Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim on the Fate

Of the People of Hellfire

A Reply to the Argument on the Punishment of Hellfire Ending for the Disbelievers
Author: Ali Boriqee

Introduction
The topic of Ibn Taymiyyah's belief on the inhabitants of hellfire is somewhat confusing when different people
intertwine six different subjects as one. It is important for all to distinguish between
1. the belief that hellfire will end but not paradise
2. the belief that hellfire's punishment will end, but not hellfire
3. the belief that hellfire and paradise will end
4. the belief that the hellfire and its punishment on its inhabitants will end on all people
5. the belief that the hellfire and its punishment on its inhabitants will not end for the disbelievers while the believers
will be pulled out after being purified in it
6. the belief that the hellfire and its punishment on its inhabitants will not end for the disbelievers and the believers
I will, inshaallah, weed out the unnecessary arguments as which do not pertain to the subject.
The unnecessary ones are
3. the belief that hellfire and paradise will end
6. the belief that the hellfire and its punishment on its inhabitants will not end for the disbelievers and the believers
The reason for weeding out argument 3 is because no one advocated that both will end except for some of the ahlulkalaam, and their opinions do not matter. As for argument 6, this is the argument of the khawaarij and likewise their
opinion does not matter.
So what remains is 1, 2, 4, and 5, which are essentially 4 arguments. Thus they are
#1. the belief that hellfire will end but not paradise
#2. the belief that hellfire's punishment will end, but not hellfire
#3. the belief that the hellfire and its punishment on its inhabitants will end on all people
#4. the belief that the hellfire and its punishment on its inhabitants will not end for the disbelievers while the believers
will be pulled out after being purified in it
The conventional view of ahlus-sunnah wal-jama'ah is represented in argument #4, which is essentially that hellfire will

remain forever and its punishment will likewise be ever inflicting forever, but on the disbelievers whereas the residency
of the believers will be in the hellfire for a fixed time.
From this point out, the main arguments in this research boils down to arguments 2 and 3 because the already
established viewpoint highlighted in argument 4 is not really in scrutiny here as everyone knows it by default. Therefore
the crucial arguments from here on out are simply arguments 2 and 3, with marginal references, if at all, to argument 1.
To continue even boiling the matter down a bit more, I believe that the bulk of the material is essentially dedicated to
the theme of argument 2, which is that hellfire will continue to exist, but that its punishment inflicted on the people will
eventually cease and is not actually abada i.e. everlasting as Allah Himself asserts.
Before I continue, one of the purposes in researching this topic is because I feel that the current existing speech
provided by a respected researcher Abu Rumaysah on the topic is deficient and somewhat crippling in the flow of logic
as it tends to jump around the issue. Therefore, I feel a more suitable reply to the topic from another sunni angle is
somewhat needed particularly for the generality of the Muslims.
As for the references, the existing material in the English language, much to my surprise, are more than the two known
materials
1. Abu Rumaysah's essay titled "The Accusation that ibn Taymiyyah held the Hellfire to come to an end"
2. A research by Jon Hoover titled "Islamic Universalism: Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya's Salafi Deliberations on the Duration of
Hell-Fire"
Other material includes
3. A handful of loosely translated textual material.
4. A work titled Muslim Scholarly Discussions on Salvation and the Fate of Others which is a research conducted by
Muhammad Hasan Khalil in 2007 in the University of Michigan, PhDs
5. Another work titled The Creation and Duration of Paradise and Hell in Islamic Theology by Binyamen Abrahamov
6. I found another work in Arabic titled Aqeedtu-Fanaai-Naar, Bayna Ibn Arabi wa Ibn Taymiyyah wa Ibnul-Qayyim i.e.
the Creed on the Eternality of the Fire, between Ibn Arabi, Ibn Taymiyyah, and ibnul-Qayyim by Aisha bint Yusif alBanaee, University of Qatar.

Section One: The Arguments

What some salafis have misconstrued is between the arguments that "Ibn Taymiyyah held that the punishment for the
people of hell will end" versus the argument "Ibn Taymiyyah held that the hellfire will end". The two arguments are not
the same. In other words, just because Ibn Taymiyyah held that the people of hellfire will eventually be lifted from its
punishment does not entail that he held that hellfire itself will cease to exist. Thus it is important for anyone interested
to have a discerning mindset and to not confuse two arguments as one.
At any rate, what I will do is to provide two extremely contradictory arguments. The First Argument is centered on the
preposition that the all the people of the hellfire, including the disbelievers will eventually be evacuated from hellfire.
This position is what is being hinted at by Jon Hoover.

Argument #1: The Claim that Ibn Taymiyyah held that the punishment of the people of hellfire will eventually end and
its inhabitants will vacate it
Jon Hoover is the only source found in English which poses this argument or so I have thought. The other works provide
English renderings of Arabic sources. I found loosely translated statements and I as well found the Arabic renditions for
this argument. Hoover does not provide the Arabic sources so I found them elsewhere.
Ibnul-Qayyim says in Shifa al Aleel:




": " "
{ : "


{ : " : "
{ : " :
" " : " " : "

.

rough translation
I asked Shaykh al Islam Ibn taymiyyah about this and he initially said this is a great issue and refused to answer. Then I
read the comments of al Kiththi and sent them to him in his last session. Upon this he wrote his famous book on the issue
in which he said he was on the opinion of Amir al Muminin Ali b Abi Talib who said Allah will put the people of jannah in
jannah and the people of the fire in the fire and then he will do with his slaves what He wills. Ibn Taymiyyah also said I
am on the opinion of Ibn Abbas who said no one may rule regarding the creation of God whether they will be in jannah or
in the fire and then he quoted the verse 'except as Your Lord wills'. Ibn Taymiyyah also said I am on the opinion of Abu
Said al Khudri who said 'in the end the Quran is saying that Your Lord does what He wills. Ibn Taymiyyah also said I am on
the opinion of Qatadah and Zayd and 'Ata who said Allah does say that the reward of the people of jannah will be
endless but he does not inform us of what He wishes to do with the people of the fire. Ibn Taymiyah then says that the
statement that the punishment of Allah is to last forever as is Allah is a statement about the acts of Allah which is not
based on knowledge and the clear texts do not lead us to this view. Allah knows best.
In a book titled " "
i.e. "Refutation on whoever says that hellfire and paradise ceases and a comparative outlook of sayings in this topic"
In this book, it says
) 5( )4( .
- -
.

rough translation:
the arguments presented from the Quran to prove that the fire will remain forever do not prove this, all they prove is that

the people of the fire will remain in the fire as long as it remains and will not be taken out before by intercession
Then he addresses the arguments of those who says both jannah and jahannam remain forever and says:
Chapter:
i.e the chapter on the difference between the eternality of jannah and jahannam

In it he says:

.
rough translation:
Allah tells us the reward of jannah is eternal and never ending in more than one place in his book and he tells us its
people will not leave it. As for the fire he does not inform us that it will stay forever. Rather He says its people will not
leave it. As for the fire and its torment He does not inform us that it will remain.
He quotes the following three verses to prove scripturally that the fire will not remain forever

al naba' 23
al Anam 128

Al Hud 107


He also presents rational arguments for this, for example:
the sixth argument
{ : }
{ :}





:}
.
.
rough translation:
Jannah is from the consequences of his mercy and forgiveness and fire is his punishment, then he quotes verses to prove
this then says rewarding and blessing is a necessary consequence of His names and of His Self so it must remain
alongside His eternal names and attributes. The punishment is a creation of his and the creation can end such as the
dunya and others, especially one which created for another.
In another section of this work, it states

":
4( " ) .

( ) 5


.
:

). (1
- -
. ( )2

: " :
" ( )6
( )7
Brief Synopsis:
the punishment of Allah has to have a purpose and the only ones to deny this were the jahmiyyah and those who
followed them like Ash'ari. So there has to be a wise purpose behind Allah punishing people in jahannam and when that
wise purpose is fulfilled, they will have to enter jannah since we know that death will already have been sacrificed before
that in the form of a ram. So the fire will end and its people will enter jannah
Furthermore, Haafidh Ibnul-Qayyim says in al-Haadee al-Arwah





rough translation:
Allahs punishes His slaves not because He needs to do so, nor because of a benefit which returns to Him, nor because He
wants to prevent some harm or avoid pain for Himself with His punishment. He is above all this. He is exalted above all
defects and shortcomings. His punishment is not mere play, devoid of wisdom and wise, praiseworthy purposes. He is
exalted above all this as well. So the punishment can either be for the purpose of
(i) completing the blessings on His friends and loved ones or
(ii) for some purpose which relates to the unfortunate ones being punished, for curing them or
(iii) it could be for both reasons.
In all three cases, the punishment is something which is required for another reason, not for its own sake. It is a means
and not an end. What this means is that once the purpose behind punishment is achieved, there is no need for it to
continue. Now the blessing and happiness of Allahs friends is not dependant or completed by being subject to the
punishment of the unfortunate ones, nor is it dependant on their punishment being eternal and continuous, even if there
is a blessing for them in the basic act of punishment.

Summary:
mankind was created on the fitrah of tawhid to worship Allah alone. Now if this fitrah, despite its strength, can be
overcome by the effects of the sins of this world etc. then why cant the effects of those sins be overcome by the
punishment of the fire so that eventually, everyone returns to his original fitrah. When this happens, i.e. when the
punishment has burnt away everyones sins, there is no purpose in punishing them forever This is because the
punishment is not in vain but for a purpose and when this wise purpose is fulfilled there is no reason to continue it. Allah
does not benefit from the punishment of His slaves the way a wronged person benefits from the punishment of his
oppressor. He does not punish His slaves for this purpose but in order to purify them and as a mercy to them. So his
punishment is for their benefit even if it causes them to suffer greatly. Likewise, the punishment inflicted by way of
implementing His hudood punishments in this dunya is a benefit for the one receiving it. Allah calls this punishment an
adhab and Allah creates a cure for every ailment and the more serious the ailment the more extreme its cure just as a
merciful doctor will cauterize his patient again and again and if he needs to cut off a limb he will do so.
Now, Ibnul-Qayyim then says
Ibn Qayyim says:

^ ^ ^ ^

rough translation:
There is no doubt that those who relate this opinion from Umar mean all of the people of the fire who are in it. As for the
people who are in there because of their sins then they know, as do those besides them, that they will leave it and that
they will not be in there as long as the sands of Alij nor an period which is close to itRather, what Allah informs us of is
correct and true and nothing contrary to it can happen. But when its time is over and it comes to an end like the dunya
then there will not be a fire, nor any punishment.

Argument #2: The Claim that Ibn Taymiyyah Held that the Punishment of the people of hellfire will never cease and is
forever

i.e.
They said: [The occurrence of] an endless chain of events in the future is permitted in the view of the majority of the
Muslims and [in the view of ]others from the people of other religions and [in the view of] other than the people of
religion. For the bliss of Paradise and the punishment of the Hellfire are permanent (eternal) alongside the reccurrence
(renewal) of events therein. But that was rejected by al-Jahm bin Safwan who claimed that Paradise and Hellfire will
[cease and] perish, and Abu Hudhayl al-Allaaf claimed that the movements of the inhabitants of Paradise and Hellfire
will be cut off (and expire), and they will remain in eternal rest (sukun, absence of motion). This is because when they
believed that an endless chain of events is impossible in the past and the future, they expressed this saying on account of
which the leading scholars of Islaam declared them misguided.
[Source: Manhaj as-Sunnah, Tahqeeq Muhammad Rashad Salim, 1/146)]
next

i.e.
And he was asked: About the hadeeth of Anas bin Malik from the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) that he said,
"Seven never die, never perish and never taste perishment. The Hellfire, its inhabitants, the Preserved Tablet, the Pen,
the Kursee, and the Arsh", is this hadith sahih (authentic) or not?
So he replied: This narration with this wording is not from the speech of the Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), but
it is from the speech of some of the Scholars. And the Salaf of the Ummah and its leading scholars, and all of Ahl alSunnah wal-Jamaa'ah are agreed that there are from the created things those which will not cease to exist, and will
never entirely perish, such as Paradise and Hellfire, the Throne and other than that. And none spoke of the expiration of
all of the created things except a faction from the innovating Ahl al-Kalaam, such as al-Jahm bin Safwan and whoever
agreed with him from the Mu'tazilah and their likes. This saying is futile, it opposes the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of
His Messenger and the consensus of the Salaf of this Ummah and its leading scholars. Just as there is evidence in that of
the eternity of Paradise and its inhabitants, and the eternity of other than that which this page does not suffice for it to

be mentioned. Some of the factions of Ahl al-Kalaam and the Mutafalsifah have argued for the impossibility of the
expiration of all created things using rational evidences. And Allaah knows best.
Interestingly, Haafidh Ibnul-Qayyim then gives his tafseer on the ayaah

rough translation:
As for your statement that the Quran says the fire will remain and it says it will not end, where is there even a single
daleel for it? Yes, what the Quran proves is that the kuffar will be there forever and they will not leave it [he goes on to
list various such verses which is highlighted in the arabic text above] this is not the point of contention. The point of
contention is something else and that is: does the fire remain forever or is it something for which Allah has decreed an
endAs for the kuffar remaining there forever, and not entering jannah until the camel passes through the eye of a
needle, then there is no disagreement on this from the sahaba, the tabieen and the ahl al Sunnahthe only ones to
disagree with this were the jews andthe people of bidah.

Ibn Taymiyyah quotes Abu Hasan al-Ashari who said

The whole of Ahl al-Islam stated the following: "There is no end to Janna and Jahannam [Hell]. Both of them will
continue to exist. In the same way, people of Janna will continue to be rewarded [given benefactions] and the people of
Jahannam will continue to be punished. There is no end to this." 1

He quotes this utilizing it as a refutation against the jahmiyyah and does not critique it.

Source: Ibn Taymiyya, Dar' Ta`arud al-`Aqli wa al-Naql, I, 406.

Original source: al-Ash`ari, Maqalat al-Islamiyyin, 164.

Section two: Attributions To the Salaf:

The narrations
: .
i.e.
Ibn al Mundhir reports from al Hasan from Umar, radi Allah anhu that he said if the people of the fire were to be in the
fire even as much as the sand of 'alij [a vast desert] they would have a day when they would come out of it.
: { .
Tabari reports from Ibn Abbas that he said regarding the statement of Allah [they will be in the fire forever], ''except as
Your Lord wishes'' that this was an exception which Allah had imposed on the fire preventing it from consuming them.

Ishaq bin Rahawayh reports from Abu Hurayrah that there will come a day when there will not be anyone left in
jahannam and then he recited the verse....

. :
{ :

Abdur-Razzaq, Ibn Jareer (at-tabari), Ibn Abi Haatim on the authority of Qataadah on the ayaah of Allah "except what
your Lord wishes", they said 'Allah knows the doubling (of punishment) that will befall on them'. Reported by the
following Companions agreeing with this view: Umar, Abu Hurayrah, Ibn Masud, Jabir, Abu Saeed - he then discusses
various views of exactly who will leave the fire and how.

What Has Been Stated About These Narrations by Various Scholars

Imaam al-Albanee in his Takhreej of al-Aqeedah at-Tahaawiyyah says they are not authentic.
Shaykh Abdur-Rahman al-Faqih likewise says there is nothing reported from the companions that are authentic.
Moreover, here is an interesting analysis by Shaykh Sulayman bin Naasir al-Ulwaan
Im not going to translate the whole thing, but to bring a summary of its content.





.
:
()

() 157 1
)). (( :

() .
(( )) 1 33
. .
(( : ))
. ,

.
. ..

.
: )(1
)). (( :
: (( : ))
.
3[ 268 : :
: :] .
[ : : ] . 471
.
[ : ] [
]. ]... [ :
: : : [ : )(2
].
:

. ()
11[ :422 ] [ ] . :

(( : )) .
(( :
)).

 : (( : )(3
)).
: : () (( : ))
: (( : :
: : ))
(. 385 4
[ ] . [ : ] [ : ]
. [ ( ) ]
( )[ . :
]))((
: )(4
( : ) :
8 118 :
.
[ : ] 2
.433
: ( ) () )(5

( : ) )
.
( . : :
:
[] (( : ))
:
: :
. :
: :
()
(. ) :
*
)

* .(... ) :
( (

.)

[ :
] ...254
.

( : - -
)
. 137

() (( ))
.

6[ :61

 ] 33
[ : ) * (
]...

summary
In essence the shaykh initially addresses that the concept that hellfire ceases to exist is a false attribution to the
companions, and its pretty much a lie that not even the rafidhi shia did not have the heart to attribute to them. He then
goes on to mention some of these narrations and then brings forth their defects. Then he continues to mention that Ibn
Taymiyyahs established methodology was one which was built on hereticating those who insinuated that the
punishment of the people of hellfire will end or that the hellfire will end.
Here is a synopsis provided by Hamood bin Uqla ash-Shu'aybee on the topic

:
:
.
.
:
.
:
.
.
:
{ : , { : , { : , :
{} . , { : , { :

 :
{ : , { :
,
{ : { :
.
.
" . " :


.


.

,
.

: | 1421/4/18

i.e.
Question
What is your eminences view on the fitnah which has spread amongst the youth, especially the young ones and that is
the statement that the fire ends or that it does not end? Give us a verdict. May Allah reward you well.
Answer
All praise is to Allah Lord of the worlds. Prayers and blessings on our Prophet and His Companions and Followers
altogether. As for what follows:
This issue was discussed since the time of the Companions may Allah be pleased with them as well as the tabieen and
the imams of guidance and religion and the old scholars of the salaf as well as later scholars. The salaf were divided into
two views about this in light of what has come in the Quran and the Sunnah.

The first opinion was held by the majority of the salaf and that is that the fire remains and does not end
The second opinion held by some salaf is that the fire will remain for ages then it will end and the people will be taken
out of it once they have been purified of the pollution of disbelief because of the punishment they have gone through.
Both opinions are narrated from the salaf, so one looks at the proofs of both sides and whichever is stronger, is
considered to be the preferred opinion.

As for the first opinion and this is that of the majority their proofs include:
{}
{ } that is forever,
{}
}
{}

As for the opinions of those who say the fire will end these include:
{}
{}
The proof from these two verses is that after the exception there is nothing to indicate that the fire will continue as there
is when it comes to jannah which indicates that it is to continue as there is in the words of the Most High
{}
So this proves that the fire will end and jannah and its blessings will remain forever and will
not end. And
{}
The proof here is that that ahqaab means limited periods of times which are limited and finite and they must have an
end.
They also relied on the traditions of the Companions such as Abu Hurayrah, Ibn Masud, Umar ibnul-Khattab may Allah
be pleased with them.
Umar may Allah be pleased with him said if the people of the fire were to be in there till the sand of Alij run out there
would still be a time when they would be taken out of it.
They also said, that by way of understanding, the punishment of the fire is desired for and the gifts of jannah are desired
for themselves. So what is desired for an end will finish once the end is achieved and what is desired for its own sake will
remain and will not finish. The meaning of desired for an end is that they are punished for their kufr so once they are
purified of it and cleansed of it with the punishment then the dross of kufr is removed from them so then their

punishment would not have any wisdom and other arguments which are mentioned.
Since the matter is like this, I mean the matter has two opinions from the salaf then whoever does ijtihad and he is from
the people who are entitled to perform it then he chooses one of these opinions then he is not to be denounced nor is he
deemed misguided nor is he deemed and innovator.
This is because denouncing others, criticizing them and accusing them of deviancy when they are not so involves sin and
transgression and this causes ikhtilaf and sectarianism which Allah has prohibited on His slaves. And this causes the
enemy from the Jews , Christians and secularists and innovators and hypocrites to rejoice as well as others from the
kuffar who are gladdened by the presence of ikhtilaf amongst the Muslims.
I advise my sons amongst the youth and my brothers the students of knowledge to stop spreading this fitnah and to turn
their pens towards attacking the enemies from the Jews, Christians, secularists and other kuffar. This facilitates uniting
the ummah and its scholars and to deprive the enemies of their rest. This is my hope regarding my children the youth and
my brothers the students of knowledge in this issue that they will respond to my call and will stop such actions which do
not benefit anyone other than the enemy. We ask Allah the Exakted to give victory to his religion and to raise his word
and to join the ummah on the haqq. He is powerful over all things.
May Allah send His prayers and blessings on the Prophet and His Family and Companions
Dictated by Hamood bin Uqla ash-Shuaybee 18/4/1421

lastly, someone who I have known for years has said on this topic regarding an alleged "ikhtilaaf" (difference of opinion)
on the topic from the salaf, the following
My point however is one of method. This is a major issue of Aqidah, which one would expect to be vastly reported if it
were true. Hence it needs more than a few week narrations or a few scholars hinting at it. If this is the Aqidah of Ahl alSunnah, it is a legitimate question to ask, why is it so difficult to find someone who came out and said so? If so, who? And
when?

Section Three: The "last book" of Ibn Taymiyyah: The Extinction of the Hellfire

Jon Hoover makes the assertion from his research of Ibnul-Qayyim that the book in argument on Ibn Taymiyyahs
viewpoint is one of his last books, if not the last.
1. Shaykh Yusif al-Ghafis is a skeptic. He says

. : : - -

: .

.

.



.

In summary, he is basically asserting that it is academically obligated to weigh or contrast this book with everything else
that he has stated on the subject. He then continues to show that this cannot be authentically attributed to him because
fundamentally, Ibn Taymiyyah considered it heresy to somehow claim that the hellfire would cease and that he did not
make an exception with regards to the punishment of the fire and the people in it.

2. Muhammad bin Abdullah al-Khudayri has a slight discussion on this book

:
:
) [. 1 169 :

] ( :
] . :
) [ 2 65 :
(

) [ 3 23 :
]. :
(
.


) [ 4 :

( :




167] .

) [ . ]37 : 5


( :
.
* ) [ 6 75 :
] . ( :

7
( :
] . ) [ 28 :
: : " : 8
: .
. : : . :
: 9
( 113 1 ........
) .
( 348 : - 2 -
( : :
).
( : 3 -
) .
) . ( 346 / 2 4 -
- . . 5 -
429 / 11 ( : 6 -
) .
) . ( 94 / 1 7 -
) . ( 234 / 2 8 -
) . 424 ( 9 -
:
( : 1
) .

...... 2 - : -
:
(


( :

...... ( :







) .

.

( 329 -) ( : 3 -
) .
( 363 -) ( : .. 4 -
) .
) . ( : 5 -
( : : - 6 -
) .

:
. 1
. . - 2

.

 :
(

1 -

:

)
(

) ( ) 128 : ( :

) ( ( ) 137 : 136 :
) .



: ( : { :
} ) .
:
: ( : )
.
) . - ( :
. ( ) ( )
: :
. ( ) ( ) 3 : :

) ( ) 6 : ( : ) :
. (
) ( ) 22 : :
(
. -
: ( : ) : ( :

) ( 48 :


) .

. { : 3 -
. :
. : 4-
.
:
. :
. :


:
. :
:
.
:
". "
- -
( )337/18 ( )581/1 ( )146/1
. ( )357/2
( .)197/16( )428/2 (
)
- ( )


:" : "..... " : " ( 255
)283
( ) ( )717-713 ()713
( )712-735

 - (
25).
-

.
:
. 1
- : -
. ( : ) 157 / 1
. . 348 / 14
: ( : - 2
: ) . . 86
- .
( : ) 3
. ( : )
( ) 4 -
.
- :
:
:
.
:
- ( : :
) .
( : ) -


. .
- (
) ( 761 -) - -
.
. :
:

.
.
:
. 1
. :
. 2
. :
. 3
. :
. 4
. 5

 . : .
6 -
. :

. 1- 69 / 4
. 2- 443/11
. 19 3-
. 4 - 33
. 5 - 433 - 399
. - 1 6- 423
7-
.
-


:
. 429 / 11 : (
. ) ....
:
( :
) . :
) [ - 7 ] 75 ( : : 8-
. : 43
. 9-
. 10 - 255
. 11 - 283
. : 12- 67
. : 13 - 552 - 551

Summary
First he begins by laying out the ahlu-sunnah position. Then he pretty much establishes that the hellfire and its
punishment is everlasting and cites ijmaa on it and some of those whom he quotes as well affirm an ijmaa on it.
He includes Ibn Taymiyyah but does not quote his views till later as he is the heart of the subject. Then he goes on to
utilizing everything Ibn Taymiyyah said on the topic, and as has been already provided, and other quotes in his research,
Ibn Taymiyyah affirms the everlasting punishment for the disbelievers in the hellfire.
This research right here outshines Mr. Hoovers if one looks at the quotes and references.
3. There is another discussion by Abdullah bin Salih bin Abdul-Aziz al-Ghasan. His research is a bit longer so here is the
link for it
http://www.saaid.net/monawein/taimiah/20.htm

Section Three: The Intellectual Flaws of Argument One and the Validity of Argument Two:

1. Alaamah Ibn Uthaymeen was asked

:
] 169 168 : { * [:
{ :] 65 64 : { * [:
] 23 : [
. " " :" "
! !
. . " " :
..
{ :] 137 : { [:
: ] 138 : [
{ : ] 138 :{ [
] 137 : { [:] 137 : [..

i.e.
Issue:
Is the fire to remain? Some scholars mentioned ijma of the salaf that it would. Others mentioned ikhtilaf from some salaf
over whether it would end. The correct opinion is it will remain forever. The proof is from the Book of Allah azza wa jall in
3 ayahs al-Nisa 168,169, al-Ahzab 64,65 and al-Jinn:23. [he mentioned that he read the commentary of his teacher
Abdul Rahman al Sadi on Ibn Qayyims Shifa al Aleel ] The truth about which there is no doubt and which is definite
according to my view is that the fire will remain forever because if people are to remain in there forever it is necessary
that it be eternal, because if the inhabitants of a place are to be there forever it is necessary that the place also remain
forever.
As for the statement of the Most High regarding the people of the fire They will dwell therein for all the time that the
heavens and the earth endure, except as your Lord wills [Hud:107] then this is like His statement regarding the people of
the garden They will dwell therein for all the time that the heavens and the earth endure, except as your Lord wills
[Hud:108]. But since the reward of the people of jannah is a blessing and favor, it is clarified that it is not cut off so the
Most High says without break. Since the punishment of the people of the fire is an aspect of justice and the absolute
authority of the Lord, azza wa jall, Allah the Most High says at the end of the verse, Verily, your Lord is the doer of
what He wills. The meaning of Verily, your Lord is the doer of what He wills is not that He will take them out of the
fire in the future or that the fire will end in the future.

This is interesting because here, Ibn Uthaymeen clarifies that the punishment of the fire is an aspect of Allahs justice,
and has nothing to do with being related to a means to an end as was advocated in the book authored by IbnulQayyim and Ibn Taymiyyah.

2. It does not make any sense that Ibn Taymiyyah would agree with the whole of the Muslims and attribute as the view
of the salaf that hell will remain and its punishment to its inhabitants will remain and attribute the concept that the
punishment for the people in hell will cease to Jahm and a slightly altered opinion from al-Alaaf the M'utazili, and then
later on submit to the view of Jahm.
Ibn Taymiyyah was an individual who rarely, if it all, reneged on positions of fiqh, it is highly contestable that he would
attribute a doctrinal idea to heretics, and then later submit to the view of the heretics by then (and only then) saying
that there are some sayings on the salaf, all of whom such reports do not have any sound basis back to the salaf.
3. There are several awkward deductions made in this book attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah, the level of which makes it
really uncertain that this comes from him.
4. Allah Subhaanahu says

Labitheena feeha ahqaba
In which they will remain for ages [unending].
It is a place of stay and stay itself.
They are going to be staying there for a very long time. That long period of time has been given a quantity ahqaaba.
Ahqaaba is the plural of haqb. According to Ali radiyallahu anhu and aqb is eighty years, every day of which is 1,333
years (and this is the most popular opinion). Regardless of what the time is, the number if finite. This led some
mufasiroon2 to say that hell will eventually end. This opinion has been negated heavily.

Hasan al Basri said that Allah did not say haqb; He said ahqaaban, which means they are multiple. The plural illustrates
that there is no end to it.
This illustrates hopelessness. It is a means of psychological torture. They are given the hope that one huqb is ending, but
then another huqb starts, and this process continues forever.
5. One of the intellectual flaws used by Ibnul-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyyah3 on the topic is provided in argument one about
"there must be a purpose behind the punishment"

2
3

Quranic Exegetes
Again, that is if he truly adopted this faulty heterodox opinion

Jazaa'an wifaqa
An exact recompense (according to their evil crimes).
If you describe this to a disbeliever, what do you think they would say? Man, this is pretty intense. Do you think
somebody could deserve this? The next ayah says: jazaa an wifaaqa.
Jazaa` means payback; in it is included you get what you work for. But then Allah adds: wifaaq. The normal Arabic
would expect muqafiqun. When you say wifaaq, it illustrates that there could be no punishment more appropriate. This
is exactly down to the last ounce what they deserved. There is no torture or oppression; this is justice.
Thus the purpose for this is one which fulfills justice, thus it is an end in and of itself, an end that matches the nature of
the means that landed to this end just as the paradise is an end, and it is not a means to an end, and its end matches the
nature of the means that landed to this end.

6. Another intellectual flaw regarding Ibnul-Qayyim's argument that 'there must be a "purpose" for punishment.
In the Qur'an, we are provided for this purpose
But this Day (the Day of Resurrection) those who believe will laugh at the disbelievers
( , Al-Mutaffifin, Chapter #83, Verse #34)
One of our delights in paradise rests upon our taking delight in watching the torment of the kuffar. Thus a good portion
of reason and wisdom of why they are punished is for our entertainment just as we were a source of entertainment for
them when it was we who remained on the side of disadvantage while they remain on the side of advantage4. While
Allah is indeed the Most merciful, we are not necesarily and our souls find comfort when criminals receive their due
7. This doctrine that their punishment will end because the people of kufr will then be purified is pretty much a hoax
based on another ayaah where Allah said

i.e.
And could you see when they are made to stand before the fire, then they shall say: If we were to be sent back, then we
would not reject the communications of our Lord and we would be of the believers.[Quran 6:27]
Nay, what they concealed before shall become manifest to them; and if they were sent back, they would certainly go
4

This is regarding the disbelievers who have fought and aided in the destruction of Islam and its people, not regarding non-muslims
who have an neutral stance

back to that which they are forbidden, and most surely they are liars.[Quran 6:28]
If it was plausible that the people of disbelief could really be purified from their kufr, then on what basis did Allah
narrate the above. If they can be purified, then this would mean that after their purification, they "could" go back to live
the life of this world a second chance and will not enter into kufr. However Allah negates this saying and affirms that
they will never keep right and that they are liars.
This reveals to us that there is something inherently corrupted in their choices, a corruption unpurifiable, that not even
the fire will purify.
8. The purpose of the fire is "punishment" in its asl. it only changes its purpose from punishment to "purification" for the
people who had tawheed.
Bukhari :: Book 6 :: Volume 60 :: Hadith 373
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Paradise and the Fire (Hell) argued, and the Fire (Hell) said, "I have been given the privilege of
receiving the arrogant and the tyrants.' Paradise said, 'What is the matter with me? Why do only the weak and the
humble among the people enter me?' On that, Allah said to Paradise. 'You are My Mercy which I bestow on whoever I
wish of my servants.' Then Allah said to the (Hell) Fire, 'You are my (means of) punishment by which I punish whoever
I wish of my slaves. And each of you will have its fill.' As for the Fire (Hell), it will not be filled till Allah puts His Foot over
it whereupon it will say, 'Qati! Qati!' At that time it will be filled, and its different parts will come closer to each other;
and Allah will not wrong any of His created beings. As regards Paradise, Allah will create a new creation to fill it with."
The purpose of the punishment of Allah is that it is a "result" an effect that came out of a "cause". Opposite of this is
that in argument one, the underlying premise is that the hellfire is a "means" to an end, meaning that it is a "cause" and
that the effect of torment is to be rewarded
9. as for rewards, Allah clearly mentions in so many places that the reward for the people of tawheed and eman is
jannah and the reward of the people of kufr is hellfire. it does not make sense that Allah will reward the people of
hellfire two rewards, one which is hellfire and then one which is paradise.
A reward is a 'result' for a "cause". Under the flawed auspices offered by Ibnul-Qayyim rahimahullah, this would render
the hellfire itself as merely a cause, and is thus not really a reward and that their actual reward will eventually be jannah.
10. Another intellectual flaw that is provided in argument 1 is that in this speech attributed to Ibn taymiyyah and IbnulQayyim, it is claimed that everlaasting torment is not befitting His Mercy. However, While the fire of hell is one of the
manifestations of the Wrath of Allah in action, His decision to put them there was NOT out of wrath, but out of Allahs
court of law, and His court is based on Justice.
11. On what basis is it from justice that Allah rewards those who denied His existence and those who attributed others
in worship (or worshipped others) with jannah.
To hold the idea that the people of hellfire among the kuffar will eventually cease to be there and end up in jannah is
ultimately saying that "Allah rewards the mushrikeen and kuffar with jannah". Under what rationality can this be
classified as justice.

Allah has stated that He made His Mercy to transcend His Wrath. However the issue of hellfire is one of Justice and that
it is a fulfillment of justice.
Moreover, on what basis was the struggle of the people of eman and tawheed, who used to be sawed in half alive by the
kuffar. What was the use for their struggle.
12. One what basis is the covenant between Allah and mankind. In the hadeeth literature we have narrations which
state in affect that
"The right of Allah over man is that they do not associate others in worship with Him, and the right of man over Allah is
that in doing this, Allah will not place them in the fire"
Thus the asl here is that whoever does not observe the covenant, then this ipso facto warrants the reward of hellfire. If
the argument in argument 1 was actually correct, then what solidarity does the covenant above hold. If the people of
kufr have a chance to enter jannah, then what is the use of the covenant when this doctrine allows for humans to "have
it both ways"
13. Moreover, another thing I had to look at was this reference of Ibnul-Qayyim. If we are to blind follow Jon Hoover's
assessment, then basically what has happened is that Ibnul-Qayyim, along with his teacher, were beholden to the
orthodox, jamhoori view that hellfire remains. Based on the research of Hoover, Ibnul-Qayyim seems to "change" his
view based on coming across the tafseer of al-Kithi. Hoover insinuates that it should be "al-kissi".
So I had to search who this person was and what this tafseer is
the man is if we go by the wording of Ibnul-Qayyim in Shifaa al-Aleel
The results.
Maybe it is just me, but the result was nothing. I couldn't find who in the world of Islam is this person. Likewise couldn't
find this tafseer. I couldn't find who this guy is anywhere. This spurious person is mentioned by Hoover as follows
Ibn al-Qayyims second inquiry was prompted by reading the commentary of Abd b. Hamid al-Kissi (or al-Kiththi as he
writes), a ninth-century Hadith scholar from Kiss near Samarqand (d. 249/863).
Hoover's reference displays the following
On Abd b. Hamid, see Fuat Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums
(Leiden: Brill, 1967), 1:113. Sezgin does not list any extant manuscripts of Abd b. Hamids commentary.
From a basic outlook, one could construe that his tafseer did not survive the age of time and basically disappeared.
However, there are some fishy smells about this.
a. The only source that essentially makes mention of its existence and this person only goes to Fuat Sezgin.
Moreover, is his name has two plausible pronunciations, "al-kissi" or "al-Kithi".
From the books of rijaal that I can open, I could not find this al-Kissi (or al-Kithi if utilizing the articulation of IbnulQayyim).
So I finally came across something. Hoover does not get his name correct. The name of this individual is Abd bin Humayd
al-Kissi and some say "al-Kashshi". Likewise, I found some additional material from Multaqa Ahlul-Hadeeth forums.

.
" " " "
" "

:
) : " " ( 249
: . .

. . . " " :
. .
" " :
. .
: " " ( 323 311 )

.

:
.
.
:
. ( 629 ) " " : .
:
" . "
286
.

14. In the translation of Shifa al-Aleel it says

Ibn Taymiyyah also said I am on the opinion of Qatadah and Zayd and 'Ata who said Allah does say that the reward of
the people of jannah will be endless but he does not inform us of what He wishes to do with the people of the fire.
This is a baseless claim. This is refuted by the fact that Allah does inform us in the Quran that just like the reward of the
people of jannah will be endless; likewise He informs us that the reward for the people of hellfire will be endless. There
exists a multiplicity of accounts where Allah informs us of this like the following
But those who disbelieve and belie Our Ayat - such are the dwellers of the Fire. They shall abide therein forever.
) , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #39 (

The word employed here is khaalidoon forever, perpetual, everlasting, eternal, etc
And
"To whom comes a disgracing torment, and on whom descends an everlasting torment."
( , Az-Zumar, Chapter #39, Verse #40)
The word used here is muqeem i.e. perpetual, lasting, enduring
And
Except the way of Hell, to dwell therein forever; and this is ever easy for Allah.
( , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #169)
The word used here is " abadan" i.e. eternity, perpetually, permanently, for good.
Allah utilizes three distinct Arabic terms, each one having multiple claims made by Allah for the disbelievers. The very
fact that Allah utilizes three distinct forms to make His point clear regarding His claim is enough to distinguish here that
no one has any leeway to make a claim in the name of the Islamic faith that these terms can be taken figuratively like
when someone says gee whiz, he spoke forever which essentially means he spoke for a long time, but not actually
forever.
This is highly problematic because
a. The subject matter is beyond trivialities. We are speaking of an Eternal being who is informing us about an
eternal afterlife.
b. The people who would stoop to such low academic inductiveness do not apply the same figurative notion to
the perpetual and eternal reward of bliss in paradise. What grammatical rule, or rules of Arabic rhetoric is
being employed here where the same articulation for bliss is not being taken figuratively yet the same speech
applied to the reward of hellfire is all of a sudden under the shade of some metaphorical meaning.
Lastly, Another flaw in this quote is that fact that the text asserts that Allah does not inform us about what He wishes to
do with the people of the hellfire. This is a rather poor deduction because Allah exactly tells us what He wants to do with
them. He wants to recompense them with the fire of hell.
The life of both paradise and hell is a life that entails an eternal existence. Just as Allah said that the reward for the
people of paradise will be endless, He likewise informs us that the reward for the people of hellfire will be endless, and
He emphasizes this with three distinct terms as noted above.

15. Another strange comment we find in the same excerpt from Ibnul-Qayyims Shifaa al-Aleel is the following
Ibn Taymiyah then says that the statement that the punishment of Allah is to last forever as is Allah is a statement about
the acts of Allah which is not based on knowledge and the clear texts do not lead us to this view.
What does relegating this issue as an act of Allah have anything to do in nullifying perpetuity?

16. In the book ascribed to Ibn Taymiyyah part of what was said in argument 1 gives the following

the arguments presented from the Quran to prove that the fire will remain forever do not prove this, all they prove is that
the people of the fire will remain in the fire as long as it remains and will not be taken out before by intercession
This is likewise a rather awkward interpretation claim. The Quranic scriptures do not claim that the people of the
hellfire will remain in the fire for as long as it remains, rather it asserts that they will remain there forever.

17. Another illogical outburst that is advocated n this book ascribed to Ibn Taymiyyah is the following
Allah tells us the reward of jannah is eternal and never ending in more than one place in his book and he tells us its
people will not leave it. As for the fire he does not inform us that it will stay forever. Rather He says its people will not
leave it. As for the fire and its torment He does not inform us that it will remain.
As a matter of fact, Allah does not inform us of anything stated above in the underlined portion. Rather what we are
informed is that they will abide in it perpetually forever. If they are in their forever, then there is no need for Allah to
inform us that the fire will remain forever or not because this fact is already indicated when He affirms that its
inhabitants are in there forever.

18. Another flaw in argument 1 from this book ascribed to Ibn Taymiyyah is this
Jannah is from the consequences of his mercy and forgiveness and fire is his punishment, then he quotes verses to prove
this then says rewarding and blessing is a necessary consequence of His names and of His Self so it must remain
alongside His eternal names and attributes. The punishment is a creation of his and the creation can end such as the
dunya and others, especially one which created for another.
This is a major theological blunder that really does not reflect something Ibn Taymiyyah could perform.
The hellfire is from the consequence of His Wrath and Justice, an eternal attribute like His Mercy and Forgiveness.
Likewise rewarding and punishing is a necessary consequence of His Names and His Self and His Attributes and thus
must remain likewise alongside His Eternal names and Attributes.
A more major theological blunder is the alleged claim that the punishment is a creation of His. Well, Paradise is a
creation of His, and it is not Him. Since we all know that the paradise is a creation, then under the same premise
provided in this argument, then likewise it can be stated that the reward of paradise can end.

19. Another absurdity is as follows

the punishment of Allah has to have a purpose and the only ones to deny this were the jahmiyyah and those who
followed them like Ash'ari. So there has to be a wise purpose behind Allah punishing people in jahannam and when that
wise purpose is fulfilled, they will have to enter jannah since we know that death will already have been sacrificed before
that in the form of a ram. So the fire will end and its people will enter jannah

This is essentially absurd. The blessing of Allah likewise has to have a purpose. So, yes, we do affirm that the
punishment of Allah has to have a purpose, and that purpose is to reward the criminals with what they are deserving of
i.e. the punishment of Allah. That is itself the purpose.

Moreover, to insinuate that the punishment of Allah to them for their crimes is by itself NOT the purpose is to likewise
claim that the reward of Allah in blessing the believers with paradise for their obedience is by itself NOT the purpose.
My essential point here, and throughout, is that what is applicable to one abode is applicable to the other in the afterlife
except that their nature is diametrically opposed on the scale of negative and positive. Outside of this difference, they
both represent the eternal Attributes of Allah and they are both the rewards of Allah, one is given out of mercy and one
is given out of justice.

20. Ibnul-Qayyim embarks on offering a faulty deduction by stating in al-Hadee al-Arwah that
Allahs punishes His slaves not because He needs to do so, nor because of a benefit which returns to Him, nor because He
wants to prevent some harm or avoid pain for Himself with His punishment. He is above all this. He is exalted above all
defects and shortcomings. His punishment is not mere play, devoid of wisdom and wise, praiseworthy purposes. He is
exalted above all this as well. So the punishment can either be for the purpose of
(i) completing the blessings on His friends and loved ones or
(ii) for some purpose which relates to the unfortunate ones being punished, for curing them or
(iii) it could be for both reasons.
In all three cases, the punishment is something which is required for another reason, not for its own sake. It is a means
and not an end. What this means is that once the purpose behind punishment is achieved, there is no need for it to
continue.
This makes no sense in light of the fact that Allah informs us through the Quran and in the sunnan that our life now is a
means, and how that means was utilized will determine our end, either in paradise or hellfire. Thus the punishment of
Allah is an end and NOT a means just as the reward of bliss is an end and not a means. To treat the punishment as a
means and not the end is to likewise treat the reward of bliss as a means and not the end.
Moreover, Allah says in the Quran an interesting ayaah
And verily, those before them did devise plots, but all planning is Allah's. He knows what every person earns, and the
disbelievers will know who gets the (good) final destination.
( , Ar-Rad, Chapter #13, Verse #42)
Allah is advocating a beautiful paradox here for the disbelievers. Allah informs us all that the disbelievers will know who
will get a (good) final destination. What is being obviously implied here? What is being implied here is that Allah affirms
that this final destination is the end, hence final destination! Likewise He is saying that the disbelievers will know that
this is the end. This implies that if they are those who have not received the good final destination, then they will NEVER
be admitted to this final destination. That is essentially the point of the ayaah. If the reality of our afterlife is as what is
advocated in argument 1, which is that eventually, the disbelievers will be taken out of the hellfire and its punishment,
then this basically nullifies the ayaah and thus it renders Allah as merely talking in hyperbole. If argument 1 is actually
true, then the disbelievers will know that they too will be able to enter a good final destination. This would likewise
imply that the final destination that they received i.e. hellfire is really not the final destination at all.
Furthermore, Allah states
i.e. final destination. When Allah says final, He means final and not its opposite.
The essence of the ayaah is basically expressing that because the disbelievers will know who will have the good final
destination, then this pretty much signifies its opposite, which is that they know that their entire party is exempt from
this good final destination. That implicitly means that if they know that they are exempt, then this means that they

likewise know that they will NEVER have a shot in entering paradise any more. In fact, this is one of the major purposes
of this life, which is that chances are available to us throughout our lives. Once this life is over, it is over, and the door to
chance is closed. However, this doctrinal point advocated in argument 1 opens up this door for chance.

21. Another contradictory issue in some arguments provided by Ibnul-Qayyim advocating that the punishment for the
people of hell can end whereas in one of his quotes in al-hadee al-Arwah, it is quoted regarding the punishment in the
hellfire being everlasting, it argues that there was no disagreement from the companions or their students and the ahlusunnah and only the Jews and people of heresy objected. Yet, after this, Ibnul-Qayyim seems to allude that there is
weight in the argument of those who claim that the people in the fire will eventually end
The reasoning Ibnul-Qayyim uses is as follows


rough translation
Allah does not break his promise to reward but as for his threat to punish the madhab of ahl al Sunnah without exception
is that if he does not fulfill his threat to punish, this is His kindness and forgiveness for which he deserves to be praised.

It is hard to determine where Ibnul-Qayyim sits on this matter, however what we do know is that whatever it is, if he has
taken the heterodox viewpoint, then it is to be rejected from him and we seek forgiveness for him with Allah.

22. What has been missing in most of this research is what has the sunnah come to explain on the topic. The sunnah is
quite emphatic just like the Quran in multiple places. It is not necessary to bring them all or even a few, rather this
following tradition reported in the two saheehs is enough of a repudiation of the first argument and the preponderance
of argument 2, which is that the punishment for the people of kufr will be everlasting.
It has been recorded in the Two Sahihs that the Messenger of Allah said,

Death will be brought in the form of a handsome ram (on the Day of Judgement) and it will be slaughtered between
Paradise and the Hellfire. Then, it will be said, "O people of Paradise! Eternity and no death! O people of Hellfire!
Eternity and no death!''
It is important to note here that both inhabitants of the two abodes are addressed didactically the same, that being
eternity, and no death. This essentially reveals that there will be absolutely no end to their situation. It likewise seems
that the sacrifice serves as the psychological basis for both inhabitants that its performance ensures in their minds that
they will see no end in sight for their respective situations.

23. Another interesting intellectual fallacy that has just popped up in my mind is the fact that when we caste the literal
couple of spurious narrations attributed to the companions along with this unknown tafseer of al-Kashshi (al-Kiththi
according to Ibnul-Qayyim and al-Kissi according to Hoover), if someone were to adopt such a position, one would have

to jump through leaps and bounds in the wake of insurmountable contradictory evidences in the Quran and in the
Sunnah and that such people will have to virtually change the world over in the two sources just so that these changes
can now be harmonized with the relatively handful of spurious reports attributed to the companions, and this tafseer of
al-Kashshi. Not only would the quantity of changes and revisions would be quite staggering in order to conform to this
heterodox argument embodied in argument 1, but as well the magnitude and quality of each single change. For
example, when the people who follow the preponderant viewpoint in argument two look at those texts in the Quran
which have ambiguity in it that the people of argument 1 could say that such texts indicate meanings in their favor, the
interpretations of the orthodox view provide plausible and reasonable interpretations for them which do not contradict
the nass (textual information) in those versus in the Quran.
However on the flip side, the types of interpretations that has to be employed by the people who would adopt the
premise of argument 1 is quite staggering. These interpretations would include direct violations of what the text actually
says. For example, the text say without end, so their interpretations would have to state this is not true, rather it
does have an end.
In short, such interpretations that would be needed for those who adopt the premise of argument 1 would essentially
entail that there will be no uniform harmony between the interpretations and those versus with which these
interpretations came to explain.

Section Four: The Errors Found in Hoovers Research

1. Hoovers first error is the following
Classical Sunnism supports punishment of unbelievers and associators in unending Fire with many verses from
the Quran. However, its fundamental warrant for this doctrine is not the Quran but consensus (ijma).
Islamic response: The fundamental warrant for this doctrine is in fact the Quran. Ijmaa here is a red herring
because the basis on which the ijmaa came into existent is because of what exactly the Quran itself says, which
is that they will remain in there for everlasting time. In fact, the Quran is so emphatic; it utilizes various words
and clauses such as without end or and they will never come out to ensure this as a definite reality.

2. Hoover then goes on to explain the basis of Islamic ijmaa by saying

The classical Sunni principle of consensus affirms that when the scholars of the Muslim community have agreed
on a matter that Islam has Five Pillars, for example it is no longer open to discussion
Then he says
This claim has not gone uncontested
This would entail an error if he precludes this un-contestation with the material of Ibnul-Qayyim. That is because
once an ijmaa is solidified, then it does not matter who comes after to challenge its already established
consensus. In other words once an ijmaa is concluded, then whoever comes after to challenge it does not

remove the state of the consensus. While this principle itself may sound rather rigid, the problem with topics
pertaining to ijmaa is that only a select amount of issues are actually an ijmaa. In other words, most of matters
that are acclaimed to be ijmaa by many Islamic scholars are in fact not really an ijmaa. Most scholars of the
ashari rite do not have or employ the scrupulousness to clarify matters as being ijmaa or if it is jamhoor, or
other than this. However, in this very issue right here, that being the eternality of the people of hellfire to be
everlasting; it is one of those issues which actually do fall under the category of ijmaa.

Section Five: Alleviating the Difficulty in Ascertaining the Actuality of the Matter

Now I have come to some rather interesting explanations on those versus that were utilized to somehow explain that
there is actually a limit to the punishment of the people of hellfire. I believe it is necessary to only really explain those
versus whose contents have ambiguity in them which would lead towards this awkward position
Allah says the following in Suratul-Hud
As for those who are wretched, they will be in the Fire, sighing in a high and low tone.

106

They will dwell therein for all the time that the heavens and the earth endure, except as your Lord wills. Verily, your Lord
is the Doer of whatsoever He intends (or wills). 107
And those who are blessed, they will be in Paradise, abiding therein for all the time that the heavens and the earth
endure, except as your Lord wills: a gift without an end. 108
Regarding the passage in the ayaah in 107 which states
They will dwell therein for all the time that the heavens and the earth endure
Imam Abu Ja`far bin Jarir said,
"It was from the customs of the Arabs that when they wanted to describe something that would last forever, they would
say, `This is as enduring as the heavens and the earth.' Or, `It will last as until the night and day separate.' They would
say, `As long as talkers at night continue to chat.' They meant by these statements the condition of eternity. Therefore,
Allah addressed them in a manner that they were familiar with among themselves.5

Interestingly, Ibn Katheer continues by stating the following on the same passage of this verse
The literal meaning is also intended with; "for all the time that the heavens and the earth endure.'' This is due to the fact
that there will be heavens and earth in the life of the next world, just as Allah said,

On the Day when the earth will be changed to another earth and so will be the heavens. 14:48
For this reason, Al-Hasan Al-Basri said concerning the statement of Allah,



the heavens and the earth endure.
"Allah is referring to a heaven other than this heaven (which we see now) and an earth other than this earth. That (new)
heaven and earth will be eternal.''

The next ayaah utilized by the people who have adopted this heterodox premise use the ayaah which states

They will abide therein Ahqab. (78:23)
meaning, they will remain in it for Ahqab, which is the plural of Huqb. Huqb means a period of time.
Regarding this Ibn Katheer notes that
Khalid bin Ma`dan said, This Ayah, and the Ayah,

5

Tafseer ibn Katheer

except your Lord wills. 11:107

both refer to the people of Tawheed.
Another more probable interpretation is as follows
Ibn Jareer (at-Tabari) also recorded from Salim that he heard Al-Hasan being asked about Allahs statement,

They will abide therein Ahqab
In reference to Ahqab, it has no specific amount of time other than its general meaning of eternity in the Hellfire.
However, they have mentioned that the Huqb is seventy years, and every day of it is like one thousand years according to
your reckoning (in this life).'' Sa`id reported from Qatadah that he said, "Allah says,

They will abide therein Ahqab.
And it is that which has no end to it. Whenever one era comes to an end, a new era follows it. It has been mentioned to
us that the Huqb is eighty years.'' Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said,

(They will abide therein Ahqab)
"No one knows how much time this Ahqab is, except for Allah, the Mighty and Sublime. It has been mentioned to us that
one Huqb is eighty years, and the year is three hundred and sixty days, and each day is equivalent to one thousand years
according to your reckoning (in this life).'' Ibn Jarir has recorded both of these statements

Another verse that is utilized by those adopting this heterodox viewpoint is the following

And on the Day when He will gather them together (and say): "O you assembly of Jinn! Many did you mislead of men,"
and their friends among the people will say: "Our Lord! We benefited one from the other, but now we have reached our
appointed term which You did appoint for us. " He will say: "The Fire be your dwelling place, you will dwell therein
forever, except as Allah may will. Certainly your Lord is All-Wise, All-Knowing.") Allah says, `Mention, O Muhammad, in
what you convey and warn,' that, (Suratul-Anaam -128)
This is one of the easiest of versus to clarify because everyone has conceded that Allah first establishes the precedent by
saying that all of you will be there forever. Then He makes an exception. This exception here denotes an exception in the
who will escape this exception. This exception does not incorporate the what of this entire scenario. This is indicated
by the fact that Allah is addressing humans, therefore the exception here is with regards to humans. Thus He says
you all will abide in it forever except those whom He wills. This exception has nothing to do with the hellfire or its
punishment. Moreover all of the Muslims have conceded that this exception refers to the people among the people of
hell who had tawheed and eman in this life.

Likewise this exception has nothing to do with the whole of the people of hellfire. In fact that would be a contradiction
in thought and speech. If ALL of the people in the hellfire fit under this exception, then on what basis is the exception
even made in the first place? If all of them enter this exception, then essentially there is no exception. The purpose of an
exception is to exclude a part from the general whole and not to exclude the general whole from the general whole.

The Established Orthodox Belief Finds Allahs Warrant in the Quran, regardless of Ijmaa

One of the most significant and yet overlooked versus of the Quran are as follows

And those who followed will say: "If only we had one more chance to return (to the worldly life), we would disown
(declare ourselves as innocent from) them as they have disowned (declared themselves as innocent from) us." Thus
Allah will show them their deeds as regrets for them. And they will never get out of the Fire.
( , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #167)