which is decisive in this matter.” (3)

These are some of the scholars’ statements concerning Ibn Sayyād. As can be seen, they conflict with one another regarding him, and each position has its evidence.