THE IBN SAYYAD

TRADITIONS

AND THE LEGEND

OF AL-DAJJAL*

DAVID J. HALPERIN
IJNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY

The Islamic traditional literature contains a series of puzzling hadiths which suggest an identification of al-Dajjdal-the Muslim "Antichrist"-with a Jewish contemporary of Muhammad, known as Ibn Sayyid. Critical analysis of these hadiths indicates that Ibn Sayyad was in fact a rival claimant to prophecy, whose visionary experiences may be linked with the Jewish merkdbdh mysticism; Muhammad was apparently unable to repudiate his claims. After Muhammad's death, when the belief in the coming of al-Dajjal began to take root in the Islamic community, suspicion fell on Ibn Sayyad; and, as the Dajjallegend developed, the image of Ibn Sayyad took on increasingly sinister and fantastic traits. This paper attempts to trace the development of the Ibn Sayyad tradition from history to legend-and, thereby, to shed light on the evolution of the Dajjal-legend itself. STUDENTS OF ISLAMIC LORE know al-Dajjal as

the Muslim counterpart of Antichrist. His name and much of his legend are believed to be derived
from Christian sources. He is to be a one-eyed of bread, and by rivers

giant riding on an enormous ass; he will be accompanied by mountains

of fire and water. He will work false miracles and claim to be God. Great numbers of Jews will follow him. He will rule over the earth for forty
days (or years) before being slain by Jesus son of

Given Dajjal's clearly eschatological character, it is surprising and disturbing to find a number of hadiths2 which identify him (or discuss his identification) with a purportedly historical figure: Ibn Sayyad, or Ibn Sa'id.3 This latter is reported to have been a Jewish boy living at Medinah at the time of the Prophet's stay there (622-632), to
the last two references to Dr. Kister.) For references in the hadith literature, see A. J. Wensinck, A Handbook of Early Muhammadan Tradition, Leiden, 1927, pp. 50f. 2 Bukhari, Kitfb al-Jami' al-Sahih (Le recueil des traditiones mahomdtanes), Leiden, 1862-1908, passim; cited below according to number of kitab and of bdb. Muslim, Sahih Muslim, Cairo, 1374-75/1955-56,kitib 52 (kitib al-fitan wa-ashrat al-sa'ah), traditions 85-99 (IV, 2240-47); cited according to number of tradition. Abi Da'ud, Sunan Abi Ddii'd, Cairo, 1371/1952, II, 434f; cited according to volume and page. Tirmidhi, al-Jaimi' al-Sahih (with commentary of al-Mubarakfiri), Medinah, 1963-67, traditions 2347-50 (VI, 515-23); cited according

Mary. At present he is chained in a monastery on an island in the middle of the ocean, where he was visited by Tamim al-Dairi, a Christian who accepted Islam in the time of the Prophet Muhammad. But soon he will be given leave to burst forth against mankind; and his coming will be a sign of the End of Days.1
* This article developed out of research undertaken for Dr. Hamid Algar, University of California, Berkeley. I am also indebted, for their comments and suggestions, to Drs. William Brinner and Richard Cooper (Berkeley), Alfred Ivry (Cornell), Mordechai Friedman (University of Tel Aviv)-and, particularly, Dr. M. J. Kister (Hebrew University, Jerusalem). I did much of the work while living at the William Foxwell Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, with the support of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 1 Art. "al-Dadjdjal," Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam, Leiden, 1953, p. 67; E. J. Jenkinson, "The Moslem AntiChrist Legend," Muslim World 20 (1930), pp. 50-55; G. Van Vloten, Recherches sur la Domination arabe..., Amsterdam, 1894, pp. 58-61; Ibn Kathir, Nihayat alBidaiya wa-'l-Nihdya, Riyad, 1968, I, 88-106. (I owe

to number of tradition. Ibn Hanbal, Musnad, Cairo, 1313/1895, passim; cited according to volume and page. Wensinck'slisting (op. cit., p. 103) is reasonablycomplete. 3 These two forms-the occupationaland the participial nouns from the root syd, "to trap, hunt, fish"-occur indiscriminately. Ibn Sayyad's ism is rarely mentioned. It appearsas Saf in the Palm-grove Unit (below, pp. 000000), and in Tabari, Annales (ed. De Goeje, Leiden, 18791901), I, 2565f. It is given as 'Abdallah in Ibn Hanbal, III, 79, 368. Cf. the entry on Ibn Sayyad in Ibn Hajar
al-'Asqalani, al-Isabah fi Tamyiz al-Sahabah, Cairo, 1328/

1910, 1II, 133f (No. 6609). (I owe the last reference to Dr. Kister).

213

214

Journal of the American Oriental Society 96.2 (1976)

I. IBN ASYYAD AND THE PROPHET

have converted to Islam at some point, and to have perished "on the day of al-Harrah"-that is, August 27, 683 (= end of Dhiu 'l-Hijjah, 63), when the Caliph Yazid's forces defeated the Medinese insurgents at the Battle of al-Harrah.4 The identification of a man agreed to be dead with an eschatological figure creates an obvious problem,5 which can only be resolved by assuming that the historical Ibn Sayyad is merely an avatar of the Dajjal Ibn Sayyad, whose "Second Coming" is projected into the eschatological future.6 It is very hard to see how such an identification could have arisen in the first place, unless we assume that Ibn Sayyad did exist and was in fact suspected during his lifetime of being the Dajjal. It is therefore prima facie likely that the traditions concerning Ibn Sayyad have an historical basis.7 This paper will critically examine the Ibn Sayyad traditions, trace their development, and isolate the bits of history which they contain. This study will yield information on the growth of Islamic tradition in general, on the evolution of the Dajjal-legend in particular-and, historically, on one aspect of Muhammad's confrontation with the Arabian Judaism of his time.
4 Abui Di'uid, II, 435: faqadna 'bn sayyld yawm alharrah. Cf. the notice in Taj al-'Aris, Cairo, 1306-07/ 1888-89, II, 404. Abf Da'ud's language would not suggest to me that there was anything "mysterious" or supernatural about Ibn Sayyad's disappearance, amid the chaos and carnage which followed the defeat (against Van Vloten, op. cit., p. 60; I). S. Attema, De Mohammedaansche opvattingen omtrent het tijdstip van de jongsten dug en zijn voorteekenen, Amsterdam, 1942, p. 118). On the battle itself, see art. "al-Harra," Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, Leiden-London, 1960- , III, 226f. 5 Cf. the objections raised in Abi Da'ud, II, 434 (quoted below, pp. 26f). The legendary account of Ibn Sayyad's role in the capture of SOs (Tabari, loc. cit.; below, p. 204) depends on the assumption that Ibn Sayyad is alDajjal, yet freely acknowledges his death in Medinah. 6 Cf. MubMrakfuri's comment on Tirmidhi, No. 2347. 7 Cf. A. Sprenger, Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammad, Berlin, 1869, III, 31; Van Vloten, op. cit., p. 59; G. Vajda, "Juifs et Musulmans selon le Hadit," Journal Asiatique 229 (1937), p. 113. J. Wellhausen (Reste Arabischen Heidentums, Berlin, 1897, p. 137) included Ibn Sayyad in his list of kahins. Attema (op. cit., pp. 11418, 120, 178f) follows Van Vloten and Wellhausen: Ibn Sayyad was probably an historical person, a kahin of Medinah (esp. p. 115).

The cycle of traditions concerning Ibn Sayyad's contacts with Muh.ammad may be treated as a self-contained body of material, and approached with a special methodology. The pertinent hadiths appear to be constructed out of a series of small units which recur, without much internal variation, in a number of different combinations and contexts. With one exception, these units are dialogues-normally, between Muhammad and Ibn Sayyad-entirely devoid of narrative. The units are sometimes transmitted singly, without any word of background or explanation.8 Or, two or more units may be transmitted together and provided with a sentence or two of narrative introduction.9 As a rule, the more units gathered together, the more elaborate and specific the introduction. "The Apostle of God approached Ibn Sayyad while he was playing with the lads" (followed by two units).'0 "While we were walking with the Prophet, he passed by Ibn Sayyad" (followed by two units)." "The Apostle of God, Abu Bakr, and 'Umar met him in one of the streets of Medinah" (followed by three units).12 "'Umar b. al-Khattab set out to find Ibn Sayyad, with the Apostle of God and a group of his companions. He found him playing with the lads in the fortress (utum) of the Banu Mughalah-Ibn Sayyad was approaching puberty at the time. He was not aware [that they had come] until the Apostle of God struck him on the back with his hand" (followed by four units; then a fifth, in a new setting).13 We regard the transmission of single units as the oldest stage of the tradition. Their various groupings, and the narrative frameworks with which these groupings are provided, belong to a secondary stage; they reflect the transmitters' attempts to give a context to, and thus interpret, the obscure reports which had been handed down to them.

8 "Appendix: Units and Collections" (below, pp. 3032), Nos. 1-3. 9 Appendix, Nos. 4-9. 10 Ibn Hanbal, III, 82 (Appendix, No. 4). 11 Ibn Hanbal, I, 380; Muslim, No. 86 (Appendix, No. 5). 12 Muslim, No. 87; and parallels (Appendix, No. 8). 13 Bukhari, 78, 97; and parallels (Appendix, No. 9).

HALPERIN: Ibn Sayyad Traditions and Legend of al-Dajjol

215

The latest stage of the tradition is represented by the long hadith quoted by Ibn Hanbal (III, 368).14 The units are not only combined, but are woven together into a well-developed and dramatic but certainly artificial narrative structure. The beginnings of this process can be observed in the two extant versions of the "Abfi Nadrah Collection": one text preserves its three component units as independent dialogues; the other, by making two very slight changes, welds the three into one dialogue.l5 But the "Long Hadith"-so we shall call it, for want of a more convenient name-carries this development much further. Additional material is drawn in, full information "A certain given on background and motives. Jewess of Medinah bore a lad," we are told at the beginning, "blind in one eye16 and with a protruding tooth;17 the Apostle of God feared that he was al-Dajjal." The subsequent events are interpreted in the light of this problem-is Ibn Sayyad the Dajjal or not ?-which is (with the exception of one obscure passage) absent from the primary units and their combinations. So the Prophet's otherwise puzzling behavior is explained: "The Apostle of God was hoping to hear something of his [Ibn Sayyad's] speech, that he might know if it was he [al-Dajjal] or not." Familiar details about Dajjal are added: he is to be blind in one eye, he can be slain only by Jesus. So the compiler works to make his material more or less intelligible and acceptable within an Islamic framework. When we examine the units themselves, we see why this effort was necessary. In the Apostle Unit,18 Muhammad and Ibn Sayyad both demand the other's recognition as the Apostle of God. That someone other than Muhammad should claim
14 Also quoted from Ibn Hanbal by Ibn Kathir (op. cit., I, 102-04), whose readings are frequently better than those of the Cairo edition of Ibn Hanbal. 15 Appendix, No. 8. Each unit begins and ends with an utterance of the Prophet. In Tirmidhi's version, the first unit is separated from the second by a new fa-qala lahu al-nabi; Muslim's version deletes this phrase, so that

prophethood is not so strange: Muslim tradition knows a host of "false prophets" who arose either shortly before Muhammad's death or shortly afterwards (al-Aswad, Musaylimah, Tulayhah, Sajah).1' But the tradition represents Musaylimah's pretensions as sharply and fittingly rebuffed by the

Prophet;20 whereas Ibn Sayyad's similar claims are met with an amazing indecisiveness. Muhammad is depicted as not knowing what to make of
Ibn Sayyad, and unwilling to take any stand on

whether or not he is Apostle of God. Four more units (Dust of Paradise, Throne, Liar, Smoke) represent a series of probes of Ibn Sayyad's occult experiences and powers. All share a three-part structure: (1) Muhammad asks Ibn Sayyad a question; (2) Ibn Sayyad replies; (3) Muhammad gives his verdict. Although Ibn Sayyad's answers are frequently obscure to us, this seems to be due to our ignorance of the background rather than to any evasiveness on Ibn Sayyad's part. In what appears to be their more original form, the Prophet's verdicts speak of Ibn Sayyad in the third person, and are therefore addressed to an unspecified third party. (To be sure, all four units offer second-person variants as well.) This may give us a clue to the original setting of these units. In the Palm-grove Unit-the only unit which is a narrative rather than a dialogue-we find Ibn Sayyad in a palm-grove, in a trance state which suggests the practices of the Jewish merklabdh mystics as well as those of the Arabian kahins. Muhammad is hiding among the palm-trees, trying (unsuccessfully) to eavesdrop. The Prophet's undignified behavior was obviously an embarrassment to the transmitters of the story, some of whom tried to tone it down21 or explain it away.22
19 W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad at Medina, Ox-

ford, 1956, pp. 79, 88, 128-41; J. Wellhausen, Skizzen

und Vorarbeiten, VI, Berlin, 1899, pp. 7-19, 31-37. 20 E.g., Ibn Hisham (tr. A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, Lahore, 1955, p. 649); Waqidi, quoted by Ibn Sa'd (Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, IV, Berlin, 1889, p. 115; Arabic, pp. 13f). 21 Bukhari, 56, 160: omits the remark that the Prophet was "deceiving Ibn Sayyad, that he might hear something from Ibn Sayyad before he saw him"; omits the second reference to Muhammad's concealment. 22 Ibn Hanbal, III, 368 (above, p. 000). The Prophet's concealment, and his intent to deceive, are entirely omitted.

the end of the first unit flows into the beginning of the second as a continuous speech of the Prophet. So at the
beginning of the third unit: qala ma tard (Tirmidhi) is altered to wa-ma tara (Muslim). 16 mamsuhat al-'ayn, a standard phrase for Dajjal (Ibn Hanbal, III, 201, 211, 249; V, 16, 386, etc.). 17 Reading ndbuhu, with Ibn Kathir.

18 For convenient reference, I have assigned the units names on the basis of their contents.

216

Journal of the A merican Oriental Society 96.2 (1976) This reply, which constitutes a third element, appears in various forms: "I believe in God and His apostles";26 "I believe in God, His books, His apostles, and the Last Day";27 "I believe in God, His angels, and His books."28 Non-committal utterances of this sort occur elsewhere in the hadith literature in a different context: Muslims are thus enjoined to respond to Jewish and Christian claims; themselves unable to make a judgment, they will thereby neither assent to false statements nor deny true ones.29 By attributing such a response to the Prophet, the tradition underscores his bafflement.30 One variant, found throughout the Ibn 'Umar Collection, records an interesting concession by Ibn Sayyad: "I bear witness that you are the Apostle of the Gentiles" (rasful al-ummiyyin).31 If this is authentic, it may give us a clue to how Ibn Sayyad regarded his rival. 2. The Dust of Paradise Unit is transmitted singly, in three versions: The Prophet asked Ibn Sa'id about the Dust of Paradise. He said, "White flour, pure musk." The Apostle of God said, "He is right."32 The Apostle of God said to Ibn Sa'id, "What is the Dust of Paradise?" He said, "Whiteflour, musk, 0 Abi 'l-QasimI" He said, "You are right."33 Ibn Sayyad asked the Prophet about the Dust of Paradise. He said, "Whiteflour, pure musk."34 The third version-obviously based on the firstis a fine example of how the Ibn Sayyad traditions were adapted and smoothed out in the process of transmission. The question-answer roles reversed, the unit is made to conform to the familiar pattern in which Jewish scholars ply the Prophet with questions about Biblical, celestial, and escha26 Throughout the Ibn 'Umar Collection. 27 Tirmidhi, No. 2349. 28 Muslim, No. 87. 29 Vajda, op. cit., pp. 117-19. 30 The Long Hadith (Ibn Hanbal, III, 368) explains that the Prophet answered as he did to trick Ibn Sayyad

Finally, the 'Umar Unit has 'Umar offering to kill Ibn Sayyad, and Muhammad restraining him, on the ground that "if it is he whom you fear, you will not be able to kill him." If the reference here is to the Dajjal (which is plausible, though uncertain), this would be the only unit in which the question of Ibn Sayyad's being the Dajjal appears. In no version of the unit is Ibn Sayyad actually named; it would seem to be intelligible only in conjunction with other Ibn Sayyad material, and is in fact never transmitted alone. This, together with the stereotyped role of 'Umar, may suggest that this unit is later than the others. The most striking feature of the MuhammadIbn Sayyad material, taken as a whole, is its inconvenience. Muhammad's behavior is awkward and equivocal; Ibn Sayyad's prophetic claims are never refuted. When we consider as well that no political or sectarian tendency can be identified in the units, it becomes wholly inconceivable that they were fabricated by the Muslim traditionists. They are best taken as fragmentary but authentic reports of contacts between Muhammad and a Jewish rival at Medinah.
*

1. The Apostle Unit, in its simplest (and probably most original) form, consisted of only two elements: He [Muhammad]said, "Do you bear witness that I am the Apostle of God?" He [Ibn Sayyad] said, "Do you bear witness that
I am the Apostle of God ?"23

The unit seems to have at one point concluded: "The Apostle of God left him" (fa-rafadahu rasul Allah). This ending is preserved in one recension of the Ibn 'Umar Collection,24 conflated with the more widespread variant conclusion in which the Prophet replies to Ibn Sayyad's demand.25
23 Ibn Hanbal, III, 82; and parallels (Appendix, Nos. 4. 6, 7). 24 Recension A; see Appendix, No. 9, and n. 114. The inappropriate position of this statement was felt as a difficulty by the later transmitters and copyists, who either emended the word fa-rafadahu (Bukhari, 78, 97; Bukhari's note at the end of 23, 60; I. Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien, Halle, 1890, II, 244), or else deleted the passage altogether (Recension B, throughout; Bukhari, 56, 178; Ibn Kathir, op. cit., I, 88 [quoting Muslim, No. 951). 25 Throughout the Abu Nadrah and Ibn 'Umar Collections (Appendix, Nos. 8 and 9).

(fa-labbasa 'alayhi).
31 Throughout 32 Ibn Hanbal, 33 Muslim, No. 34 Muslim, No.

the Ibn 'Umar Collection. III, 4, 25, 43. 92. 93.

HALPERIN: Ibn Sayydd Traditions and Legend of al-Dajj1il tological lore.35 Ibn Sayyad's supernatural knowledge is transferred to the Prophet. The second version is probably an independent It casts the Prophet's verdict into adaptation. the second person, in order to eliminate the implied presence of an unnamed third party. 3. The Throne Unit appears in two slightly different versions: one transmitted singly, one part of the Abi Nadrah Collection. (Singly:) The Apostle of God said to Ibn Sa'id, what do you see?" He said, "I see a throne upon the sea (bahr; var.,
md', water), around it al-hayyat (var., hayydt)." the name "Throne-bearers" (hamalat

217
al-'arsh);39

but they appear only here under their original Hebrew name. We are clearly dealing with an authentic report of a vision, whose background is to be found in the Jewish merkabdh mysticism.40 It is not clear, however, if Ibn Sayyad is describing a vision which he experiences regularly (hence the imperfect verbs); or if he is in the midst of his vision at the time of speaking, describing what he sees at that moment.41 The third-person variant of Muhammad's verdict, which is much better at24:1-5, 27:1-5, 28:2 (ed. S. Wertheimer, Batte Midrash6t,

The Apostle of God said, "He sees (yara; var., dhaka, that is) the Throne of the Devil ('arsh iblis)."36 (Abu Nadrah:) The Prophet said to him, "What do you see?" He said, "I see a throne above the water (fawqa
al-ma'; var., 'ala al-ma', upon the water)."

Jerusalem, 1953, I, 88-90, 103-05, 109-11). Re'iyy6t

Yehezqel (ibid., II, 133f). The hayyot appear in the

Jewish liturgy, in the Yoser prayer and the hymn El pp. 73f, 339-42; A. Z. Idelsohn, Jewish Liturgy, New York, 1960, pp. 89, 135, 315 (cf. p. 98); P. Bloch, "Die Yoredemerkabdh, Die Mystiker der Gaonenzeit, und ihr
Einfluss auf die Liturgie," Monatsschrift fir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums 37 (1893), pp. 305-11. Adon: P. Birnbaum, Daily Prayer Book, New York, 1949,

The Prophet said, "He sees (var., you see) the Throne of the Devil above (var., upon) the sea."37 The text transmitted singly is a priori the less likely to have suffered modifications, and should be given preference. We are therefore to retain the surrounding hayyat. This point is crucial; for the word, evidently deleted as meaningless at a later stage of the transmission, is to be explained as an Arabicized form of the Hebrew hayyot, "living creatures." These beings first occur in the Book of Ezekiel (chs. 1, 10), as bearers of the Deity; they appear throughout subsequent Jewish angelology as carrying or surrounding the Divine Throne.38 They penetrate Islamic legend under 35 Vajda, op. cit., p. 99; H. Hirschfeld, "Historicaland Legendary Controversies Between Mohammed and the
Rabbis," Jewish Quarterly Review, Old Series 10 (1898),

Revelation4:6ff plainly belongs to this tradition, despite its Christian context; its resemblance to Ibn Sayyad's vision is particularly striking.
39 See the tafsirs to Surah 40:7, 69:17; esp. that of

Maybudi, Kashf al-Asrar wa-'Uddat al-Abrar, Tehran, 1331-39 (Hijri-Shamsi)/1953-61. Maqdisi, Kitdb al-Bad' wa-'l-Ta'rikh (Le Livre de la Creation et de l'Histoire),

ed. and tr. Huart, Publications de L'l:cole des Langues OrientalesVivantes, Paris, 1899-1903,pp. 152-56(French), 164-68 (Arabic). Kisa'i, Qisas al-Anbiyd', ed. Eisenberg,
F. Schulthess, Umajja ibn Abi s gewidmet

Leiden, 1923, p. 7.

in Orientalische Studien Theodor Noldeke ...

Salt, Leipzig, 1911, pp. 29, 88 (poem XXV, 45a-b); and

pp. 100-16. The unit seems to be drawn upon as raw material for one such story: Tirmidhi, kitab al-tafsir to Surah 74 (No. 3383; IX, 246f). 36 Ibn Hanbal, III, 66; and parallels(Appendix, No. 3). The passage is quoted by al-Haythami, Majma' al-Zawd'id wa-Manba' al-Fawa'id, Cairo, 1352-53/1933-34,

..., Gieszen, 1906, I, 83-86. Cf. also the hadith cited in Abu Da'fd, II, 553; Ibn Majah, Sunan, Cairo, 1372/ 1952, I, 69-whose cosmologyis clearly based on Hdgtgdh
13a.
40 Bloch, op. cit., pp. 18-25, 69-74, 257-66, 305-11. G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, New York, 1954, pp. 40-79; Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition, New York, 1960. E. E. Urbach, "The Traditions Pertaining to the Occult Doctrine in

VIII, 4. He gives the dual al-hayyatan; and reads tara for yara. (I owe this referenceto Dr. Kister). 37 Tirmidhi, No. 2349; and parallel (Appendix, No. 8).
Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (II Baruch), 51:11 (tr. R. H. Charles, in The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, Oxford, 1913). Apocalypse of Abra38

and Religion Presented to Gershom G. Scholem, Jerusalem,

the Tannaitic Period" (Hebrew), in Studies in Mysticism

1967, pp. 1-28.

ham, ch. 18 (tr. G. Box, London, 1918). Babylonian Talmud, Hgigtdh 12b-13a(the seven heavens, the Baraita
of R. Johanan b. Zakkai). Hekallt Rabbati, 13:3-4, 15:1,

Bible's account of the seance at Endor (I Samuel 28:13f).

41 Cf. Hekalot Rabbati, 20:4 (Wertheimer, op. cit., I, 98); Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism .. . , p. 10. The "what do you see? ... I see ... that is" pattern suggests the

218

Journal of the American Oriental Society 96.2 (1976) that Ibn Sayyad is confused seems to be provoked by the latter's uncertainty about which of the three beings he sees are liars, and which truthtellers.48 This point is lost in the adapted version of the unit found in the Ibn 'Umar Collectionwhich puts the verdict in the second person, simplifies Ibn SayySd's reply, and changes its main verb: The Apostle of God said to him, "Whatdo you see?" Ibn SayySd said, "A truth-teller and a liar come to me." The Apostle of God said to him, "You are confused
with respect to the matter (khulita 'alayka al-amr)."49

tested than the second person, implies the presence of an audience. The idea that God's Throne is "upon the water" occurs in the Koran (suirah 11:7), and is a commonplace of Muslim cosmology.42 It is assumed to be of Jewish or Christian origin, although so far no precise parallel has been found43 The occurrence of the detail here is probably linked to the "sea of glass" of Revelation 4:6, on the one hand; and, on the other, to R. Akiba's mysterious warning against saying, "Water, water."44 Muh.ammad's rejection of the vision as demonic may possibly be explained in connection with the latter passage.45 4. The structure of the Liar Unit is very closely parallel to that of the Throne Unit; but this time we lack the key to the vision. The older version occurs in the Abf Nadrah Collection: He [Muhammad]said, "What do you see?" He [Ibn Sayyad] said, "I see a truth-teller and two liars; or, two truth-tellers and a liar." The Prophet said, 'He is muddled;leave him (lubbisa
'alayhi fa-da'ihu; var., da'iuhu)."46

The question-answer

from "What do you see? . . . I see" (ma tard ... ara), to "What do you see? ... there comes to me" (md dhd tara ... Recension B of ya'tini).

sequence is thus changed

the Ibn 'Umar Collection, whose readings are generally later than those of Recension A, alters the verb of the question as well: "What comes to
you? . . . there comes to me" (m ya'tika ... ya'-

Muhammad's verdict is addressed to a group of people who are apparently present.47 His charge 42 See the passages from Abi DSa'd, Ibn Majah, and Kisa'l, cited above, n. 39. Also Tabari, Jimi' al-BaySn
fi Ta/sir al-Qur'Sn, Cairo, 1321/1903, XXIX, 33 (to

Sfirah 69:17). Two hadiths, very possibly based on the Throne Unit, locate Iblis' throne "upon the sea": Ibn Hanbal, III, 314f, 332, 354, 366, 384; Muslim, kit&b50
(kitlb sifat al-munlfiqin wa-ahkimihim), traditions 66-67

tini).50 The resulting pattern is very suggestive of the reported dialogue between Talhah al-Nimri and the "false prophet" Musaylimah: "Who comes to you (man ya'tika)?" "Ralhmn." "In light or in darkness?" "In darkness." "I testify that you are a liar and that Muhammad is a truth-teller; but we prefer a liar of Rabi'ah to a truth-teller of Mudar."51 The thrust of Talhah's question is clearly, "What deity brings you revelations?"52

on the narrative introduction, in which Muhammad encounters Ibn Sayyad in the company of Abf Bakr and 1931, pp. 21f. The "watersabove the heavens" (Genesis 'Umar. 48 Dr. MordechaiFriedman has suggested to me that 1:7, Psalm 148:4) occur regularly in Jewish lore, but do not seem to be visualized as immediately beneath God's the two-and-one pattern does not relate to supernatural Throne; Jewish sources which try to fit them into the Abu Bakr, and 'Umar (narbeings, but to M.uhammad, scheme of seven heavens place them between the first rative introduction): Muhammad is the liar and they and the second (Testament of Levi, 2:7; Wertheimer, op. the truth-tellers, or vice versa. 49 Muslim, No. 95; and parallels cit., II, 131; cf. Palestinian Talmud, Berak6t 1:1). But (Appendix, No. 9). 50 Ibn Hanbal, II, 148; and the idea that God's Throne rests upon the heavenly parallels (Appendix, No. ocean could easily have been suggested by Psalm 29:10: 9). 51 Tabari, Annales, I, "The Lord sat enthroned over the flood." 1937; L. Caetani, Annali dell' 44 Babylonian Talmud, Hdgigdh 14b. Scholem (Major Islam, Milan, 1905-14, II, 641f. Tabari proceeds to cite Trends . . ., pp. 52f) follows the interpretation proposed a variant: "We prefer a liar of Rabi'ah to a liar of in the eleventh century by Hai Gaon (Osar Hagge'onim Mudar." to Hdgigdh,ed. Lewin, Jerusalem, 1931, p. 14). 52 Cf. Yaqat, Kitab Mlu'jam al-BuldOn (Jacut's geo45 I owe this suggestion to Dr. Alfred Ivry. graphisches lVWrterbuch),ed. Wustenfeld, Leipzig, 186646 Tirmidhi, No. 2349; and parallel (Appendix, No. 8). 70, I, 601: The "false prophet" Tulayhah apparently 47 Muslim's plural (da'uhu) is to be accepted against claims revelations from Dhi'l-Nun. 'Unaynah asks him, Tirmidhi's dual (fa-da'dhu);the latter is certainly based "Has Dhi 'l-Nun brought you anything (jd'aka... (IV, 2167).
43 H. Speyer,

Die biblischen Erzdhlungen im Qoran,

HALPERIN:

Ibn Sayydd Traditions and Legend of al-Daljjl

219

The traditionists who altered the verbs of the Liar Unit were apparently trying to suggest that interpretation for Muhammad's question. 5. The Smoke Unit appears in three collections. It is also-once-transmitted singly: The Apostle of God said to Ibn Sayyad, "I have concealed somethingfor you; what is it ?" (qadkhaba'ti
laka khabi'an fa-ma huwa). He said, "Smoke (al-dukhkh)." lie [Muhlammnad] said, "Scat (ikhsa') !a3

The expression used by Muhammad in his challenge appears, in a slightly fuller form, in the story of Hind bint 'Utbah.54 It is used to test the clairvoyant powers of a kahin: "I have concealed something for you that I may test you; see what it is."55 In that story, however, 'Utbah has in fact concealed something (a grain of wheat in his horse's the kahin correctly tells him, first in penis)-as obscure and allusive language, then plainly. It is hard to see in what sense Muhammad could have concealed smoke (if that is indeed the meaning of dukhkh) from Ibn Sayyid. This difficulty led to an interpolation in one version of the text,56 according to which the Prophet "concealed" the Koranic verse 44:10,57 presumably in his mind.58
bi-shay')?" Tulayhah: "Yes, he came to me and said to me, etc. (qad ja'ani wa-qala ii)." 53 Bukhari, 78, 97 (Appendix, No. 1); and three collections (Appendix, Nos. 4, 5, 9). The texts found in the collections all omit fa-ma huwa from the first element, and add fa-lan ta'duwa qadraka ("you shall not exceed your limit") to the third . Variants of al-dukhkh: dukhkh, huwa al-dukhkh. (Cf. n. 59, below). 54 Kitab al-Aghani, Builq, 1285/1868, VIII, 50f; paraphrased by Sprenger, op. cit., I, 256-58. Cf. Wellhausen, Rese ..., p. 135. (I owe this reference to Dr. M. J. Kister). 55 wa-qad khaba'tu laka khab'an akhtabiruka fa-'nzur md huwa. The use of the verb khaba'a is illuminated by the entirely different context in Ibn Hanbal, VI, 49, where khaba'ndhi laka means "we have set it aside for you" (i.e., a date-cake). Cf. the parallels in Ibn Hanbal, VI, 207; Nisa'i, Sunan, Cairo, 1348/1930, kitab al-sawm, ch. 67 (IV, 193-96). A .Guillaume translates freely, "I have a riddle to ask of thee" (Traditions of Islam, Oxford, 1924, p. 177). 56 Contained in Recension B of the Ibn 'Umar Collection (Appendix, No. 9). 57 yawma ta'ti al-samid' bi-dulkhanin mubinin, "the day when the sky will produce visible smoke" (tr. M. M.

A separate hadith refers to divergences in the transmission of the word dukhkh;59 while a late reworking of some of the Ibn Sayyad material explains it as due to the boy's speech defect: "He meant to say, al-dukhdn, but could not; and so said al-dukhkh al-dukhkh."60 Muhammad's response is no less puzzling; and the additional words found in the collections ("you shall not exceed your limit") do not help any. The shorter version, found in the only text of the unit transmitted singly, is to be preferred. It is therefore very possible that Muhammad's ikhsa' was originally addressed, not to Ibn Sayyad, but to an unspecified third party.
6. The Palm-grove Unit-the only narrative

unit-occurs as a semi-independent Ibn 'Umar Collection.61

section of the

hear something from Ibn Sayyad before he [Ibn Sayyad] could see him. Ibn Sayyad was lying on his pallet (firashihi), in a cloak (qatifah)62 of his, in which (fiha; "coming from which"?) was a low, inarticulate sound (zamzamah). His mother saw the Apostle of God as he was hiding among the trunks of the palm-trees, and said, "O Sf !-that was his name-this is Muhammad." Then he was roused.63 The Apostle of God said, "If only she had left him, he would have clarified (bayyana) I"64

The Apostle of God and Ubayy b. Ka'b set out for the palm-grove(nakhl) in which was Ibn Sayyad, until they entered (dakhala) the palm-grove. The Apostle of God began to hide among the trunks of the palmtrees, deceiving (yakhtilu) Ibn Sayyad, that he might

The peculiar and embarrassing nature of this story itself argues for its authenticity; for who would have invented it, and why?
Pickthall, The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, New York, 1953, p. 353). 58 Mubarakfiri; to Tirmidhi, No. 2348 (VI, 519f). 59 Nu'aym b. Hammad (d. 843), Kitab al-Fitan, Ms. British Museum No. 9449, fol. 154b, lines 16-21 (cf. C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur, Suppl. I, Leiden, 1937, p. 257). My thanks to Dr. Kister for letting me see his copy of the manuscript. The hadith is quoted by Haythami, op. cit., VIII, 5. 60 Ibn Hanbal, V, 148. 61 Appendix, No. 9. 62 Explained by E. W. Lane as a velvety sort of dithar (Arabic-English Lexicon, London, 1863-93, VIII, 2991). 63 fa-thara. Some variants give fa-tanaha, "he stopped"; others have no verb at all. 64 Ibn Hanbal, II, 149; and parallels (Appendix, No. 9).

220

Journal of the American Oriental Society 96.2 (1976) In any case, it is significant that Muhammad assumes that words uttered by Ibn Sayyid in trance are likely to be of importance. His trance states cannot be dissociated from his prophetic claims on the one hand, or from his visions on the other; and it is no wonder that Muhiammad was interested in them. 7. The 'Umar Unit is the only dialogue unit which includes a speaker other than Muhammad and Ibn Sayyad. The earlier of its two versions runs as follows: 'Umar said, "O Apostle of God, give me leave to
strike his neck (fa-a.drib 'unuqahu)I" The Apostle of God said, "Leave him alone. If it is

Ibn Sayyad is apparently either in a trance state or in the process of entering one. He is wrapped in a cloak and making low and unintelligible noises. Both features can be found in Arabian mantic practice: prophets and kahins (including Muhammad himself) received revelation wrapped in a mantle;65 and zamzamah appears together with saj' (the rhymed prose of the early sfirahs of the Koran) as characteristic of kahins.66 But the description is also reminiscent of the tranceinducing practices of the merkabdhlmystics.67 One of the meanings Lane68 gives for zamzamah is the "gibberish" spoken by Magians, and other foreigners, when their mouths are full; it seems reasonable that it could be applied to incantations in Hebrew. Further, Ibn Sayyad's unexplained choice of a palm-grove for his mystic exerciseswhich is apparently habitual, since Muhammad can expect to find him there69-may be linked to a Jewish mantic practice, referred to in Talmudic and Gaonic sources as "conversation of palmtrees" (Sihat deqalim)70
65 Surah 73:1, 74:1. T. NBldeke, Geschichte des Qor5ns,

he whom you fear (var., we fear; you see), you will not be able to kill him."71 'Umar's offer remains essentially the same in the second version.72 But the wording of Muhammad's reply is altered, a second alternative being added: "If it is he, you will not be given power over him; and if it is not he, there is no advantage for you in killing him" (in yakun huwa fa-lan tusallafa 'alayhi wa-in ii yakun huwa fa-aI khayr laka fi qatlihi).73 Who is "he whom you fear"? Two versions of
the unit gloss, ya'ni al-dajjal--"i.e.,

Leipzig, 1909, I, 86-88. T. Fahd, La Divination Arabe, Leiden, 1966, pp. 65n, 159f.
66

Ibn Hishaim, Kitab Sirat Rasal Allah (Das Leben

Muhammed's), ed. Wiistenfeld, Gottingen, 1859-60, I,

171, II, 58. Art. "Kahin," Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam,

p. 207. 67 Described in the responsum of Hai Gaon (Osar p. Hagge'ontmto .Hagtgdh, 14); translated and discussed by Bloch (op. cit., pp. 23-25) and Scholem (Major Trends
..., p. 49). A similar practice seems to underlie the much older source I Enoch 13:7f (tr. Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, II, 196). 68 Lexicon, III, 1248. 69 Only the somewhat altered version given in Bukhari,

56, 160 (cf. above, n. 21), attempts to explain this detail: The two men set out "toward Ibn Sayyad; and it was reported that he was in a palm-grove (fa-huddithabihi
fi nakhl)."
70 Linked with "conversation" angels and of demons, of in a Baraita recordedin the Babylonian Talmud, Sukkdh

28a, Bcibd Bathrd 134a; cf. W. Bacher, Die Agada der

This interpretation must stand for want of a clear alternative; although it is by no means evident from the unit itself, and is opposed by the peculiar variant alladhi tard ("he whom you see").75 We have already suggested (above, p. 216) that the 'Umar Unit may be later than the others. The apparent allusion to the Dajjil would point in the same direction, and indicate that it was added to the Muhammad-Ibn Sayyad cycle in the generation after the Prophet's death, when the question of Ibn Sayyad's relation to Dajjal had become the crucial one. The unit is certainly linked to a report, emanating from a later period, which treats this question: "Muhammad b. alMunkadir [said], I saw Jabir b. 'Abdallaih swear by God that Ibn Sa'id was al-Dajjal. I said, Do you swear by God ? He said, I heard 'Umar swear

the Dajjal."74

71 Muslim, No. 86; and parallels (Appendix, Nos. Tannaiten, Strassburg, 1903, I, 10. Described briefly in 5-7). 72 Throughout the Ibn 'Umar Collection a responsumnormally attributed to Hai Gaon: Teshfibot (Appendix, ed. No. 9). HIagge'ntnm, Moussafia,Lyck. 1864, p. 14; A. Kohut,
Aruch Completum, Vienna, 1926, VI, 31; Osar Hagge'o-

nim to Sukkdh, ed. Lewin, Jerusalem- 1934, p. 31; cf.

S. Luria, Hokmat Shelomoh to Sukkdh 28a. Hekalot

Rabbattuses the verb siahfor angelic revelations of events to come: 6:3, 8:1-3 (Wertheimer,op. cit., I, 75f, 79f).

Da'id, II, 434f; Tirmidhi, No. 2348. The latter source attributes the gloss to "Abd al-Razzaq, who appears in both isnads as the last transmitter but one. 75 Muslim, No. 85.

73 Ibn Hanbal, II, 148. 74 Abf

HALPERIN:

Ibn Sayyad

Traditions

and Legend

of al-Dajjal

221

concerning this in the presence of the Prophet, and the Prophet did not deny it."76 This citation will introduce our next section.
II. IBN SAYYAD AND THE COMPANIONS

In the Muhammad-Ibn Sayyad material itself, the central question is: Is Ibn Sayyad a prophet? With the probable exception of the 'Umar Unit, al-Dajjal does not appear. By contrast, the reports, which deal with Ibn Sayyad's contacts with one or another of the Muslims in the years after Muhammad's death, focus on the question: Is Ibn Sayyad the Dajjal, or not? There is no reason to doubt the tradition's accuracy on this point. It is reasonable to suppose that, as the belief in the coming of a deceiving "anti-prophet" took root in the Muslim community, suspicion fell on Ibn Sayyad-in spite of his apparent conversion to Islam (see below). Whatever may have given rise to this suspicionhis youthful contacts with the supernatural, his having claimed to be a prophet77-it is striking that the Dajjil is expected to be an ordinaryseeming person from within the community, not the superhuman being coming from the East whom we meet in the "canonical" Dajjal-legend. This fact, strengthened by details which we shall come to consider, indicates that we are dealing here with an embryonic form of the legend-which, in turn, supports the antiquity and basic reliability of the stories concerning Ibn Sayyad and the Prophet's Companions. We cannot analyze these narratives into "primary units"; but we shall find other ways to distinguish the earlier and the later strata of tradition.
*

encounters Ibn Sayyad in "one of the streets of Medinah," and is provoked by him into a violent rage; (b) his sister Hafsah rebukes him for this, quoting a prophecy of Muhammad's that "he [Dajjal, evidently] will go forth from wrath which he will kindle."79 Two versions speak of Ibn 'Umar in the third person throughout; the third has Ibn 'Umar relate part (a) in the first person, but shifts abruptly to third person for part (b). The idea is apparently that Ibn 'Umar has been telling Hafsah about his contact with Ibn Sayyad. Further, (b) remains essentially the same in all the versions, while (a) varies greatly-from the simple statement that Ibn SayySd said something to Ibn 'Umar which outraged him so that "he puffed up until he filled the lane,"80 to a vivid and detailed description (in the first person) of their conversation and of Ibn 'Umar's wrath. The third-person form of narration is clearly the original, the first-person an artificial reworking aimed at increasing the story's vividness and credibility. It is also clear that (b), the most stable element of the tradition, is its nucleus. It was originally preceded only by a brief statement to the effect that Ibn Sayyad had goaded Ibn 'Umar to anger-perhaps even briefer than the one we find in Muslim. Hafsah then quotes a VI, 284; Muslim, No. 99. The last two versions seem to be textual variations of the same account. Muslim's text is best preserved in the citation by Ibn al-Athir, 55, XI, 71f; the text given in the editions contains a few scribalerrorswhich make the story of the first meeting all but incomprehensible. Ibn al-Athir goes on to quote a late reworkingof the story-which, among other things,
Jami' al-UsJul fi Ahddith al-Rasul, Cairo, 1368-74/1949-

1. Ibn Sayyad and 'Abdallah b. 'Umar (b. alKhattab). This story occurs in three (or four) versions,78 and falls into two parts: (a) Ibn 'Umar
76 Abi Da'ud, II, 435; Muslim, No. 94; Bukhari, 96,

23. Jabir is reported to have died in 78/697 (Ibn Hibban

al-Busti, Kitab mashdhir 'ulamd' al-amsir [Die beriihmten Traditionarier der islamischen Lander], Cairo, 1959, p. 11).

Since the death of Muhammadb. al-Munkadiris placed in 130/738 (ibid. p. 65), the incident here describedmust have taken place-if at all-toward the end of Jabir'slife.
77 The latter point is stressed by Attema, op. cit.,

(Smoke Unit) in Ibn 'Umar's mouth. (I owe this reference to Dr. Kister.) 79 The wording differs slightly from version to version. Dajjal is mentioned explicitly only in Ibn Hanbal, VI, 283. IV-Form # db (not I-Form) fits the context of the story better, and inherently makes more sense. But cf. the story quoted by Van Vloten (op.cit., p. 60), which may be based on a misinterpretationof this prophecy: the anger of a potential Dajjal is to be feared, for "the Dajjal will arise as soon as his anger is aroused."
0s Muslim, No. 98. It must be deduced from the parallels that it was Ibn Sayyad who outraged Ibn 'Umar and not vice versa. So Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani (op. cit., III 134); vs. Ibn Kathir (op.cit., I, 92), who inserts "Ibn

puts Muhammad's response ikhra' fa-lan ta'duwa qadraka

pp. 52-56, 114-16. 78 Ibn Hanbal, VI, 283; Muslim, No. 98; Ibn Hanbal,

'Umar" as the subject of fa-qcla lahu.

222

Journal of the American Oriental Society 96.2 (1976) alternatively, he meets him at some point after having made the Pilgrimage.84a He complains to Abui Sa'ld that people accuse him of being the Dajjal. To prove that he is not, he lists the characteristics which the Prophet had ascribed to Dajjal, and shows that he does not have them. Just when he seems to have made his point, he suddenly re-awakens doubts by boasting of special knowledge of Dajjal's birthplace and whereabouts. The versions differ greatly, some tell the story simply, others embellish it with much dramatic detail. What is most interesting about this is that we are given seven variant lists of the traits expected of Dajjal. Three lists contain only two features: (1) Dajjal will be sterile (whereas Ibn Sayyad has children); (2) Dajjal cannot enter Medinah and/or Mecca (whereas Ibn Sayyad comes from Medinah and is making for Mecca).85 Three more lists add: (3) Dajjal is to be an unbelieveror, more specifically, a Jew-(whereas Ibn Sayyad is, or has become, a Muslim).86 And the seventh version adds: (4) Dajjal is to be one-eyed (whereas Ibn Sayyad is "sound").87 In other words, in only one of the seven versions is there any allusion to the feature which is most prominent in the "canonical" Dajjal-legend; i.e., that Dajjal is to be one-eyed. It is unlikely that the other six versions conceive Ibn Sayyad as in fact one-eyed (and therefore unable to argue in his defense that he is not); we would expect some reference to this in at least one version of the narrative, as we have seen in the story of Ibn 'Umar. More probably, the variant lists of Dajjaltraits reflect three stages in the development of the story, corresponding to three stages in the development of the Dajjal-legend. In all but one surviving version, therefore, the Abu Sa'ld story reflects an extremely primitive Dajjal-legend, more rudimentary than that presupposed by the Ibn 'Umar story in its latest form (which it contradicts also in the point that Dajjal is to be sterile). This argues for its early origin; and there is no reason to deny that it rests on an actual encounter. Since Abfu Sa'ld outlived Ibn
84a One version (Ibn Hanbal, III, 79) turns the Pilgrimage into a military expedition to the East: aqbalna fi jaysh min al-madinahqablahadhdal-mashriq. This alteration is clearly related to the story of Ibn Sayyad's role in the capture of Sus; see below, p. 224. 85 Ibn Hanbal, II, 43, 79; Muslim, No. 89. 86 Muslim, Nos. 90, 91; Tirmidhi, No. 2347. 87 Ibn Hanbal, III, 26.

prophecy whose sense is apparently that Dajjal will begin his campaign against Islam by sowing anger and dissension among the Muslims; she implies that Ibn Sayyad's actions fulfil that prophecy. So ran the tradition in its original form, and there is no reason to doubt that it rests on fact. The incident described must have taken place before Hafsah's death in 45/665. The secondary material found in part (a) is important for the later development of the Dajjallegend. In the first-person account, Ibn 'Umar meets Ibn Sayyad twice.81 At the first encounter, he asks some of Ibn Sayyad's companions (ba'd if ashabihi; Jews?) "if it is he"-presumably, Ibn Sayyad is al-Dajjal. When they deny it, he accuses them of lying; the fact that Ibn Sayyad has gone from being the least to the greatest of them "in wealth and offspring" is apparently taken as prima facie evidence that he is al-Dajjal. The old belief, according to which Dajjal is to be sterile (see below), has evidently been forgotten. The second meeting is still more interesting. "When I met him a second time, his eye had changed."82 Ibn 'Umar asks about this, and is driven into a rage by Ibn Sayyad's flippant answer. Some peculiarity of the eye is thus taken as a suspicious sign; we are approaching the belief that Dajjal is to be one-eyed. We have not quite reached it yet, however; for it is not clear that the eye has ceased to function. Further, against the later material, the defect is plainly not congenital. 2. Ibn Sayyad and Abu Sa'id al-Khudri. The account is extant in seven versions, all purportedly narrated by Abui Sacid himself.83 (The second transmitter is invariably Abu Nadrah; and the isnads point to a close link with the MuhammadIbn Sayyad material transmitted by Abfi Nadrah in the name of Abi Sa'id.84) The story has Ibn Sayyad, who has obviously converted to Islam, on Pilgrimage from Medinah with Abui Sa'ld;
81 Ibn Hanbal, VI, 284; Muslim, No. 99.

taghayyarat 'aynuhu (Ibn Hanbal). Muslim: nafarat 'aynuhu "his eye protruded." 83 Ibn Hanbal, III, 26, 43, 79; Muslim, Nos. 89-91; Tirmidhi, No. 2347. 84 Muslim, No. 87 = No. 91; No. 88 = No. 90 ("Jabir b. 'Abdallah" in No. 88 is certainly a later alteration); Tirmidhi, No. 2347 = No. 2349. Cf. the isnad of the Abi Sa'id story in Ibn Hanbal, III, 43, with those of the Dust of Paradise Unit (Ibn Hanbal, III, 4, 25, 43).

82

HALPERIN:

Ibn Sayydd Traditions and Legend of al-Dajjil

223

Sayyad,88 we cannot fix its date within Ibn Sayyad's lifetime. 3. Ibn Sayyad and Farazdaq. A story in the Kitab al-Aghdni89 connects Ibn Sayyad with the poet Farazdaq's expulsion from Medinah (56/67576); Farazdaq had been seen leaving his house. "He was a man whom the Medinans claimed to be the Dajjal-no one would speak to him or sit with him. I had not known the story about him." This detail clearly presupposes that Farazdaq's stay in Medinah was very brief, whereas in fact he seems to have remained there over six years.90 It is best explained as an unbistorical embellishment to the tale of Farazdaq's wanderings, in which it plays a very minor role indeed. The description of Ibn Sayyad's ostracism is very similar to that of one version of the Abu Sacid story, from which it is presumably drawn.
III. IBN SAYYAD AND THE DAJJAL

(b. 'Abdallah), Abu Salamah b. 'Abd al-Rahman, and al-Walid b. 'Abdallah b. Jumay'. At the end of the story, al-Walid (apparently) adds: Abi Salamah's son said to me, "Thereis a detail in this hadith you did not remember:JSbir bore witness that he [the chained Dajjal] is Ibn Sayyad." I said, "But he died I" "Even though he died." "But he became a Muslim!" "Even though he became a Muslim." "But he entered MedinahI"92 "Even though he
entered Medinah."93

It is clear from all of this that the identification of Ibn Sayyad with al-Dajjal was suggested during the former's lifetime, and that it presupposed a much more modest form of the Dajjal-legend than the one with which we are now familiar. But once this identification had been accepted, subsequent elaborations of the Dajjal-legend could be and were transferred to the figure of the nowdeceased Ibn Sayy5d. The image of Ibn Sayyad himself thus accumulated a number of more or less supernatural traits. An early example occurs in connection with the story of Tamim al-Diri. Several versions of this legend are extant: the Christian convert Tamim relates to the Prophet (who in turn relates to the assembled Muslims) how he met the Dajjal, a giant chained in a monastery (or castle) on an island in the middle of the sea. The giant asks about a number of Syro-Palestinian locations (Lake Tiberias, "the palm-trees of Beth-shean," "the well of Zughar") and about the Arabs and their Prophet; he hints he is soon to be loosed on the world.91 Tamim's former religion, the monastery (dayr), the place-names-all suggest a Christian provenance for the story. Now, the isnad of one version lists the first three transmitters as Jabir
88 Busti, op.cit., p. 11: Abf Sa'ld "died in Medinah

This exchange will have taken place within ten or twenty years after Abu Salamah's death in 94/ 713.94 Al-Walid is clearly familiar with Abui Sa'id al-Khudri's encounter with Ibn Sayyad. Ibn Abi Salamah's addition is surely based on the report according to which Jabir swears that Ibn Sayyad is al-Dajjal (above, p. 220f.). By interpreting his father's hadith in the light of this information, he evolves the bizarre notion that the chained giant is one and the same as the late Ibn Sayyad. A similar process accounts for the origin of a strange "demon-child" story, attributed to Abui Bakr.95 The Prophet has described Dajjal and his parents: Dajjal is to be one-eyed, "the most harmful and least useful of creatures." "His eyes sleep, but his heart does not sleep"; i.e., he is a satanic parody of the true prophet.96 News comes of the birth of a child among the Jews of Medinah, and Abfi Bakr sets out with Zubayr b. al-'Awwam to visit him. Sure enough, he and his parents fit the Prophet's description. As they leave, they see the boy "cast down (munjadil) in a qatifah in the sun, making inarticulate sounds (wa-lahu hamhamah)." He uncovers his head, and indicates that he has heard the Muslims' conversation with his parents: "My eyes sleep, but my heart does not
sleep.
92

97

The impossibility of Dajjal's entering Medinah is

one year after Harrah," i.e., 64/684.

89 Bfilq, XIX, 25. 90 Art. "al-Farazdak," Encyclopedia of Islam, New

Edition, II, 788. 91 See Ibn Kathir, op. cit., I, 93-102.

1, 101. I cannot accept Attema's translation of wa-in mita as "he did not die," etc. (op.cit., p. 120: "Hij is niet gestorven"). 94 Dhahabi, Kitab Tabaqat al-Huffaz (Liber Classium Virorum),ed. Wiistenfeld, Gottingen, 1833, p. 8. Busti (op. cit., p. 64) gives the date of his death as 104/722. 95 Ibn Hanbal, V, 40, 49f (cf. 51f); Tirmidhi,No. 2350; Tayalisi, Musnad, Hyderabad,1321/1903,No. 865. Cf.the two similar stories quoted by Haythami, op. cit., VIIl, 4.
96

stressed in the Tamim legend itself. 93 Abi Da'fid, II, 434; quoted by Ibn Kathir, op. cit.,

97 Tirmidhi, No. 2350.

Vajda, op. cit., pp. 100-02, 113.

224

Journal of the American Oriental Society 96.2 (1976) (a'war), but mamsiihat al-'ayn-an expression drawn from the Dajjal-legend.l02 Another deformity, a protruding tooth, is added. At the end, the 'Umar Unit is adapted in accordance with the fullinformation about the Dajjal possessed by later generations: "If it is he [Dajjal], you are not his master; only Jesus son of Mary is his master. And if it is not he, you are not permitted to kill one of the people of the covenant (ahl al-'ahd)." A story, quoted by Tabari from Sayf b. 'Umar (d. 180/796),103 shows another way in which the Ibn Sayyad tradition was enriched by the identification with al-Dajjal. We find here Ibn Sayyad among the Kufan cavalry at the seige of Sus (17/638). The monks and priests of Sus appear on the city walls, taunting the Muslims with the claim that the city can be taken only by "al-Dajjal, or a people with al-Dajjal among them." But the gates of the city fly open at Ibn Sayyad's kick and command. The story takes so for granted that Ibn Sayyad is the Dajjal that it does not even bother to say so explicitly There is, of course, no question of using it as an historical source.04 Its interest is that it shows us what Ibn Sayyad was to a popular historian of the late eighth century-and how an entertaining tale could be built on the fantastic assumption that the eschatological Antichrist had already appeared on earth, and had lived among the Muslims.
APPENDIX: UNITS AND COLLECTIONS

The story is obviously inspired by the Ibn the Palm-grove $ayyad traditions-particularly Unit-which are drawn upon to embellish the Dajjal-legend. It does not seem that the demonchild was originally intended to be seen as Ibn Sayyad, for the name does not occur in the body of the narrative. But two of the four texts of the story add this identification at the end, one attributing it to Hammad b. Salamah (d. 167/78398), who appears in all versions of the isnad as the third transmitter from Abil Bakr. Hammad said, He was Ibn Sayyad.99 The Dajjal-legend thus pays back its debt to the traditions of Ibn Sayyad, who has now acquired a new set of horrific traitsinter alia, he is one-eyed from birth. This last point is stated explicitly in a very brief hadith quoted by Nu'aym b. Hammad.100 Ibn Hanbal's "Long Hadith," as already observed (p. 214), stands at the end of this entire The narrative is dependent, not development. only on the old Ibn Sayyad material, but also on the "demon-child" story-for its introductory statement of Ibn Sayyad's birth among the Jews of Medinah, and for its description of him in his qatifah.l01 He is no longer merely "one-eyed"
98

100 Fol. 154b, 1. 21: wulida ibn sayydd a'war mukhtatin,

Busti, op. cit., p. 157. 99 Ibn Hanbal, V, 49f; cf. 40.

"Ibn $ayyad was born one-eyed and circumcised." The latter detail appears in a version of the "demon-child" story, quoted in part in Ibn Hanbal, III, 51f: Dajjal is to be born circumcised,his navel cut (masriran makhtanan).
So Muhammad (Ibn Sa'd, Kit&b al-Tabaq6t al-Kabir. ed. Sachau and others, Leiden, 1905-40, I/i, 64). The Jewish midrash knows of several Biblical characters who were born circumcised-L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Philadelph;a, 1947, I, 147, V, 268; Bereshit Rabbdh, 63:7, 84:6 (ed. Theodor-Albeck, Jerusalem, 1965, pp. 685, 1007). Cf. also W. Bousset, The AntichristLegend, London,

1896, pp. 169f. 101That this description is drawn from the "demonchild" story, and not from the Palm-grove Unit itself, is deduced from a comparisonof the wording of the three texts:
Palm-grove: fi qatifah lahu fihi zamzamah Demon-child: fi qatifah, (wa-)lahu hamhamah (Ibn Han-

Of the items listed here, Nos. 1 through 8 appear in their entirety as complete hadiths in all of the sources listed in the notes. No. 9 (the Ibn 'Umar Collection) is represented in its entirety by some hadiths, in part by others. For each item, we give as much of the isnad as is shared by all hadiths representing that item.
of lahu (as the variant wa-lahu makes clear) from that

of describing the qatifah to that of describing the hamhamah. The "Long Hadith" replaced the awkward expression lahu hamhamah with the verb yuhamhimu-retaining the root hmhm, against the original zmzm. 102 See note 16, above. 103 Annales, I, 2565-66. On Sayf, see Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, VI, 3-7; E. L. Peterson, 'Ali and Mu'awiya in Early Arabic Tradition, Copenhagen, 1964, pp. 78-82. 104 Against Van Vloten, op.cit., p. 59.

bal, V, 40; Tirmidhi)

Long Hadith: tahta qatifah yuhamhimu I explain the relationship of the three versions as follows: The "demon-child" story, adapting the description of the Palm-grove Unit, (1) altered zamzamah to hamhamah, (2) omitted fihd. The latter-alteration changed the function

HALPERIN: Ibn Sayydd

Traditions

and Legend

of al-Dajjal

225

A. Units transmitted singly. b. 1. Smoke Unit. Isnad: Abi 'l-Walid-Salm 'Abbas.105 Zarir-Abfi RajS'-Ibn 2. Dust of Paradise Unit. Isnad: Jariri (or, Abii Nadrah-Abii Sacid (al-KhudMaslamah)-Abii ri) 106 3. Throne Unit. Isnad: Hammad b. Salamah'Ali b. Zayd-Abui Nadrah-Abuf Sa'id al-Khudri (or, Jabir b. 'Abdallah).107 B. Collections. 4. Introduction-Apostle Unit. Unit-Smoke b. 'Abd al-Malik Isnad: Abf Nueaym-al-Walid b. Jumay'-Abi Salamah-Abu Sacid al-Khudri.108 5. Introduction-Smoke Unit--'Umar Unit. Isnad: Abil Muawiyah-al-A'mash-Shuqayq'Abdallaih (b. Mas'ud).109 6. Introduction-Apostle Unit--Umar Unit. Isnid: Jarir-al-A'mash-Abu Wa'il-'Abdallah (b. Masfid).110 7. Introduction-Apostle Unit. Unit--Umar alIsnad: Yuinus-Mu'tamir-father-Sulayman b. b. Salamah--Abdallah A'mash-Shuqayq Mas'id.m (Nos. 5, 6, and 7 are evidently closely related, as indicated by the similarity of their isnads and of their wording-particularly, the wording of the narrative introductions. Their precise relationship to each other is unclear. No. 7 contains the same units as does No. 6; on the other hand, the wording of the 'Umar Unit in No. 7 is considerably closer to that of No. 5.) 8. Abu Na.drah Collection: Introduction-Apostle Unit-Throne Unit. Isnad: Jariri Unit-Liar Sa'id (or, Mu'tamir's father)-Abfi Nadrah-Abii al-Khudri (or, Jabir b. 'Abdallah).ll2 105Bukhari, 78, 97. Ibn Hanbal, III, 4, 25, 43; Muslim, Nos. 92f. 107 Ibn Hanbal, III, 66, 97, 388.
106

(The meaning of the attribution of this material to Abui Nadrah is unclear. It suggests a special relationship with the individual units [Throne, Dust of Paradise] transmitted in Abu Nadrah's name, on the one hand; and, on the other, with the Abil Saeid-Ibn Sayyad traditions [all are transmitted by Abui Nadrah, three have isnads identical with those of the CollectionS3].) 9. Ibn 'Umar Collection: (I) IntroductionUnit--Umar Unit-Smoke Apostle Unit-Liar Unit; (II) Palm-grove Unit; (III) a prophetic tradition concerning Dajjal, in no way brought into relation with Ibn Sayyad (except by its position). Isnad: Zuhri (or, Ibn Shihab)-Salim b. 'Abdallah-'Abdallah b. 'Umar.n4 (The three main sections are set apart in the hadiths by an abbreviated repetition of the isnad"Salim said, I heard Ibn 'Umar saying," "Ibn 'Umar said," or the like-invariably prefixed to the second and third. This fact itself points to their independent origin. On the other hand, in those hadiths where the first or second section is actually found by itself, circumstances [notably, identity of isnads] suggest that it had been connected to the others at an earlier stage, and that its present detachment is secondary. The first section occurs in two clearly distinct recensions.) 113See note 84, above. 114 Containing Recension A of Section (I): The entire collection: Bukhari, 56, 178; 78, 97; Muslim, No. 95. (Muslim's text appends a second Dajjal tradition, apparently attracted by Section (III), introduced by the isnad Ibn Shihab-'Umar b. Thabit al-Ansari-"one of the companions of the Apostle of God.") Sections (I) and (II) only: Bukh5ri, 23, 80. Smoke Unit and 'Umar Unit only: Bukhari, 82, 14. Containing Recension B of Section (I): Section (I) only: Ibn Hanbal, II, 148; Abf Da'fd, II, 434f; Tirmidhi, No. 2348; Nu'aym b. Hammaid,fol. 154a, 1. 20- 154b, 1. 10. Muslim (No. 97) quotes the first few lines of this
recension.

109Ibn Hanbal, I, 380; Muslim, No. 86. 110Muslim, No. 85. 1ll Ibn Hanbal, I, 457. 112 Tirmidhi, No. 2349; Muslim,No. 87. The beginning of a third text is quoted in Muslim, No. 88.

108 Ibn Hanbal, III, 82.

Muslim (No. 96) and Ibn Hanbal (II, 149) quote the first few lines of what appears to be a third text: a conflation of RecensionsA and B, with a few innovations and at least one gloss. Section (II) only: Bukhlri, 52, 3; 56, 160; Ibn Hanbal, 11, 149; Nu'aym b. Hammad, fol. 154b, 11.10-16. Section (III) only: Ibn Hanbal, II, 149.