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 found himself in the position of having to protect Ibn Sayyad from being killed due to a grave error on his part

The declaration made by Muhammad, identifying Ibn Sayyad as the Dajjal (Anti-Christ), proved to be a fatal mistake.

Drawing from the successful strategies employed by Judaism and Christianity, which utilized the concept of the Dajjal to instill fear in their followers, Muhammad adopted similar tactics. By invoking the idea of the Dajjal, he aimed to ensure the unwavering loyalty of his own followers and prevent any thoughts of disloyalty.

To achieve this, Muhammad extensively relied on revelations, speaking at length about the Dajjal and the dire consequences awaiting those who betrayed him. He also provided numerous signs to help his followers readily identify the Dajjal and protect themselves. Through this dramatic display, Muhammad sought to cultivate a sense of gratitude among his followers for providing them with vital information to defend themselves against the impending threat of the Dajjal.

Crucially, one of Muhammad's teachings regarding the unseen (ilm-ul-Ghaib) was that no Muslim would be able to kill the Dajjal. According to this belief, only Christ himself possessed the power to eliminate the Dajjal.

Therefore, if Ibn Sayyad had been killed, it would have constituted evidence that Muhammad had been fabricating claims about his knowledge of the unseen. Additionally, the belief in the Dajjal and all associated narratives would have perished alongside Ibn Sayyad.

Hence, it is noteworthy that Muhammad went so far as to protect Ibn Sayyad from harm, as eliminating him would have not only undermined Muhammad's credibility but also threatened the very foundation of the belief in the Dajjal. This situation unfolded when Umar Ibn Khattab took it upon himself to assassinate Ibn Sayyad for falsely proclaiming 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.

Furthermore, there are three additional concerns to address:

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

While it is understandable that Muhammad informed Umar that he would be unable to kill Ibn Sayyad if he were the real Dajjal, the question remains regarding Muhammad's statement that there would be no benefit in killing Ibn Sayyad if he was not the Dajjal.

It is evident that Ibn Sayyad was a liar who falsely claimed prophethood. This false claim made him an apostate, and he openly denied the fundamental belief of Islam, which is the "Finality of the Prophethood of Muhammad." Thus, Ibn Sayyad can be considered the most severe kind of apostate, who was corrupting the belief of people by preaching his false prophethood.

Given these circumstances, the question arises as to why the Prophet Muhammad informed Umar that there would be no advantage in killing Ibn Sayyad if he was not the Dajjal.

It is worth noting that Ibn Sayyad remained alive until the Battle of Hara, which took place 50 years after the death of Muhammad. During this period, Ibn Sayyad continued to claim knowledge of Unseen future events beyond what was perceptible (i.e. Ilm-ul-Ghayb علم ألغيب). Considering this, one may wonder why it would not have been beneficial for Umar to eliminate him.

When seeking an answer to this query, one is unlikely to receive a satisfactory response from ٰIslamic apologists, apart from the assertion that Allah knows the best.

Second Issue: Why did Muhammad not receive any revelation specifically addressing Ibn Sayyad's identity as the Dajjal?

Another pertinent question arises: If Muhammad truly received revelations from Allah, why did he not receive any revelation throughout his life that definitively revealed whether Ibn Sayyad was a true or false prophet, and whether he was the Dajjal or not?

Although Muhammad refrained from directly killing Ibn Sayyad to maintain the narrative surrounding the existence of the Dajjal, he also did not want people to be influenced by Ibn Sayyad and follow him as another prophet. Such a scenario would have diminished Muhammad's own influence and reputation. Thus, while Muhammad defended Ibn Sayyad from harm, he simultaneously cast doubt on his prophethood by suggesting to people that he "might" be the Dajjal. This served as a means to create uncertainty and prevent Ibn Sayyad from gaining a significant following.

Third Issue: Muhammad was himself unable to get "revelation" if Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal or not, but demanded Ibn Sayyad to IMMEDIATELY (on the spot) show a miracle through "revelation"

Muhammad found himself incapable of receiving a revelation in the moment to determine whether Ibn Sayyad was indeed the Dajjal or not. However, he still demanded that Ibn Sayyad demonstrate a miracle on the spot and reveal Muhammad's thoughts instantaneously.

Such a situation raises questions about the double standards of prophethood. On one hand, Muhammad was unable to obtain immediate revelations himself, yet he expected Ibn Sayyad to possess this ability. This incongruity is evident and merits further consideration.

Moreover, it is noteworthy that throughout the remainder of his life, Muhammad never received a revelation that definitively confirmed or refuted Ibn Sayyad's status as the Dajjal. This inconsistency further emphasizes the existence of double standards within this context.

Muhammad himself failed to show a miracle through "revelation" on the spot in front of the Meccans 

Muhammad demanded Ibn Sayyad to show the miracle on the spot, but he himself failed to show any miracle through "revelation" in front of the Meccans.

Sirah of Ibn Ishaq, page 134:

"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."

Are you able to see these "Double Standards"?

The truth is, neither Muhammad nor Ibn 'Sayyad were able to present any miracles. However, the key distinction lies in Muhammad's skillful ability to provide explanations and justifications for his inability, whereas Ibn 'Sayyad did not possess the same adeptness in offering excuses.

It is evident that both individuals lacked the ability to demonstrate supernatural phenomena or miracles. Yet, Muhammad's talent for rationalizing his shortcomings allowed him to maintain his followers' faith and provide plausible reasons for the absence of miracles.

On the other hand, Ibn 'Sayyad did not possess the same persuasive prowess and was unable to offer convincing excuses for his lack of miraculous demonstrations.

This contrast in their abilities to address their inability to perform miracles highlights Muhammad's proficiency in navigating such challenges and preserving his credibility in the eyes of his followers.

Muhammad also failed in front of Jews of showing any miracle through "revelation"

The Bible contains several passages that highlight the phenomenon of divine acceptance of a person's sacrificial offering through the appearance of a mysterious fire that consumes the offering. These instances can be found in verses such as Judges 6:20-21, 13:19-20, and 2 Chronicles 7:1-2. The Quran also affirms this concept in verse 5:27. Additionally, in the Hadith literature associated with Muhammad (link), there are accounts recounting the story of Adam and his sons. These narrations describe how a fire appeared and consumed the offering of one son who sacrificed a 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 (Abel) offered a fat lamb as his offering, while Qabeel (Cain) presented a sheaf of corn but secretly took out and consumed a large portion of the corn. Subsequently, fire descended from the heavens and consumed Habeel's offering, while Qabeel's offering remained untouched and unaccepted. In response, Qabeel became enraged and threatened to kill Habeel, vowing that he would not allow him to marry his sister.

Grade: Sahih (Albani)

Consequently, when Muhammad asserted his prophethood, the Jews requested him to provide proof through the manifestation of a miracle, specifically the fire consuming his offering.

Muhammad found himself unable to dismiss this demand outright, acknowledging the significance of this miraculous demonstration.

However, Muhammad resorted to a different approach, offering a new excuse. He accepted the validity of the miracle involving the fire accepting the offering, but he refused to showcase this miracle. He justified his decision by accusing the Jews of having a history of killing their previous 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?"

However, the writer of the Quran's excuse does not hold up under scrutiny for several reasons.

Firstly, it is unjust to punish individuals for the sins of their ancestors. In this case, the writer of the Quran, Muhammad himself, is essentially claiming to hold the Jews of his time accountable for the actions of their forefathers. This contradicts the concept of divine justice, which does not attribute guilt based on lineage.

Secondly, the Jews of Muhammad's era maintained a strong belief in their own holy scriptures, which also indicated that the proof of prophethood involved successfully passing the miracle test. It is understandable that they would request the same evidence from Muhammad and, upon his failure to provide it, reject his claims. This rejection cannot be seen as their fault, as they were simply following the principles outlined in their own religious texts.

Ironically, when the Jewish holy books seemingly predicted the arrival of Muhammad (according to Muslim claims), Muhammad expected the Jews to adhere to their own scriptures. However, when those same holy books instructed them to seek the miracle of fire as a validation of prophethood, Muhammad wanted them to abandon that requirement. This double standard raises questions about consistency and fairness.

Thirdly, the writer of the Quran contradicts his own claims within the text. The Quran repeatedly asserts that the practices of Allah remain unchanging. Yet, in this instance, Muhammad is deviating from that principle by rejecting the miracle of fire as a valid proof of prophethood.

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 the Jews, a sudden shift occurred in the ways of Allah to accommodate his inability to demonstrate miracles.

Fourthly, it is worth noting that compared to the ancestor of the Jews, the ancestors of the pagan Meccans (Mushrikeen) did not have a history of killing prophets like the Jews did. Thus, according to the established practice (Sunnah) of Allah, it would have been necessary for Muhammad to display at least the miracle of fire consuming the sacrificial offering to the Meccans. However, instead of presenting this miraculous sign, Muhammad consistently made excuses in front of the Meccans, stating that he was not sent to perform miracles.

This raises the question: why did Muhammad deviate from the Sunnah of Allah in front of the Meccans and refrain from showing them the miracle of fire?

One possible explanation is that during the time of Muhammad, there was no one who could directly verify the fantastical stories presented in the Quran by going back to the eras of Moses and Adam.

Nonetheless, Muhammad found himself in a compromising position when the Meccans and later the Jews demanded him to showcase miracles in accordance with the established practice of Allah. This exposed a discrepancy between Muhammad's claims and his inability to fulfill the expectations placed upon him as a prophet.

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.

Let us reflect upon this intriguing aspect:

  • If Muhammad really got a revelation from Allah, why was then it needed that Muhammad had to try to become a spy like James Bond 007, and to go near Ibn Sayyad secretly in order to hear what he was murmuring?
  • Furthermore, how did Muhammad possess the knowledge, without any explicit "revelation", that Ibn Sayyad was on the verge of revealing his true identity during those murmurs? Such a claim could only have been made if a revelation had been received, as the information regarding Ibn Sayyad's intentions would fall under the category of the Unseen.

Hence, it appears perplexing that no direct revelation was forthcoming to confirm whether Ibn Sayyad was indeed the Dajjal or not. However, a revelation seemingly arrived on the spot, informing Muhammad that Ibn Sayyad was about to disclose his secret identity during that murmuring and prompting Muhammad to become Bond 007, to clandestinely listen to his murmurs.

These circumstances raise thought-provoking questions about the inconsistency of the revelation process and the sudden appearance of a specific revelation addressing Ibn Sayyad's actions. It introduces a peculiar contrast between the lack of direct revelations on Ibn Sayyad's identity as the Dajjal and the seemingly tailored revelation guiding Muhammad's covert actions at that moment.

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.

Indeed, it is quite intriguing that Ibn Sayyad, who was believed by some to be the Dajjal, not only had children but his offspring were also Muslims. This raises questions and highlights the complexity surrounding this matter.

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Ibn Sayyad continued to propagate false information about future events beyond the lifetime of Muhammad. This persistence in sharing supposed knowledge of the Unseen future leads one to contemplate Muhammad's earlier statement that killing Ibn Sayyad would serve no purpose if he was not the 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?

In the 21st century, it is highly unlikely for any rational individual to believe in such a fantastical tale where Ibn Sayyad's anger supposedly caused him to become swollen and an entire pathway to become blocked. Embracing such a narrative would not only be a disservice to human intellect but also a disregard for the principles of critical thinking and logical reasoning that define our understanding of the world. It is important to approach such stories with a skeptical mindset and base our beliefs on evidence, reason, and scientific inquiry rather than accepting unfounded and implausible assertions.

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

Tamim Dari, a former Christian, converted to Islam after Muhammad gained power in Medina. To please and impress Muhammad, Tamim concocted a fictional account of his encounter with the Dajjal. In this fabricated story, he claimed that the Dajjal acknowledged and confirmed Muhammad's prophethood.

Muhammad found great favor in this tale crafted by Tamim Dari, as it seemingly provided validation of his own divine status. The narrative aligned with Muhammad's teachings and strengthened the perception of his authority.

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 {If it is so that is better for them that they should show obedience to him}.

Upon reflecting on this narrative, a few questions arise:

  • Why would the Dajjal, who harbored intense hostility towards Muhammad, encourage the Arabs to obey him?
  • Logically, one would expect the Dajjal to advocate for the opposite, advising people not to follow Muhammad.

It becomes apparent that Muhammad and his companion Tamim Dari likely fabricated this story themselves. Muhammad propagated the fictional account of Tamim Dari to affirm his own prophethood.

However, this concocted tale posed a predicament for Muhammad. People could discern that the description, appearance, and other signs of the Dajjal presented in Tamim Dari's story differed significantly from those attributed to Ibn Sayyad.

Furthermore, according to Tamim Dari's account, the Dajjal was incapable of entering Medina, while Ibn Sayyad himself resided in Medina.

Neither Muhammad nor his companions were able to resolve this mystery. Even after 1400 years, Muslims today continue to grapple with the unresolved enigma presented by this narrative.

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

One prominent Muslim website, Islam Q&A, managed by Saudi Salafi Muftis, presents this excuse in an attempt to reconcile the inconsistencies related to the Dajjal and Ibn Sayyad(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)

For the past 14 centuries, Muslims have grappled with the contradictions surrounding the stories of the Dajjal and Ibn Sayyad, leading them to resort to various excuses that were not originally put forth by Muhammad or his companions. Two of these excuses are as follows:

  1. Claiming that Ibn Sayyad was not the Dajjal but actually Satan himself, who took on the form of Ibn Sayyad.
  2. Asserting that Ibn Sayyad was not the Dajjal, but rather a "Smaller Dajjal" or a lesser version of the Dajjal (الدجال الأصغر).

To refute these newly created excuses, it is worth noting that neither Prophet Muhammad nor his companions presented such explanations throughout their lives. None of them declared Ibn Sayyad to be either Satan or a Smaller Dajjal.

Furthermore, in other traditions, Muhammad himself claimed to possess significant power, stating that he could see and recognize Satan and even had the ability to subdue him.

Sahih Bukhari, Hadith 1210: 

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 were to accept the notion that Muhammad possessed such remarkable power, it raises valid questions regarding his inability to recognize Ibn Sayyad as Satan and engage in a confrontation with him.

If Muhammad truly had the ability to see and identify Satan, it begs the question of why he did not perceive the true nature of Ibn Sayyad. Additionally, one might wonder why Muhammad did not engage in physical combat or attempt to subdue Ibn Sayyad, considering his claimed capabilities.

These inquiries highlight a significant inconsistency within the narrative. If Muhammad possessed extraordinary powers as described in certain traditions, it becomes perplexing as to why he did not utilize them in the case of Ibn Sayyad.

Furthermore, it is worth considering why Muhammad did not recite the Islamic prayer "Lahola Wala Quwat" (meaning "There is no power or strength except with Allah") if Ibn Sayyad was indeed Satan. According to Islamic beliefs, reciting this prayer is believed to help ward off Satan. If Ibn Sayyad was truly Satan, one would expect Muhammad to invoke this prayer to repel him. However, the reality contradicts this assumption, as Ibn Sayyad was observed participating in Islamic practices such as hearing the Adhan (call to prayer), offering prayers, and even performing Hajj pilgrimage. These actions serve as evidence that Ibn Sayyad was engaged in acts of devotion and indicate that he was not a Satan.

Islam Apologists: Ibn Sayyad was a Jewish Conspiracy against Islam

Once again, Islam apologists have resorted to their familiar tactic of attributing Ibn Sayyad to a Jewish conspiracy (just like ‘Abdullah Ibn Saba). They propagate the idea that Ibn Sayyad converted to Islam after the death of Prophet Muhammad.

However, the truth remains quite different:

  • Ibn Sayyad actually embraced Islam as a child when Muhammad encountered him while he was playing with other children. Muhammad asked Ibn Sayyad if he testified to the prophethood of Allah, and Ibn Sayyad affirmed his belief in Muhammad's prophethood.
  • Ibn Sayyad himself used to perform ‘Umra and ‘’Hajj’ too.
  • Furthermore, it is important to note that Ibn Sayyad's wife was also a Muslim, and their children followed the Islamic faith. 'Ammara bin 'Abdullah ibn Sayyad, one of their children, not only embraced Islam but also became a narrator of Hadiths from Muhammad. Imam Malik even included Ahadith narrated by him in his book, Muwatta Imam Malik. It is indeed peculiar that the offspring of someone believed to be the Dajjal/Satan were actively involved in transmitting the teachings of Muhammad.

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, many Muslims have been indoctrinated and conditioned to believe that Ibn Sayyad was the so-called Antichrist Dajjal, as their prophet claimed. However, when one critically examines the incident surrounding Ibn Sayyad, it becomes increasingly challenging to accept the notion of Muhammad's prophethood and the authenticity of divine revelation.

In summary, when individuals with a discerning mind analyze the account of Ibn Sayyad, it becomes highly improbable for them to accept the concept of Muhammad's prophethood or the existence of divine revelation.