falsehood, rather than a man descended from Adam. Yet this interpretation diverts the hadiths from their apparent meaning without any evidence to warrant it!

The following is what Sheikh Abū Ubayya said in his commentary on the hadiths concerning the Dajjāl:

“The differences in the hadith reports concerning where and when the Dajjāl will appear, and whether he is Ibn Sayyād or someone else, indicate that the Dajjāl is intended as a symbol of evil—of its ascendancy, its tyrannical onslaught, the spread of its danger, the escalation of its harm in certain ages, and its injury reaching many places through whatever means of gaining power, spreading, and causing tribulation are available to it for a time—until its flame is extinguished and its ember dies under the power of truth and the word of Allah: ‘Indeed, falsehood is ever bound to vanish’ [al-Isrā: 81]” (1).

He also says, “Is it not more appropriate to understand the Dajjāl as a symbol of evil, calumny, and fabrication …,” and so forth (2).

We respond to these claims by saying that the hadiths explicitly state that the Dajjāl is a particular man. There is nothing to indicate that he is a symbol of superstition, charlatanry, and falsehood. Nor is there any discrepancy or contradiction among the reports; I have already reconciled them. I explained that the Dajjāl will initially emerge from Isfahān, from the direction of Khurāsān—all of these regions being in the east. I also clarified what has been said about whether Ibn Sayyād is the Dajjāl or someone else, and mentioned the scholars’ views on the matter.

If this is therefore clear, and if the reports contain no inconsistency—whether concerning the place