For this reason, al-Hāfiz Ibn Hajar endeavored to reconcile the differing hadiths. He said: “The most plausible way to reconcile what is contained in the hadith of Tamīm with the view that Ibn Sayyād is the Dajjāl is to say that the Dajjāl himself was the one whom Tamīm saw in chains, while Ibn Sayyād was a devil who appeared in the form of the Dajjāl during that period. He then made his way to Isfahan and went into hiding with his companion until the time Allah Most High has decreed for his emergence. Because the matter was so deeply confused, al-Bukhārī adopted the method of weighing the evidence: he confined himself to Jābir’s report from Umar concerning Ibn Sayyād and did not include the hadith of Fātima bint Qays concerning the story of Tamīm.” (1)

Ibn Sayyād Is Real, Not a Myth:

Abū Ubayya claimed: “The figure of Ibn Sayyād is a myth that gained acceptance in some minds. Its story consequently lived on in certain books, where it was attributed to the Messenger—may Allah’s blessings be upon him—yet nothing he says or does is anything but the very kernel and pure essence of truth. The time has now come for us to take seriously the spirit and meaning of a hadith, as well as its import and purpose, just as we consider its chain and route of transmission, so that our Islamic understanding may be spared aberration and error.” (2)

This is what Shaykh Abū Ubayya said in his commentary on the hadiths concerning Ibn Sayyād!!

He is answered by pointing out that the hadiths concerning Ibn Sayyād are authentic and are found in