[iroxmxinau]

Wa alaikum asalam.

And Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah, Abdullah Ibn Umar, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Abu Said al-Khudri, and Hafsa were all aware of that Hadith.

... And ?

In fact Ibn Sayyad himself quoted that Hadith to support his claim that he was not the dajjal. And yet four out of the five individuals above swore that he was the dajjal as long as they lived.

To quote two men far better than I, or any of us here alive today:

"I said: He ( Ibn Sayyad) died."

"He said: Let him die."

"I said: He accepted Islam. "

"He said: Let him accept Islam. "

"I said: He entered Medina. "

"He said: Let him enter Medina."

I do not have the Arabic but I believe that the person protesting is Nafi speaking to Ibn Salamah when Ibn Salamah clamed that the chained Dajjal was Ibn Sayyad, or it was Jabir himself.

Perhaps a brother who has the Sunan in Arabic can read out the chain of narration. In any case KEEP IN MIND THE WORDS:

"I said: He entered Medina. "
"He said: Let him enter Medina."

This narration is interesting: "Nafi' told that Abdullah ibn Umar used to say: "I swear by Allah that I do not doubt that Antichrist is Ibn Sayyad."

Ibn Sayyad is the being who would be the Masih al-Dajjal and who would be prevented from entering Madina in the future, and Allah knows best..

There is a narration that I allude to above that the Dajjal on the Island WAS Ibn Sayyad.

Would you stand in front of Umar Ibn al-Khattab while he was swearing by Allah that Ibn Sayyad was the dajjal, and contradict him?

"Amir al-Muminin, didn't you hear the hadith that said the dajjal couldn't enter Madina?"

The hadith could be completely correct in its literal meaning and still not invalidate Ibn Sayyad's being the dajjal.

Narrated Jabir ibn Abdullah: The Messenger of Allah (SAWS)
said one day from the pulpit:
"When some people were sailing in the sea, their food was finished. An island appeared to them. They went out seeking bread. They were met by the Jassasah. I (Ibn Abdullah) said to Abu Salamah: "What is the Jassasah?"
He replied: "A woman trailing the hair of her skin and of her head.
She said: In this castle..."

THIS is the narration of the Sea and Tamim where he met the Dajjal chained. Up. Now read the rest of the Hadith closely, Jabir narrates the rest of the Hadith then

"He asked about the palm-trees of Baysan and the spring of Zughar. He said: "He is the Antichrist".
Ibn Salamah said to me: "There is something more in this Hadith, which I could not remember." .. Jabir testified that it was he who was Ibn Sayyad.

I said: He (that is Ibn Sayyad) died. He (Jabir) said: Let him die. I said: He accepted Islam. He said: Let him accept Islam. I said: He entered Medina. He said: Let him enter Medina.

There have been debates among the Ulema on this point: regarding Ibn Sayyad’s case, some attempted a synthesis of views.

Ibn Hajar tried to reconcile the views in the following manner, by asserting that the best way in which we may reconcile what is said in the Hadith of Tamim al-Dari and the view that Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal is to say that the Masih al-Dajjal was the exact personage whom Tamim al-Dari saw chained up on the Island, but that the personage of Ibn Sayyad was a shaytan from the Jinn, who simply appeared in the image of the Dajjal at that time, until he went to Isfahan, where he hid with his group (qareen), until the appointed time comes when Allah will decree that he should emerge.

This I alluded to when I spoke of "certain modalities". Sihr being the cause of Ibn Sayyad's apperance. In this sense he is a force of the Dajjal and a modality of his being, as when the king sends a messenger what that messenger delivers is the King's message and we say "The King communicated to so and so" but through the intermediary of a messenger.

Imam al-Bukhari, however, instead of attempting reconciliation simply narrated the Hadith of Jabir from ‘Umar, in the belief that it was more authentic, and chose not to narrate the Hadith of Fatima bint Qays about the story of Tamim. This can be found in Fath al-Bari, 13/328.

So if IMAM BUKHARI gave precidence to Jabir's hadith where he swore Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal - and chose not to narrate the one of Tamim al-Dari and the shipwreck narrative of the Island, what does this say?

Jabir and Ibn Umar said Ibn Sayyad was the Dajjal.

Centuries later Ibn Kathir says "that is not correct, he was simply a lesser Dajjal".

Now I ask you, was Umar Ibn al-Khattab in error or was Ibn Kathir?

Nafi' narrates that Ibn Umar used to say: "I swear by Allah that I do not doubt that al-Dajjal is Ibn Sayyad." (Abu Dawud's sunan)


The problem is that we are often a straight people, who try to mean what we say, and to whom convoluted lies are not familiar - and we do not often look into the convoluted possibilities behind language.

The Masih al-dajjal will not enter Madina.
Ibn Sayyad did enter Madiana, and even after that the best of the Ummah STILL swore he was the Dajjal.

This indicates that we perhaps are misunderstanding that hadith.

The President of the USA will not enter such and such, however the person who would eventually become the president of the USA may well have entered such and such BEFORE his term as president.

The Masih al-Dajjal, when he comes out as the Masih al-Dajjal, will not enter Madina and would be prevented.

This Hadith does not state that Ibn Sayyad prior to his "coming out to the people' as the dajjal, to quote Hafsa, would or would not be able to enter Madina, the hadith deals with future events.