رتبها

A Comprehensive Refutation of The Allegation That Shaykh al-Islām Advocated the Annihilation of Hell.
Opponents of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) frequently raise the issue of the annihilation of Hell when listing the controversial matters attributed to him.
1/75🧵 x.com

Loading tweet...

They present the claim that Ibn Taymiyyah categorically affirmed annihilation of Hell as if it were his unequivocal stance which he held no other besides it. Al-Ḥiṣnī (d. 829 AH) states: "Know that among the criticisms against him is his assertion that Hell will cease to exist,

that Allah—exalted is He—will cause it to perish, and that it has a determined endpoint at which it will come to an end, its torment will cease, and it will be obliterated. He is therefore required to provide evidence—where has Allah, the Almighty, said this?

Where has the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) affirmed it in a sound narration?"
Furthermore, his adversaries have accused him of aligning with the Jahmiyyah in part of their creed, for the Jahmiyyah maintain that both Paradise and Hell will come to an end,

while Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) specifically espoused the annihilation of Hell. They further assert that such a position constitutes disbelief.
Examining the Allegation
May Allah guide you to His obedience—know that those who came after Ibn Taymiyyah

whether among his supporters or his detractors, have diverged into three distinct views regarding his stance on this issue:
1. The First View: Those who assert that he explicitly upheld the annihilation of Hell. This is the predominant claim among his adversaries

and is also held by some who generally align with his theological positions and praise him in other matters. The latter group adopted this stance, influenced by the arguments of his opponents and the forcefulness of their presentation of this matter,

accompanied and further reinforced by a lack of thorough investigation and criticism of this claim from the primary works of Ibn Taymiyyah, both in the expected references and beyond.
2. The Second View: Those who maintain that he did not advocate the annihilation of Hell

and that he affirmed its eternal existence, like Paradise. They base this on the fact that the doctrine of Hell’s eternity is the position of the Salaf, and Ibn Taymiyyah, being one of the foremost expositors of the Salafi creed, adhered to this stance.

Additionally, they rely on explicit texts from his works that affirm the perpetuity of Hell. Furthermore, they argue that those who accuse him of advocating the annihilation of Hell have not encountered countervailing passages from his works.

If they were presented with ambiguous and unclear statements, they would either question their evidentiary value or doubt their attribution to Ibn Taymiyyah.
3. The Third View: A group that contends that Ibn Taymiyyah leaned toward the position of Hell’s annihilation

but refrained from explicitly declaring it. They arrived at this conclusion after encountering certain statements in his works that, while not explicitly affirming the cessation of Hell, vaguely suggest an inclination toward this view even though he did not clearly state it.

However, they also found other statements in his writings that affirm its perpetuity. Consequently, they formulated this intermediate stance, concluding that Ibn Taymiyyah exhibited a tendency toward the notion of Hell’s eventual annihilation.

This study will focus on a comprehensive examination of Ibn Taymiyyah’s textual corpus regarding this issue, analyzing both the passages that appear to indicate his inclination toward the annihilation of Hell and the explicit texts affirming its eternal nature.

Then a critical evaluation will be conducted to determine their meanings.
These texts can be classified into two categories:
A. Passages cited by those who claim that Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed or inclined toward the annihilation of Hell.
B. Passages cited by those who assert

that Ibn Taymiyyah upheld the eternity of Hell, in accordance with the consensus of Muslim scholars on the correct position regarding this matter.
The first category of these texts includes the following statements by Ibn Taymiyyah: He said: “I have not found any widely

transmitted report from the Companions that contradicts this view. Rather, Abu Sa'id and Abu Hurayrah, who narrated the hadith of the slaughtering of death, the hadiths on intercession, and the hadiths on the exit of the people of Tawhid from Hell,

have spoken regarding the annihilation of Hell with what they have.” He also stated: “However, when its appointed time expires, and it perishes just as the world perishes, then no torment will remain therein.”
And he further said: “Thus, one may argue for its annihilation based

on the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the statements of the Companions—whereas those who argue for its eternal endurance have neither Quran, nor Sunnah, nor statements of the Companions to support them.”
He added: “Secondly, He mentioned in several verses that [torment] is not eternal.

Thirdly, there is nothing mentioned about hell that indicates perpetuity.”
Additionally, he said: “If one were to conceive of a torment without end, then there would be no mercy whatsoever.”
It is notable that all these quotations are taken from a single work:

Ar-Radd ‘ala Man Qāla Bifinā’ al-Jannah wa an-Nār (A Refutation of Those Who Claim That Paradise and Hell Will Cease to Exist). One would also notice while reading this work that Ibn Taymiyyah, considered the reports attributed to some of the Salaf

regarding the annihilation of Hell to be authentic, attempting therefore to interpret verses and prophetic hadiths in light of the implications of those reports, he deemed sound.
The 2nd Category of Texts: Affirm Ibn Taymiyyah’s Agreement with the Correct View—Eternality of Hell

1. When asked about a hadith mentioning entities that will never perish, he responded that this statement was from certain scholars and not from the Prophet Peace be upon him. He then explicitly stated: “The predecessors of this Ummah, its leading Imams, and all adherents

of Ahl as-Sunnah wal-Jamāah have unanimously agreed that among the created entities, there are those that will neither be annihilated nor entirely cease to exist—such as Paradise, Hell, the Throne and others.” This statement conveys a consensus of whose agreement is an authority,

making its opposition invalid. Hence, he affirmed in his famous Lāmiyyah poem: “The wretched shall suffer Hellfire by divine wisdom, While the righteous shall enter into the gardens.”
2. Ibn Hazm (d. 456 AH), recorded the scholarly consensus that Hell will not perish,

just as Paradise will not. He stated: “Indeed, Hell is true, and it is an abode of torment for eternity. It will neither cease to exist nor will its inhabitants ever perish. It has no end, and it has been prepared for every disbeliever who opposes the religion of Islam,

as well as for those who opposed the previous prophets before the mission of the Messenger of Allah Peace be upon him. and the reaching of his news to them” Ibn Taymiyyah did not object to this statement, nor did he refute it in his work Naqd Marātib al-Ijmā‘

(A Critique of the Hierarchies of Consensus by Ibn Hazm). Had he held the view that Hell would perish, he would have critiqued Ibn Hazm’s assertion, but his silence serves as explicit confirmation of Ibn Hazm’s stance.

3. In his discussion of the concept of infinite regress (tasalsul), Ibn Taymiyyah stated that the vast majority of Muslims and even non-Muslims from various religious and philosophical traditions affirm its permissibility in the future. He then said:

“For indeed, the bliss of Paradise and the torment of Hell are both perpetual, with the renewal of occurrences within them.” His definitive assertion that the punishment of Hell is as eternal as the bliss of Paradise indicates that he held the same view concerning both,

affirming their perpetuity while also acknowledging the continual occurrence of new events within them indefinitely.
4. He refuted Kalamists who posited that all physical bodies—including those of Paradise and Hell—will eventually perish, deeming this view an innovated falsehood

contrary to the consensus of the pious predecessors and leading scholars of the Ummah. He stated: “This notion, espoused by many Kalamists—particularly the Jahmiyyah and others—regarding the universe’s beginning, mirrors their assertion about its end:

that all created bodies or motions, including Paradise and Hell, will ultimately perish… Such a claim by the Kalamists is an unprecedented heresy, unanimously rejected by the predecessors of the Ummah and its Imams.”
5. Ibn Taymiyyah asserted that the Qur’an explicitly affirms

the everlasting nature of Paradise and Hell in absolute terms, precluding any possibility of annihilation. However, he pointed out that what remains unspecified in the Qur’an are intricate details of what will transpire after inhabitants of Paradise and Hell have settled therein.

He stated: “Then, [the Qur’an] informed us of the absolute perpetuity of Paradise and Hell, without detailing what will unfold after that.”
6. He cited al-Ash‘arī (d. 324 AH) regarding the debate on whether Allah’s actions have an ultimate endpoint.

Al-Ash‘arī recorded the Jahmiyyah’s stance that divine actions must culminate in an end, a belief upon which they based their claim that both Paradise and Hell, along with their inhabitants, would eventually cease to exist—leaving only Allah as the final, sole existent.

However, al-Ash‘arī then stated:
“All adherents of Islam unanimously maintain that neither Paradise nor Hell has an end, and that both shall eternally remain. Likewise, the inhabitants of Paradise will forever enjoy its delights, and the inhabitants of Hell will forever

endure its torment, without cessation.”
Ibn Taymiyyah relayed this statement approvingly, without objection or critique, indicating that he aligned with the consensus of Muslims on the eternal nature of Hell.
7. Ibn Taymiyyah cited numerous passages from Ibn Khafif

in his Fatwa al-Hamawiyyah from his book I‘tiqad al-Tawhid bi-Ithbat al-Asma’ wa-al-Sifat (Belief in Tawhid by Affirming the Names and Attributes). He approvingly quoted him as saying: "We believe Allah created Paradise and Hell, and that they are to last forever, not to perish."

8. In his interpretation of Allah’s statement: "Everything will perish except His Face." (Al-Qasas 88), he approvingly cited the statement of Al-Dhahhak that everything perishes except Allah, Paradise, Hell, and the Throne.
9. He distinguished between the fate of disbelievers

and that of sinful believers. The disbelievers will remain in Hell and never leave it, whereas sinful believers may enter Hell but will eventually be released. He said:
"What further clarifies this distinction is that Allah, said: {He prepared for them a humiliating punishment}.

Punishment is in fact prepared for the disbelievers, for Hell was created for them; they must enter it and will never be released from it. As for believers guilty of major sins, they may enter it if Allah does not forgive them. But if they do, they will eventually leave—

even if after a long time. Allah said: {And fear the Fire which has been prepared for the disbelievers} (Aal ‘Imran 131). He thus commanded the believers to avoid usury, to fear Allah, and to fear the Fire that was prepared for the disbelievers, indicating that they are at risk

of entering it if they engage in usury and commit sins, even though Hell was prepared for disbelievers and not for them."
10. In his exegesis of: “But the wretched one will avoid it [the reminder]; who will [enter and] burn in the greatest Fire, neither dying therein nor living.

Ibn Taymiyyah classified the burning [Saly] in Hell into two categories: burning of eternity which is absolute, and temporary burning, which is for those who enter Hellfire then leave it. He said:
"The truth is that the meaning of burning here is in its absoluteness,

which is to abide in hell eternally in a way that torment is forever inflected on them. As for those who enter hell then exit, that is a type of burning which is not the absolute one."
11. In his exegesis of: “None will [enter to] burn therein except the most wretched one,

who had denied and turned away. But the righteous one will avoid it”, he mentioned two views of the scholars of interpretation, favoring the one that says: (they [the believers] will not burn therein the burning of eternity,) and added: (this view is the most correct).

This shows that those who are not among the pious; meaning those who are disbelievers—they will burn in it the [kind of] burning of eternity, with their torment renewing endlessly.
These texts clearly demonstrate that Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed eternity of Hell and its punishment.

After presenting these passages and those before them it remains to determine which view can be attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah regarding the question of Hell’s eternity or annihilation. To weigh the positions, some preliminary observations are necessary to help determine [his view].

Firstly: Those who claim that he believed in the annihilation of Hell base their argument on a single book, Al-Radd ‘ala Man Qala bi Fana’ al-Jannah wa-al-Nar. Previously, information about this book was scarce, to the point that some thought the refutations against Ibn Taymiyyah

were actually directed at Ibn al-Qayyim (d. 751 AH) in Hadi al-Arwah, because Ibn al-Qayyim had incorporated much of Ibn Taymiyyah’s work into his own book. Moreover, the printed version of Ibn Taymiyyah’s book contains some issues, as will be discussed.

In contrast, those who argue that Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed Hell’s eternity cite numerous passages from his well-known works, such as Minhaj al-Sunnah, Dar’ Ta‘arud al-‘Aql wa-al-Naql, and Bayan Talbis al-Jahmiyyah, and this is where it is expected of him to support this position,

unlike the first claim whose material is primarily based on a single book which the circumstances around its writing, authorship, manuscripts, and the scribes who inscribed them, may all be such that they weaken the evidentiary value of these texts, as we will discuss.

Secondly: The texts used by those who argue for his belief in Hell’s annihilation are ambiguous and not explicit in affirming this view. Meanwhile, the texts cited by those who affirm his belief in Hell’s eternity are clear and explicit.

A well-established principle among scholars is that ambiguous texts should be interpreted in light of explicit ones. It is only the misguided who abandon the clear and decisive in favor of the obscure and ambiguous, as Allah said: "As for those in whose hearts is deviation,

they follow that which is unclear thereof." (Aal Imran 7)
This is further supported by Ibn Taymiyyah’s own report of the consensus of the Salaf, the Imams and the entirety of Ahl al-Sunnah affirming Hell’s eternity, which is sufficient proof he upheld and defended this position.

Thirdly: The extant book of Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Radd ʿalā man Qāla bi-Fanāʾ al-Janna wa al-Nār (Refutation of Those Who Claim the Annihilation of Paradise and Hell), is not without certain textual gaps, in my view. The following are some notable observations on it:

a) The beginning of the book does not open with the basmala (In the name of Allah...) or the hamdala (Praise be to Allah...), like the rest of Ibn Taymiyyah’s other works. Instead, it commences with a continuation of a preceding discussion, which is his statement:

“And the People have different opinions regarding that...” then he listed them.
b) The manuscript opens with the phrase: “A section on the annihilation of Paradise and Hell.” This suggests that this is not the very first statement of Ibn Taymiyyah in the treatise,

especially since the first few pages in the book rely on a single copy—the initial segment from the Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya manuscript.
c) The copyists intervened in the body of the text, inserting statements such as: “The Shaykh—may Allah have mercy on him—

spoke about the Jahmiyyah and the Hudhayliyya... He supported the arguments of Ahl al-Sunnah, refuted the specious claims of innovators, and pointed to some evidences of Predominance of Allah’s mercy over His wrath...” None of this, however, is the words of Ibn Taymiyyah himself.

d) Ibn Taymiyyah states in the book: “The difference between the perpetuity of Paradise and Hell, both legally and rationally, is as follows: Legally, there are several arguments...” He then enumerates eight scriptural proofs but does not present the rational arguments,

because the manuscript from Al-Maktab al-Islāmī ends here, and the text was completed from the copy of Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣriyya, but [it continued] on a different topic that was mentioned in the beginning of the book when Ibn Taymiyyah refuted the Jahmiyyah

—[this topic is namely] the verses affirming the perpetuity of Paradise, which he introduces in a form of conjunction to what was mentioned prior: “As for the verses on the perpetuity of Paradise...” However, the preceding passage does not coherently allow for such a section

to follow as a conjunction of it, and Allah knows best.
e) al-Ṣanʿānī (d. 1182 AH), in his response to Ibn Taymiyyah, cites texts and hadiths emphasizing the predominance of divine mercy—texts that do not appear in the printed edition of the book. Al-Ṣanʿānī states:

“Then Shaykh al-Islām argued for the vastness of Allah’s mercy, demonstrating that it encompasses even those who did no good deeds, and cited hadiths indicating that mercy extends to disobedient monotheists...” I have already noted that the copyists of Ibn Taymiyyah’s book

claimed that he alluded to some evidences of the predominance of divine satisfaction over wrath.
Al-Ṣanānī also mentioned some of the proofs Ibn Taymiyyah employed including the hadith of the man who instructed his family to cremate his body after death [and scatter his ashes].

However, this and other related hadiths are absent from the published text.
Fourthly: Ibn Taymiyyah’s book does not indicate he holds the opinion of the annihilation of Hell. This is evident for several reasons:
1. Ibn al-Qayyim—who transmitted most of Ibn Taymiyyah’s treatise

in his book Hādī al-Arwāḥ and who generally agrees with his teacher’s views—never explicitly affirmed the annihilation of Hell. He merely cited the Qur'anic verse: “Indeed, your Lord does what He wills” (Hud: 107). Had Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly supported the annihilation of Hell,

Ibn al-Qayyim would have either stated it plainly [as his and his teacher’s view] or responded to it and engaged with it critically [if he disagreed with ibn Taymiyyah]. However, he did not do any of that, thus becoming supporting evidence that Ibn Taymiyyah did not explicitly

affirm the view of the annihilation of Hell in this book.
2. The book is structured as a presentation of the position held by Proponents of Hell's annihilation in a dialectical argumentative format. Ibn Taymiyyah lays out the evidences employed by both groups,

and when presenting the arguments of Proponents of Hell's annihilation, he does so in a manner that might give the impression that he is of them.
[I—Abdelbarr—say: It is clearly the style of Shaykh al-Islam who presents the opponents’ views in the strongest way possible,

without any straw-man, and often even better than the opponents’ own presentation of their arguments. Such was the integrity and justice of our Imam May Allah have mercy upon him.] This justification is based on several indications:

a) When Ibn al-Qayyim presented the arguments for the perpetuity of Hell and began discussing them, he explicitly stated that he is “reporting” this position, he said: “The proponents of annihilation argued that...” After concluding their discussions, he stated:

“This is the extent of what both parties have advanced on this matter.”
b) Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly states that the perpetuity of Hellfire is a matter of consensus among the Salaf, the imams, and the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah. It would not be possible for him,

or anyone of his stature, to go against this consensus, especially considering the fact he reported the view of the proponents of annihilation, in the form “that they argue for the position of Hell's annihilation using the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the statements of the companions

WHILE those who argue for its perpetuity have neither Qur'an nor Sunnah nor statements from the Companions to support them.” How conceivable would it be for him to report consensus and agreement upon a matter, emphasizing it in his various works while simultaneously holding

this statement [as his view]? Clearly this passage is a report of the statement of the proponents of annihilation, not that he endorses it.
[I, Abdelbarr, say: The meaning is that such a text cannot possibly represent his own view because, even if one may argue

that he is arguing for it, it would be unfathomable for him to claim that those on the opposite side have absolutely no evidence—neither from the Qur’an, nor the Sunnah, nor the tradition of the Companions—when he himself has reported numerous evidences from revelation

and the consensus of the scholars. He is, at the very least, aware of that. And in the case that he held a different view from them, he would acknowledge their existence.
This indeed reflects the stance of someone who genuinely assumes that the proponents of Hell’s eternity

have no evidence, which cannot factually be Ibn Taymiyyah’s position—further reinforcing the fact that he is presenting their view as they conceive of it. Furthermore, even if we were to entertain the notion that he once held an opinion and later changed it,

that too would be unfathomable. How could he have held an opinion that he had previously stated was the consensus of the entire Ummah, only to later adopt its complete opposite—without a single mention of the fact that he once held such a view and then changed it?

In fact, Ibn Taymiyyah in this treatise was not merely restating the correct view of Ahl al-Sunnah, as he had done before—which would take only a single line of text. Rather, this was a particularly scholarly work written in response to one of his elite students,

who requested a comprehensive understanding of this complex issue. Thus, his answer was accordingly detailed, offering a thorough examination of the various views along with discussions on the evidences employed. It is by no means a “fatwa” directed at the general public,

where he would typically state the correct position and move on. This approach is well known from Ibn Taymiyyah in his advanced works, where his thorough examination and extensive quotations sometimes extend over numerous pages, purely listing the opponents' arguments.

Additionally, along with considering that this is a presentation of the various views, one must view them within the proper context and background, which is that the author remains committed to his explicit original position and is not obliged to continuously restate it

whenever discussing opposing views. The default assumption is that he remains upon his original stance unless he explicitly states that he has switched to a different view—which Shaykh al-Islam never did. Thus, he remains attributed to his default position,

as it would be a form of injustice to attribute one to a position he never explicitly claimed responsibility for, and had indeed opposed it and supported its opposite, not once or twice, and not in one book or two! Even the notion that he sympathized with the opposing view

is inconceivable in this context, as such a shift would also require an explicit statement—something entirely absent as well.]
c) Both Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim align with each other in the fact that they were recounting the position of Proponents of annihilation.

That is because Ibn al-Qayyim transmits most of Ibn Taymiyyah’s material which he mentioned in Al-Radd ʿalā man Qāla bi-Fanāʾ al-Janna wa al-Nār after having directly asked his teacher about this particular matter. Furthermore, they also align with each other in the fact that

they explicitly upheld the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jamāʿah regarding the eternity of Hellfire in numerous places in their books.
Fifthly: Another indication that Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on them) did not affirm the annihilation of Hell

is that none of their students transmitted this belief from them, nor did any of their students adopt such a view, especially considering that their students were numerous and very sophisticated scholars.
For instance, Imam al-Dhahabi (d. 748 AH, may Allah have mercy on him),

when discussing the biography of Ibn Burhan—one of the scholars of the fifth century who held the view of the annihilation of Hell—refuted him, saying: "His argument for the exit of the disbelievers from Hell is based on the numerical implication of the verse:

{Remaining therein for ages} [Al-Naba: 23], yet this does not hold when considering the generality of Allah’s statements: {And they will not come out of the Fire} [Al-Baqara: 167], and {Abiding therein forever} [Al-Nisa: 169], among others."

He then mentioned that he had dedicated a separate treatise to discussing this issue.
Likewise, Al-Hafidh Ibn Kathir (d. 774 AH, may Allah have mercy on him), when addressing Ibn Burhan’s (d. 456 AH) stance on the annihilation of Hell in his biography,

he quoted a statement from Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 597 AH,) that condemned this view as contradicting the belief of Muslims, thereby approving of it.
Al-Hafidh Ibn Rajab (d. 795 AH, may Allah have mercy on him) also stated: "The punishment of the disbelievers in Hell

will neither be lightened nor cease, nor will it be alleviated, but rather continue eternally."
He added: "The inhabitants of Hell will remain in hope of relief until death is slaughtered. At that moment, they will utterly despair, and their regret and sorrow will intensify."

In contrast, none of the students of Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) have recorded any statement from him affirming the annihilation of Hell, nor have they refuted him for it in any of their works.

In summary, what appears to me—and Allah knows best—is that Ibn Taymiyyah upheld the belief of the predecessors of this Ummah, its great Imams, and the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jama‘ah, that Hell, like Paradise, will neither perish nor be annihilated.

This is the position he explicitly states throughout his works, and Allah knows best and is most wise.
If it is evident that this is Ibn Taymiyyah’s (may Allah have mercy on him) position, then there is no need for me—after this—to delve into the statements of those

who attempt to excuse him for his statements through which they assume he held the view of Hell’s annihilation, nor to engage in refuting those who declared him a disbeliever for this matter. And Allah knows best.

Source:
"Claims of the Opponents of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah – A Presentation and Critique", by Shaikh Abdullah ibn Salih al-Ghusn, Pages 509–524, with abbreviation. Translated by Abdelbarr El Malki.

التصنيفات

المزيد من هذا الكاتب

مواضيع ذات صلة

الأكثر اعجابا

التصنيفات

المزيد من هذا الكاتب

مواضيع ذات صلة

الأكثر اعجابا

فك الثريد