Is it authentic that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and his student Ibn al-Qayyim are attributed with the statement that the Fire will cease to exist?

The questioner : The question is that we know that Shaykh al-Islam and his student Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on them) are, in the least, not to be dismissed on an issue that has spread, especially the issue of the cessation of the Fire. Is this claim true in their books, or did they retract from it, or how is it?

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : I want an answer in this matter.

The Shaykh : The statement that the Fire will cease to exist is a slip among the slips of Ibn Taymiyyah. And I think that if you appreciate the knowledge of Ibn Taymiyyah, indeed his person, his knowledge, and his righteousness, you will not declare him a disbeliever if we tell you that he is not an infallible prophet, is that not so? Well, his statement that the Fire will cease to exist, he did say that, and this is a slip that one should not follow, nor imitate in it. And I think he retracted from it. I think—pay attention—and this thought came to me from the words of his student Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah, because I think, from my following of his wordsThe Shaykh : and opinions and rulings, and my following of these things from his student as well, that the student is, as it is said, more attached to his Shaykh than his shadow. Understood up to here? So we rarely find Ibn al-Qayyim contradicting Ibn Taymiyyah, and he has the right to that, because Ibn Taymiyyah is a man who gathered of knowledge and correctness what many of the great scholars do not encompass. So when I saw Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah mention in his book al-Wabil al-Sayyib fi al-Kalim al-Tayyib, or Sharh al-Kalim al-Tayyib, and this is doubtful, that the Fire is two Fires: a Fire that ceases and a Fire that remains. The Fire that ceases is the Fire of the open sinners among the believers and Muslims, and the Fire that does not cease is the Fire of the disbelievers. So it is possible that this which Ibn al-Qayyim stated explicitly is the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah that he ended up with. But we did not find this last opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah from his speech or from his pen; we only found it in the pen of his student Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (may Allah have mercy on him). And this has many, many examples. The previous hadith we spoke about on the occasion of the anomalous hadith . Ibn Taymiyyah in his fatwas, the collection of his fatwas, has good speech on the occasion of this hadith from one side, and has not so good speech from another side. The good speech is that he says it was not the custom of the righteous Salaf, nor the custom of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, for some of them to stand for the one who comes in, as a form of honor and exaltation. This was not their custom. And therefore he says it is obligatory for the Khalaf to follow the Salaf in every matter, and among that is this issue. Then he makes an exception, and this is from his jurisprudence and wisdom. He says, but if the Muslim lives in an environment where people have become accustomed to this standing, and you understood which standing I mean by this speech? A man enters, for example a Shaykh, a great Shaykh enters upon us now, no doubt some of you will stand for him out of honor and exaltation, and this exists in most Islamic countries. So Ibn Taymiyyah says the Sunnah is not to stand, but if the Muslim is in an environment where they are accustomed to such standing, and if he does not stand, he fears, or he fears that something of hatred and resentment will fall in the hearts of the present ones or the one who entered against this one who did not stand. Here Ibn Taymiyyah sees standing, and this falls under the chapter of repelling the greater harm with the lesser. This is a great jurisprudential rule. The error is that he says, and this standing is not what is intended by his statement (peace and blessings be upon him) . He said, because the intended meaning of this hadith is standing for the one who is sitting. Standing for the one who is sitting means the King is sitting and the ministers and the retinue are all standing, in the manner that came in the hadith of Jabir ibn 'Abd Allah al-Ansari when he (peace and blessings be upon him) was injured in his shoulder and could not pray the midday prayer standing, so he prayed sitting, and the people prayed behind him standing, so he gestured to them to sit, and they sat. After the prayer he said to them . They stand on the heads of their kings, the King is sitting and they are standing. Ibn Taymiyyah said the hadith to the end of the hadith. He said the intended meaning is that they stand while he is sitting. This is an error. And the proof of the error, if you remember with me the story I mentioned just now: Mu'awiyah entered upon two men, 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amir and 'Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr. The first stood and the other did not stand. So Mu'awiyah, who was sitting, forbade the one who stood, on the exact opposite. He entered and they were sitting, so one of them stood, and he rebuked him with this hadith. So I found Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah saying this same speech, refuting, meaning what Ibn Taymiyyah himself said. So I think the situation is that Ibn Taymiyyah wrote this writing in the fatwas, because these fatwas are not his composition; the compiler compiled them, and he did well, from various manuscripts and letters, and so on. So it is possible that this answer from Ibn Taymiyyah, or this explanation from Ibn Taymiyyah, was in the beginning of his scholarly development. But his student Ibn al-Qayyim, who accompanied him to the last breath of his life, clarified that this meaning is an error. And why only Ibn Taymiyyah who fell into this? Others preceded him to that, for example, other commentators of the hadith and those who speak on the strange words of the hadith, among them Ibn al-Athir, for example, in al-Nihayah. He interpreted it as "he is sitting," contrary to the hadith. So they carried the hadith of Mu'awiyah onto the hadith of Jabir, while each has its place, and they differ completely. So it is possible, as is the example in this hadith, that Ibn Taymiyyah interpreted this interpretation incorrectly, and his student Ibn al-Qayyim interpreted the correct interpretation. I am strongly of the opinion that he took it from his Shaykh after he interpretedThe Shaykh : the hadith contrary to the correct interpretation. Likewise in the issue of the cessation of the Fire, Ibn al-Qayyim distinguishes and clarifies that the Fire that ceases is the Fire of the Muslims who are open sinners, while the Fire of the disbelievers, they abide in it forever, as came in many of the noble verses. This is, I think, your last question.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : So that you can rest now.

The questioner : Last question, in the end, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Yes, please go ahead.

The questioner : I mean, there is a thesis by a Yemeni doctor at Umm al-Qura University. If it is not established that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly states in his books that the Fire will cease to exist, he did not find it; rather, the transmitters transmitted it and refuted it?

The Shaykh : How did he not see Ibn al-Qayyim's research in his book I'lam al-Muwaqqi'in 'an Rabb al-'Alamin?

The questioner : And Hadi al-Arwah.

The Shaykh : And Hadi al-Arwah.

The questioner : He transmitted from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah!

The questioner : There is no transmission.

The questioner : There is no transmission from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah!

The Shaykh : How?

The questioner : But there is no transmission from Ibn Taymiyyah. The text in Hadi al-Arwah, our Shaykh, does not explicitly state that this is the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah. It mentions the opinions of the two groups, then he proceeded to distinguish the statement in this station, like that. But I, Shaykh, saw it in Raf' al-Asatir in the introduction!

The Shaykh : Yes, but there is a manuscript thesis.

The questioner : Yes, it is this manuscript thesis only that mentions it for Ibn Taymiyyah!

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : The authenticity of its attribution to him?

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : The authenticity of its attribution to him. There is no proof of the authenticity of the attribution of the manuscript, especially since it is excerpted. Then Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi mentions to us a rule in refuting the statement that the Fire will cease to exist, or in this meaning.

The Shaykh : Who?

The questioner : Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi mentions in his book?

The Shaykh : No, I mentioned this same thing.

The questioner : Our Shaykh mentioned it!

The Shaykh : I mentioned this, but did he find a statement that contradicts what was attributed to him in that manuscript thesis?

The questioner : He mentioned, he mentioned the statements of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, refuting those who say the Fire will cease to exist, and he brought it as an argument against those who say the Fire will cease to exist.

The Shaykh : Where did Ibn Taymiyyah mention this?

The questioner : He mentioned it in the same small thesis.

The questioner : A good thesis, our Shaykh, you looked at it, it is strong!

The Shaykh : From Ibn Taymiyyah.

The questioner : No, a Yemeni one.

The Shaykh : No, I mean Ibn Taymiyyah. Where did he mention it?

The questioner : And he has several words, actually, brother, this one.

The questioner : This brother argues that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah does not say the Fire will cease to exist, because Ibn Taymiyyah refutes those who say so, saying "So-and-so says the Fire will cease to exist, contradicting the consensus of the Muslims." On the basis that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah's statement is that it does not cease, because he refuted them with the consensus of the Muslims that it does not cease. So the explicit statement here from Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, or what is understood from his statement with this argument, is that he does not say it will cease. And those who attribute to him the statement that it will cease do not establish anything explicit to him.

The Shaykh : Do you remember regarding Ibn Taymiyyah?

The questioner : The other: Just, our Shaykh, I mean, are the citations for the matter well-known, or are they explicitly attributed to Ibn Taymiyyah, saying so and so, the thing you mentioned in the introduction regarding the manuscript letter, just that and nothing else, and Allah the Exalted knows best.

The Shaykh: I mean, al-San'ani attributes it to Ibn Taymiyyah.

The questioner : The other: Of course, it is attributed.

The Shaykh: But he does not mention the source.

The questioner : The other: No, he does not mention it, as far as I recall.

The Shaykh: Well, we know the source by our concern, the speech that contradicts annihilation.

The questioner: He mentioned ...

The Shaykh: I did not memorize it, I mean, is the source a printed one or not?

The questioner: He mentioned that it is found in the fatwas.

The questioner : The other: The Muslims have agreed upon the permanence of seven things.

The questioner : Yes, that is right.

The questioner : The other: So he mentioned among them Paradise and the Fire.

The questioner: ... We said this contradicts the consensus of the Muslims.

The Shaykh: Well, what did we address in the introduction?

The questioner : The other: You addressed it, our Shaykh, and you brought it up, so we say it is good, therefore the Shaykh's statement in the introduction was that there was a lack of clarity regarding what Ibn Taymiyyah, for example, settled upon, or something of that sort, and perhaps he has two statements on the issue.

The Shaykh: Did you read the letter that is subordinate?

The questioner: The Veils, no, I did not read it, but I read these concise letters.

The Shaykh: Well, read it so we can see?

The questioner: He mentioned that he read your letter; he is a man who researched all the works of the Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah and did not find, as he says, and also he only found the statement that Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned in al-Tadallul, and as it is transmitted, he ended in confusion ... as is clear from the words of Ibn al-Qayyim.

The Shaykh: Where did Ibn al-Qayyim mention it?

The questioner: He mentions that he asked his Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Where did Ibn al-Qayyim mention it?

The questioner: In al-Hadi and al-Sawa'i' and in others.

The questioner : The other: Clear, my Shaykh, in the introduction, al-Astar, it is clear that this statement is from the statement of Ibn al-Qayyim and that he received it from his Shaykh Ibn Taymiyyah in the introduction!

The Shaykh: I am far away, anyway, so in the introduction, it is sufficient for clarification in this matter. Well, is there anything?

The questioner : The other: Our Shaykh, a point.

The Shaykh: Go ahead.

The questioner : The other: With your permission, my teacher, regarding the issue of tasbih with the right hand?

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : The other: In Sunan Abu Dawud, our Shaykh, from A'ishah, she said .

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : The other: This, our Shaykh, does it not refute those who permitted it!

The Shaykh: So without a doubt, what we said regarding its purification and its matter, all of it.

The questioner : The other: No, the wording ... with the left.

The Shaykh: This is clearer, yes.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh: I heard this text.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, yes.