পৃষ্ঠা 236: তৃতীয় অধ্যায়: কিয়ামতের মহা আলামতসমূহ (মাহদী, দাজ্জাল, ঈসা (আ.), ইয়াজুজ-মাজুজ, পশ্চিমাকাশে সূর্যোদয়)

The author's preference that the account of Tamim al-Dari occurred later than the account of Ibn Sayyad.

...between the assassination of 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) and the Incident of al-Harrah was approximately forty years, because the Incident of al-Harrah occurred during the era of Yazid.

And the utmost reconciliation that can be made is that the father of Hassan only witnessed the event after the conquest of Isfahan by that duration of time, and the response to his statement, "When we conquered Isfahan," would have an omitted clause implied as: "I began to visit it regularly and frequent it," whereupon the incident of Ibn Sayyad took place.

Al-Tabarani narrated in "al-Awsat" as a marfu' hadith from the narration of Fatimah bint Qays (may Allah be pleased with her): that the Dajjal will emerge from Isfahan, and also from the hadith of 'Imran ibn Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him).

Ahmad narrated with an authentic chain of transmission from Anas (may Allah be pleased with him): that he will emerge from the Jewish quarter of Isfahan (Yahudiyyat Asbahan).

Abu Nu'aym said: Yahudiyyah was among the villages of Isfahan, and it was only named Yahudiyyah because it was exclusively inhabited by Jews. It remained so until Ayyub ibn Ziyad, the governor of Egypt, developed it into an urban center during the era of al-Mahdi ibn al-Mansur al-Abbasi, whereupon Muslims inhabited it, while a portion of it remained for the Jews.

This is a summary of the words of al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar.

And its conclusion is: that the more correct view is that the Dajjal is other than Ibn Sayyad, even if Ibn Sayyad shared with him the attributes of being one-eyed, of Jewish origin, residing in the Yahudiyyah of Isfahan, and so forth. That is because the hadiths concerning Ibn Sayyad are all open to interpretation, whereas the hadith of al-Jassasah is an explicit, definitive text, so it is given precedence.

I say: Among what supports that he is someone else is that the account of Tamim al-Dari took place later than the account of Ibn Sayyad, so it acts like an abrogation of it. Furthermore, when he (ﷺ) informed that he is in the sea of Sham or the sea of Yemen, "Nay, rather from the direction of the East," Ibn Sayyad was in Medina. Had he been him, he would have said, "Nay, rather he is in Medina."

It cannot be argued that he only refrained from saying so out of fear that they would kill him, and thus informed about what his ultimate state would become. For we say: this argument holds no weight. How could they kill a person before his appointed time, when it is predestined that none will kill him except the Prophet of Allah, 'Isa (peace be upon him)? And if that were the case, he would not have made clear regarding the root of the Khawarij that he has companions of such-and-such description, nor would he have made clear concerning the killer of 'Ali (may Allah ennoble his face) that he would dye his beard from the blood of his crown!