Ibn Taymiyyah on hellfire

Is he claiming Hadhrat ʿAbdullāh bin ʿAbbās رضي الله عنه and other companions have same belief of Hell like Ibn Taymiyyah and his ilk?

 

The following is an excerpt from Hamza Yusuf's essay appended to the Study Quran. Notice how he indicates that Hell fire perishing is actually a minority but valid position in sunni Islam. His final paragraph clearly indicates that he supports this position.

During the early period of Islam, scholars differed about the duration of Hell. The majority of them argued that Hell is perpetual and an actualized state that never ends. But some groups argued otherwise, citing verses that hinted at an end to Hell’s torment and arguing that this was more consistent with God’s saying, “My Mercy exceeds My Wrath.”⁶⁶ Thus the scholars fell into three camps. The first believed that although Hell did not end, its punishments and torments did. Their proof for this was the verse: Truly Hell lies in ambush, a place unto which the rebellious return, to tarry therein for ages (78:21–23). This was the opinion of Aḥmad ibn Taymiyyah (d. 7281328), Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (d. 751/1350), and Ibn ʿArabī; a similar opinion that the majority of Hell’s denizens are ultimately released also appears to have been held by al-Ghazzālī, as is evident in his Fayṣal altafriqah (Decisive Criterion). The second camp comprised the annihilationists, who argued that Hell is extinguished entirely. Finally, the last group comprised the majority of scholars, who adhered to the notion of perpetual punishment understood literally.

Ibn ʿAbbās and others among the first community and Companions of the Prophet, however, relate statements that, nonetheless, indicate the vast Mercy of God in the Afterlife, such as, “Surely a day will come over Hell when it will be like a field of corn that has dried up after flourishing for a while.”⁶⁷ Stronger still is the following sound ḥadīth, “Then God will say, ‘The angels, the prophets, and the faithful have all in their turn interceded for the sinners, and now there remains none to intercede for them except the most Merciful of those who show mercy.’ So, God will then remove a handful of people from the Fire who never worked any good.”⁶⁸

The Quran also states: As for those who are wretched, they shall be in the Fire, wherein there shall be for them groaning and wailing, abiding therein for so long as the heavens and the earth endure, save as thy Lord wills. Surely thy Lord does whatsoever He desires (11:106–7). The following verse then describes Paradise: And as for those who are felicitous, they shall be in the Garden, abiding therein for so long as the heavens and the earth endure, save as thy Lord wills—a gift unfailing (11:108).

 

https://eshaykh.com/doctrine/the-torment-of-hell-coming-to-an-end/

Apparently an answer from Gibril Haddad on this issue. The video in the OP actually refutes that any Sahaba held this position as the statements should be interpreted as meaning the punishment comes to an end for the believers only (as they are removed from the fire).

 

as sh. Asrar often says in his popular end-times lecture series: we are in the period known in Islamic eschatology as "ad-duhaymah" - wherein, a Muslim is only one social media post away from kufr!

he reads a tweet on his smartphone, lying on a sofa (enjoying a pastry perhaps) and believes in it and crosses into kufr without any apparent sign - while his eternal life has just been destroyed - all due to his ignorance and making light of religious matters.

nas' al Allahu ta'ala 'aafiyah

 

Here Israr Ahmed says that he disagrees with the kufri position of iqbal although he justifies it in some way and says its not the position of sunni Islam. Whereas he should have said its not the position of Islam at all:



Here he is attributing the position of hellfire coming to an end to ibn taymiyyah and ibn arabi as if its a valid position:



I'm not saying they held those views and that it's not a misattribution by the way.

1. It's sad that people with such high followings are promoting this kufri position.

2. They don't outright say they subscribe to it except in the case of zakir and shabir. They say 'ibn taymiyyah believed it, I don't agree with him', thereby attempting to legitimise the position as a minority opinion, which is kufr in itself.

3. Attacks on the doctrines necessarily known within the religion is one of the main reasons why Judaism and Christianity have fallen apart. For example, religious Jews have wide ranging opinions on whether there is such a thing as heaven and hell on the first place, with some believing in annihilation. Christians have wide ranging views on something as fundamental as the inerrancy of their own religious text. Once the doctrinal boundaries of religion x are removed, there is nothing to distinguish religion x from religion y. We must safeguard knowledge of the doctrines necessarily known in the religion because the public is being duped by the likes of yasir, zakir, etc. Teaching correct basic aqeedah is paramount.

4. Yasir and israr and others have gone astray by behaving with a cult mentality with regard to ibn taymiyyah etc. It's the same with the deos. When they see some famous personality x claim kufr position y, they should disassociate from x rather than promote y! Same thing with the hamza fan boys. Rather than justify this nonsense, they should have recognised it for what it was and not promoted it.

 

Here is shabir ally, a famous apologist, saying that the view hellfire will end is a minority view and thus acceptable:



These guys such as yasir, zakir etc have had millions of people view videos on this specific topic between them - think of the confusion they have caused. How many people will have walked away believing its acceptable to hold this opinion now? And have the English speaking ulema done enough to rebut them? It shouldn't be something that needs to be answered because it's so clear cut but look at the reach and following they have.

 

Amendment- not sure if ibn hazm said the same thing or if he said something similar about taking a son if He Wants (I seek refuge in Allah).

If someone could clarify the level of kufr that this reaches (as per my previous post), I would be grateful.

 

I thought that:

1. The kufr of saying Allah can become human if He Wills is at the same level of the deobandi kufr of saying lying is within the Divine Power i.e. doesn't take you out of Islam. Thus takfeer isn't made of Ibn Hazm who said the same thing as Zakir.

2. The kufr of saying heaven and hell will end takes you out of Islam due to being a rejection of the necessities of religion.

 

yes, that is what I was referring to. thank you.

 

Concept of God in Major Religions
Dr. Zakir Abdul Karim Naik
Islamic Research Foundation

https://d1.islamhouse.com/data/en/ih_books/single/en_Concept_of_God_in_Major_Religions.pdf

Relevant extracts from above book follow below.

------------
Page 18
Some people argue that God can do everything, then why cannot He take human form? If God wishes He can become a human being. But then He no longer remains God because the qualities of God and human beings in many respects are completely incompatible.

Page 19
The attributes of Almighty God preclude any evil since God is the fountainhead of justice, mercy and truth. God can never be thought of as doing an ungodly act. Hence we cannot imagine God telling a lie, being unjust, making a mistake, forgetting things, and such other human failings. Similarly God can do injustice if he wants but He will never do it because being unjust is an ungodly act.

The Holy Qur'an says:
"Allah is never unjust In the least degree"
([Holy Qur'an 4:40)

God can be unjust if he wants, but the moment God does injustice He ceases to be God.

 

No, I am not referring to this video, in the book he clearly stated Allah can become human but He will not do that. I post the reference when I find it.

 

This is his speech. He does put the condition "for arguments sake" when answering the question but in essence refutes the idea in his own way.

 

zakir has bigger kufr than this, in one of his book refuting christians he writes that Allah Ta'ala has the bpower to become a haman, but He will no do so because then He will mot remain the Creator.

is there any jahalah bigger than this?

I will dig out the reference later when I get time.

 

Here is a video of zakir naik making a huge blunder in this regard:



1. He doesn't seem to have taken this position from ibn taymiyyah (since he's not a scholar and can't understand Arabic from what I know, he can't access the original works and probably wasn't aware). He seems to have come up with this due to a faulty engagement of his own logic

2. His answer should be that whilst heaven and hell last forever, this does not mean they are eternal as they are contingent and had a beginning etc. Instead, he blunders around and says heaven and hell have an end. He has provided this answer in lectures to audiences around the world via his TV presence. I shudder to think if anyone has been duped by him

3. Many people have spoken against zakir due to being a ghaye muqallid like Albani. In reality, this kufr is worse than any of that. I believe he holds another kufr position regarding a different matter which I may post about separately after rewatching the relevant video.

4. I don't know if he has changed his opinion but his son clearly states here that people stay in heaven forever here:

https://www.facebook.com/zakirnaik/...ntly-is-there-life-after-th/3916663605027808/

I don't think yasir and hamza combined have a reach as far as zakir does. This position of his is what should have been refuted whilst people were busy discussing whether you can ask for mercy for yazeed or not.

 

I completely forgot, Shaykh Abu Adam has asserted many times that that was in fact ibn Taymiyyah's position, and that wahabi elders have been hiding it. So yeah, if that's the case, I do ruju3 on accepting wahabi excuses for him on this point.

Regardless, my point stands that this sleeping fitnah was awoken in the west by mark hanson.

https://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/...s-and-not-affirming-various-other-attributes/



---

aside- 'eternal' is not the right word to use for hellfire or any creation. it refers to being without a beginning and end. "khuld" can't be translated to eternal... lest someone gets confused.

 

I would also have been inclined to believe that Yasir is misrepresenting or has misunderstood- but that is not the impression that I got from the talk given by the Shaykh in the OP. And Yasir does say that Ibn al Qayyim doesn't provide a definitive answer as to what he believes himself in Hadi al Arwah and that he leaves it ambiguous. I am less inclined to believe the wahabbis, tbh- they are known for their whitewashing of the historical figures that they're infatuated with.

Unfortunately, due to Yasir's popularity (that particular video has over 44k views), I shudder to think how many people's imaan has now been ruined by accepting that a kufr position is just a minority position within Sunni Islam (according to him). I believe Gibril Haddad has an answer on eshaykh where he makes it seem like this is a minority position amongst the sahaba as well!

Something interesting that Yasir brought up in the same video is that Iqbal appears to have denied the existence of heaven and hell completely- see here: http://www.allamaiqbal.com/works/prose/english/reconstruction/index.htm

Iqbal says the following: However, according to the teachings of the Qur’an the ego’s re-emergence brings him a “sharp sight” (50: 22) whereby he clearly sees his self-built “fate fastened round his neck.” Heaven and Hell are states, not localities. Their descriptions in the Qur’an are visual representations of an inner fact, i.e. character. Hell, in the words of the Qur’an, is “God’s kindled fire which mounts above the hearts” – the painful realization of one’s failure as a man. Heaven is the joy of triumph over the forces of disintegration. There is no such thing as eternal damnation in Islam. The word “eternity” used in certain verses, relating to Hell, is explained by the Qur’an itself to mean only a period of time (78: 23). Time cannot be wholly irrelevant to the development of personality. Character tends to become permanent; its reshaping must require time. Hell, therefore, as conceived by the Qur’an, is not a pit of everlasting torture inflicted by a revengeful God; it is a corrective experience which may make a hardened ego once more sensitive to the living breeze of Divine Grace. Nor is Heaven a holiday. Life is one and continuous. Man marches always onward to receive ever fresh illuminations from an Infinite Reality which “every moment appears in a new glory”. And the recipient of Divine illumination is not merely a passive recipient. Every act of a free ego creates a new situation, and thus offers further opportunities of creative unfolding.

How exactly has he been getting called Allamah all these years with kufr such as the above?

 

if i remember well from the days that i followed his diatribes, i think keller too doesn't take any solid stance on both these kufr positions, but rather gives some airy fairy answers in trying to show himself off as an expert on all the nuances in Ibn 3Arabi's Fusus and Futuhat and so on. if anyone knows that keller has a clear and crisp stand on this, please advise.

 

this position was a sleeping fitnah, and the one to revive it in the west was mark hanson, only to sound academic, much like how iaw roused the sleeping fitnah of ibn taymiyah himself. (and as usual, i wouldn't just not be surprised, rather i EXPECT him to lie and misrepresent, even ibn taymiyah, or anyone for that matter, to push his agenda. i'm inclined to generously accept the wahabi's excuse for ibn taymiya and rather believe mark hanson and yasir qadhi have blatantly misrepresented his position, see below)

mark hanson keeps propagating that real or perceived position of ibn taymiyah, as well as the kufr position erroneously attributed to Ibn 3Arabi (namely that hellfire will become cool and soothing for its dwellers) for the obvious reason of pushing his perennialist agenda. he has brought them up in his essay in the study Quran too.

lately, yasir qadhi too has been playing fast and loose with wahabiism itself and becoming a modernist, earning the ire of any proper wahabis in the process. (much like how a lot of hard core devbandis look down on faraz rabbani now)

the wahabi cult distances itself from this clearly, and says that

https://www.islamweb.net/ar/fatwa/64739/

apparently - according to above link defending ibn taymiyah - ibn qayyim discussed arguments for and against the termination of hellfire in his book Hadi Al-Arwah, and attributed them to ibn taymiyah, and ibn taymiyah only mentioned them to cite them and refute them, not to report or endorse them

https://islamqa.info/ar/answers/26792/النار-لا-تفنى-ولا-يفنى-اهلها

i never bothered investigating it, but as i said, i'd rather take the wahabis word for it and refute the mostrosity of mark hanson and yasid qadhi.

---

likewise, for the patently kufr position attributed to Ibn 3Arabi rahimahullah (namely that hellfire will become cool and soothing to its dwellers, the same way fire became cool and soothing to Ibrahim 3alaihis salam), senior imams of tasawwuf have clarified that this isn't his position, and is a blatant tahreef. (not sure if it is Imam Sha3rani or another imam)

 

This should be a separate thread, it doesn't fit here. But on this topic, see what Yasir Qadhi says here:



1. He claims ibn taymiyyah didn't make it clear in this book that this was actually the position he held- is this why we don't hear people criticising him for holding this view? See 39:30 onwards. And how does the wahabi cult attempt to justify this?

2. He states that Ibn Qayyim also didn't confirm he held this view- rather, after presenting his argument for it, he states 'if you ask me what I think, I will say Allah knows best'. Is this why there was no takfeer done of him for this view also? See 45:00 onwards. Although it seems from the answer he was unsure as to the permanence of the hellfire, something every muslim child will know!

3. Yasir claims here that he doesn't hold the same opinion but legitimises it as opposed to calling it out for the kufr that it is. Unfortunately it seems a few ordinary laymen have perhaps adopted this opinion- see the comments below the video.