Abstract
Purpose: This paper provides an in-depth analysis of the diverse prophetic descriptions of the Dajjāl’s (Antichrist’s) eye, examining key Arabic terms from the ḥadīth to resolve apparent inconsistencies. It argues that the flaw’s manifestation is best understood in two distinct stages: a subtle, hidden defect before the Dajjāl’s claim to divinity, and an overt, undeniable sign afterwards.
Methodology: Grounded in classical Islamic scholarship, the research synthesizes evidence from authoritative ḥadīth collections, Arabic lexicons, and the commentaries of major scholars. This method reconstructs the terms’ meanings as understood by linguists closest to the prophetic idiom.
Findings: The analysis reveals that descriptions of the first stage converge on a singular concept: functional blindness in an eye that appears physically sound. Grounded in classical lexicography, this phase is characterized by an eye that looks healthy to the observer—leading one to imagine the Dajjāl can see—while the faculty of vision is entirely absent. The term a‘war (defective) is shown to imply a bilateral imperfection, with both eyes being flawed. After his claim to divinity (ulūhiyyah), this hidden defect transforms into an unmistakable disfigurement.
Originality/Value: This paper’s originality lies in its two-stage framework, which posits the initial sign not as a grotesque deformity, but as a profound test of insight (baṣīrah) against deception.
Keywords: Dajjāl, Ḥadīth, a‘war, Islamic eschatology, baṣīrah.
Introduction: The Trial of Perception
Among the most profound trials (fitan) foretold in Islamic eschatology is the emergence of the great deceiver, al-Masīḥ al-Dajjāl (the Antichrist). The magnitude of this fitnah is such that every prophet sent by God warned their nation against him, and the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ himself gave it special emphasis. Despite always cautioning his companions, he reiterated the warning during his historic Farewell Sermon (Ḥajjat al-Wadā’), an occasion reserved for conveying the most foundational and critical tenets of the faith, placing the warning against the Dajjāl alongside the most sacred principles of Islam. The prophetic traditions (aḥādīth) furnish believers with numerous signs (‘alāmāt) to identify him, ensuring his falsehood can be recognized despite his extraordinary and confounding powers.
Central to these signs is the detailed description of his eyes. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ did not provide a single, simple descriptor; instead, the corpus of ḥadīth presents a rich and nuanced lexicon that has been the subject of deep scholarly analysis for centuries. His eye is described as qā’imah, ṭāfi’ah, maṭmūsah, mamsūḥah, and he is referred to as ḍarīr and, most famously, a‘war. This linguistic diversity, if approached superficially, can seem confusing or even contradictory. Does maṭmūsah (“effaced”) contradict qā’imah (“intact”)? How can one eye be described as both blind and “like a shining star” (kawkab durriyy)? A journey into the works of classical Islamic scholarship (ahl al-‘ilm), however, reveals a remarkable and coherent synthesis. The great ḥadīth commentators and master linguists of the past did not see contradiction but rather layers of description that, together, paint a precise portrait of the Dajjāl’s primary functional and physical flaws.
This paper argues that these descriptions are not random but systematically detail a flaw that evolves in two distinct stages, corresponding to the Dajjāl’s escalating claims. The first stage occurs before his claim to divinity, during which he appears as a charismatic, seemingly righteous leader. In this phase, his ocular defect is a subtle, functional blindness in an eye that appears physically sound. It is a test of baṣīrah (insight), not mere sight. The second stage begins when he claims divinity (ulūhiyyah). At this point, the hidden flaw transforms into an overt, disfigured sign that serves as undeniable proof of his falsehood for every sincere believer. Understanding this two-stage manifestation resolves all apparent lexical difficulties and reveals the profound wisdom behind the prophetic descriptions. The trial of the Dajjāl, at its core, is a trial of perception: the ability to see the flawed reality behind a powerful deception.
The primary problem addressed in this research is the presence of diverse and seemingly contradictory descriptions of the Dajjāl’s eye within the ḥadīth corpus. While some narrations describe the eye as qā’imah, others categorize it as maṭmūsah, ṭāfi’ah, or mamsūḥah . These linguistic variations, if viewed superficially, create an inconsistent portrait of the arch-deceiver’s primary identifying feature. This study seeks to resolve whether these terms denote different physical defects or represent an evolving sign that corresponds to the Dajjāl’s escalating claims.
The importance of this study lies in its focus on the magnitude of the fitnah (trial) of the Dajjāl, a warning emphasized by every prophet. By providing a coherent, multi-layered analysis of these ocular signs, the research:
The specific objectives of this research are:
This research builds upon the contributions of classical Ahl al-’Ilm who examined these terms across various disciplines. Lexicographers such as al-Azharī and Ibn Manẓūr established the functional definitions of an eye that is qā’imah, which is correct in form but sightless. Master commentators like al-Nawawī and Ibn Ḥajar al-’Asqalānī analyzed the light of vision being extinguished in an intact organ. Additionally, the synthesis provided by Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ regarding the comprehensive nature of the term a‘war serves as a vital precursor to this study’s bilateral analysis. This paper organizes these disparate scholarly insights into a single, comprehensive evolutionary framework.
Following the introduction, this research proceeds according to the following structural framework:
The rationale for dividing the Dajjāl’s emergence into two distinct stages—a period of concealed identity followed by an open claim to divinity—is firmly rooted in the prophetic traditions themselves. The foundational proof is the ḥadīth from Sunan Abī Dāwūd, where the Prophet ﷺ, after listing some of the Dajjāl’s physical signs, provides a crucial instruction: “fa-in ulbisa ‘alaykum, fa-‘lamū anna rabbakum laysa bi-a‘war” (“If he confuses you, then know that your Lord is not blind on one eye”).[1] This statement explicitly anticipates a period of confusion (talbīs) where the signs might be concealed or ambiguous. This framework is further supported by narrations discussing the duration of his stay on earth, the graded nature of his claims, the socio-religious environment of his emergence, and the established understanding of the Companions.
A key distinction made by scholars is between two different time periods associated with the Dajjāl: a forty-year period of activity and a forty-day period of open trial. The famous ḥadīth of al-Nawwās ibn Sam‘ān in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, which describes his stay on earth as “forty days: one day like a year, one day like a month, one day like a week, and the rest of his days like your days,” refers to this second, final phase of open trial and wonders.[2] This interpretation is further strengthened by the fact that narrations mentioning the forty-day period explicitly link this timeframe to the Dajjāl’s public emergence (khurūj) and his rapid movement across the earth, likened to “rain driven by the wind.” This open, global rampage corresponds to his phase of claiming divinity when concealment is no longer necessary. Therefore, the need for subtlety and the conditions of religious weakness described in other ḥadīths must apply to a prolonged preliminary period.
This forty-year period represents the first phase, during which he operates more covertly. The ḥadīths that mention this period include the narration of Asmā’ bint Yazīd, which states, “The Dajjāl will remain on earth for forty years…”[3] The primary narrator for these ḥadīths is Shahr ibn Ḥawshab, whose reliability has been a point of scholarly discussion. While some, like al-Nasā’ī, graded him as “not strong,” the majority of classical authorities (al-jumhūr) authenticated him. Al-Tirmidhī relates that when he asked Imām al-Bukhārī about Shahr, al-Bukhārī authenticated him (waththaqahu) and stated, “Shahr is ḥasan al-ḥadīth (his ḥadīth are good), and he strengthened his case.”[4] Similarly, Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal authenticated him, saying, “How good are his ḥadīths,” and “There is no harm in Shahr.”[5]
The prophetic traditions further detail the socio-religious environment that facilitates this subtle first phase, explaining why the Dajjāl can operate without immediate recognition. He emerges when the Muslim community is weak and divided. As Ḥudhayfah ibn Asīd stated in a narration from Al-Mustadrak, “Were the Dajjāl to emerge in your time, the children would pelt him with stones. Rather, the Dajjāl will emerge amidst hatred among people, a lightness of religion, and poor relations.”[6] Imām al-Dhahabī authenticated this report in his commentary, noting it is “on the condition of al-Bukhārī and Muslim.”[7] This is reinforced by a ḥadīth from Abū Hurayrah, where the Prophet ﷺ said, “The blind on one eye Dajjāl, the messiah of misguidance, will emerge from the East at a time of disagreement and division among people…”[8] The authenticity of this narration is well-established. Husayn Salim Asad noted in his verification of Mawārid al-Ẓamʾān that its chain is authentic (isnād ṣaḥīḥ).[9] It was also narrated by al-Bazzār, a chain which both al-Haythamī, in Majmaʿ al-Zawāʾid, and Ibn Ḥajar, in Fatḥ al-Bārī, graded as sound.[10]
His emergence is also tied to a decline in religious knowledge. The Prophet ﷺ said, “The Dajjāl will emerge during a downturn/weakness in religion (khafqah min al-dīn) and a turning away from knowledge (idbār min al-‘ilm)…”[11] Scholars defined khafqah as “a state of weakness in the religion and scarcity of its people”[12] and idbār min al-‘ilm as the departure of religious knowledge.[13] Both Shaykh Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ūṭ, in his verification of the Musnad, and al-Dhahabī, in his commentary on the Mustadrak, authenticated this ḥadīth.[14] The mechanism for this “departure of knowledge” is explained in a famous ḥadīth agreed upon by al-Bukhārī and Muslim: “Indeed, Allah does not take away knowledge by snatching it from the servants, but He takes away knowledge by taking away the scholars…”[15] Finally, a report from al-Ṣa‘b ibn Jathāmah states, “The Dajjāl will not emerge until people become heedless of mentioning him, and until the Imams abandon mentioning him on the pulpits.”[16] Al-Haythamī notes that this chain is sound.
This concept of a prolonged initial phase is further detailed in ḥadīths that outline his escalating claims. A tradition related by Ibn Mājah states, “innahu yabda’u fa-yaqūlu: anā nabī, wa lā nabiyya ba‘dī. Thumma yuthannī fa-yaqūlu: anā rabbukum” (“He will begin by saying: ‘I am a prophet,’ and there is no prophet after me. Then he will say a second time: ‘I am your lord'”).[17] The narration of Sulaymān ibn Shihāb describes this process in detail, and while its chain has weakness, its meaning has been widely utilized by scholars from Ibn Ḥajar to Sheikh Ibn ‘Uthaymīn to explain the Dajjāl’s methodology.[18] Modern scholars like Sheikh al-Albānī also showed an inclination to accept its meaning as sound.
Perhaps the most compelling evidence for a pre-emergence phase comes from the authentic ḥadīths concerning Ibn Ṣayyād, a Jewish youth in Medina during the time of the Prophet ﷺ. The primary narrations about him are found in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī, establishing their authenticity at the highest level. One such ḥadīth, narrated by Muḥammad ibn al-Munkadir from Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh, states that ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb swore in the Prophet’s presence that Ibn Ṣayyād was the Dajjāl, and the Prophet ﷺ did not deny it.[19] Yet, throughout this period, Ibn Ṣayyād lived as an ordinary individual. The established understanding (fahm) of the Companions was clearly that the Dajjāl would exist as a person for a period of time before his ultimate, public manifestation.
Based on this substantial evidence from the Sunnah for a two-phased emergence, the following analysis will examine the signs of the Dajjāl’s eye as they correspond to each stage.
The ḥadīth literature indicates that the Dajjāl will initially emerge in the guise of a reformer or a spiritual guide, gathering followers through his charisma and deceptive righteousness. During this period, his critical identifying flaw is present but concealed from the undiscerning eye. He seeks to hide his true nature, and the descriptions of his eye in this phase reflect this subtlety. The prophetic lexicon points unanimously to a loss of function in the eye, not a deformity of its form. This collection of terms, when understood through classical lexicography, creates a perfectly consistent and subtle image.
In the ḥadīth of al-Nawwās ibn Sam‘ān recorded in Sunan Ibn Mājah and al-Nasā’ī, the Dajjāl is described as a youth with twisted hair (innahu shābun qaṭaṭun), and of his eye, the ḥadīth states, ‘aynuhu qā’imah.[20] A literal translation as “the standing eye” misses the technical meaning established by classical Arab linguists. Imām al-Nawawī (d. 676 H), citing the authoritative 4th-century linguist al-Azharī, provides the primary definition: “Al-‘ayn al-qā’imah, al-Azharī said, is the one whose white and black parts are pure (i.e., sound), but it cannot see.”[21] This definition focuses exclusively on function. The contemporary scholar Sheikh Hamad al-Hamad elaborates, stating, “It is the eye whose white and black parts are clear, but it does not see. Meaning, whoever sees it thinks its owner can see, but he cannot.”
The definitive proof of this meaning comes from the precise world of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), specifically in rulings concerning blood money (diyah) for injury. In determining compensation, jurists required unambiguous definitions. The great lexicographer Ibn Manẓūr (d. 711 H), in his monumental Lisān al-‘Arab, cites the legal opinion of Zayd ibn Thābit regarding an injury to an ‘ayn al-qā’imah, defining it as an eye that is “correct in its form, standing in its place, except that its owner cannot see with it.”[22] Similarly, Ibn al-Athīr (d. 606 H) in al-Nihāyah fī Gharīb al-Ḥadīth, explains the ruling of Caliph ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb regarding the ‘ayn al-qā’imah by defining it as the eye which “remains in its place, sound, while its sight and vision are gone.”[23] This legal context proves that the term denotes a loss of function without a visible defect. The eye looks perfectly normal, but the sense of sight is absent. The meaning became so established it entered literary prose, as when the writer Muṣṭafā Luṭfī al-Manfalūṭī described a vacant stare as being like that of “al-‘ayn al-qā’imah, which looks at something but does not see it.”[24]
This first term establishes the foundational nature of the Dajjāl’s initial flaw: it is a matter of function rather than form. Classical authorities, such as the 4th-century linguist al-Azharī and the lexicographer Ibn Manẓūr, emphasize that this eye is “correct in its form” yet “cannot see”. This creates a deceptive appearance where a person looking at the Dajjāl would imagine him to have sound vision, as the physical organ remains pure and intact despite being functionally blind. This consensus among the classical Ahl al-’Ilm proves that the initial stage of the trial is not marked by an obvious deformity, but by a subtle loss of faculty that tests the believer’s baṣīrah.
In other major ḥadīth collections, such as Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim and Sunan al-Tirmidhī, the blind eye is described as ‘ayn al-ṭāfi’ah (with a hamza) instead of ‘ayn al-qā’imah. Here again, the classical scholarly tradition is illuminating and decisively corroborates the meaning of qā’imah. Imām al-Nawawī, in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, and Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī, in Fatḥ al-Bārī, explain that the term ṭāfi’ah with a hamza means dhahaba ḍaw’uhā—”its light, meaning its sight, is extinguished.”[25] The term comes from the same root as extinguishing a flame. The eye’s “light” of vision has been put out, while the physical organ remains. Numerous other commentaries, including al-Kawkab al-Wahhāj and Fatḥ al-Mun‘im, affirm that the eye so described has lost its capacity for vision, meaning its light being extinguished while its form remains intact. This powerfully echoes the definition of al-‘ayn al-qā’imah. Both terms converge on the same subtle reality: a complete loss of vision without a corresponding physical deformity. It is crucial to distinguish this from the variant reading, ṭāfiyah (without a hamza), which means “protruding” or “floating” like a grape. Scholars overwhelmingly agree that this second term describes the Dajjāl’s other eye, highlighting its own distinct flaw of having its pupil slightly raised in contrast to the other eye.
Perhaps the most potent description of the hidden flaw is maṭmūsah al-‘ayn (the eye effaced of sight), a term found in narrations in Sunan Abī Dāwūd and elsewhere. The key to this term is the verb ṭamasa. Classical lexicographers establish its core meaning; as Ibn Manẓūr notes, the ṭumūs of the eye or of the stars signifies the removal of its light and radiance, a definition also affirmed by al-Azharī.[26] The Qur’an itself employs this word, saying of the Day of Judgment, fa-idhā al-nujūmu ṭumisat—”So when the stars are effaced [of their light]” (Qur’an 77:8). In the specific context of the prophetic descriptions of the Dajjāl, early scholars were meticulous in applying this meaning, emphasizing a non-violent, non-disfiguring blindness. They purposefully contrasted maṭmūsah with words denoting physical destruction. Al-Khaṭṭābī states that maṭmūs al-‘ayn means “dhāhib al-baṣar min ghayri bakhq”—“the sight is gone without it being burst.”[27] This precise definition is echoed by others who sought to prevent any misinterpretation of a gory injury. Al-Zamakhsharī, citing the ḥadīth, defines it as the sight being “gone, effaced, without being burst.”[28] Ibn al-Athīr clarifies that in the description of the Dajjāl, it means the sight is gone “without bakhṣ” (gouging), while Ibn Manẓūr reports it means the eye is “effaced of light (mamsūḥah) without faḥsh” (ugliness).[29] A striking consensus emerges from this chorus of classical authorities. The term describes an eye that is completely devoid of vision, yet paradoxically appears physically undamaged and outwardly healthy. Crucially, this loss of sight is not accompanied by any visible injury or blemish, leaving a perfectly formed eye whose essential function has been extinguished.
Reinforcing this concept is the term al-‘ayn al-mamsūḥah, which functions as a direct synonym for al-maṭmūsah and al-ṭāfi’ah (with hamza). The scholarly consensus explicitly links these terms, highlighting their shared meaning in this context. Al-Munāwī states succinctly, “Maṭmūs al-‘ayn means mamsūḥuhā.”[30] Al-Safarīnī concurs, writing that al-mamsūḥah means “its light has gone, which is the meaning of the ḥadīth in Abū Dāwūd, maṭmūs al-‘ayn“.[31] This description is so central that some scholars derived one of the interpretations of the Dajjāl’s title, al-Masīḥ, from this root, as one whose eye is “wiped” (masḥ) of sight.
Finally, in the famous ḥadīth of Tamīm al-Dārī’s shipboard encounter with the chained Dajjāl, he is found as a man who is ḍarīr. This is a general term for one who has lost their sight. The case of the esteemed Companion ‘Itbān ibn Mālik provides a vital living analogy from the time of the Prophet ﷺ. ‘Itbān, whose vision was failing, came to the Prophet ﷺ and described himself as rajulun ḍarīr al-baṣar—”a man impaired of sight.” Scholars like Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī, in analyzing the various narrations about ‘Itbān, explain that this term denotes a functional blindness that does not necessitate a deformed appearance.[32] Others, like Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, noted that he was ḍarīr al-baṣar (impaired of sight) and then later become fully blind (‘amiya).[33] The term itself describes the loss of faculty, not necessarily the physical state of the organ. It is a statement about ability, not aesthetics. Applying this to the Dajjāl, his condition of being ḍarīr solidifies the understanding derived from all the previous terms: his blindness is a loss of the sense of sight in an eye that, in this initial phase, remains physically intact.
III. The Comprehensive Defect: Understanding A‘war and Bilateral Imperfection
The most famous and overarching descriptor for the Dajjāl is a‘war. While often translated simply as “blind on one eye,” its meaning in classical Arabic, as applied by ḥadīth commentators, is richer and more precise. The scholars understood it in two complementary ways that synthesize all the prophetic descriptions.
First, as explained by the great scholar Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ and affirmed by al-Nawawī and Ibn Ḥajar, the word ‘awar can refer to any defect (‘ayb) or imperfection in an object.[34] In this comprehensive sense, both of the Dajjāl’s eyes are ‘awr (defective). One eye is defective due to its functional blindness, described by the terms qā’imah and maṭmūsah. The other eye, though it can see, is also clearly flawed. The ḥadīth describe it as ṭāfiyah (protruding like a floating grape, with its pupil slightly raised, referring to the right eye) and/or having a ẓafarah ghalīẓah (a thick, fleshy film) upon the left eye, originating from the epicanthic area (al-māq). The picture that emerges is one of complete, bilateral imperfection. He is not simply missing the sight of one eye; his entire faculty of vision is corrupt and flawed, a physical manifestation of his spiritually deceptive nature.
Second, in its more specific meaning, a‘war denotes the loss of the sense of vision in one of the two eyes, which is its most common usage. This meaning aligns perfectly with the cluster of terms—qā’imah, ṭāfi’ah (with hamza), maṭmūsah, mamsūḥah, and ḍarīr—analyzed in the previous section. Therefore, a‘war serves as both a general term for his overall ocular defectiveness and a specific term for his blind on one eye blindness. This reconciliation, championed by Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ, is considered a masterstroke of ḥadīth analysis and is adopted by the majority of subsequent commentators.
The subtle and hidden nature of the Dajjāl’s flaw is a temporary feature characterizing his initial, deceptive emergence. Prophetic literature indicates that when his arrogance reaches its zenith and he claims divinity (ulūhiyyah), his grand deception collapses, and his physical flaws transform into an undeniable, overt sign for every sincere believer. A pivotal ḥadīth narrated by ‘Ubādah ibn al-Ṣāmit encapsulates this transition, where the Prophet ﷺ warns that while the deceiver’s nature might initially be obscured, the ultimate differentiator remains the perfection of the Divine compared to the defect of the pretender. The phrase “if he confuses you” (in ulbisa ‘alaykum) explicitly acknowledges this period of ambiguity, yet provides the definitive resolution for the second stage: the Dajjāl is fundamentally flawed, while God is perfect.[35]
This transition is further elucidated by the narration of Sulayman bin Shihab, which outlines a strategic progression in the Dajjāl’s claims. Though technical analysis of its chain (isnād) reveals weakness, a vast chorus of scholarship—including Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Ibn ‘Uthaymīn, and al-Albānī—has corroborated its meaning as a valid explanation of the Dajjāl’s methodology. This tradition posits that the Dajjāl first emerges claiming righteousness and reform, then prophethood, and finally divinity. It is at this final stage that his physical state degrades as a divine sign; his eye becomes “covered” or extinguished (taghshā ‘aynuhu), his ear is severed, and his falsehood becomes physically manifest through the word Kafir written between his eyes, rendering his identity unmistakable to every sincere believer.[36]
From a linguistic and grammatical perspective, the precise phrasing in the ḥadīth of Abū Dāwūd provides critical clarity on how this sign functions. The term maṭmūsah al-’ayn (effaced of sight) serves as a “parenthetical explanatory descriptor” (kalima mu’tarida) for the term a‘war (blind on one eye). In Arabic grammar and semantics, this function is akin to an explanatory apposition that defines the specific quality of the preceding defect. It clarifies that while the Dajjāl is a‘war, his blindness in the first stage is of a specific quality—functionally sightless yet physically intact (dhāhib al-baṣar min ghayri bakhq)—thereby explaining why he might initially “confuse” the observer who judges only by outward appearances.
Furthermore, the phrase fa-in ulbisa ‘alaykum (“if he confuses you”) functions as a “parenthetical conditional clause” (jumla mu’tarida) that bridges the physical description to the theological conclusion. This clause acts as an essential warning, acknowledging that the subtle, non-deformed nature of the eye in the first stage is designed as a profound test of insight (baṣīrah). It serves as a safety net for the believer, ensuring that even if the specific physical markers of the preliminary stage are difficult to discern, the theological reality that “your Lord is not blind on one eye” serves as the final, immutable proof of the Dajjāl’s falsehood once he makes his ultimate blasphemous claim.[37]
A point of discussion among scholars has been the apparent discrepancy in narrations, with some identifying the blind eye as the right and others as the left. The famous ḥadīth of Ibn ‘Umar in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī specifies the right eye is blind (a‘war al-‘ayn al-yumná).[38] However, a ḥadīth from Ḥudhayfah in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim identifies the left eye as afflicted.[39]
Classical scholars have offered several profound reconciliations. Imām al-Baghawī suggested two possibilities.[40] The first is a simple error in transmission by a narrator, though the prevalence of both versions in sound collections makes this less likely. The second, more compelling possibility is that this is part of the Dajjāl’s fitnah. He may use his deceptive powers so that some people see the defect in his right eye, while others see it in his left, adding to the confusion and testing the certainty of believers. It has also been suggested that he may alternate which eye is functional, further concealing his true state. Imām al-Nawawī affirms that both narrations are correct, stating: “It has come here that he is blind on one eye (a‘war) in the right eye, and it has come in another narration that he is blind on one eye in the left eye. Muslim has mentioned both of them… and both of them are authentic (ṣaḥīḥ).”[41]
The most widely accepted reconciliation, however, is that of Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ, which we have already touched upon. Since a‘war can mean “defective,” and since both of his eyes are flawed, it is correct to describe him as a‘war in reference to either eye. One eye is blind (maṭmūsah), and the other is disfigured (protruding and/or with a film). Both are defective. This elegant solution honors all the sound narrations and integrates them into a single, coherent picture of bilateral imperfection.
The prophetic descriptions of the Dajjāl’s eye, when examined through the clarifying lens of classical Islamic linguistics and ḥadīth commentary, are not contradictory but are revealed to be a precise, multi-layered, and evolving sign. The six key terms—qā’imah, ṭāfi’ah, maṭmūsah, mamsūḥah, ḍarīr, and a‘war—do not represent different flaws but are different ways of describing a single, complex reality.
This reality unfolds in two stages. In the first, before his claim to divinity, the Dajjāl presents a hidden flaw: an eye that is functionally blind but appears physically intact. This is a profound test, not of sight, but of baṣīrah—the faith-based insight to perceive a flaw where there is no obvious deformity. It is a trial for those who judge by appearances alone. In the second stage, coinciding with his ultimate blasphemous claim, divine mercy intervenes. The hidden flaw transforms into an overt, undeniable, and disfigured mark. The deception is stripped away, and his falsehood is laid bare for every believer to see. The very sign that was once a subtle test of perception becomes the irrefutable proof of his lie. The entire episode, from the subtle flaw to the evident sign, demonstrates the intellectual and spiritual dynamism of the Islamic tradition. It affirms that the enduring miracle of the prophetic guidance lies not in pointing to a simple feature, but in describing universal truths and complex realities that demand knowledge, faith, and true perception to navigate successfully.
References
[1] Abū Dāwūd, Sulaymān ibn al-Ash‘ath, Sunan Abī Dāwūd [The Sunan of Abū Dāwūd], (in Arabic), (Dār al-Risālah al-‘Ālamiyyah, n.d.).
[2] Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim [The authentic collection of Muslim], (in Arabic), ed. Muḥammad Fu’ād ‘Abd al-Bāqī, (Beirut: Dār Iḥyā’ al-Turāth al-‘Arabī, n.d.).
[3] al-Qurṭubī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad, Al-Tadhkirah fī aḥwāl al-mawtá wa-umūr al-ākhirah [The reminder concerning the states of the dead and the matters of the hereafter], (in Arabic), (Dār al-Minhāj, n.d.). Citing al-Ṭabarānī.
[4] al-Tirmidhī, Muḥammad ibn ‘Īsá, Sunan al-Tirmidhī [The Sunan of al-Tirmidhī], (in Arabic), ed. Aḥmad Muḥammad Shākir et al., (Cairo: Maktaba wa-Maṭba‘a Muṣṭafá al-Bābī al-Ḥalabī, 1975).
[5] al-Ṣayyāḥ, ‘Alī, Taḥqīq ‘Ilal Ibn Abī Ḥātim [Verification of the hidden defects by Ibn Abī Ḥātim], (in Arabic), (Maktabat al-Rushd, n.d.). Citing al-Karmānī.
[6] al-Ḥākim, Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd Allāh, Al-Mustadrak ‘alá al-Ṣaḥīḥayn [The Mustadrak on the two Sahihs], (in Arabic), ed. Muṣṭafá ‘Abd al-Qādir ‘Aṭā, (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmīyah, 1990), vol. 4.
[7] al-Ḥākim, Al-Mustadrak, vol. 4. Citing al-Dhahabī’s commentary.
[8] Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad al-Imām Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal [The Musnad of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal], (in Arabic), ed. Shu‘ayb al-Arna’ūṭ, (Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 2001).
[9] al-Haythamī, Nūr al-Dīn, Mawārid al-ẓamʾān ilá zawāʾid Ibn Ḥibbān [The thirsty one’s resources for the supplemental narrations of Ibn Ḥibbān], (in Arabic), ed. Ḥusayn Salīm Asad al-Dārānī & ‘Abd ‘Alī al-Kūshak, (Damascus: Dār al-Thaqāfah al-‘Arabīyah, 1990-1992).
[10] al-Haythamī, Nūr al-Dīn, Majmaʿ al-zawāʾid wa-manbaʿ al-fawāʾid [The confluence of supplemental narrations and source of benefits], (in Arabic), (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, n.d.), vol. 7; Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī, Aḥmad ibn ‘Alī, Fatḥ al-Bārī sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī [Grant of the Creator: Commentary on Sahih al-Bukhari], (in Arabic), ed. Muḥibb al-Dīn al-Khaṭīb & ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ibn Bāz, (Beirut: Dār al-Ma‘rifah, 1959).
[11] Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad; al-Ḥākim, Al-Mustadrak.
[12] al-Fattanī, Muḥammad Ṭāhir ibn ‘Alī, Majma‘ biḥār al-anwār fī gharā’ib al-tanzīl wa-laṭā’if al-akhbār [Confluence of the seas of lights on the rarities of revelation and subtleties of narrations], (in Arabic), (Hyderabad: Maṭba‘at Majlis Dā’irat al-Ma‘ārif al-‘Uthmānīyah, 1967), vol. 2.
[13] Ibn Kathīr, Ismā‘īl ibn ‘Umar, Al-Nihāyah fī al-fitan wa-al-malāḥim [The end in trials and great battles], (in Arabic), ed. Muḥammad Aḥmad ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, (Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 1988), vol. 1.
[14] Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal, Musnad; al-Ḥākim, Al-Mustadrak. Citing al-Arna’ūṭ and al-Dhahabī’s verifications.
[15] al-Bukhārī, Muḥammad ibn Ismā‘īl, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī [The authentic collection of al-Bukhārī], (in Arabic), (Beirut: Dār Ṭawq al-Najāh, 2001); Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Citing ḥadīth of ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr.
[16] al-Haythamī, Majmaʿ al-zawāʾid, vol. 7. Citing al-Ṣa‘b ibn Jathāmah.
[17] Ibn Mājah, Muḥammad ibn Yazīd, Sunan Ibn Mājah [The Sunan of Ibn Mājah], (in Arabic), ed. Muḥammad Fu’ād ‘Abd al-Bāqī, (Dār Iḥyā’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabīyah, n.d.).
[18] Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī.
[19] Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Citing ḥadīth of Jābir ibn ‘Abdillāh.
[20] Ibn Mājah, Sunan Ibn Mājah; al-Nasā’ī, Aḥmad ibn Shu‘ayb, Al-Sunan al-Kubrā [The major Sunan], (in Arabic), ed. Ḥasan ‘Abd al-Mun‘im Shalabī, (Beirut: Mu’assasat al-Risālah, 2001).
[21] al-Nawawī, Yaḥyá ibn Sharaf, Taḥrīr alfāẓ al-Tanbīh [Editing the words of Al-Tanbih], (in Arabic), ed. ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-Daqr, (Damascus: Dār al-Qalam, 1987).
[22] Ibn Manẓūr, Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Mukarram, Lisān al-‘Arab [The tongue of the Arabs], (in Arabic), (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1994), 3rd ed.
[23] Ibn al-Athīr, Majd al-Dīn, Al-Nihāyah fī gharīb al-ḥadīth wa-al-athar [The end in the rare terms of ḥadīth and narrations], (in Arabic), ed. Ṭāhir Aḥmad al-Zāwī & Maḥmūd Muḥammad al-Ṭanāḥī, (al-Maktabah al-‘Ilmīyah, 1979).
[24] al-Manfalūṭī, Muṣṭafā Luṭfī, Al-‘Abarāt [Tears/Lessons], (in Arabic), (Dār al-Hudá al-Waṭanīyah lil-Ṭibā‘ah wal-Nashr wal-Tawzī‘, n.d.).
[25] al-Nawawī, Yaḥyá ibn Sharaf, Al-Minhāj sharḥ Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj [The path: Commentary on Sahih Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj], (in Arabic), (Beirut: Dār Iḥyā’ al-Turāth al-‘Arabī, 1972), 2nd ed.; Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī.
[26] Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-‘Arab; al-Azharī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad, Tahdhīb al-lughah [Refinement of language], (in Arabic), (Dār Iḥyā’ al-Turāth al-‘Arabī, 2001).
[27] al-Khaṭṭābī, Ḥamd ibn Muḥammad, Gharīb al-ḥadīth [Rare terms in Ḥadīth], (in Arabic), ed. ‘Abd al-Karīm Ibrāhīm al-Ṣiddīq, (Dār al-Fikr, 1982), p. 352.
[28] al-Zamakhsharī, Maḥmūd ibn ‘Umar, Al-Fā’iq fī gharīb al-ḥadīth [The excellent in rare ḥadīth terms], (in Arabic), ed. ‘Alī Muḥammad al-Bijāwī & Muḥammad Abū al-Faḍl Ibrāhīm, (Beirut: Dār al-Ma‘rifah, 1987), vol. 2, p. 368.
[29] Ibn al-Athīr, Al-Nihāyah fī gharīb al-ḥadīth, vol. 13, p. 139; Ibn Manẓūr, Lisān al-‘Arab, vol. 6, p. 126.
[30] al-Munāwī, ‘Abd al-Ra’ūf, Kashf al-manāhij wa-al-tanāqīḥ fī takhrīj aḥādīth al-Maṣābīḥ [Uncovering the methodologies and revisions in the verification of the ḥadīths of Al-Masabih], (in Arabic), ed. Muḥammad Isḥāq al-Salafī, (Qatar: Wizārat al-Awqāf bi-Dawlat Qaṭar, 1999).
[31] al-Safarīnī, Shams al-Dīn, Lawāmi‘ al-anwār al-bahīyah wa sawāṭi‘ al-asrār al-atharīyah [The gleaming lights and emanations of prophetic secrets], (in Arabic), (Mu’assasat al-Khāfiqayn, 1982), 2nd ed.
[32] Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī.
[33] Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Yūsuf ibn ‘Abdallāh, Al-Istī‘āb fī ma‘rifat al-aṣḥāb [The comprehensive survey of the knowledge of the Companions], (in Arabic), ed. ‘Alī Muḥammad al-Bijāwī, (Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 1992), vol. 3.
[34] Qāḍī ‘Iyāḍ ibn Mūsá al-Yaḥṣubī, Ikmāl al-mu‘lim bi-fawā’id Muslim [Completion of the teacher with the benefits of Muslim], (in Arabic), ed. Yaḥyá Ismāʻīl, (Dār al-Wafā’, 1998), 1st ed.; al-Nawawī, Al-Minhāj; Ibn Ḥajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī.
[35] Abū Dāwūd, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Ḥadīth No. 4320, Vol. 4, p. 116.
[36] See Ibn Hajar, Fatḥ al-Bārī, Vol. 13, p. 91; Ibn ‘Uthaymīn, Majmū‘ Fatāwá wa Rasā’il, Vol. 2, p. 15; and al-Albānī, Qiṣṣat al-Masīḥ al-Dajjāl, Vol. 1, p. 66.
[37] This linguistic interpretation aligns with the consensus of Gharīb al-Ḥadīth scholars who define the defect as functional rather than aesthetic during the initial phase of talbīs (confusion).
[38] al-Bukhārī, Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.
[39] Muslim ibn al-Ḥajjāj, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim.
[40] al-Baghawī, al-Ḥusayn ibn Mas‘ūd, Sharḥ al-sunnah [Commentary on the Sunnah], (in Arabic), ed. Shu‘ayb al-Arnaʼūṭ & Muḥammad Zuhayr al-Shāwīsh, (al-Maktab al-Islāmī, 1983), 2nd ed.
[41] al-Nawawī, Al-Minhāj, p. 235.
ANTALYA, Turkey – While much of the world grapples with rising energy costs, Afghanistan’s fuel market…
A growing body of analysis, across policy circles, energy economists, and strategic commentators, points to…
Bollywood superstar Aamir Khan, known for his meticulous choice of roles, may be gearing up…
KABUL / ISLAMABAD – Two earthquakes rattled northeastern Afghanistan early Saturday, sending tremors across a wide…
Brazilian forward Endrick has fired a warning shot at Paris Saint-Germain, telling AFP that his…
Shapoor Zadran, a former Afghan cricketer who played a key role in the national team’s…