Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Islamic Universalism: Ibn Qayyim al‐Jawziyya's Salaf? Deliberations on the Duration of Hell‐Fire

2009; Wiley; Volume: 99; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1111/j.1478-1913.2009.01260.x

1478-1913

Jon Hoover,

Islamic Thought and Society Studies

Classical Sunn? eschatology maintains that all those who believe that God is one will enter the Garden of Paradise in due time. Some monotheists may first have to endure punishment and purification in the Fire for their sins, but those with even the least grain of belief will eventually enter the Garden as their reward. Conversely, unbelievers and those who associate partners with God (mushrikūn) will spend eternity in Hell-Fire as retribution for their unforgivable error.11 See W. Montgomery Watt, trans., Islamic Creeds: A Selection (Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 1994), for this doctrine in several Sunn? creeds: al-Ṭaḥāw? (d. 321/933) (pp. 53–54), al-Ghazāl? (d. 505/1111) (p. 78), al-Nasaf? (d. 537/1142) (p. 82), and al-?j? (d. 756/1355) (p. 88). See Earl Edgar Elder, trans., A Commentary on the Creed of Islam: Sa‘d al-D?n al-Taftāzān? on the Creed of Najm al-D?n al-Nasaf? (New York: Columbia University Press, 1950), 104–15, for al-Taftāzān?'s (d. 793/1390) explanation of the rationale for these doctrines. Classical Sunnism supports punishment of unbelievers and associators in unending Fire with many verses from the Qur’ān. However, its fundamental warrant for this doctrine is not the Qur’ān but consensus (ijmā‘). The classical Sunn? 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.22 Mohammad Hashim Kamali, Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Revised ed. (Cambridge, UK: The Islamic Texts Society, 1991), 168ff.; and Bernard G. Weiss, The Search for God's Law: Islamic Jurisprudence in the Writings of Sayf al-D?n al-Āmid? (Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 1992), 181ff., especially 210–11. So, the claim here is that the Muslim community has reached a binding consensus that punishment of unbelievers in the Fire will never cease.33 See for example Ibn Ḥazm, Marātib al-ijmā‘ f? al-‘ibādāt wa al-mu‘āmalāt wa al-mu‘taqadāt, 3d printing (Beirut: Dār al-āfāq al-jad?da, 1402/1982), 193; Sayf al-D?n al-Āmid?, Abkār al-afkār f? uṣūl al-d?n, ed. Aḥmad Muḥammad al-Mahd?, 5 vols. (Cairo: Maṭba‘at dār al-kutub wa al-wathā’iq al-qawmiyya, 1423–25/2002–4), 4:360; Fakhr al-D?n al-Rāz?, Muḥaṣṣal afkār al-mutaqaddim?n wa al-muta’akhkhir?n min al-‘ulamā’ wa al-ḥukamā’ wa al-mutakallim?n, ed. Ṭaha ‘Abd al-Ra’ūf Sa‘d (Cairo: Maktabat al-kulliyyāt al-azhariyya, n.d.), 237; Shams al-D?n Abū‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Ab? Bakr b. Faraḥ al-Qurṭub?, Al-Tadhkira f? aḥwāl al-mawtā wa-umūr al-ākhira (Ṣaydā/Bayrūt: Al-Maktaba al-‘aṣriyya, 1426/2005), 2:149; and ‘Aḍud al-D?n ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Aḥmad al-?j?, Kitāb al-Mawāqif (with the commentary of al-Jurjān?), 3 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-J?l, 1417/1997), 3:397, which reads, “The Muslims have reached a consensus that the unbelievers will abide in the Fire forever; their chastisement will not be cut off.” This claim has not gone uncontested. In copious writings on the duration of the Fire, the Damascene theologian Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (d. 751/1350) — the leading student of the famed Ḥanbal? jurist Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) — presents what may well be the most forthright challenge to the alleged consensus on this doctrine in medieval Islamic thought. The case for the limited duration of chastisement in the Fire did receive careful consideration earlier on as is evident in the vast Qur’ān commentary of Fakhr al-D?n al-Rāz? (d. 606/1209).44 Fakhr al-D?n al-Rāz?, Al-Tafs?r al-kab?r li-l-Imām al-Fakhr al-Rāz? (Cairo: Maṭba‘at al-bahiyya al-miṣriyya, 1357/1938), 18:63–67, in commentary on Q. 11:107. After surveying the textual and rational proofs of those who say “that the chastisement of the unbelievers is limited and has an end,” al-Rāz? evaulates the arguments of “the great majority” who “have agreed that the chastisement of the unbeliever is perpetual” (p. 63). Nonetheless, Ibn al-Qayyim's discussions appear to be unprecedented in their thoroughness and length. In his argumentation, the Fire no longer functions retributively to punish as in the classical doctrine but therapeutically to cleanse from sins, even the sins of unbelief (kufr) and associationism (shirk). Does then the punishment of unbelievers come to an end? Does the Fire pass away when its purposes have been attained? As we will see, some scholars have concluded that Ibn al-Qayyim answers these questions affirmatively to yield a doctrine of universal salvation. Yet, closer examination of his texts shows that coming to this conclusion is not as simple as it first appears. This article investigates three lengthy discussions on the duration of punishment and the Fire by Ibn al-Qayyim that come from the later years of his life. These three have emerged in recent controversial literature as the fullest and most significant of Ibn al-Qayyim's deliberations on the topic.55 As seen for example in ‘Al? b. ‘Al? Jābir al-Ḥarb?, Kashf al-astār li-ibṭāl iddi‘ā’ fanā’ al-nār al-mansūb li-Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyya wa tilm?dhihi Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya (Mecca: Dār ṭayyiba, 1410/1990), 34–43; ‘Abd al-Kar?m b. Ṣāliḥ al-Ḥumayd, Al-Inkār ‘alā man lam ya‘taqid khulūd wa ta’b?d al-kuffār f? al-nār (Burayda, Saudi Arabia: Markaz al-Nujayd?, 1422/2001), 138 and passim; and ‘Ā’isha bint Yūsuf al-Manā‘?, “‘Aq?dat fanā’ al-nār bayna Ibn ‘Arab? wa Ibn Taymiyya wa Ibn al-Qayyim,”Majallat markaz buḥūth al-sunna wa al-s?ra (University of Qatar) 11 (2004): 85–141. I am grateful to G. A. Lipton for drawing the last reference to my attention. Al-Ḥarb?, Kashf al-astār, 49–52, also identifies four texts in Ibn al-Qayyim's writings that, in his estimation, unequivocally affirm the eternity of the Fire. Although these texts cannot be discounted, they are very short and do not deliberate on the question. I am preparing a separate study on al-Ḥarb?'s argumentation. I have not undertaken an exhaustive search for additional treatments elsewhere in Ibn al-Qayyim's vast corpus, and no attempt is made here to provide a comprehensive overview of his thought on this subject. Rather, this study seeks to clarify Ibn al-Qayyim's views in the key texts under consideration, note debts to his teacher Ibn Taymiyya, and explore the means by which he circumvents the classical Sunn? consensus. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya reveals how he first broached the question of everlasting chastisement with Ibn Taymiyya in an autobiographical note found in his Shifā’ al-‘al?l (Healing of the Sick) [hereafter Shifā’]:66 Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Shifā’ al-‘al?l f? masā’il al-qaḍā’ wa al-qadar wa al-ḥikma wa al-ta‘l?l, ed. Al-Sayyid Muḥammad al-Sayyid and Sa‘?d Maḥmūd (Cairo: Dār al-ḥad?th, 1414/1994). Page references to Shifā’ will appear in the text. I had asked Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyya]— God sanctify his spirit —[about everlasting chastisement]. He said to me, “This issue is very great”, and he gave no reply concerning it. Some time had passed after that when I saw in the commentary of ‘Abd b. Ḥam?d [or Ḥūmayd] al-Kithth? one of those traditions I have mentioned. So, I sent the book to [Ibn Taymiyya] while he was in his last session (f? majlisihi al-akh?r). I marked that place [in the book], and I told the messenger, “Say to him, ‘This place is difficult for him, and he does not know what it is.” Then, he wrote his famous work about it — the mercy of God be upon him. Whoever has the grace of knowledge, let him bring it forth, and above each one having knowledge is one who is All-Knowing (pp. 564–65). It appears that Ibn Taymiyya was not sure how to respond to Ibn al-Qayyim's first inquiry on the duration of the Fire. He only answered that the question was “very great.” Ibn al-Qayyim's second inquiry was prompted by reading the commentary of ‘Abd b. Ḥam?d al-Kiss? (or al-Kithth? as he writes), a ninth-century Hadith scholar from Kiss near Samarqand (d. 249/863).77 On ‘Abd b. Ḥam?d, see Fuat Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums (Leiden: Brill, 1967–), 1:113. Sezgin does not list any extant manuscripts of ‘Abd b. Ḥam?d's commentary. A tradition related by ‘Abd b. Ḥam?d puzzled Ibn al-Qayyim. So, he marked the spot in the book and sent it to his teacher via messenger. This occurred “while [Ibn Taymiyya] was in his last session,” presumably near the end of his life. In reply Ibn Taymiyya composed what Ibn al-Qayyim calls his “famous work.” The identity of this work and its date will be clarified below. In the passage above Ibn al-Qayyim also alludes to having mentioned the puzzling tradition from ‘Abd b. Ḥam?d earlier in Shifā’. A few pages back, he does indeed cite from ‘Abd b. Ḥam?d the following report from ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, a Companion of the Prophet and the second Sunn? caliph: “Even if the People of the Fire stayed in the Fire like the amount of sand of ‘Ālij, they would have, despite that, a day in which they would come out” (p. 554). The place name ‘Ālij refers to a large tract of sand in the desert on the way to Mecca,88 Yāqūt b. ‘Abd Allāh al-Ḥamaw?, Kitāb mu‘jam al-buldān, 10 parts (Cairo: Maṭba‘at al-sa‘āda, 1324/1906), 6:99. and the simile “like the amount of sand of ‘Ālij” in ‘Umar's report indicates a very great length of time. Thus, the sense is that those in the Fire will leave it someday even if they remain therein for a very long time. At the same place in Shifā’, Ibn al-Qayyim cites other reports that also cast doubt on the eternity of punishment in Hell-Fire. Two examples will suffice. A report from the Prophet's Companion Abū Hurayra conveys a message similar to that of ‘Umar: “There will come to Hell a day when no one will remain in it.” The second example counsels withholding judgment about where humans will end up. The Companion Ibn ‘Abbās is reported to have said, “It is not necessary for anyone to judge God with respect to His creatures or to assign them to a garden or a fire” (p. 554). Ibn al-Qayyim clearly understands these sundry reports to undermine the classical Sunn? consensus that unbelievers and associators will spend eternity in the Fire. But where exactly does that lead him? Ibn al-Qayyim's most frequently cited treatment of the Fire's duration appears in his book on eschatology Ḥād? al-arwāḥ ilā bilād al-afrāḥ (Spurring Souls on to the Realms of Joys) [hereafter Ḥād?].99 Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Ḥād? al-arwāḥ ilā bilād al-afrāḥ, ed. Ṭāha ‘Abd al-Ra’ūf Sa‘d (Cairo: Dār iḥyā’ al-kutub al-‘arabiyya, n.d.), 307–41, in Chapter 67. A marking on one manuscript of Ḥād? dates it to 745/1344–45 with the text, “He [i.e., Ibn al-Qayyim] completed its composition in the year 745 A.H.”1010 This information is found in the catalog of the Mosul Library of Public Endowments manuscript collection compiled by Sālim ‘Abd al-Razzāq Aḥmad, Fihris makhṭūṭāt Maktabat al-awqāf al-‘āmma f? al-Maẉsil, 2d ed., 8 vols. (Baghdad: Wizārat al-awqāf wa-al-shu’ūn al-d?niyya, 1982–83), 2:31 (ms. 6/2). This manuscript of Ḥād? was copied in 1280/1863–64. I have no reason to doubt this date, but it would be good to have corroborating evidence before accepting it as established. Some 400 years later, the Yemeni scholar Muḥammad b. Ismā‘?l al-Ṣan‘ān? (d. 1182/1768) quotes Ḥād? at length in his refutation Raf ‘ al-astār and charges both Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyya with maintaining that Hell-Fire will pass away (fanā’ al-nār).1111 Muḥammad b. Ismā‘?l al-Am?r al-Ṣan‘ān?, Raf‘ al-astār li-ibṭāl adillat al-qā’il?n bi-fanā’ al-nār, ed. Muḥammad Nāṣir al-D?n al-Albān? (Beirut: Al-Maktab al-Islām?, 1405/1984). Despite al-Ṣan‘ān?'s assertions, it has not been obvious what can be rightly learned about Ibn Taymiyya from the discussion in Ḥād?. At a few points toward the beginning, Ibn al-Qayyim does indicate that he is quoting Ibn Taymiyya. Unfortunately, however, he does not demarcate Ibn Taymiyya's words from his own, indicate the text that he is citing, or make clear which view his teacher took. To make matters more difficult, modern scholars have been hard pressed to find Ibn Taymiyya speaking about the duration of the Fire anywhere in his own texts. On this basis, Saudi scholar ‘Al? al-Ḥarb? even concluded in 1990 that Ibn Taymiyya never said that the Fire will pass away.1212 Al-Ḥarb?, Kashf al-astār, 77–78. Nevertheless, Binyamin Abrahamov came to the opposite conclusion in a 2002 article entitled “The Creation and Duration of Paradise and Hell in Islamic Theology.” Abrahamov argues that both Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya maintain that the Fire will pass away. With respect to Ibn al-Qayyim, Abrahamov draws this inference from Ḥād?, but for Ibn Taymiyya he does not refer to any of his writings or mention how hard it has been to find him speaking to this issue. Abrahamov's sole source for Ibn Taymiyya is al-Ṣan‘ān?.1313 Abrahamov, Binyamin, “The Creation and Duration of Paradise and Hell in Islamic Theology,” Der Islam 79 (2002): 87– 102, especially 95ff. Two earlier studies come to the same conclusion concerning Ibn al-Qayyim. Ṣoubḥ? el-Ṣāleḥ, La Vie future selon le Coran (Paris: J. Vrin, 1971), 56–60, sets out Ibn al-Qayyim's arguments in Ḥād? and concludes that he affirms the annihilation of the Fire. Jane Idleman Smith and Yvonne Yazbeck Haddad, The Islamic Understanding of Death and Resurrection (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1981), survey Ibn al-Qayyim's arguments in Ḥād? more briefly and similarly state that he favors “the eventual dissolution of the Fire” (p. 94). However, Smith and Haddad mistakenly infer that this is the predominant doctrine of the whole Muslim community (p. 95 and p. 220 n. 98). Fortunately, the key to solving the mystery of Ibn al-Qayyim's quotations from Ibn Taymiyya and the latter's own view is now available. In 1995 Muḥammad al-Simhar? edited and published a treatise by Ibn Taymiyya and gave it the title Al-Radd ‘alā man qāla bi-fanā’ al-janna wa al-nār (Response to Whoever Says that the Garden and the Fire Will Pass Away). I will call it Fanā’ al-nār for short. As the editor al-Simhar? argues, this brief work is undoubtedly authentic.1414 Ibn Taymiyya, Al-Radd ‘alā man qāla bi-fanā’ al-janna wa al-nār [hereafter Fanā’ al-nār], ed. Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh al-Simhar? (Riyadh: Dār al-balansiyya, 1415/1995). Al-Simhar? discusses the work's authenticity on pp. 12–16. I am indebted to Mohammad Hassan Khalil for drawing my attention to this text and making it available to me. Khalil's, “Muslim Scholarly Discussions on Salvation and the Fate of ‘Others’” (Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, 2007), 105–66, covers some of the same ground as the present article, but with different concerns and insights. At an earlier date (1405/1984), Muḥammad Nāṣir al-D?n al-Albān? published a portion of Fanā’ al-nār in the introduction to his edition of al-Ṣan‘ān?, Raf ‘al-astār, 9–14 (corresponding to al-Simhar?'s edition, 52–57 and 80–83), with photographs of the source manuscript on pp. 53–55. This is the text that Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya quotes in Ḥād?, and it conspicuously shapes the structure of his discussion in that book. As will become clear below, Ibn al-Qayyim proceeds through the same topics and arguments in the same order as Ibn Taymiyya but with extensive elaboration and addition. Ibn Taymiyya's text structures Ibn al-Qayyim's discussion in Shifā’ as well, but to a lesser degree. Ibn Taymiyya's Fanā’ al-nār gains added significance in view of Ibn al-Qayyim's autobiographical note in Shifā’ quoted above. There, Ibn al-Qayyim comments that he sent his question about ‘Abd b. Ḥam?d's book to Ibn Taymiyya during “his last session” and that his teacher responded with “his famous work.” There is little reason to doubt that this “famous work” is Fanā’ al-nār. Ibn Taymiyya's text gives careful attention to ‘Abd b. Ḥam?d's commentary and the report from ‘Umar that troubled Ibn al-Qayyim. Moreover, mention of Ibn Taymiyya being in his “last session” strongly suggests that he was near life's end. This is corroborated by references which Caterina Bori has identified showing Fanā’ al-nār to be the last treatise that Ibn Taymiyya authored.1515 Caterina Bori, Ibn Taymiyya: una vita esemplare Analisi delle fonti classiche della sua biografia, Supplemento N. 1., Rivista Degli Studi Orientali, Vol. 76 (Pisa/Roma: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, 2003), 163. I am grateful to the author for alerting me to this discussion. In a long list of Ibn Taymiyya's works, his disciple Ibn Rushayyiq (d. 749/1348–49) observes, “In his final imprisonment, he produced Qā‘ida f? radd ‘alā man qāla bi-fanā’ al-janna wa al-nār, in about 20 sheets.”1616 Ibn Rushayyiq al-Maghrib?, “Asmā’ mu’allafāt Ibn Taymiyya,” in Al-Jāmi‘ li-s?rat Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taym?yya (661–728) khilāl sab‘at qurūn [hereafter Jāmi‘], ed. Muḥammad ‘Uzayr Shams and Al? b. Muḥammad ‘Imrān (Mecca: Dār ‘ālam al-fawā’id, 1420/1999–2000), 225. This list of Ibn Taymiyya's works was earlier attributed to Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Asmā‘ mu’allafāt Ibn Taymiyya, ed. Ṣalāḥ al-D?n al-Munajjid (Damascus: Maṭbū‘āt al-majma‘ al-‘ilm? al-‘arab?, 1953). Shams and ‘Imrān, Jāmi‘, 8–13, argue persuasively that this attribution was incorrect; their arguments are briefly summarized in Jon Hoover, Ibn Taymiyya's Theodicy of Perpetual Optimism (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 6–7 n. 14. The list edited by al-Munajjid does not include the notice quoted from Ibn Rushayyiq here. However, the lists edited by al-Munajjid, 12, and Shams and ‘Imrān, Jāmi‘, 225, both mention that Ibn Taymiyya wrote an interpretation on the exception in the verse, “Abiding in [the Fire], as long as the Heavens and the Earth endure, except as your Lord wills” (Q. 11:107–8). The list in Jāmi‘ presents this interpretation and Fanā’ al-nār consecutively as two separate works. Adding more information, the biographer al-Ṣafad? (d. 764/1363) states concerning Ibn Taymiyya's F? baqā’ al-janna wa al-nār wa fanā’ihimā, “This is the last thing that he compiled in the citadel, and al-‘Allāma Qād? al-Qudāh Taq? al-D?n al-Subk? has refuted it.”1717 Ṣalāḥ al-D?n Khal?l b. Aybak al-Ṣafad?, A‘yān al-‘aṣr wa a‘wān al-naṣr, ed. ‘Al? Abū Zayd, et al., 6 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-fikr al-mu‘āṣir, 1418/1998), 1:242, in the biographical entry on Aḥmad b. ‘Abd al-Ḥal?m (Ibn Taymiyya), also in Jāmi‘, 294. Fanā’ al-nār is also mentioned in other lists of Ibn Taymiyya's works: Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ‘Abd al-Hād?, Al-‘Uqūd al-durriyya min manāqib Shaykh al-Islām Aḥmad b. Taymiyya (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-‘ilmiyya, n.d.), 67; al-Ṣafad?, Kitāb al-wāf? bi-l-wafayāt, vol. 7, ed. Iḥsān ‘Abbās (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner, 1969), 26, in Jāmi‘, 317; and Muḥammad b. Shākir al-Kutub?, Fawāt al-wafayyāt wa al-dhayl ‘alayhā, ed. Iḥsān ‘Abbās (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir, 1973), 1:78, in Jāmi‘, 331. Additionally, al-Ṣafad?, Kitāb al-wāf?, and al-Kutub? include the note that Taq? al-D?n al-Subk? refuted Ibn Taymiyya's treatise. According to Bori, Ibn Taymiyya, 163 n. 130, al-Kutub? is here copying al-Ṣafad?. Taq? al-D?n al-Subk? did in fact write a refutation of Ibn Taymiyya's Fanā’ al-nār in 1348, and this will be discussed below. More to the point, it is evident that al-Ṣafad?'s and Ibn Rushayyiq's notices refer to the same treatise, namely Fanā’ al-nār, and that this was the last work that Ibn Taymiyya wrote during his final imprisonment in the citadel of Damascus. This incarceration began in 726/1326. Ibn Taymiyya's pen and paper were confiscated in Jumādā al-ākhira 728/April–May 1328,1818 The contemporary chroniclers Ibn Kath?r and al-Nuwayr? differ on the date of this event, citing 9 and 19 Jumādā al-ākhira, respectively. See Abū al-Fidā’ Ibn Kath?r, Al-Bidāya wa al-nihāya, 14 vols. (Beirut: Maktabat al-ma‘ārif, 1966), 14:134; and Shihāb al-D?n Aḥmad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Nuwayr?, Nihāyat al-arab f? funūn al-adab, vol. 33, ed. Muṣtafā Ḥijāz? (Cairo: Maṭba‘at dār al-kutub al-miṣriyya, 1997), 265, also in Jāmi‘, 131. and he died in prison later the same year. From these observations we may conclude that Ibn Taymiyya wrote his last work Fanā’ al-nār in response to an inquiry from Ibn al-Qayyim about the duration of punishment and the Fire. This occurred during Ibn Taymiyya's final imprisonment, just before he was deprived of his writing materials in the spring of 728/1328. Ibn al-Qayyim then followed his teacher's treatise very closely several years later, perhaps in 745/1344–45, when composing his discussion of the Fire's duration in Ḥād? and more loosely when writing on the same topic in Shifā’. Ibn Taymiyya's Fanā’ al-nār (p. 41) and Ibn al-Qayyim's corresponding discussion in Ḥād? (p. 307) both begin by outlining three possible views on the durations of the Garden and the Fire: 1) both pass away, 2) both remain forever, or 3) the Garden remains forever while the Fire passes away. The first of these views is refuted in the first section of Fanā’ al-nār. The second view is refuted in the third section. The third view is defended in both the second and fourth sections. The discussion in Ibn al-Qayyim's Ḥād? follows suit. The fifth and final section in Ibn Taymiyya's Fanā’ al-nār cites Qur’ānic verses showing that the Garden will remain forever (pp. 83–87). Ibn al-Qayyim does not go on to treat this matter because he has already attended to it earlier in Ḥād? (pp. 305–7) just before picking up with Fanā’ al-nār. The first section of Fanā’ al-nār (pp. 42–52) and the parallel discussion in Ḥād? (pp. 307–11) are devoted to refuting the views of Jahm b. Ṣafwān (d. 128/745) and the early Mu‘tazil? theologian Abū al-Hudhayl al-‘Allāh (227/841?). Jahm argues that the impossibility of an infinite series means that both the Garden and the Fire must eventually cease to exist. On a similar basis, Abū al-Hudhayl argues not that the two will pass away entirely but that motion in them must end. Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim respond that an infinite series into the future is possible and that Jahm ignores Qur’ānic texts indicating the perpetuity of the Garden. These verses include, “Its food is perpetual” (Q. 13:35), and, “Truly, this is Our provision which is never exhausted” (Q. 38:54). The second section of Fanā’ al-nār explores textual support for the Fire passing away or at least that no one will suffer chastisement in it forever (pp. 52–70). Ibn al-Qayyim's matching section in Ḥād? (pp. 311–18) quotes much of Ibn Taymiyya's content and elaborates similar points. Ibn Taymiyya begins with ‘Umar's report cited by ‘Abd b. Ḥam?d, “Even if the People of the Fire stayed in the Fire like the amount of sand of ‘Ālij, they would have, despite that, a day in which they would come out.”‘Abd b. Ḥam?d cites this report, explains Ibn Taymiyya, when interpreting the Qur’ānic testimony that the residents of Hell will be “staying in it for long stretches of time (lābith?na f?hā aḥqāban)” (Q. 78:23) to show that “long stretches of time” does indeed have an end. Ibn Taymiyya also quotes several early exegetical traditions that take “long stretches of time (aḥqāb)” to mean a period of finite length. To reconcile this with classical Sunn? doctrine, it might be argued that the verse applies only to monotheistic sinners and the time they spend in the Fire before entering the Garden.1919 So argues al-Rāz?, Al-Tafs?r, 18:66. Ibn Taymiyya asserts that this is not so. The verse definitely refers to unbelievers. Among other points that Ibn Taymiyya makes in this section is that several commentators use Ibn ‘Abbās's report, “It is not necessary for anyone to judge God with respect to His creatures or to assign them to a garden or a fire,” to explicate the Qur’ānic claim that the residents of the Fire will be “abiding in the Fire, as long as the Heavens and the Earth endure, except as your Lord wills” (Q. 11:107). Time spent in the Fire is not everlasting absolutely. Rather, Ibn Taymiyya observes, it is contingent upon both the existence of this world and — as corroborated by Ibn ‘Abbās — God's will. The third section of Ibn Taymiyya's Fanā’ al-nār (pp. 71–79) and the roughly equivalent section in Ibn al-Qayyim's Ḥād? (pp. 318–22) list and refute arguments for the perpetuity (dawām) of the Fire. Only the first two of these need occupy us here, and the second will be treated first because it is quickly explained. This is the argument that the Qur’ān supports the perpetuity of the Fire. In reply, Ibn Taymiyya recognizes that the Qur’ān says that unbelievers are “abiding in [the Fire] forever (khālidūn f?hā abadan)” (Q. 4:169, 33:65, etc.). Yet, he avers, the Qur’ān never states that the Fire will not pass away. There would seem to be a contradiction here. If unbelievers abide in the Fire forever, how could the Fire pass away? Ibn Taymiyya responds that the residents of Hell will abide in the abode of chastisement only as long as that chastisement lasts. The terms “abiding” (khālid) and “forever” (abad) should not be understood in absolute and unqualified senses. This is the same solution to textual difficulties that Ibn Taymiyya employed in the preceding section of Fanā’ al-nār. The first and more significant argument for the perpetuity of the Fire is that it is held by consensus (ijmā‘), with no conflict over it found among the Salaf (i.e., the early Muslims). Ibn Taymiyya responds that no consensus on this question is known. No one among the Prophet's Companions said that the Fire would never pass away, and the Successors (tābi‘ūn), the second generation after the Prophet, held diverse views on the matter. Thus, Ibn Taymiyya argues, there is no ijmā‘ or consensus that the Fire will remain forever. This way of conceiving consensus divides Ibn Taymiyya methodologically from the mainstream Sunn? scholars of his day, and it is the key to his and Ibn al-Qayyim's Salaf? hermeneutic. For Ibn Taymiyya, the only binding consensus is an explicit consensus of the Salaf, the first three generations at most. Thereafter, consensus becomes too difficult to verify. Any consensus by a later generation of scholars is always subject to correction upon discovery of a stronger proof.2020 Abdul Hakim I. al-Matroudi, The Ḥanbal? School of Law and Ibn Taymiyyah: Conflict or Conciliation (London: Routledge, 2006), 57–59, 186–87; and Henri Laoust, Essai sur les doctrines sociales et politiques de Taḳ?-d-D?n Aḥmad b. Taim?ya, canoniste ḥanbalite néà Ḥarrān en 661/1262, mort à Damas en 728/1328 (Cairo: Imprimerie de l’institut français d’archéologie orientale, 1939), 239–42. Thus, when Ibn Taymiyya discovers that there was no agreement among the Salaf on the duration of the Fire, he is willing to rethink the issue. In classical Sunnism, however, matters on which consensus have been reached are no longer open to discussion. So, by virtue of raising this question anew, Ibn Taymiyya is breaking the rules of classical Sunn? hermeneutics. This becomes clearer in Taq? al-D?n al-Subk?'s (d. 756/1355) Al-I‘tibār, a refutation of Fanā’ al-nār written in 1348, twenty years after Ibn Taymiyya's death.2121 Abū Ḥasan ‘Al? Taq? al-D?n al-Subk?, Al-I‘tibār bi-baqā’ al-janna wa al-nār, ed. Ṭaha al-Dusūq? Ḥubaysh? (Cairo: Maṭba‘at al-fajr al-jad?d, 1987). Al-Subk? never mentions Ibn Taymiyya by name in this text. He only speaks of having come across a composition by a contemporary (p. 56). The editor Ḥubaysh? claims throughout his notes that al-Subk? is responding to Ibn al-Qayyim's Ḥād?. This is possible chronologically. As noted above, there is evidence that Ḥād? dates to 745/1344–45, well before Dhū al-Ḥijja 748/1348, the date al-Subk? tells us that he composed his text (p. 90). It is far more likely, however, that al-Subk? is responding directly to Ibn Taymiyya's earlier Fanā’ al-nār. Most of what al-Subk? puts in the mouth of his dialectical opponent comes straight from Ibn Taymiyya's treatise, including text that Ibn al-Qayyim fails to quote in Ḥād?. Additionally, al-Subk? includes nothing from Ḥād? not already found in Ibn Taymiyya's Fanā’ al-nār. It remains possible, however, that al-Subk? refutes Fanā’ al-nār in order to contest Ibn al-Qayyim's use of it. Although al-Subk? devotes much space to quoting Qur’ānic verses supporting the eternity of the Fire, he writes at the very beginning of the treatise, “The doctrine of the Muslims is that the Garden and the Fire will not pass away. Abū Muḥammad b. Ḥazm has transmitted that this is held by consensus and that whoever opposes it is an unbeliever by consensus” (p. 32). That is, to suggest that the Fire is not eternal is to fall directly into unbelief. Al-Subk? reiterates this elsewhere in the treatise although he is careful to clarify that he does not label any particular person an unbeliever (pp. 47, 85, 89). Even more telling is how al-Subk? responds to Ibn Taymiyya's charge that there was no consensus among the Salaf. Al-Subk? first expresses disbelief that anyone among the Salaf ever said that the Fire would pass away. But then he explains that some