Ibn Sayyad was a 13 years old boy, who also claimed prophethood, just like Muhammad.

While his claim of prophethood could have decreased the market value of Muhammad’s own claim of prophethood, thus Muhammad immediately declared him to be the ‘Dajjal’.

Nevertheless, people became confused at that and some of them started doubting Muhammad. It was due to the reason that Muhammad had already told them the clear sins of ‘Dajjal’. For example:

In brief, Muhammad told tons of signs of Dajjal, but none of them fit Ibn Sayyad.

After Muhammad realized his mistake, he immediately retreated, and took a new position that he was only ‘Doubtful’ if Ibn Sayyad was Dajjal or not.

It exposes the 'Human Errors' in the so-called 'Divine Revelation' which ultimately means that there is no Allah present in the heavens, and Muhammad was making the revelations on his own.

It is very unfortunate that 99% of people (including Muslims) don’t know about this incident, although this incident of Ibn Sayyad is as important as the incident of ‘Satanic Verses’.

Please help to spread this information among the masses.

Ibn Sayyad was also known as Ibn Sa’id.

Table of Contents:

Muhammad even had to defend Ibn Sayyad from being killed due to his FATAL Mistake

Declaring Ibn Sayyad to be the Dajjal was a fatal mistake of Muhammad.

Earlier, Judaism and Christianity used the concept of ‘Dajjal (Anti-Christ)’ very successfully in order to fill the hearts of their followers with FEARS, which ultimately led them to stay loyal to their religions and to never rebel against them.

Muhammad also used the same tactics, and he also filled the hearts of his followers with FEARS in name of Dajjal, so that they never think of becoming disloyal to him.

For this purpose, Muhammad intensively made use of ‘revelation’, in which he talked a lot about Dajjal, and how disloyal people will be punished at the hands of Dajjal. In this same process, Muhammad also told a lot of SIGNS of Dajjal, so that people (his followers) could immediately recognize him and start defending themselves against him. Muhammad did all this drama so that people felt ‘grateful’ to Muhammad for providing all this information to them so that they could defend themselves from the harm of Dajjal.

And one of Muhammad’s clear news of UNSEEN (‘ilm-ul-Ghaib) was that no Muslim would be able to kill Dajjal. According to the news of the so-called Unseen, Dajjal could only be killed by Christ himself.

Thus, if anyone would have killed Ibn Sayyad, then it would have become proof that Muhammad was only telling lies in name of news of the Unseen. Moreover, the BELIEF of Dajjal and all the stories related to him would have also died along with the death of Ibn Sayyad. 

Thus, what to talk about killing ibn Sayyad, Muhammad was even compelled to defend Ibn Sayyad from being killed. It happened when Umar Ibn Khattab tried to kill Ibn Sayyad on his own for making the false claim of prophethood.

Sahih Bukhari, 1354:

`Umar set out along with the Prophet with a group of people to Ibn Saiyad till they saw him playing with the boys near the hillocks of Bani Mughala. Ibn Saiyad at that time was nearing his puberty and did not notice (us) until the Prophet) stroked him with his hand and said to him, "Do you testify that I am Allah's Messenger)? " Ibn Saiyad looked at him and said, "I testify that you are the Messenger of illiterates." Then Ibn Saiyad asked the Prophet, "Do you testify that I am Allah's Messenger?" The Prophet refuted it and said, "I believe in Allah and His Apostles." Then he said (to Ibn Saiyad), "What do you think?" Ibn Saiyad answered, "True people and liars visit me." The Prophet) said, "You have been confused as to this matter." Then the Prophet (ﷺ) said to him, "I have kept something (in my mind) for you, (can you tell me that?)" Ibn Saiyad said, "It is Al-Dukh (the smoke)." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, "Let you be in ignominy. You cannot cross your limits." On that `Umar, said, "O Allah's Messenger)! Allow me to chop his head off." The Prophet said, "If he is he (i.e. Dajjal), then you cannot overpower him, and if he is not, then there is no use of murdering him.

Moreover, there are 3 more issues here:

First Issue: Why was it of no use to kill Ibn Sayyad if he was not the Dajjal?

One can understand when Muhammad told Umar that he would not be able to kill Ibn Sayyad if he was a real Dajjal. But the question is about the statement of Muhammad where he said: “There would be no benefit in killing Ibn Sayyad if he was not the Dajjal.”

Ibn Sayyad was clearly a lair who claimed false prophethood. This false claim made him an apostate and also the denier of the established belief of Islam i.e. ‘The Finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad’, which made Ibn Sayyad to be the worst kind of apostate.

Therefore, the question remains why the Prophet told Umar that there was no use in killing Ibn Sayyad if he is not a Dajjal?

Ibn Sayyad was alive till the battle of Hara (which happened 50 years after the death of Muhammad). And Ibn Sayyad was telling people about the news of the Unseen future during that period of 50 years (as you will see in a tradition later in this article). So, why was it not beneficial if Umar would have killed him?

You will never get an answer for this from Muslims, except for their statement that Allah and his prophet know the best.

Second Issue: Why no revelation ever came to Muhammad that directly told him if Ibn Sayyad was a Dajjal or not?

A thinking mind also comes to this question: “If Muhammad really got the revelations from Allah, why then not a single revelation came to him about Ibn Sayyad during his whole life, which would have told Muhammad clearly if Ibn Sayyad was a true prophet or a false prophet, and if he was a Dajjal or not?


Although Muhammad was not able to kill Ibn Sayyad directly in order to save his fantasy story of Dajjal alive, nevertheless, Muhammad also didn’t want people to get influenced by Ibn Sayyad and to follow him as another prophet. It would have decreased the market value of Muhammad. Thus, on one side Muhammad was defending Ibn Sayyad from being killed, but on the other hand, he kept on spreading doubts about the prophethood of Ibn Sayyad by telling people that he ‘might’ be the Dajjal.

Third Issue: Muhammad was himself unable to tell if Ibn Sayyad was a Dajjal or not, but demanded Ibn Sayyad to show the miracle on the spot

Muhammad was unable to get any revelation on the spot if Ibn Sayyad was a Dajjal or not. But he DEMANDED Ibn Sayyad to get the revelation on the spot, and he had to tell immediately what was Muhammad thinking in his heart.

Are these not the Double Standards of prophethood?

And what to talk about ‘on the spot’, Muhammad was unable to get any revelation ‘whole of his remaining life’ which could have confirmed if Ibn Sayyad was a Dajjal or not. This makes these Double Standards to great extent.

Muhammad himself always failed to show miracles in front of the Meccans and later in front of the Jews of Medina

Muhammad demanded Ibn Sayyad to show the miracle on the spot, but he himself failed to show any miracle in front of Meccans and later then in front of Jews.

Ibn Ishaq 188-189:

"Well, Muhammad," they said, "if you won't accept any of our propositions, you know that no people are more short of land and water, and live a harder life than we, so ask your Lord, who has sent you, to remove for us these mountains which shut us in, and to straighten out our country for us, and to open up in it rivers like those of Syria and Iraq ... 

Muhammad replied that he had not been sent to them with such an object. He had conveyed to them God's message, and they could either accept it with advantage, or reject it and await God's judgment.

They said that if he would not do that for them, let him do something for himself. Ask God to send an angel with him to confirm what he said and to contradict them; ...

Muhammad replied that he would not do it, and would not ask for such things, for he was not sent to do so, and he repeated what he had said before.

They said, 'Then let the heavens be dropped on us in pieces,' as you assert that your Lord could do if He wished, for we will not believe you unless you do so.'

The apostle replied that this was a matter for God; if He wanted to do it with them, He would do it.

They said, 'Did not your Lord know that we would sit with you, and ask you these questions, so that He might come to you and instruct you how to answer us, and tell you what He was going to do with us, if we did not receive your message?

Information has reached us that you are taught by this fellow in al-Yamama, called al-Rahman, and by God we will never believe in al-Rahman. Our conscience is clear. By God, we will not leave you and our treatment of you, until either we destroy you or you destroy us.' Some said, 'We worship the angels, who are the daughters of Allah.' Others said, 'We will not believe in you until you come to us with God and the angels as a surety."

When they said this the apostle of Allah got up and left them."

Muhammad's failure of showing any miracle in front of Jews

The Bible mentions at several places that the proof of prophethood was a Divine acceptance of a person's sacrificial offering through the appearance of a mysterious fire which consumed the offering. (See Judges 6: 20-1 and 13: 19-20; 2 Chronicles 7: 1-2.). And this was also confirmed by the Quranic verse of 5:27. And Muhammad's Ahadith (link) also tell the story of Adam and his sons, and how the fire appeared and consumed the offering of one son, who sacrificed the sheep.

Quran 5:27:

Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah): It was accepted from one, but not from the other.

Tafsir Tabari, under verse 5:27 (link):

It was narrated from as-Suddi, in his narration from Abu Maalik and from Abu Saalih from Ibn ‘Abbaas, and from Murrah from Ibn Mas‘ood, and from some of the companions of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him): ... Habeel offered a fat lamb as offering, while Qabeel offered a sheaf of corn, but took out a big corn from it and ate it. Fire came down (from heaven) and consumed the offering of Habeel, but not that of Qaabeel [i.e., Haabeel’s offering was accepted and Qaabeel’s was not]. Upon that Qabeel became angry and he said: "I will certainly kill you, and you will not be able to marry my sister.

Grade: Sahih (Albani)

Thus, when Muhammad claimed prophethood, the Jews demanded he proves his prophethood through the same miracle of fire consuming his offering.

It became impossible for Muhammad to deny this demand as proof. 

Therefore, this time Muhammad up came with a new excuse, in which he accepted the practice of the miracle of fire accepting the offering, but he refused to show this miracle by blaming Jews that they killed their prophets.

Quran 3:183:

They (the Jews) said: "Allah took our promise not to believe in any messenger unless He showed us a sacrifice consumed by Fire (From heaven)." Say: "There came to you messengers before me, with clear Signs and even with what ye ask for: why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?"

But this excuse from the writer of the Quran (i.e. Muhammad himself) does not make sense due to several reasons.

(1) Firstly, a person cannot be punished for the crimes of his ancestors. And in this case, the writer of the Quran is doing nothing else than claiming to punish the Jews of the era of Muhammad, due to the wrongdoing of a few of their ancestors, which is totally against divine Justice.

(2) Secondly, the Jews of Muhammad's era still firmly believed in their holy book. Thus, they also firmly believed that the proof of prophethood was passing the miracle test too. Why was then it counted as their fault if they also asked Muhammad for the same proof, and rejected him after his failure?

When the Jewish holy books predict the coming of Muhammad (according to Muslim's claims), then Muhammad wanted Jews to follow their holy books. But when these same holy books of Jews ask them to demand the miracle of fire as a proof of prophethood, then Muhammad wanted them to abandon their holy books and not to follow them. This approach is known as double standards.

(3) Thirdly, the writer of the Quran is going against his own claim, where he said multiple times in the Quran that you will never see any change in the practices of Allah.

Quran 48:23:

سُنَّةَ ٱللَّهِ ٱلَّتِى قَدْ خَلَتْ مِن قَبْلُ ۖ وَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّةِ ٱللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًا

[This is] the established way of Allah which has occurred before. And never will you find in the way of Allah any change.

Quran 35:43:

فَهَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّا سُنَّتَ ٱلْأَوَّلِينَ ۚ فَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ ٱللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًا ۖ وَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ ٱللَّهِ تَحْوِيلًا

Then do they await except the way of the former peoples? But you will never find in the way of Allah any change, and you will never find in the way of Allah any alteration.

Since Muhammad was unable to perform the miracle of fire in front of Jews, thus the ways of Allah changed immediately to accommodate Muhammad's inability to perform miracles.

(4) Fourthly, the ancestors of pagans (i.e. Mushrikeen) of Mecca didn't kill the prophets like Jews.

Therefore, according to the Sunnah of Allah, it was necessary for Muhammad to show them at least the miracle where the sacrificial offering would have been consumed by a mysterious fire.

But instead of showing them the miracle of fire consuming the offering, Muhammad was constantly making excuses that he was not sent to show them any miracle.


Why did Muhammad change the Sunnah of Allah in front of the Meccans and didn't show them the miracle of fire?

Allah enabled Moses to show a miracle in front of Mushrik Pharaoh and his people, but Allah again changed His Sunnah (i.e. way/practice) in the case of Mushrikeen of Mecca and Muhammad.

And the reason is very simple. None in the era of Muhammad (when the Quran was revealed) was able to go back to the time of Moses and Adam and could have confirmed the fantasy stories of the Quran.

Nevertheless, Muhammad was caught red-handed when the Meccans and then later Jews asked him to show the miracles according to the Sunnah of Allah.

Some more traditions about Ibn Sayyad:

1st Tradition:

Sahih Bukhari, 1354:

... Later on Allah's Messenger once again went along with Ubai bin Ka`b to the date-palm trees (garden) where Ibn Saiyad was staying. The Prophet wanted to hear something from Ibn Saiyad before Ibn Saiyad could see him, and the Prophet saw him lying covered with a sheet and from where his murmurs were heard. Ibn Saiyad's mother saw Allah's Apostle while he was hiding himself behind the trunks of the date-palm trees. She addressed Ibn Saiyad, "O Saf ! (and this was the name of Ibn Saiyad) Here is Muhammad." And with that Ibn Saiyad got up. The Prophet said, "Had this woman left him (Had she not disturbed him), then Ibn Saiyad would have revealed the reality of his case.

Please ponder upon this:

  • If Muhammad really got a revelation from Allah, why was then it needed that Muhammad had to try to become a spy like 007, and to go near Ibn Sayyad secretly in order to hear what he was murmuring?
  • Moreover, how Muhammad came to know it without any revelation that Ibn Sayyad was about to disclose his real identity during that murmuring? Muhammad could have made such a claim only if a revelation would have come to him, while it was news of Unseen that Ibn Sayyad was murmuring about his reality.

Therefore, it is strange that no direct revelation came if Ibn Sayyad was a Dajjal or not, but then a revelation came on the spot, which told Muhammad that Ibn Sayyad was disclosing his secret identity during that murmuring and that Muhammad should immediately turn himself into 007 and secretly hear what he was murmuring.

2nd Tradition:

Sahih Muslim, 2927c:

Abu Sa`id al-Khudri reported: We came back after having performed Pilgrimage or `Umra and lbn Sa'id was along with us. And we encamped at a place and the people dispersed and I and he were left behind. I felt terribly frightened of him as it was said about him that he was the Dajjal. He brought his goods and placed them by my luggage and I said: It is intense heat. Would you not place that under that tree? And he did that. Then there appeared before us a flock of sheep. He went and brought a cup of milk and said: Abu Sa`id, drink that. I said it is intense heat and the milk is also hot (whereas the fact was) that I did not like to drink from his hands or to take it from his hand and he said: Abu Sa`id, I think that I should take a rope and suspend it by the tree and then commit suicide because of the talks of the people, and he further said. Abu Sa`id he who is ignorant of the saying of Allah's Messenger) (he is to be pardoned), but O people of Ansar, is this hadith of Allah's Messenger) concealed from you whereas you have the best knowledge of the hadith of Allah's Messenger) amongst people? Did Allah's Messenger) not say that he (Dajjal) would be a non believer whereas I am a believer? Did Allah's Messenger) not say he would be barren and no child would be born to him, whereas I have left my children in Medina? Did Allah's Messenger (may peace upon him) not say: He would not get into Medina and Mecca whereas I have been coming from Medina and now I intend to go to Mecca? Abu Sa`id said: I was about to accept the excuse put forward by him. Then he said: I know the place where he would be born and where he is now. So I said to him: May your whole day be spent.

So, the so-called Dajjal (i.e. Ibn Sayyad) not only got children, but his children were also Muslims. Subhan Allah.

Moreover, you can see that Ibn Sayyad was telling the false news of the Unseen future even after the death of Muhammad. Thus, one wonders about Muhammad’s statement that killing of Ibn Sayyad would be of no use if he was not a Dajjal.

3rd Tradition:

Sahih Muslim, 2932a:

Nafi' reported that Ibn 'Umar met Ibn Si'id on some of the paths of Medina and he said to him a word which enraged him and he was so much swollen with anger that the way was blocked. Ibn 'Umar went to Hafsa and informed her about this. Thereupon she said: May Allah have mercy upon you, why did you incite Ibn Sayyad in spite of the fact that you knew it would be the extreme anger which would make Dajjal appear in the world?

Is it possible for any sane person in this 21st century to ever believe in such a fantasy story that Ibn Sayyad was swollen with anger so much that the whole way was blocked? It is an insult to human intellect and humanity to ever believe in such a fantasy story.

A Fantasy story of Tamim Dari (a Sahabi) meeting with Dajjal

Tamim Dari was a Christian. As Muhammad got power in Medina, then Tamim also became Muslim. And in order to flatter Muhammad, he fabricated a fantasy story about his meeting with Dajjal.

Muhammad loved that fabricated story by Tamim Dari, while it was telling that Dajjal himself confirmed the prophethood of Muhammad

Sahih Muslim, 2942a:

When Allah's Messenger had finished his prayer, he sat on the pulpit smiling and said: Every worshipper should keep sitting at his place. He then said: Do you know why I had asked you to assemble? They said: Allah and His Messenger know best. He said: By Allah. I have not made you assemble for exhortation or for a warning, but I have detained you here, for Tamim Dari, a Christian, who came and accepted Islam, told me something, which agrees with what I was telling, you about the Dajjal. He narrated to me that he had sailed in a ship along with thirty men of Bani Lakhm and Bani Judham and had been tossed by waves in the ocean for a month. Then these (waves) took them (near) the land within the ocean (island) at the time of sunset. They sat in a small side-boat and entered that island. There was a beast with long thick hair (and because of these) they could not distinguish his face from his back. They said: Woe to you, who can you be? Thereupon it said: I am al-Jassasa. They said: What is al-Jassasa? And it said: O people, go to this person in the monastery as he is very much eager to know about you. He (the narrator) said: When it named a person for us we were afraid of it lest it should be a devil. Then we hurriedly went on till we came to that monastery and found a well-built person there with his hands tied to his neck and having iron shackles between his two legs up to the ankles. ... He said: Inform me about the unlettered Prophet (i.e. Muhammad); what has he done? We said: He has come out from Mecca and has settled In Yathrib (Medina). He (the Dajjal) said: Do the Arabs fight against him? We said: Yes. He said: How did he deal with them? We informed him that he had overcome those in his neighbourhood and they had submitted themselves before him. Thereupon he said to us: Has it actually happened? We said: Yes. Thereupon he said: If it is so that is better for them that they should show obedience to him. I am going to tell you about myself and I am Dajjal and would be soon permitted to get out and so I shall get out and travel in the land, and will not spare any town where I would not stay for forty nights except Mecca and Medina as these two (places) are prohibited (areas) for me and I would not make an attempt to enter any one of these two. An angel with a sword in his hand would confront me and would bar my way and there would be angels to guard every passage leading to it; then Allah's Messenger striking the pulpit with the help of the end of his staff said: This implies Taiba meaning Medina. Have I not, told you an account (of the Dajjal) like this? 'The people said: Yes, and this account narrated by Tamim Dari was liked by me for it corroborates the account which I gave to you in regard to him (Dajjal) at Medina and Mecca.

This hadith claims that Dajjal asked people that they should show obedience to Muhammad {Thereupon he said: If it is so that is better for them that they should show obedience to him. }.

Please ponder upon it:

  • Why would Dajjal ask Arabs to show obedience to Muhammad?
  • There was extreme enmity between Dajjal and Muhammad, and thus Dajjal should have told them the opposite, i.e. to not to obey Muhammad. 

It is enough to realize that Muhammad and his companion Tamin Dari fabricated this story on their own. 

Muhammad told the fantasy story of Tamim Dari to all Muslims, as it was confirming the prophethood of Muhammad.

Nevertheless, this fantasy story became a problem for Muhammad, while then people were able to see that appearance and shape and all other signs of Dajjal in the story of Tamim Dari were totally different from that of Ibn Sayyad.

Moreover, according to the story of Tamim Dari, Dajjal is unable to enter Medina, while Ibn Sayyad himself lived in Medina.

Muhammad and Sahaba were unable to solve this mystery. And Muslims of the last 1400 years are also unable to solve this mystery even till today.

Excuse by Islam apologists: Ibn Sayyad was not Dajjal, but Satan himself 

Islam Question Answer is one of the largest Muslim websites and is run by Saudi Salafi Muftis. This website came up with the following excuse in order to solve these ‘contradictions’ regarding Dajjal (link).

The scholars were confused by the reports about Ibn Sayyaad. Some scholars said that he was the Dajjaal, and others said that he was not. Both groups had evidence (daleel) for what they said, and their views conflicted a great deal. Ibn Hajar tried to reconcile the two views by saying: the best way in which we may reconcile what is said in the hadeeth of Tameem al-Daari and the view that Ibn Sayyaad was the Dajjaal is to say that the Dajjaal is the exact same person whom Tameem al-Daari saw chained up, and that Ibn Sayyaad was a shaytaan (a devil) who appeared in the image of the Dajjaal at that time. (Fath al-Baari, 13/328)

Muslims are unable to solve the contradictions in the stories of Dajjal and Ibn Sayyad for the last 14 centuries. Thus, they were compelled to make those lame excuses, that were not even presented by Muhammad and his companions themselves. One of those excuses is:

  1. Ibn Sayyad was not a Dajjal, but he was actually SATAN himself who appeared in the shape of Ibn Sayyad.
  2. And the 2nd Muslim excuse is, Ibn Sayyad was not the Dajjal, but he was only a “Smaller Dajjal” الدجال الأصغر .

In order to refute these newly fabricated excuses, it is enough to see that Prophet Muhammad was himself unable to present such excuses during the whole of his life. Even all of his Sahaba were also unable to come up with these excuses and none of them declared Ibn Sayyad either to be a Satan or to be a Smaller Dajjal.

Moreover, in other traditions, Muhammad claimed himself to be so powerful that not only he could see Satan, but he also got the power to choke Satan:

Sahih Bukhari, Beginning of Creation (Link):

The Prophet once offered the prayer and said, 'Satan came in front of me and tried to interrupt my prayer, but Allah gave me an upper hand on him and I choked him. No doubt, I thought of tying him to one of the pillars of the mosque till you get up in the morning and see him.

If we believe in this tradition that Muhammad was indeed so powerful, why then he was unable to see that Ibn Sayyad was actually a Satan? Why didn't he then wrestle with Ibn Sayyad and choke him?

Moreover, why Muhammad forgot to recite “Lahola Wala Quwat لاحول واللہ قوۃ “upon Ibn Sayyad? If he was really a Satan, then he would have run away after that.

Islam Apologists: Ibn Sayyad was a Jewish Conspiracy against Islam

Once against Islam apologists used their favourite tactic i.e. to blame Ibn Sayyad for being a Jewish Conspiracy (just like ‘Abdullah Ibn Saba). They also propagate that Ibn Sayyad accepted Islam after the death of the Prophet Muhammad.

Nevertheless, the truth is:

  • Ibn Sayyad accepted Islam as a child when Muhammad came to him while he was playing with other children. There Muhammad asked him if he testify that he was the prophet of Allah. Upon that Ibn Sayyad indeed testified about the prophethood of Muhammad.
  • And the wife of Ibn Sayyad was also a Muslim. And the children of Ibn Sayyad were also Muslims. One of them was ‘Ammara bin ‘Abdullah ibn Sayyad, who was not only a Muslim but was also a narrator of the Ahadith of Muhammad and Imam Malik took Ahadith from him in his book Muwatta Imam Malik.
  • Else, Ibn Sayyad himself used to perform ‘Umra and ‘’Hajj’ too.

Is it not strange that the children of Dajjal/Satan were narrating the Ahadith of Muhammad, while the Dajjal/Satan was himself performing the Hajjs and ‘Umras.

Unfortunately, Muslims have been brainwashed (and have become Zombies) that they still think that Ibn Sayyad was that so-called Antichrist Dajjal as their prophet told them.

In short, whenever any person (who has a thinking mind) will read the incident of Ibn Sayyad, then it is impossible that he can ever believe in the prophethood of Muhammad and in the so-called ‘divine revelation’.