Invalidating the Statement of the Annihilation of Hell

• Ibn Taymiyyah wa Fanāʾ an-Nār •

At last, we have reached the pinnacle of the article. I had chosen to include this because there are many people who are, 1) unaware of his position on Fanāʾ an-Nār, 2) aware but deny he believed in it, and 3) cope harder than the Ashāʿirah in trying to save their Jahmī Imām. It's also relevant aside from these three points since it is regarding Fanāʾ an-Nār, and Ibn Taymiyyah already has a big influence, so clarifying his position would make ease for those who wish to seek the truth.

Do not worry, I will address each and every doubt he had, and address them in their rightful place.

The first section will be on verifying and removing doubts regarding the attribution of Fanāʾ an-Nār to him, and also the authenticity of the book, whether or not it matters if the book belongs to him, and how the position was mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim.

PART 1: VERIFYING THE ATTRIBUTION OF THE STATEMENT TO HIM

Before mentioning his actual words and responding to his evidences, it is necessary to first establish whether the position of Fanāʾ an-Nār is truly attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah. This is because some people today try to deny the attribution altogether, as if it was merely a mistake from his opponents, or a misunderstanding of what he intended.

However, when his statements are gathered, the matter becomes very clear. The position was attributed to him by Ibn al-Qayyim, recorded and also attributed to him by aṣ-Ṣafadī, refuted by as-Subkī, criticized by al-Ḥiṣnī, and mentioned by al-Munāwī. This, by itself, is enough to establish that the issue was known, and attributed to him by those close to his time, and those who came after.

So, before refuting the position, I will first show that it is actually his position, and that denying the attribution is weak.

Ibn al-Qayyim said in [Shifāʾ al-ʿAlīl fī Masāʾil al-Qaḍāʾ wa al-Qadar wa al-Ḥikmah wa at-Taʿlīl - vol. 2, p. 326], while speaking about the issue of the perishing of the Fire:

«أما خلق نفوس شريرة لا يزول شرها البتة، وإنما خلقت للشر المحض، وللعذاب السرمد الدائم بدوام خالقها سبحانه= فهذا لا تظهر موافقته للحكمة والرحمة، وإن دخل تحت القدرة، فدخوله تحت الحكمة والرحمة ليس بالبين. فهذا ما وصل إليه النظر في هذه المسألة التي تكع فيها عقول العقلاء. وكنت سألت عنها شيخ الإسلام (ابن تيمية) فقال لي: هذه مسألة عظيمة كبيرة، ولم يجب فيها بشيء. فمضى على ذلك زمن حتى رأيت في «تفسير عبد بن حميد الكشي» بعض تلك الآثار التي ذكرت، فأرسلت إليه الكتاب وهو في محبسه الآخر، وعلمت على ذلك الموضع، وقلت للرسول: قل له: إن هذا الموضع يشكل عليه، ولا يدري ما هو؟ فكتب فيها مصنفه المشهور رحمة الله عليه.»

“As for creating evil souls whose evil never goes away at all, and which were only created for pure evil and for endless, everlasting punishment that lasts as long as their Creator, Glorified is He, then its agreement with wisdom and mercy is not apparent, even though it falls under divine power. As for its falling under wisdom and mercy, that is not clear.

This is what reflection has reached in this issue, before which the minds of intelligent people stumble. I had asked Shaykh al-Islām, Ibn Taymiyyah, about it, so he said to me: ‘This is a great, serious issue,’ but he did not answer anything about it.

Some time then passed until I saw, in Tafsīr ʿAbd ibn Ḥumayd al-Kishshī, some of those āthār that I mentioned. So I sent the book to him while he was in his later imprisonment. I marked that place and said to the messenger: ‘Say to him: this place is unclear to him, and he does not know what it is.’ So he wrote his well-known treatise on it, may Allāh have mercy on him.”

This is one of the clearest proofs in the entire issue. Ibn al-Qayyim is giving the background of the treatise itself. He asked Ibn Taymiyyah about the issue, then later sent him the relevant āthār from Tafsīr ʿAbd ibn Ḥumayd while he was in prison, and after that Ibn Taymiyyah wrote his well-known treatise on it. 

And also, the treatise was known to Ibn al-Qayyim. He knew the reason it was written, the time it was written, and the issue it was written about. And Ibn al-Qayyim was his closest student and among the greatest defenders of his views. So for someone centuries later to act like the attribution is baseless is not worth considering at all.

Aṣ-Ṣafadī said in [Aʿyān al-ʿAṣr wa Aʿwān an-Naṣr - vol. 1, p. 242], while mentioning the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah:

«في بقاء ‌الجنة ‌والنار وفنائهما، وهو آخر ما صنفه في القلعة. وقد رد عليه العلامة قاضي القضاة تقي الدين السبكي»

“On the remaining of Paradise and the Fire, and their perishing. This was the last thing he authored in the citadel. Al-ʿAllāmah Qāḍī al-Quḍāh Taqī ad-Dīn as-Subkī refuted him regarding it.”

Aṣ-Ṣafadī died in 764 AH, so he is close to the era of Ibn Taymiyyah. He clearly mentions a writing of Ibn Taymiyyah concerning the remaining of Paradise and the Fire and their perishing, and he says that as-Subkī refuted him regarding it.

And what is meant by as-Subkī’s refutation is his book:

al-Iʿtibār bi-Baqāʾ al-Jannah wa an-Nār.

So aṣ-Ṣafadī records the treatise, and as-Subkī refutes him concerning it. This shows that the attribution was known early and answered near his own time.

And Ibn al-Qayyim also mentioned his view in his book, Ḥādī al-Arwāḥ ilā Bilād al-Afrāḥ, which is another direct attribution from Ibn al-Qayyim. He mentions the issue of the eternality and permanence of the Fire, then he brings the view that the Fire will perish after reaching a fixed term, and he connects Ibn Taymiyyah to the transmission and support of that view.

This is important because Ibn al-Qayyim knew the details of Ibn Taymiyyah’s position more than those who came much later. So when he repeatedly connects Ibn Taymiyyah to this issue, his testimony cannot simply be brushed aside.

Then Ibn al-Qayyim clarified that this discussion concerns the true people of the Fire, meaning the kuffār, and not merely the sinful people of Tawḥīd. He said:

«ولا ريب أن من قال هذا القول عن عمر ونقله عنه إنما أراد بذلك جنس أهل النار الذين هم أهلها فأما قوم أصيبوا بذنوبهم فقد علم هؤلاء وغيرهم أنهم يخرجون منها وأنهم لا يلبثون قدر رمل عالج ولا قريبا منه ولفظ أهل النار لا يختص بالموحدين بل يختص بمن عداهم»

“There is no doubt that whoever stated this view from ʿUmar and transmitted it from him only meant by that the category of the people of the Fire who are truly its people. As for people who were punished because of their sins, then these scholars and others already knew that they will come out of it, and that they will not remain for the amount of the sand of ʿĀlij, nor anything close to it. The phrase ‘the people of the Fire’ is not specific to the people of Tawḥīd. Rather, it is specific to those besides them.”

The discussion is not about uṣāt al-muwaḥḥidīn eventually exiting the Fire. Everyone already knows from the Sunnah that the sinful people of Tawḥīd who enter the Fire will eventually exit from it. Ibn al-Qayyim is speaking about “the people of the Fire who are truly its people,” meaning the kuffār.

Al-Ḥiṣnī said in [Dafʿ Shubah Man Shabbaha wa Tamarrad - p. 58]:

«واعلم أنه مما انتقد عليه زعمه أن النار تفنى، وأن الله - تعالى - يفنيها، وأنه جعل لها أمداً تنتهي إليه، وتفنى، ويزول عذابها، وهو مطالب أين قال الله عز وجل وأين قال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم وصح عنه»

“Know that among the things criticized against him is his claim that the Fire will perish, that Allāh, Exalted is He, will cause it to perish, and that He made for it a fixed term that it will reach, then it will perish and its punishment will cease. He is therefore required to answer: where did Allāh, Mighty and Majestic, say this, and where did the Messenger of Allāh ﷺ, say it with an authentic report from him?”

Al-Munāwī said in [Fayḍ al-Qadīr - vol. 1, p. 40]:

«وقد نقل ابن تيمية القول بفنائها عن ابن عمر وابن عمرو وابن مسعود وأبي سعيد وابن عباس وأنس والحسن البصري وحماد بن سلمة وغيرهم روى عبد بن حميد بإسناد رجاله ثقات عن عمر: لو لبث أهل النار في النار عدد رمل عالج لكان لهم يوم يخرجون فيه. وروى أحمد عن ابن عمرو بن العاص: " ليأتين على جهنم يوم تصفق فيه أبوابها ليس فيها أحد " وحكاه البغوي وغيره عن أبي هريرة وغيره. وقد نصر هذا القول ابن القيم ‌كشيخه ‌ابن ‌تيمية وهو مذهب متروك وقول مهجور لا يصار إليه ولا يعول عليه»

“Ibn Taymiyyah transmitted the view of its perishing from Ibn ʿUmar, Ibn ʿAmr, Ibn Masʿūd, Abū Saʿīd, Ibn ʿAbbās, Anas, al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, Ḥammād ibn Salamah, and others.

ʿAbd ibn Ḥumayd narrated, with an isnād whose narrators are trustworthy, from ʿUmar: ‘If the people of the Fire remained in the Fire for the number of the sand of ʿĀlij, they would still have a day in which they would come out.’

Aḥmad narrated from Ibn ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ: ‘There will surely come upon Jahannam a day when its doors will clap together, with no one inside it.’

Al-Baghawī and others related it from Abū Hurayrah and others. Ibn al-Qayyim supported this view, like his shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah. It is an abandoned madhhab and a deserted statement. It is not to be adopted, and it is not to be relied upon.”

And al-Munāwī also said in [Fayḍ al-Qadīr - vol. 6, p. 241]:

«وذهب بعضهم إلى إفناء النار دون الجنة وأطال ابن القيم ‌كشيخه ‌ابن ‌تيمية في الانتصار له في عدة كراريس وقد صار بذلك أقرب إلى الكفر منه إلى الإيمان لمخالفته نص القرآن»

“Some of them held the view of causing the Fire to perish, but not Paradise. Ibn al-Qayyim, like his shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah, went on at length in supporting it in several booklets. Through that, he became closer to disbelief than to faith, due to his opposition to the clear text of the Qurʾān.”

Whether one accepts al-Munāwī’s harsh judgement or not, the point here is attribution. He is another witness that this position was known as being attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim.

As for the title of the treatise, the muḥaqqiq said in the introduction to the book:

«لم أقف لهذه الرسالة على تسمية معينة من مؤلفها شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية.نعم قال تلميذه العلامة ابن القيم: "وكنت سألت شيخ الإسلام - قدس الله روحه - فقال لي هذه مسألة عظيمة كبيرة ولم يجب فيها بشيء، فمضى على ذلك زمن، فكتب فيها مصنفه المشهور - عليه رحمة الله (١) ".لكن هذه ليست تسمية اصطلاحية كما ترى ... ولهذا تعدد عنوانها، فنسخة المكتب الإسلامي جاء في بدايتها ما نصه: "قال شيخ الإسلام أبو العباس أحمد بن تيمية - رحمه الله تعالى - في رسالته في "الرد على من قال بفناء الجنة والنار" "ما نصه" ...»

“I did not come across a specific title for this treatise from its author, Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah.

Yes, his student, al-ʿAllāmah Ibn al-Qayyim, said: ‘I had asked Shaykh al-Islām, may Allāh sanctify his soul, and he said to me: this is a great, serious issue, but he did not answer anything about it. Then some time passed, and he wrote his famous treatise on it, may Allāh have mercy on him.’

But this is not a technical title, as you can see... Because of this, its title has differed. In the copy of al-Maktab al-Islāmī, the following appears at its beginning: ‘Shaykh al-Islām Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn Taymiyyah, may Allāh have mercy on him, said in his treatise ar-Radd ʿalā Man Qāla bi-Fanāʾ al-Jannah wa an-Nār the following...’”

Now, I'd like to address common copes regarding this attribution.

I say:

Some may try to weaken the attribution by saying that the title of the treatise differs between copies, or that the manuscript came with a title placed by a copyist, or that the exact technical title was not established from Ibn Taymiyyah himself. This is weak, because the issue here is not built upon the title alone. Titles of treatises often differ between manuscripts, copies, catalogues, and later prints. Many works in the books of the scholars are accepted even though their exact titles differ, or even though the title in the manuscript was written by a copyist. This is normal in manuscript transmission.

The correct way is to look at the combined evidence: who attributed the work, who knew of it, who refuted it, what the subject of the work is, and whether the contents match the external attribution. In this case, Ibn al-Qayyim says that Ibn Taymiyyah wrote a known treatise on this issue. Aṣ-Ṣafadī records a work of his concerning the remaining and perishing of Paradise and the Fire, and says that as-Subkī refuted him regarding it. Al-Ḥiṣnī and al-Munāwī also attribute the view to him directly. So the attribution does not stand upon a lone manuscript title. It stands upon a manuscript tradition supported by early external testimony and later explicit attribution.

If a person rejects this level of attribution here, then he must be consistent with the rest of the books of turāth. Many books, treatises, answers, and smaller writings are accepted through manuscript attribution, student transmission, bibliographical mention, quotation, and later scholarly citation. If all of that is thrown away whenever the content is uncomfortable, then a massive portion of transmitted works would become unstable. This is outright selective rejection.

And this also answers the emotional claim that this attribution is only pushed because people want to make takfīr of Ibn Taymiyyah. The discussion in this section is attribution. The ruling upon him is a separate discussion. A person can establish that a statement is attributed to someone, then later discuss what that statement necessitates. So denying the attribution in order to avoid the later discussion is running away from the text.

The fair path is clear and the attribution is established, and whatever comes after that must be dealt with honestly. And to Allāh belongs all praise.

PART 2: PRESENTING HIS WORDS AND THE MANNER OF HIS ARGUMENT FOR FANĀʾ AN-NĀR

He said in [ar-Radd ʿalā Man Qāla bi-Fanāʾ al-Jannah wa an-Nār - p. 71]:

«الذين قطعوا ‌بدوام ‌النار

قلت: والذين قطعوا ‌بدوام ‌النار، لهم أربع طرق.

أحدها: ظن الإجماع فإن كثيرا من الناس يعتقد أن هذا مجمع عليه، ولا خلاف فيه بين السلف، وإن كان فيه خلاف حادث، فهو من أقوال أهل البدع.

والثاني: أن القرآن قد دل على ذلك دلالة قطعية، فإنه أخبر بخلودهم في النار أبدا في غير موضع من القرآن.

والثالث: أن السنة المستفيضة أخبرت بخروج من في قلبه مثال ذرة من إيمان من النار دون الكفار، فإنهم لم يخرجوا.

والرابع: قول من يقول: الرسول وقفنا على ذلك، وعلمناه من بعده ضرورة ولا يحتجون بنص معين، وعامة الناس يقولون: هذا لا نعلمه إلا من الخبر وشذ بعضهم فزعم أن العقل دل على خلود الكفار.

فأما الإجماع فهو أولا: غير معلوم، فإن هذه المسائل لا يقطع فيها بإجماع، نعم قد يظن فيها الإجماع وذلك قبل أن يعرف النزاع، وقد عرف النزاع قديماً وحديثا، بل إلى الساعة لم أعلم أحدا من الصحابة قال: إنها لا تفنى، وإنما المنقول عنهم ضد ذلك ولكن التابعون نقل عنهم هذا وهذا.»

“Those who decisively stated that the Fire will remain forever.

I say: those who decisively stated that the Fire will remain forever have four paths.

The first is assumed consensus. Many people believe that this is agreed upon, and that there is no disagreement about it among the Salaf, even if a later disagreement occurred, for it is from the statements of the people of innovation.

The second is that the Qurʾān has indicated this with decisive indication, for it has informed of their abiding forever in the Fire eternally in more than one place in the Qurʾān.

The third is that the widespread Sunnah has informed that whoever has the like of an atom’s weight of faith in his heart will come out of the Fire, unlike the disbelievers, for they do not come out.

The fourth is the statement of those who say: the Messenger informed us of that, and we necessarily knew it after him. They do not use one specific text as proof. The general people say: we only know this through transmitted report. Some became isolated and claimed that reason proves the eternal remaining of the disbelievers.

As for consensus, firstly, it is not known. In these issues, consensus cannot be stated decisively. Yes, consensus may be assumed in them, and that is before the disagreement is known. But the disagreement has been known, both in earlier times and later times. Rather, until this very hour, I do not know of anyone from the Companions who said that it will not perish. What has been transmitted from them is the opposite of that. As for the Tābiʿūn, both this and that have been transmitted from them.”

And he said in [ar-Radd ʿalā Man Qāla bi-Fanāʾ al-Jannah wa an-Nār - p. 80]

أحدها: أن الله أخبر ببقاء نعيم الجنة ودوامه، وأنه لا نفاد له ولا انقطاع في غير موضع من كتابه، كما أخبر أن أهل الجنة لا يخرجون منها، وأما النار وعذابها فلم يخبر ببقاء ذلك، بل أخبر أن أهلها لا يخرجون منها، وأما النار وعذابها فلم يخبر ببقاء ذلك، بل أخبر أن أهلها لا يخرجون منها.

الثاني: أنه أخبر بما يدل على أنه ليس بمؤيد في عدة آيات.

الثالث: أن النار لم يذكره فيها شيء يدل على الدوام.

الرابع: إن النار قيدها بقوله: {لابِثِينَ فِيهَا أَحْقَاباً}، وقوله: {خَالِدِينَ فِيهَا إِلَّا مَا شَاءَ اللَّهُ} وقوله: {مَا دَامَتِ السَّمَاوَاتُ وَالْأَرْضُ إِلَّا مَا شَاءَ رَبُّكَ}، فهذه ثلاث آيات تقتضي قضية مؤقتة، أو معلقة على شرط، وذاك دائم مطلق، ليس بمؤقت ولا معلق.

الخامس: أنه قد ثبت أنه يدخل الجنة من ينشأه في الآخرة لها ويدخلها من دخل النار أولا، ويدخلها الأولاد بعمل الآباء، فثبت أن الجنة يدخلها من لم يعمل خيرا، وأما النار فلا يعذب أحد بذنوبه، فلا تقاس هذه بهذه.

السادس: أن الجنة من مقتضى رحمته ومغفرته، والنار من عذابه، وقد قال: {نَبِّئْ عِبَادِي أَنِّي أَنَا الْغَفُورُ الرَّحِيمُ وَأَنَّ عَذَابِي هُوَ الْعَذَابُ الْأَلِيمُ}.

وقال: {اعْلَمُوا أَنَّ اللَّهَ شَدِيدُ الْعِقَابِ وَأَنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ}.

وقال: {رَبَّكَ لَسَرِيعُ الْعِقَابِ وَإِنَّهُ لَغَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ}.

فالنعيم من موجب أسمائه التي هي من لوازم ذاته فيجب داومه بدوام معاني أسمائه وصفاته.

وأما العذاب فإنما هو من مخلوقاته، والمخلوق قد يكون له انتهاء مثل الدنيا وغيرها، لاسيما مخلوق خلق تتعلق بغيره.

السابع: أنه قد أخبر أن رحمته وسعت كل شيء، وأنه {كَتَبَ عَلَى نَفْسِهِ الرَّحْمَةَ}، وقال: "سبقت رحمتي غضبي" "وغلبت رحمتي غضبي".

وهذا عموم، وإطلاق، فإذا قدر عذاب لا آخر له، لم يكن هناك رحمة البتة.»

“The difference between the remaining of Paradise and the Fire, according to revelation and reason.

As for revelation, then it is from several angles.

The first: Allāh informed of the remaining of the bliss of Paradise and its permanence, and that it has no ending and no interruption, in more than one place in His Book, just as He informed that the people of Paradise will not leave it. As for the Fire and its punishment, He did not inform of the permanence of that. Rather, He informed that its people will not leave it. As for the Fire and its punishment, He did not inform of the permanence of that. Rather, He informed that its people will not leave it.

The second: He informed of what indicates that it is not eternal in several verses.

The third: nothing was mentioned regarding the Fire that indicates permanence.

The fourth: He restricted it with His statement: ‘Remaining therein for ages,’ and His statement: ‘Abiding therein, except what Allāh wills,’ and His statement: ‘So long as the heavens and the earth endure, except what your Lord wills.’ These are three verses that require a matter that is timed or connected to a condition, while that other one is permanent and absolute, not timed and not connected to a condition.

The fifth: it has been established that Paradise will be entered by those whom He creates for it in the Hereafter, and it will be entered by those who entered the Fire first, and children will enter it through the deeds of their fathers. So it is established that Paradise will be entered by one who did no good. As for the Fire, no one is punished except for his sins. So this should not be compared to that.

The sixth: Paradise is from what His mercy and forgiveness require, while the Fire is from His punishment. He said: ‘Inform My servants that I am indeed the Forgiving, the Merciful, and that My punishment is the painful punishment.’

And He said: ‘Know that Allāh is severe in punishment, and that Allāh is Forgiving, Merciful.’

And He said: ‘Your Lord is swift in punishment, and indeed He is Forgiving, Merciful.’

So bliss is from what His Names require, and His Names are from the necessary matters of His Essence. Therefore, its permanence is required because of the permanence of the meanings of His Names and Attributes.

As for punishment, it is only from His created things, and a created thing may have an ending, like the worldly life and other than it, especially a created thing that was created while being connected to something else.

The seventh: He has informed that His mercy encompassed everything, and that He ‘prescribed mercy upon Himself.’ He said: ‘My mercy preceded My anger,’ and: ‘My mercy overcame My anger.’

This is general and unrestricted. So if a punishment with no end is supposed, then there would be no mercy there at all.”

I ask those of you with insight, and sincerity, to look at what he said at the last sentence. He quite literally claimed it will end, because if it didn't, then there would be no mercy, and that is not something anyone would claim. His position is as clear as the sun.

Ibn al-Qayyim said in [Ḥādī al-Arwāḥ ilā Bilād al-Afrāḥ - p. 352]:

«وأما أبدية ‌النار ودوامها فقال فيها شيخ الإسلام (ابن تيمية) فيها قولان معروفان عن ‌السلف ‌والخلف والنزاع في ذلك معروف عن التابعين قلت هاهنا أقوال سبعة... السابع قول من يقول بل يفنيها ربها وخالقها تبارك وتعالى فانه جعل لها أمدا تنتهي إليه ثم تفنى ويزول عذابها قال شيخ الإسلام (ابن تيمية): وقد نقل هذا القول عن عمر وابن مسعود وأبى هريرة وأبى سعيد وغيرهم وقد روى عبد بن حميد وهو من اجل أئمة الحديث في تفسيره المشهور حدثنا سليمان بن حرب حدثنا حماد بن سلمة عن ثابت عن الحسن قال قال عمر: لو لبث أهل النار في النار كقدر رمل عالج لكان لهم على ذلك يوم يخرجون فيه وقال حدثنا حجاج بن منهال عن حماد بن سلمة عن حميد عن الحسن أن عمر بن الخطاب قال لو لبث أهل النار في النار عدد رمل عالج لكان لهم يوم يخرجون منه ذكر ذلك في تفسير قوله تعالى: {لابثين فيها أحقابا} فقد رواه عبد وهو من الأئمة الحفاظ وعلماء السنة عن هذين الجليلين سليمان بن حرب وحجاج ابن منهال وكلاهما عن حماد بن سلمة وحسبك به وحماد يرويه عن ثابت وحميد وكلاهما يرويه عن الحسن وحسبك بهذا الإسناد جلالة والحسن وإن لم يسمع من عمر فإنما رواه عن بعض التابعين ولو لم يصح عنده ذلك عن عمر لما جزم به وقال عمر بن الخطاب ولو قدر أنه لم يحفظ عن عمر فتداول هؤلاء الأئمة له غير مقابلين له بالإنكار والرد مع أنهم ينكرون على من خالف السنة بدون هذا فلو كان هذا القول عند هؤلاء الأئمة من البدع المخالفة لكتاب الله وسنة رسوله وإجماع الأئمة لكانوا أول منكر له قال ولا ريب أن من قال هذا القول عن عمر ونقله عنه إنما أراد بذلك جنس أهل النار الذين هم أهلها فأما قوم أصيبوا بذنوبهم فقد علم هؤلاء وغيرهم أنهم يخرجون منها وأنهم لا يلبثون قدر رمل عالج ولا قريبا منه ولفظ أهل النار لا يختص بالموحدين بل يختص بمن عداهم»

“As for the eternality of the Fire and its permanence, Shaykh al-Islām, Ibn Taymiyyah, said regarding it: there are two well-known views from the Salaf and the later generations, and the disagreement about that is known from the Tābiʿūn.

I say: there are seven views here...

The seventh is the view of those who say: rather, its Lord and Creator, Blessed and Exalted is He, will cause it to perish, for He made for it a fixed term that it will reach. Then it will perish and its punishment will cease.

Shaykh al-Islām, Ibn Taymiyyah, said: This view has been transmitted from ʿUmar, Ibn Masʿūd, Abū Hurayrah, Abū Saʿīd, and others. ʿAbd ibn Ḥumayd, who is among the most eminent imāms of ḥadīth, narrated in his famous Tafsīr: Sulaymān ibn Ḥarb narrated to us: Ḥammād ibn Salamah narrated to us, from Thābit, from al-Ḥasan, who said: ʿUmar said: ‘If the people of the Fire remained in the Fire for the amount of the sand of ʿĀlij, they would still have, after that, a day in which they would come out.’

And he said: Ḥajjāj ibn Minhāl narrated to us, from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, from Ḥumayd, from al-Ḥasan, that ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said: ‘If the people of the Fire remained in the Fire for the number of the sand of ʿĀlij, they would still have a day in which they would come out of it.’

He mentioned that in the Tafsīr of His statement, Exalted is He: ‘Remaining therein for ages.’

ʿAbd narrated it, and he is from the imāms, the ḥuffāẓ, and the scholars of the Sunnah, from these two noble men: Sulaymān ibn Ḥarb and Ḥajjāj ibn Minhāl. Both of them narrate it from Ḥammād ibn Salamah, and he is enough for you. Ḥammād narrates it from Thābit and Ḥumayd, and both of them narrate it from al-Ḥasan, and this isnād is enough for you in nobility.

Al-Ḥasan did not hear from ʿUmar. However, he only narrated it from some of the Tābiʿūn. If it had not been authentic with him from ʿUmar, he would not have stated it decisively and said: ‘ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb said.’

Even if it were assumed that it was not preserved from ʿUmar, then these imāms still circulated it without meeting it with rejection and refutation, even though they would reject those who opposed the Sunnah in matters less than this. So if this statement, according to these imāms, had been from the innovations opposing the Book of Allāh, the Sunnah of His Messenger, and the consensus of the imāms, they would have been the first to reject it.

He said: There is no doubt that whoever stated this view from ʿUmar and transmitted it from him only meant by that the category of the people of the Fire who are truly its people. As for people who were punished because of their sins, then these scholars and others already knew that they will come out of it, and that they will not remain for the amount of the sand of ʿĀlij, nor anything close to it. The phrase ‘the people of the Fire’ is not specific to the people of Tawḥīd. Rather, it is specific to those besides them.”

PART 3: REFUTING THE HERETIC'S ARGUMENT

In this section, I will answer his arguments statement by statement. It will be his statement, and then I will respond. This will keep it organized.

He said:

The first is assumed consensus. Many people believe that this is agreed upon, and that there is no disagreement about it among the Salaf, even if a later disagreement occurred, for it is from the statements of the people of innovation.

I say:

Is this not evident from the proofs I brought prior to this chapter? Nobody from the Imāms of the Salaf disagreed, and many of the ones I brought mentioned consensus of the Muslims. And yes, this disagreement was of the Jahmiyyah.

He said:

The second is that the Qurʾān has indicated this with decisive indication, for it has informed of their abiding forever in the Fire eternally in more than one place in the Qurʾān.

I say:

Again, this has already been established by the great amount of verses I brought, and I want to mention that was there were far more verses than I had brought on this. I only brought those I could find, but there are many, many more I may have looked over. 

He said:

The third is that the widespread Sunnah has informed that whoever has the like of an atom’s weight of faith in his heart will come out of the Fire, unlike the disbelievers, for they do not come out.

I say:

Yes, this is true, but atom's weight of faith refers to those who, even if it wasn't the firmest of beliefs, believed in the statement that there is no God worthy of worship except Allāh, and that Muḥammad is His Servant and Messenger. This refers to the Muwaḥḥidūn, more so "Uṣāt al-Muwaḥḥidīn," which this discussion has nothing to do with, and it's a lack of comprehension to correlate aḥādīth meant for the Muslims with the Kuffār.

He said:

The fourth is the statement of those who say: the Messenger informed us of that, and we necessarily knew it after him. They do not use one specific text as proof. The general people say: we only know this through transmitted report. Some became isolated and claimed that reason proves the eternal remaining of the disbelievers.

I say:

The most authentic reports were narrated by Muslim and al-Bukhārī regarding death being slaughtered, and the kuffār being told that they will remain in it forever. This is nothing small, it holds weight even if it is one report or many. 

The zindīq said:

As for consensus, firstly, it is not known. In these issues, consensus cannot be stated decisively. Yes, consensus may be assumed in them, and that is before the disagreement is known. But the disagreement has been known, both in earlier times and later times. Rather, until this very hour, I do not know of anyone from the Companions who said that it will not perish. What has been transmitted from them is the opposite of that. As for the Tābiʿūn, both this and that have been transmitted from them.”

I say:

First and foremost, consensus was known by the general Muslims and the scholars among them. This matter was something nobody, at the time the Qurʾān was revealed, even argued about. Their heart was opened to Islām, and they accepted the Words of their Lord with no denial or doubt in it. What other reason is there that they were the Best of Creation after the Prophet ﷺ? And besides this, he straight up attributed lies to the Companions, saying that what was transmitted from them was the opposite. Did this zindīq attribute tajahhum to the Companions?! Not to mention, even the Tābiʿūn weren't free from his accusation. The reason that there was no specific report from the Companions on the eternity of the Fire is because they did not see it as a matter of discussion. They accepted the Qurʾān as it came.

He then said:

The first: Allāh informed of the remaining of the bliss of Paradise and its permanence, and that it has no ending and no interruption, in more than one place in His Book, just as He informed that the people of Paradise will not leave it. As for the Fire and its punishment, He did not inform of the permanence of that. Rather, He informed that its people will not leave it. As for the Fire and its punishment, He did not inform of the permanence of that. Rather, He informed that its people will not leave it.

I say:

The readers are witnesses to the many verses on the permanence of the punishment. This is straight up lying, or at the very least, speech so corrupt that it has no difference in result from lying upon the texts. Did Allāh not say, ʿadhāb al-khuld? Did He not say, khālidīna fīhā abadan? Did He not say that they will not exit from the Fire? Did He not say that they will not die therein, nor will they live? Did He not say that the punishment will not be lightened for them? Did He not say, “So taste, and We will not increase you except in punishment”?

So what is left after this? If the people of the Fire will not exit, will not die, will not be relieved, will not have the punishment lightened, and will only be increased in punishment, then what meaning remains for claiming that Allāh did not inform of the permanence of the Fire and its punishment? This is nothing but separating between the Fire and its people with a separation that the Qurʾān does not allow. For if the people remain eternally in punishment, then the punishment remains eternally. And if they remain eternally in the Fire, then the Fire remains eternally. Otherwise, what are they eternally abiding in?

This also shows the corruption of his method. When the Qurʾān mentions Paradise and its people, he accepts the permanence plainly. But when the Qurʾān mentions the Fire, its people, their khulūd, their taʾbīd, their lack of exit, their lack of death, their lack of relief, and the continuation of their punishment, he suddenly begins coping and says that there was no claim of its permanence or that the Fire will be eternal.

He said:

The second: He informed of what indicates that it is not eternal in several verses.

The third: nothing was mentioned regarding the Fire that indicates permanence.

I say:

May Allāh curse him.

He said:

The fourth: He restricted it with His statement: ‘Remaining therein for ages,’ and His statement: ‘Abiding therein, except what Allāh wills,’ and His statement: ‘So long as the heavens and the earth endure, except what your Lord wills.’ These are three verses that require a matter that is timed or connected to a condition, while that other one is permanent and absolute, not timed and not connected to a condition.

I say:

None of these verses entail, or even point to it ending. For the one in an-Nabaʾ, "Remaining there in ages," Qatādah and al-Ḥasan explained it as eternally abiding, and with the end of every ḥuqb, another comes. As for the other two, these were already explained. The Fire and Paradise will endure as long as Allāh wills, and what Allāh has willed is for them to be permanent. However, I will explain those āyāt in the last chapter even more, under the section, "illā mā shāʾa rabbuk."

He said:

The fifth: it has been established that Paradise will be entered by those whom He creates for it in the Hereafter, and it will be entered by those who entered the Fire first, and children will enter it through the deeds of their fathers. So it is established that Paradise will be entered by one who did no good. As for the Fire, no one is punished except for his sins. So this should not be compared to that.

I say:

This retard didn't understand that there is a distinction between the good-doers among the Muwaḥḥidūn and among the kuffār. The Muwaḥḥid may enter Paradise through the mercy of Allāh, through his īmān, through the deeds of his parents if he is a child, or after entering the Fire first and then being taken out of it. As for the kāfir, then whatever apparent good he did does not benefit him in the Hereafter while he died upon kufr and shirk.

So yes, no one is punished except for his sins. But what is the greatest sin? Kufr and shirk. This is exactly the point he seems to have missed. The kāfir is not punished eternally for feeding the poor, being kind to his family, or doing some worldly good. He is punished eternally because he died upon kufr, shirk, rejection of the truth, and opposition to the Lord of the Worlds.

And this argument does nothing for him at all. Paradise being entered by those whom Allāh creates for it, or by children through the deeds of their fathers, or by people who entered the Fire first, does not prove that the Fire will perish. All it proves is that Allāh enters whom He wills into Paradise by His mercy and bounty. As for the Fire, then whoever enters it from the kuffār enters it because of his kufr and sins, and the Qurʾān already told us that they will abide therein forever.

So his own words are against him. He said, “This should not be compared to that,” and yes, he is right in that part. The Muwaḥḥid is not like the kāfir. The child of the believers is not like the one who died upon shirk. The sinful Muslim who eventually exits the Fire is not like the kāfir who never exits it. So why is he trying to use what relates to the people of Paradise and the sinful Muwaḥḥidīn as an argument for the kuffār and for the perishing of the Fire?

He said:

The sixth: Paradise is from what His mercy and forgiveness require, while the Fire is from His punishment. He said: ‘Inform My servants that I am indeed the Forgiving, the Merciful, and that My punishment is the painful punishment.’

I say: