Eternality of Hell, Fire, and Everlasting Punishment

Ayatollah Nekounam's books

Eternality of Hell, Fire, and Everlasting Punishment

By His Holiness Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Nekoonam

Details of the Publication:

Author: Mohammad Reza Nekoonam, b. 1327
Title: Eternality of Hell, Fire, and Everlasting Punishment / Mohammad Reza Nekoonam.
Publisher: Sobh Farda Publishing, Islamshahr, Second Edition, 1393 (2014).
Physical Specifications: 280 pages.
ISBN: 978-600-6435-600
Subject: Immortality (Philosophy), Reward and Punishment.
Library Classification (Dewey Decimal Classification): 291.34
National Bibliography Number: 37402-85M

Preface

All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds, and peace and blessings upon Muhammad and his purified family, and may eternal curse be upon their enemies.

The discussion of eternality and the unending nature of Hell’s fire and eternal punishment for its inhabitants is one of the most important and intricate debates that has always occupied the minds of religious scholars, especially Muslims. From theologians, philosophers, mystics, interpreters of the Quran, to ordinary people, the question persists: Does Allah, the Merciful, eternally punish sinful servants in Hell’s fire, or will He only punish them for a certain period, after which He will relieve them of their suffering and grant them peace?

How could it be possible that the Merciful Lord would punish some of His servants, for limited sins, with everlasting torment— a torment lasting without end, in an eternal fire, for what may amount to a few decades of sinful life?

Various perspectives arise on this issue. One group questions the very need for such eternal punishment, asking why it should be necessary to treat sinners this way. Others insist that such eternal punishment cannot be justified, arguing that Allah’s mercy and justice would never allow for it. Some philosophers argue from a rational point of view, maintaining that the concept of eternal punishment contradicts reason, while others defend its validity by referencing theological and philosophical arguments.

Every individual, depending on their level of understanding or academic background, will approach this issue differently. But for anyone who believes in the afterlife, this question is ever-present, regardless of how briefly or deeply one contemplates it. In the solitude of reflection, everyone wonders about their actions and the consequences of their lives. A Muslim will think about their past deeds—good and bad—and about the uncertain and perilous future awaiting them. At some point, they may ask themselves: “What will become of me?”

The debate about eternal punishment in Hell and whether it is justified has been a central question in Islamic scholarship, with theologians and philosophers offering varying interpretations. Some consider it to be an unavoidable aspect of divine justice, while others, emphasizing the compassion of God, argue that eternal punishment is not reconcilable with His nature.

One must approach this discussion without bias, free from emotional inclinations, and consider the issue from various theological, philosophical, and textual perspectives to arrive at a conclusion grounded in rational and scriptural evidence. This study will explore both the apparent and hidden meanings in relevant religious texts and bring clarity to the question of eternal punishment and its justification.

Subject Matter Analysis

Before delving into the discussion, it is important to separate commonly agreed-upon beliefs from controversial or disputed matters in order to clarify the different aspects of the issue. The core issue addressed here is the eternal or temporary nature of punishment for the disbelievers and the oppressive leaders.

Does eternal punishment in Hell apply to all disbelievers? Many scholars of Islam, including both Shi’ah and Sunni theologians, base their belief in the eternal punishment of disbelievers on the apparent meanings of Quranic verses and Hadiths, asserting that those who reject faith will face unending torment in Hell.

However, other scholars, including some Sufi mystics and philosophers like Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra, reject the idea of eternal punishment. They believe that God’s mercy and justice imply that even disbelievers might eventually be released from punishment, and that eternal damnation does not necessarily align with divine compassion.

In conclusion, while many scholars have reached a consensus on the eternal nature of punishment for disbelievers, others maintain that the concept is not entirely reconcilable with the mercy of Allah. The ultimate conclusion on this matter requires careful study of the scriptural texts, as well as an understanding of divine justice and mercy.

This discussion remains highly contested among Islamic scholars, and each view presents a unique rationale grounded in scriptural interpretation, philosophy, and theology. Ultimately, the answers to these questions rest on the correct understanding of both the Quranic teachings and the Hadiths, as well as the philosophical underpinnings of divine justice.

Eternal Hell, Fire, and Everlasting Punishment

(Holy is His Name)

By Ayatollah Mohammad Reza Nekoonam

Bibliographic Information:

Author: Nekoonam, Mohammad Reza (b. 1327 AH)

Title: Eternal Hell, Fire, and Everlasting Punishment / Mohammad Reza Nekoonam

Publication Information: Islamshahr: Sobhe Farda Publishing, 2nd edition: 1393 AH

Physical Description: 280 pages

Second Edition ISBN: 978-600-6435-600

Library of Congress Classification: 1393 8 H 8 N 65 / 222 BP

Dewey Decimal Classification: 34 / 291

National Bibliography Number: 37402-85 M

Publisher: Sobhe Farda

Second Edition, Published in 1393 AH

Print Run: 3000 copies

Price: 250,000 Rial

Location: Tehran – Islamshahr – Nasimshahr – Vajeabad, 12th Avenue, Jawaherzadeh, Building No. 36

Postal Code: 3769138575

Distribution Centre Phone Number: 025-78 15 90 32

Website: www.nekoonam.com

ISBN: 978-600-6435-600

Preface:

Praise be to Allah, the Lord of all worlds, and peace and blessings upon Muhammad and his pure family, and everlasting curse upon their enemies.

The subject of eternal punishment in Hell and the unending fire and torment for the inhabitants of Hell is a matter that has persistently preoccupied all people of faith, particularly Muslims. This issue is of significant complexity and importance, attracting the attention of theologians, philosophers, mystics, interpreters, jurists, and even ordinary people. The question at hand concerns the ultimate fate of sinners: Will God, the Merciful, punish His sinful servants in the fire of the Hereafter for eternity? Is this eternal torment a timeless, endless punishment with no limit or end, or will God, in His mercy, punish the sinners for a limited time and then ultimately release them from suffering?

How is it possible that the Merciful Lord would subject His disobedient servants to eternal torment for actions that are, in the grand scale, limited in duration? Most people’s lives span no more than fifty, sixty, or perhaps at most a few hundred years. How can it be just or reasonable for someone to be eternally burned in hell for these few moments of disobedience?

Such profound and troubling questions arise, leading to various theological and philosophical debates. Some argue that the notion of eternal punishment is unnecessary or unjust, while others insist that it is an essential part of divine justice. The question is not only theological but deeply personal, as every believer will at some point wrestle with these questions, considering their own actions and their ultimate fate in the Hereafter.

As people reflect on their daily lives, they often find themselves contemplating questions of morality, justice, and the afterlife. A person might reflect on their past deeds, their good and bad actions, and wonder about the future consequences. The question lingers: How could the God of mercy and compassion allow a servant to suffer forever in the fires of Hell? Could such an eternal punishment be truly just? These questions reflect the complex intersection of faith, reason, and emotion.

Haji Sabzevari’s Theory

The late Haji Sabzevari, in the margin of Asfar, states: “In my view, the permanence of punishment and eternal existence in the fire is an absolute truth for the disbelievers, and the cessation of punishment from them is unfounded. The statement of the late Sadr, who says, ‘Coercion does not last,’ is not without response.” He argues that eternal punishment is one of the necessities of the faith, and the perpetual suffering of the people of Hell, beyond being the explicit meaning of the Holy Qur’an, is an essential aspect of the religion. The disagreements on this matter are not of significant importance. Though he aligns with the traditionalists and accepts the eternal punishment and suffering, he does not eagerly delve into the rational proofs and rejects the consensus on eternal suffering, viewing the eternity of punishment and suffering in Hell as a theoretical issue, not resolved by consensus.

Similarly, other philosophers and theologians have generally followed this approach, either leaning towards the emotional logic of the soul or yielding to the intuitive assessments of mystics, rendering the concept of eternal punishment bearable, questioning its permanence, and accepting both ideas while aligning with the traditionalists, whose shared language and reasoning do not necessitate further elaboration.

The Permanence of Punishment

Mystics believe that in the afterlife, a realm much greater and deeper than this world, either the punishment of Hell and fire will not be eternal in the intensity described by some or, if it is eternal in a philosophical sense, it will not remain as unbearable or painful. According to mystics, in the afterlife, the punishment may be severe and painful, but it will not last in the philosophical sense of eternity, or, if it does, it will eventually subside and become tolerable. After a long period, even the painful and intense suffering will lose its force and become bearable. The fire will no longer torment the disbelievers, who will grow accustomed to it, and the concepts of pain, pressure, intensity, grief, and torment will cease to have meaning for the inhabitants of Hell. They will become intoxicated with the passion, love, light, and pride that fill their hearts.

Various arguments are presented for this claim, some of which are alluded to through the language of the mystics.

The punishment and reward of human deeds have no inherent reality of their own and are entirely dependent on the actions of the individual. According to the law of causality, the results and consequences of human actions depend on the existence of the causes behind those actions, and as long as the causes remain, the consequences persist. Without these causes, the results vanish.

This argument can be more clearly explained by stating that the root of all sins and major wrongdoings lies in disbelief, polytheism, defiance, and essentially, the rebellion against the truth and turning away from the origin of existence. When these thoughts and events take root in the heart of an individual, they negate the foundation of faith and leave the person mired in weaknesses. Such individuals, by natural and human standards—from empirical sciences to psychological and philosophical laws—if they create the conditions for these negative outcomes, will inevitably bear the consequences of their actions. These consequences may manifest as either punishment in this world under social laws or divine retribution in the afterlife.

A believer who does not possess such corrupt qualities is naturally safe from such severe punishments. Similarly, the further someone is from the truth, the more they are involved in such matters, and the greater their degree of corruption, the more they will be subject to these consequences.

There is a precise and direct relationship between the degree of a person’s wrongdoing and the punishment they will receive. This relationship is so intricate that understanding it is not easy and requires deep reasoning beyond human faculties.

Punishment and reward are directly linked to human actions, and the outcomes of these actions in this world, the afterlife, Hell, or any other form, are not arbitrary, contractual, or fictitious but are inherent in the nature of existence. The true and intrinsic consequences of human deeds in the afterlife reflect the divine law and are rooted in the person’s relationship with the truth. If an individual behaves in defiance and opposition to the truth, they will inevitably face divine retribution, as there is no way to escape this fate.

Endless Punishment and Deprivation

If one argues that the scriptural evidences and the apparent meanings of the Qur’an declare that the punishment of the disbelievers and their deprivation in Hell is eternal, the response is as follows: When a servant, after much pain and suffering, reaches a point where they cry, “There is no god but You,” and fully submit to the divine, they manifest the divine justice and majesty. At this point, they are no longer harmed by the torment, as the only pain that remains is the longing for the Beloved. When a person reaches this level of proximity to the divine, all feelings of separation and rebellion disappear, and they experience only the joy of the divine presence.

Thus, when the individual is entirely consumed by the beauty and majesty of the divine, their suffering ceases to exist, as it is replaced by the light of love, joy, and union with the divine. This applies not only to the believer in this world but also to the disbeliever in the afterlife, who will eventually come to recognize the same divine beauty after enduring their suffering.

The eternal suffering in Hell only applies to those who persist in their rebellion against the truth. Once a person comes to realize the reality of the divine, they can no longer experience suffering, for they become absorbed in the overwhelming presence of divine majesty. This reality is not bound by time and place, as the person ultimately experiences the truth and becomes united with it.

Philosophical Objections

The apparent philosophical objections and rationalizations are nothing more than the projections of the soul’s assumptions onto the surface teachings of religion. Just as a person might believe that honey is sweet after tasting it, these objections are often based on subjective interpretations rather than objective truth. A true understanding of divine justice and human suffering requires acknowledging that the essence of punishment and reward is not based on arbitrary or fleeting human actions, but rather on the divine order that governs existence.

Thus, while philosophical examples may attempt to link temporary actions with eternal consequences, they fail to reflect the true nature of the divine order and the moral law that governs human existence. The notion that a temporary action can have permanent consequences is a flawed analogy, as the ultimate nature of existence and divine justice is far more intricate and beyond the reach of human reasoning.

The late Haji Sabzevari, in his commentary on Al-Asfar, states: “In my opinion, the perpetuity of torment and eternal punishment in hell for disbelievers is an established truth. The cessation of such torment is unfounded. The statement made by Mulla Sadra that ‘coercion does not last’ is not without response.” He argues that eternal punishment is a necessary element of faith, and the eternal punishment of the denizens of hell is not only clearly indicated in the Holy Quran but is also a matter of religious necessity. The differences of opinion on this matter, he maintains, are not of great significance. Though he aligns with the literalists, accepting eternal punishment and the torment of hell, he does not dwell on rational debates regarding it, stating that the consensus on such eternal torment is not something that can be undermined by individual reasoning or arguments.

Other philosophers and theologians have similarly followed this path, either favouring the emotional rationality of mystics and accepting the belief in eternal punishment and hell while questioning its severity, or they have both accepted and questioned it, coming to a position that aligns with the views of the literalists. Given the agreement among them in terms of terminology and reasoning, further elaboration on their positions is unnecessary.

The Permanence of Punishment

Mystics, however, believe that in the afterlife, the eternal and perpetual torment of hell, or the fire of hell, does not persist with the intensity that the theologians describe. They suggest that, though it may be eternal in a philosophical sense, the suffering does not remain with the same severity or is not eternally excruciating. If the torment does persist eternally in a philosophical sense, it eventually becomes bearable and, in some sense, might become a source of pleasure or comfort.

In the view of the mystic, the punishment may exist, but it does not remain forever as it is, nor does it endure in an eternally painful state. After some period, however long it may be, the severity of torment recedes and becomes less distressing. Eventually, the damned in hell may find themselves in a state of tranquillity, even to the point of becoming accustomed to it and, in some cases, finding comfort in it. The suffering transforms into a kind of passive acceptance, and the inhabitants of hell become intoxicated with the light and love of God, no longer perceiving their previous suffering as painful.

One argument for this view is that punishment, reward, and the consequences of human actions do not possess inherent existence or independence, but are contingent upon the individual’s actions. According to the law of causality, the effects of actions are contingent upon the existence of the causes that give rise to them. Thus, as long as the causes remain, the consequences of human actions persist. However, once those causes are no longer present, the effects cease to exist.

A clearer explanation of this reasoning involves an understanding that all sins, particularly the most significant ones—such as disbelief, polytheism, and resistance to truth—stem from a fundamental disconnect with God, a turning away from the Divine, and an attachment to that which is not God. When such dissonance takes root in a person’s soul, faith is negated, and the individual becomes mired in falsehood and misdirection. According to the laws of human nature and all empirical, psychological, and philosophical principles, if one introduces or maintains the necessary conditions, the results of those actions are inevitable, regardless of whether they take place in this world or the next.

For the believer who avoids such misdeeds, there is no reason for eternal punishment, as they are not exposed to these negative forces. Similarly, the severity of punishment or the absence of it is proportionate to the degree of a person’s departure from the truth. In essence, the degree of separation from truth determines the extent of punishment, with a person who remains close to God immune to such suffering.

This relationship between the deeds and their consequences is intricate and complex, and understanding it is not straightforward. The punishment or reward for actions is not a mere conceptual or arbitrary imposition, but has an intrinsic, real, and psychological basis.

Therefore, every kind of punishment is directly and naturally tied to wrongful deeds, and each individual faces the consequences of their own actions. These consequences are inevitable and cannot be avoided easily. However, the key idea is that the punishment or reward persists only as long as the underlying conditions, such as the faults of the individual’s soul, remain in place.

The Will of God and the Nature of Human Suffering

The mystics further maintain that the individual’s internal state—whether it involves pride, resistance, or ignorance of God—determines the kind and intensity of suffering they endure. The heart of all sin, in their view, lies in the act of turning away from God, and this constitutes the basis for both the disintegration of the soul and the inevitable consequences that follow.

Once the individual’s soul has cleansed itself of this separation from God and has turned entirely to Him, there is no longer any room for punishment or suffering. This transition happens once the individual ceases to resist the Divine and submits to God fully. As a result, the suffering of hell becomes meaningless in the context of the mystic’s final state, as the torments of hell would no longer hold any power over such a soul, which is now fully attuned to the Divine.

When the person experiences this spiritual transformation, they are no longer susceptible to external punishment. Instead, what was once experienced as torment becomes a source of spiritual enlightenment, peace, and joy.

Thus, those who endure the harshest punishments in the afterlife, such as the damned in hell, will eventually come to find peace, not because the punishment ceases to exist, but because they transform through their suffering into a state of acceptance. This is in stark contrast to the concept of eternal suffering that is commonly held by the literalist theologians.

Eternal Punishment and Its Reinterpretation

If one raises the objection that Islamic scripture, particularly the Quran, suggests the eternal nature of hellfire and the permanent punishment for the wicked, the mystic would respond that such punishment may indeed be eternal in a technical sense but not in the same way that literalist readings of these scriptures suggest. After enduring great suffering, the soul eventually reaches a point where it cannot help but surrender to the overwhelming presence of God. At this point, what was once torment becomes a path to spiritual union and enlightenment.

For the mystics, it is not the duration of the punishment that matters, but rather the transformation that occurs in the individual’s soul. The torment of hell is only painful for those who are still estranged from God. When the soul surrenders to God and attains an understanding of Divine truth, suffering no longer exists in the same form. What was once perceived as torment transforms into an expression of love and yearning for God, leading the individual to a state of spiritual ecstasy and complete submission.

Therefore, while the literalists interpret the punishment of hell as eternal and unending, the mystics argue that the ultimate experience of the soul is not that of endless suffering, but rather that of an eventual reunion with the Divine, in which the soul finds solace and peace, even in the face of hellfire. This view challenges the permanent and irrevocable nature of punishment posited by more traditional interpretations, suggesting that spiritual transformation can render even the harshest punishments bearable.

Final Conclusion

In conclusion, the mystics assert that human beings are not destined for eternal rebellion against God. Rather, each individual will, in due time, confront their own falsehood and find themselves humbled before the truth of God. As the soul becomes attuned to the Divine, the punishment of hell ceases to have any power over it. This process of spiritual purification and eventual reconciliation with God is the true end for all souls, whether in this world or the next, and it is this journey that defines the ultimate fate of humanity.

In this verse, aside from emphasizing the severity of the threat and insisting on its application, it also removes despair and hopelessness from His servants, regardless of what they have done or who they are. The present verse serves as a clear witness to the title of “Ahqab” (periods of torment) in the preceding verses, although it does not explicitly lay out the matter.

Verses from Surah Hud

One of the most important verses that can be referenced in this discussion is from Surah Hud:

(The Day when no soul will speak except by His permission. Some will be wretched, and others will be happy. As for those who are wretched, they will be in the Fire, wherein they will emit a sighing and a groaning, abiding therein as long as the heavens and the earth endure, except as your Lord wills. Indeed, your Lord is Doer of what He intends. And as for those who are happy, they will be in Paradise, abiding therein as long as the heavens and the earth endure, except as your Lord wills, as a reward unbounded.) (Hud 11:105-108)

In these verses, the terms “wretched” and “happy” are introduced, and then the conditions of the wretched ones and the inhabitants of the Fire are discussed. Regarding the wretched, when the Fire is described with intensity and extreme hardship, the Qur’an mentions the concept of khulud (eternity); however, it does not present this as absolute eternal permanence. Instead, it introduces it with a specific tone, first restricting the eternity of the inhabitants of the Fire with the phrase “as long as the heavens and the earth endure.” This phrase, while it may serve as a conventional metaphor for eternal duration, does not imply the absolute eternity of the punishment because the concept of eternity is constrained by “as long as” and could never be understood as referring to an unqualified, eternal duration.

Additionally, following this explanation, the phrase “except as your Lord wills” further qualifies the eternity, indicating that it is not absolute but subject to God’s will.

This noble verse, in a subtle manner, condemns obstinacy and rebellion, while simultaneously discouraging despair and hopelessness. It speaks of eternity but does not affirm its permanence.

The verse concludes with “Indeed, your Lord is Doer of what He intends,” which signifies that God, in His perfect will, does exactly as He desires, implying that divine will is not merely a theoretical concept but a reality that is enacted.

A particularly significant and hopeful aspect of these verses is the difference observed between the inhabitants of the Fire and the inhabitants of Paradise. When the eternity of the fortunate ones is described, it is framed in terms of absolute permanence, and while God’s will is mentioned, it does not carry the same implication of “Doer of what He intends” as in the case of the inhabitants of the Fire. Instead, the phrase “a reward unbounded” is added, which communicates the idea of an eternal gift that has no end.

This description can only lead to one conclusion: submission to the truth. Although the eternity of Paradise is also qualified, it speaks of an eternal reward, unlike the eternity of the Fire, where divine will is asserted as absolute.

Based on this, we should disregard interpretations that place this noble verse in the realm of possibility or doubt and instead focus on its clear message, accepting it as the best explanation for the meaning of all verses about eternity. Furthermore, the preceding verses align with this understanding, particularly those mentioning Ahqab and divine will, as well as the verse on intentional killing, each serving as a clear witness to this interpretation.

An analysis of these noble verses leads to the conclusion that the eternity of the inhabitants of Paradise is endless and eternal, whether it is due to the continuity of God’s will or in the sense that God’s will is the true cause of their everlasting existence.

However, the eternity of the punishment of the inhabitants of the Fire is not confirmed in these verses. In fact, it can be said with certainty that such an eternal and absolute existence is not established, and it is only an existence that remains within the preservation of God’s will. This preservation—considering the specific characteristics of the inhabitants of the Fire—has many degrees, states, and variations. Nevertheless, one must not forget the mercy and forgiveness of God.

This is the most solid argument against the idea of eternal punishment for the inhabitants of the Fire in the Qur’an. However, this does not conclude the matter, and one cannot simply affirm this interpretation without further consideration.

It is crucial to focus on two aspects in order to properly understand the Qur’anic perspective and avoid rushing in our investigation or neglecting important details. The first issue to pay close attention to is the verses that explicitly speak of eternal punishment, as many verses suggest this with clear indications.

The second matter that requires more careful consideration is the deep examination of verses that suggest the non-eternity of punishment, to determine whether these verses indeed deny eternal punishment or not.

The Words of Eternity (خلود)

The terms خلد (Khald), خلود (Khloud), خالد (Khalid), and مخلود (Mukhlood) all signify permanence and eternality, referring to something that does not undergo corruption or decay, which conveys the meaning of stability, continuity, and infinity.

While these words may also be used in contexts referring to something that lasts for a long time, they maintain their core meaning of permanence and unchanging nature. The essence of words like خالد (Khalid), خلود (Khloud), خلد (Khald), and مخلّد (Mukhaddad) connotes permanence, stability, and endurance, even when referring to something finite or temporal. Thus, the idea of خلود (eternity) is often interpreted as something that is sustained for a long period, even though it may not be eternally permanent in a philosophical sense.

In some contexts, these terms are used to express an aspiration for longevity, as in the case of “His reign is eternal”, where the individual or the reign is not truly eternal in a metaphysical sense, but merely long-lasting. This usage reflects an underlying desire for an extended duration, and thus does not imply philosophical eternity in the worldly context.

These words and their derivatives appear frequently in the Qur’an, most often relating to the eternal abode in the afterlife and the conditions of Heaven and Hell. Several derivatives, such as دار خلد (Dar Khold), خالدين فيها (Khalideen Feeha), خالد في النار (Khalid Fi-Nar), يوم الخلد (Yawmal Khalood), ولدان مخلّدون (Wildan Mukhaddadoon), عذاب الخلد (Adhab al-Khold), and يخلد فيه مهانا (Yukhallad Fihi Mahaanan) all embody the spirit of everlasting existence. The term خلود (eternity) is used in these contexts to indicate perpetual duration, often coupled with ابد (eternity), as in خالدين فيها ابداً (Khalideen Feeha Abada), to affirm the everlasting nature of something. If the ideas of everlasting, permanent, and eternal cannot be understood through such repeated expressions, then the meaning and purpose of these words would become incoherent. However, this is not the case, as we understand the meanings of such words, especially when they carry general, universal, and cultural significance rooted in ancient and clear human thought.

Murder, Divine Will, and Exception

Another matter that arises in the discussion is the issue of intentional murder, Divine will (mashiyyah), and exceptions (istithnaa), which are discussed in Surah Hud, Al-‘Imran, and An-Nisa. The possibility of the cessation of punishment or the divine mercy being extended plays a significant role in this discussion. Here, we will briefly address these issues.

Verses from Surah Hud

The relevant verses from Surah Hud will be discussed to establish a firm foundation for further analysis.

(Yawm yatee la takallamu nafsun illa bi-idhnihi fa minhum shaqiyun wa sa‘eed, fa amma alladhina shaqu fi al-naar, lahum feeha zafeerun wa shaheeq, khalideen feeha ma daamat as-samawat wa al-ard illa ma shaa’a rabbuk, inna rabbaka fa‘aalun lima yureed, wa amma alladhina sa‘idu fi al-jannah, khalideen feeha ma daamat as-samawat wa al-ard illa ma shaa’a rabbuk, ‘ataa’an ghayra majzooz)

In these blessed verses, the concepts of ultimate happiness and ultimate misery are discussed. The term shaqawat (misery) in this context refers to those who experience the highest degree of distress and wretchedness, while sa‘adat (happiness) applies to all the fortunate, not only those who are directly in the pleasure of God. It is important to note that entry into divine paradise does not entail any exit, while entry into the hellfire does, with many souls being able to eventually leave. Thus, there may be some of the miserable who will be pardoned and saved from Hell, while others will remain under divine wrath indefinitely. Therefore, the possibility of an exception (istithnaa) exists within this framework.

Eternity Represented in Tangible Forms

In these verses, the concept of eternal punishment for the wicked and eternal bliss for the righteous is linked to the duration of the heavens and the earth. The use of the phrase “as long as the heavens and the earth remain” emphasizes the idea of continuity, making the abstract notion of eternity more tangible and comprehensible. The permanence of the heavens and the earth in the context of human experience conveys an understanding of eternity that is more relatable to the human mind. In essence, the Qur’an uses the familiar imagery of the cosmos to teach about divine eternity and everlasting life or punishment, thus bridging the gap between spiritual truths and the human grasp of these ideas.

Misunderstandings and Incorrect Interpretations

It is unnecessary to engage in extensive debates about whether the heavens and earth will exist in the afterlife, or what form they will take in that realm. Such discussions are not directly relevant to the essence of the argument presented in the Qur’an. The use of metaphorical language, such as the comparison to the heavens and the earth, does not require a literal interpretation of the cosmic elements. Instead, it is a tool for making abstract divine concepts more accessible to the human understanding.

Exceptions in Time or Persons

Another important issue raised in these verses is the mashiyyah (divine will) and istithnaa (exceptions). The phrase “illa ma shaa’a rabbuk” introduces an exception to the eternal fate of both the righteous and the wicked. If this exception were related to time or the duration of eternity, it would undermine the concept of eternal existence. However, such an exception does not invalidate the principle of eternal life or punishment; it may simply refer to individuals who are granted mercy and salvation by God’s will.

In this interpretation, the concept of khalood (eternity) does not imply the absolute cessation of existence for all those condemned to Hell, but rather that most of the wicked will remain in the fire, except for those who are the subject of God’s divine mercy. This interpretation aligns with the understanding that the Qur’an often emphasizes God’s will as a determining factor in the fate of individuals.

Thus, it is crucial to understand that the presence of an exception does not necessarily negate the idea of eternity. The exception may apply to specific individuals, as determined by divine will, and not to the duration of punishment itself.

The Use of “Man” vs. “Ma”

Another potential misunderstanding could arise regarding the choice between the words man (who) and ma (what). The Qur’an uses “ma shaa’a Allah” (what God wills), which is grammatically and semantically acceptable. In Arabic, man refers to rational beings (humans), while ma can refer to non-rational beings. However, both terms can sometimes be used interchangeably in Qur’anic language, and the meaning remains consistent in the context.

The Compatibility of Divine Will and Eternity

The assertion that Divine will does not conflict with eternity is crucial here. While God’s will allows for exceptions in the eternal destinies of individuals, this does not undermine the overall idea of eternity in the afterlife. The concept of mashiyyah allows for the possibility of exceptions, but it does not alter the broader principle of everlasting punishment or reward for those who truly deserve it.

Conclusion: Eternal Punishment and Divine Wisdom

In conclusion, the verses that refer to eternal punishment and mercy provide ample evidence for the idea that eternal punishment for the wicked is not contradicted by God’s wisdom. The inclusion of the attributes Hakeem (Wise) and Aleem (All-Knowing) in the Qur’anic verses emphasizes that the eternal nature of punishment for the wicked is aligned with divine wisdom and knowledge. God’s judgment is always just, and His will determines the ultimate fate of individuals based on their actions in this life.

The Words of Eternity (خلود)

Murder, Divine Will, and Exception

Verses from Surah Hud

The relevant verses from Surah Hud will be discussed to establish a firm foundation for further analysis.

Eternity Represented in Tangible Forms

Misunderstandings and Incorrect Interpretations

Exceptions in Time or Persons

The Use of “Man” vs. “Ma”

The Compatibility of Divine Will and Eternity

Conclusion: Eternal Punishment and Divine Wisdom

In any case, whether the verse pertains to disbelievers or believers, and whether it is conditional or not, whether the condition applies to the ruling or the subject, it does not negate eternal damnation; even though it does not affirm it explicitly.

After a thorough examination and a comprehensive analysis of all the verses of the Qur’an concerning this issue, and in relation to the entire subject, it can be stated definitively, with complete belief and without any embellishments or preconceived notions, clearly and without ambiguity, that the eternal damnation of some of the people of the fire and the perpetual nature of their punishment is the clear and explicit view of the Qur’an. There is no escape from this, and denying it is a contradiction to the explicit message of the Qur’an. Anyone who speaks against the eternity of hell must be seeking to heal their own soul from psychological afflictions and various mental disorders, whether they are Shia or Sunni. Although the root of denying eternal punishment stems from Sunni beliefs, emotional sensitivity and sentimental tendencies have led them astray, unless it can be proven that some among the Sunnis, albeit unconsciously, have become influenced by the colonial powers dominating their culture.

Eternality from the Perspective of Shia Narrations

After the mention and analysis of the Qur’anic verses, we turn to the narrations on the subject of the eternal damnation of the people of the fire, particularly from the Shia and Sunni traditions. These narrations will be closely examined to clarify the viewpoint of each, and it will be determined which viewpoint aligns with the Qur’an—the greatest of the two sources.

Shia Sources

There are numerous narrated reports in Shia hadith collections regarding the eternal punishment of the people of hell and the unceasing nature of their torment, so much so that denying these accounts would require rejecting the entirety of these traditions.

This matter is so explicit and clear that it has been discussed in various forms, both collectively and individually, leaving no room for further discussion or questioning by any aware and discerning Muslim.

For example, the following narrations from Shia sources on the eternal punishment of the people of hell:

Narration from Humran:

Humran reported: “I said to Abu Abdullah (the Imam), ‘We have heard that a time will come when the gates of Hell will be closed, and there will be no more fire.’ He replied, ‘No, by God, that is not the case. The fire and punishment will persist forever. Those who remain in the fire will do so as long as the heavens and the earth exist, except for what your Lord wills.’ He then explained that this applies to those who will eventually leave the fire.”

The narrator asks about the exception “as long as the heavens and the earth remain.” Imam Sadiq (A.S.) explains that this exception refers to those who will exit the fire, and not to others, meaning that this exception is about certain individuals, not about time. There is no temporal exception in this case.

In this narration, the Imam clearly and explicitly declares the eternity of the punishment, emphasizing it with an oath and clarifying the meaning of the verse and its exception.

Narration from Jirjir:

Jirjir narrated: “He used to say, ‘How foolish some people are, saying that after the fire ends, herbs like ‘Jirjir’ (a type of plant) will grow in the valley of Hell. Yet Allah Almighty says, “Its fuel is people and stones.” How can plants grow there?'”

The Imam calls those who claim such a thing “foolish,” and it is clear that his statement is not without reason. His words help us understand the error of such claims.

Narration from Abu Walad:

In a narration from Abu Walad: “Then it will be said, ‘O people of Paradise, eternal life, no death, and O people of the fire, eternal life, no death.'”

Both the people of Paradise and the people of the fire are addressed in the same way: eternal existence with no death.

Narration from Abu Hashim:

Abu Hashim reported: “I asked Abu Abdullah (A.S.) about the eternity of the people of Heaven and Hell. He replied, ‘The people of Hell are eternally punished because their intentions in this world were such that, had they remained there forever, they would have continuously disobeyed Allah.'”

Imam Sadiq (A.S.) explains that their eternity in Hell is due to their permanent intention to disobey Allah, and he reads the verse, “Every one of them will act according to his own nature.” He clarifies that the reason for their eternal punishment is the combination of their intention and actions.

Narration from Ibn Abi Umayr:

Ibn Abi Umayr narrated from Musa ibn Ja’far (A.S.): “No one remains eternally in the fire except those who are disbelievers, deniers, the misguided, and the polytheists.”

This narration specifies that those who will face eternal punishment are the disbelievers and polytheists, while believers, even if they have committed sins, will eventually be saved from eternal damnation.

Additionally, regarding those who commit major sins but still have faith, it is reported that the Prophet (PBUH) said: “My intercession is for the major sinners of my ummah, and as for the righteous among them, they will not be in any danger.”

The Imam also states: “O Abu Basir, the enemies of Ali (A.S.) are those who are eternally in the fire, and they will never receive intercession.”

Passages from Dua Kamil:

In the famous Dua Kamil, Imam Ali (A.S.) says: “By certainty, I am certain that if it were not for Your decree regarding the punishment of the deniers and the eternal damnation of Your enemies, You would have made the fire cold and peaceful for all, and no one would have had a place in it. But Your names are sacred, and You have sworn to fill it with disbelievers from jinn and mankind and to make the deniers eternally therein.”

Imam Ali (A.S.) acknowledges that if it were not for God’s judgment regarding the disbelievers and their eternal punishment, the fire would have been made cold and peaceful. Yet, God has decreed otherwise, and His decision is unchanging.

The Imam’s statement in this prayer is profound and demonstrates a deep understanding of God’s attributes and justice. He emphasizes the certainty of God’s judgment and highlights the eternal nature of the punishment for those who oppose God.

Analysis and Evaluation of the Mentioned Statements

Every other statement or narration in books like Al-Esfar, Al-Futuhat, Fusus, and other mystical works has specific aspects, and although the expressions may differ, the essential belief and aim—denying eternal punishment and the perpetual fire—remain common.

From the first narration about the plant Jergir, it is understood that Hell will one day be free of fire and torment, and the Hell will become a suitable place for the cultivation of such plants. However, whether the inhabitants of Hell will remain in this state, or not, is not clearly indicated, and the narrator seems to focus on the alleviation of torment and fire rather than insisting on the departure of the damned from Hell.

From the narration of Ibn Mas’ud, it is inferred that the inhabitants of Hell will eventually be freed, and no one will remain in Hell forever. However, this narration does not refer to the location or the suitability of Hell for cultivation or other specifics, and it contrasts directly with the first statement, which discusses the nature of the place and its suitability for such activities, while this narration only addresses the people involved and emphasizes the eventual cessation of eternal torment.

The statement from the mystics, as mentioned by Mulla Sadra in Al-Esfar and in the Futuhat, encompasses both the earlier views and introduces something new: after the exit of the inhabitants of Hell to Heaven, God will create new beings and fill Hell with these creatures. However, the exact conditions of Hell at that time and the state of the newly created beings are unclear. Whether these new beings live in torment and suffering or merely endure it, and whether the Hell itself remains a place of fire or is otherwise altered, is not evident. While the analogy from the nature and harmony of the created beings hints at their innocence, it does not imply a cessation of torment.

The story of Jergir seems to suggest that belief in the non-eternity of Hell’s fire was once common among some of the general populace, particularly within certain factions of Sunni Islam. From some inconsistencies in the narration about Jergir—whether the plant is good or bad—it can be understood that this belief was supported by certain powerful groups within Sunni thought. However, it is unclear which specific groups within Sunni Islam supported this view, as the mainstream theological and narrational sources of Sunni Islam do not accept this belief, and like the Shia, they adhere to the doctrine of eternal Hell.

Moreover, in numerous Shi’a narrations, it becomes evident that this belief is baseless, as the Prophet (PBUH) responds mockingly to it, saying: “How foolish are some people who say that a plant will grow in the depths of Hell!” With this statement, the Prophet clearly negates any idea of the non-eternity of Hell’s fire and torment, dismissing such thoughts as the result of a flawed understanding, and asserts the eternal nature of Hell and its suffering.

Additionally, this view lacks any strong intellectual or theological foundation. The belief in Jergir and its growth in Hell has no solid rational or narrational basis, nor any logical or theological justification. It remains merely an unsupported claim by an unknown and unfounded group. It neither has any rational basis nor does it have any authentic religious sources to back it, and thus remains similar to many beliefs that are merely the result of personal or factional preferences.

The narration of Ibn Mas’ud, aside from the points mentioned earlier, is also without solid grounding. Although it appears in the form of a narration, it lacks a reliable and robust chain of transmission and is merely a historical report. There are many such reports in both Sunni and Shia narrational traditions, but none of them can be relied upon, as they lack intellectual or authentic sources.

The narration of some mystics, as mentioned by Mulla Sadra in Esfar and by Shaykh in Futuhat, also holds no scholarly or doctrinal value, as it is simply an individual mystical experience. While a mystical experience can hold importance for the person who has the experience, it holds no practical relevance for others, especially when such experiences contradict the Qur’an or rational argument.

As for genuine mystical experiences, although they have special importance within the realm of mysticism, they lose their significance when they are unverifiable and contradict established religious texts and rational argumentation.

Thus, when looking at these various narrations, it becomes clear that they all essentially deny the eternity of Hell’s torment. However, each expresses this in different ways: one speaks of the exit of the damned from Hell and their entry into Heaven, another talks about the cultivation of plants in Hell, and yet another mentions the creation of new beings to inhabit Hell. It remains unclear what the exact meaning and purpose of these different accounts are, other than denying eternal torment. If fire and torment no longer persist, what is the point of the damned leaving Hell? If Hell will support cultivation, what is the purpose of creating new beings to inhabit it?

These statements seem to be little more than unsupported claims, with no clear evidence or justification. Unfortunately, such ideas have gained prominence within the mystical tradition, particularly in the works of figures like Shaykh and his followers, creating significant obstacles for those seeking to understand the Qur’an and the teachings of the Shia Imams.

The Two Firm Pillars

After examining the Qur’anic verses and narrations, and conducting a thorough and complete analysis of these two pillars of faith, it becomes clear that the eternity and permanence of torment for the inhabitants of Hell is irrefutable. The continuity of punishment for the stubborn and disbelievers is an unquestionable truth.

This belief, agreed upon by all the followers of Islam, is firmly supported by both rational and religious evidence. It has not been refuted or challenged, and even figures like Muhyiddin Ibn Arabi accept the eternity of torment, though they may question its exact nature or quality, which is a separate discussion that should be examined further.

Thus, the belief in the eternal existence of the inhabitants of Hell, similar to the eternal happiness of the inhabitants of Heaven, has no foundation for doubt. It is a firmly established religious truth, supported by both the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Denying it would be inappropriate for a Muslim, as the mainstream belief in Islam adheres to this notion of eternal punishment, as has been shown.

The Mercy of God

After confirming this religious and Qur’anic truth about the eternal punishment of the disbelievers, it is necessary to address several subsidiary yet highly important issues that are often raised in connection with this topic. These should be examined thoroughly so that no misconceptions or neglect remain.

The first issue concerns whether God’s forgiveness for the disbelievers, according to those who argue that punishment is finite, is a matter of divine grace and mercy or whether it is an obligation and duty that disbelievers owe to God.

The second issue is whether God’s forgiveness, for those who disbelieve, can apply solely to the disbelievers, or whether it could also be extended to the righteous and the saints, or whether such a thing is impossible.

The third issue is whether, after the eternality of torment and Hell, it is conceivable that the torment might end, or whether the damned will one day find their punishment less severe or even bearable.

The debate over whether God’s forgiveness is obligatory or merely an act of grace and mercy will be addressed, followed by a discussion of whether God’s forgiveness can extend beyond the disbelievers to the righteous, and finally, a consideration of the possibility of the eventual alleviation of Hell’s torment.

Those who propose that God’s forgiveness for disbelievers is obligatory often argue that God’s mercy must intervene. However, as discussed, this view lacks solid foundation, as it contradicts established religious teachings and rational proofs.

Do not humiliate or degrade them. This is a very profound and valuable statement because the words of the believers are not, “O God, do not break Your promise of forgiveness to us,” as such an expectation is not due to them; rather, the humiliation and disgrace of the believers on the Day of Judgment is in the non-punishment of the disbelievers and their relief and comfort. It is very painful that those who mocked the believers in this world should stand beside them in the hereafter, mocking the believers once more—something that can never happen.

If it is said that all this is correct and appropriate, but it is compatible with the idea of non-eternal punishment and does not contradict it, it could be that all the enemies of the truth may experience punishment and hardship but in the end receive God’s mercy and forgiveness.

In response to this misconception, it must be stated that this is never the case. For the promise of God to the believers is eternal punishment for the enemies of the truth, and such a warning is stated in numerous verses. Moreover, the complete realization of this warning—disgrace and humiliation for the enemies of the truth, and support for the believers—cannot occur except in the eternal punishment and suffering of the disbelievers. The support and help of God, and the disgrace and humiliation in its fullest sense, are synonymous with eternal damnation. Anything less than this cannot adequately reflect this Qur’anic reality.

The verses of warning, which come alongside promises, and in fact, the promise given through warnings, are numerous in the Qur’an. Although the warning is directed only at the disbelievers and enemies of the truth, independent of the promise to the believers, this can still be found in the Qur’an, and some examples are as follows:

God, the Exalted, says: (Woe to those who disbelieve from their Day which they are promised) [82]; woe to those who disbelieve in the truth, for the dreadful day that is promised to them.

Or He says: (The promise of the truth is near, and when it is realized, the eyes of the disbelievers will be fixed in fear) [83]; the promised truth—its threat—is near, when the enemies of the truth and the disbelievers will be struck with astonishment.

As their own words attest: (Woe to us, we were in heedlessness about this, rather, we were wrongdoers) [84]; woe to us, how surprising that we were in neglect and unaware, and before this, we were among the wrongdoers and the enemies of the truth.

In these verses, the severity and the ultimate punishment of the fire are clearly identified, and God makes clear to all the wicked the future without any ambiguity or vagueness, as nothing darker than their coming fate could be described. God, in various ways and through their own confessions, makes clear the tragic end awaiting them and closes the door on any possible misinterpretation.

Although the language of these verses and others is one of threat and warning, with no promises accompanying them, it does not alter the subject at hand. The promise, whether accompanied by a warning or not, is in line with this. From these verses, one cannot infer any approval of forgiveness or deserving of mercy, for, as stated earlier, the general approval of forgiveness for wrongdoings in personal matters and individual situations is valid; however, in general and public matters, it is not absolute. Only the specific conditions of justice are valid, and where justice does not apply, it leads to disgrace and is not fitting for God, the Most High.

The Approval and Obligation of Forgiveness

All these words do not create any obligation or necessity for the enemies of the truth or the obstinate disbelievers, although many of those holding these divergent views—whether they deny eternal punishment or accept it but deny the reality of suffering—often argue for the impropriety of eternal punishment and seek to find evidence for its denial. Such arguments, however, should never be appropriate for a fair-minded believer or an informed Muslim, for they would lead to the reversal of warnings and the assertion that forgiveness and overlooking the deeds of obstinate enemies is obligatory, making failure to do so an act of injustice and evil. This would distort the true meaning of forgiveness, turning it into an obligation, and if it were not an obligation, it would no longer be seen as unjust. Furthermore, a punishment such as this for the wicked and obstinate disbelievers is the result of wisdom, and it carries with it rational and legal necessity.

The Softness of Heart and Tenderness

Thus, despite the firm and explicit evidence for eternal punishment, there is no evidence to suggest that punishment is not eternal. Such views arise only among those seeking temporary comfort for themselves or the enemies of the truth, wishing to soothe the hearts of the disbelievers whom the sacred law classifies as the lowest of creatures. They try to lighten the burden of disbelief, obstinacy, and defiance and make them happy by offering false comfort.

This stance may stem from a soft heart or a failure to grasp the reality of obstinacy and disbelief. Those holding such views, who fail to recognize the complexity of the nature of these disbelievers, are influenced by a weak understanding that the judgment of God is based on faulty reasoning: “What I dislike, God must also dislike.” Such individuals also fail to properly engage with the issue at hand, as many of these distorted ideas are gradually introduced into intellectual discourse and academic texts by external influences, using many layers of pseudo-scientific and pseudo-religious arguments.

Ibn Arabi’s View and His Followers

In the later part of his Ismaili section, Ibn Arabi states that the fulfillment of promises leads to praise and gratitude, which is admirable, whereas the fulfillment of threats does not invite praise but rather forgiveness and leniency, which should be praised. God, the Exalted, says, “Do not think that God will break His promise to His messengers” [85], and adds, “He did not say, ‘His threat,’ but rather, ‘He will forgive their wrongs, even though He has warned them.’”

He argues that once the forgiveness of God for sinners and erring Muslims is established, there is no need for the realization of His threat, and even though disbelievers enter eternal damnation, they will be blissful in their own way. Their bliss is in their defilements, unlike the bliss of the people of paradise, which is in pure pleasures.

Thus, the bliss is one, but the pleasures differ according to the condition of the individuals. The people of paradise manifest the divine names of beauty and perfection, while the damned manifest the divine names of majesty and wrath.

If one asks how those suffering punishment in the fire are happy, Ibn Arabi would clarify that the nature of the punishment is not from hardship but from “Azzab” (bitterness), which is a pleasant, pure form. This is stressed repeatedly in his writings, especially in the Futuhat al-Makkiyah.

In conclusion, he asserts: “Whatever one becomes accustomed to, he will be pleased with it. The worst form of punishment is exile from one’s homeland.”

In brief, it must be stated that the absolute rejection of the Sheikh, or the unconditional acceptance of him and his teachings, is not the correct path and is, in fact, a clear misguidance. One cannot completely disregard the Sheikh, nor can one wholly accept him. Neither is he free from errors or flaws, nor is he beyond criticism.

The Sheikh, as a figure, remains central, and his works, particularly those in the field of mystical thought, are invaluable resources for the study of the unity of being and spiritual vision. However, this does not mean that one should relinquish reason and logic in accepting his teachings entirely or elevate his words to the status of sacred truths without critical examination.

One should approach the Sheikh’s works in a balanced manner—neither blindly criticizing him nor granting him an unquestioned position of absolute truth. To elevate him to the status of an infallible spiritual guide or to accept everything he says as divine wisdom would be as misguided as unfairly attacking him without reason or evidence. The former is an act of uncritical devotion, while the latter is a manifestation of ignorance and bias.

Having outlined this general approach to engaging with the Sheikh, we now turn to a more detailed critique of his beliefs regarding divine promises and threats (wadeh and wa’id), and subsequently, his assertions regarding punishment and divine mercy. These claims will be examined and analyzed concisely in order to present a clearer understanding.

Bali Effendi, the Commentator on Fusus

Bali Effendi, the renowned commentator on the Fusus al-Hikam, asserts with conviction in this discussion that the transformation of the skin and flesh of the disbelievers in Hell, as well as the gradual decay and annihilation of the bodies of those damned to eternal suffering, is solely related to the period of initial punishment and torment in Hell, before the eventual transition to the eternal divine pleasure. This process applies to the early stages of punishment in Hell and its severe trials. However, after this temporary phase—no matter its extent—there will be no further pain or hardship, and these attributes will cease to exist. All the inhabitants of Hell, along with the disbelievers and adversaries, will eventually enter the eternal divine bliss. The state of joy and delight will remain for them eternally, without change or alteration.

Following this explanation, Bali Effendi emphasizes with the phrase “and know” the divine and prophetic revelation that confirms this conclusion: “After the period of torment and suffering ends, the fire for the inhabitants of Hell will become cool and safe. There will no longer be pain, suffering, or torment for those destined to eternal Hell, and the second punishment will become delightful and sweet, differing from the first torment. It will no longer retain the effects of the initial suffering.”

To clear any misunderstandings or disagreements between scholars of the exoteric and the mystics, he proposes a conciliatory perspective: “The mystics and the scholars of the exoteric tradition are in agreement on the concept of eternal torment, and all the scholars and mystics acknowledge the eternal nature of Hell. The only disagreement lies in the nature and quality of the fire and torment, and such minor differences in such a profound eschatological belief do not pose significant barriers.”

To clarify and reinforce this further, he offers an analogy from practical ethics, stating: “A seeker on the path of growth and perfection, in the early stages of their journey, endures arduous and bitter physical practices. Despite the initial harshness, these trials are, in essence, sweet and enjoyable, and the seeker finds joy and ecstasy in the fruits of these trials, which lead to the realization of the Divine. In Hell, similarly, although it is torment, the inhabitants will ultimately experience peace and joy, as the fire will bring about an inner state of ease and will be manifested externally for the disbelievers.”

He continues with another argument: “Know that the disbelievers and adversaries are all guests of the Merciful Lord in the Hereafter. Allah is the host, and it is clear from the Shariah that in the case of a guest, one must honor them, even if they are disbelievers. In this context, Allah is the host, and they are the guests, and the banquet of Allah is filled with mercy and compassion. This can only be realized by the cessation of punishment, and this divine hospitality cannot be fully realized for these disbelievers until the fire becomes cool and safe. This is consistent with the natural laws of hospitality, which apply to Allah as well.”

Lastly, he addresses any potential misconceptions regarding the mystical teachings, advising: “Beware of thinking ill of the saints of Allah when you encounter meanings such as these, which may seem perplexing or troubling. Do not hastily accuse them, as such judgments are unworthy of a thoughtful person. One must strive to understand the meanings and foundations of their statements, even though this task is complex and challenging. For the fact that the inhabitants of Hell suffer without enjoying the pleasures of Paradise, including the delights of heavenly drinks, houris, silk garments, and other divine bounties, is in itself a form of punishment and deprivation, despite the fire ultimately becoming cool and peaceful for them.”

Thus, such mystics accept the concept of Hell and eternal punishment, and although they initially acknowledge the torment, they do not perceive the fire and Hell as sources of eternal sorrow. Instead, they envision the inhabitants of Hell as joyous and intoxicated, basking in the majesty of Allah within the confines of Hell and its fire.

The esteemed Shaykh presents these ideas in the Ismaili section of his work, claiming: “The inhabitants of Hell, in their state of misery and Hellish bliss, will experience pleasure and delight, remaining content and intoxicated in their state.” He elaborates on the linguistic and conceptual connection between torment and sweetness, stating: “The reason torment is called torment is that it contains an inherent sweetness, and every form of punishment carries with it a particular form of sweetness, as torment comes from ‘adab’ (the root of which implies sweetness), and sweetness is nothing other than delight, joy, and ecstasy.”

The Example of the Commentator Qaysari

After the Shaykh’s statement, the commentator Qaysari enters the discussion, asserting that the deluded and oblivious people, as well as the scholars of the exoteric tradition, fail to grasp this idea. They do not realize that the pleasure of Hell is akin to the outer layers of Paradise. Both Hell and Paradise share a similar principle of delight, with the only difference being that one is the “core” while the other is the “skin.” He compares the skin of wheat, which provides food for animals, to the bread made from its flour, which nourishes humans. Thus, while each form of pleasure has its specific role, the essential nature of pleasure and delight remains unchanged.

Then, with pride and confidence, the commentator states: “Few are those who truly understand the core of these matters. It is rare for anyone to fully comprehend these truths and become aware of them.”

He proceeds to categorize the inhabitants of Hell into different groups—disbelievers, polytheists, hypocrites, and sinners—and examines their various fates. He claims that some will experience temporary fire, others will be immersed in continuous torment, while some will await alleviation, and others will be left to endure it alone. He paints a vivid picture of their suffering and hopes for divine mercy.

Baseless Appropriations and Arguments

Ultimately, what can be gathered from all the words of these scholars is that their overall reliance on these ideas is rooted in personal inclinations, speculative reasoning, and what they call “intellectual proofs” based on their mystical visions. However, these claims do not align with the clear guidance of the Quran and Hadith, which serve as the foundational sources of Islamic belief.

The few weak and baseless reports they cite to support their ideas are mere attempts to fill a void, as these reports do not hold any substantial value in shaping their beliefs. They fail to adhere to the principles of Islamic jurisprudence and the intellectual framework established by both the Shariah and the rational faculties.

These mystical interpretations, particularly those regarding the nature of eternal torment in Hell, lack any solid basis in religious texts. The idea that Hell will eventually become a place of peace for its inhabitants is a deviation from established Islamic doctrine and stands in contradiction to the consensus of both Sunni and Shia scholars.

In conclusion, the belief that Hell will eventually turn into a place of peace, as posited by these mystics, is a baseless theory, devoid of textual or rational evidence. This view contradicts the clear teachings of the Quran and the Hadith, and should be carefully reconsidered.

It is better to once again speak of the Sheikh, for he is the foundation and cornerstone of such discussions in classical mysticism.

He mentions this concept in the Ismaili section and states: “Pain (or torment) is called ‘sweet’ because, etymologically and derivatively, it comes from ‘sweetness’ and refers to something pleasant. In our tongue, we could say: the torment has its own particular sweetness, and no other sweetness or bliss brings such joy and delight.”

It must be stated that this claim of the Sheikh is unfounded; for first, the word ‘sweet’ (عذب) does not solely mean pleasant and agreeable—it also refers to meanings such as “strike,” “prohibition,” “abandonment,” “battle,” and many other connotations. It is evident that ambiguity in the original concept and the primary meaning prevents reliance on a particular instance. To properly support an argument in such cases, one needs a context or indication that eliminates this ambiguity, and in this case, such a context contradicts the Sheikh’s claim. Additionally, his statement does not align with the initial understanding of torment, as it is not considered sweet or pleasant in the first stages of Hell.

Another point that must be clarified is that ‘torment’ originally refers to suffering and agony, and this itself serves as evidence that torment is not derived from sweetness (عذب), as the Sheikh suggests, but rather from concepts like prohibition and abandonment. The word ‘torment’ is first used to refer to a strike, and later evolved to signify pain and suffering, which are the inevitable consequences of a strike. The original meanings are commonly spread in the relevant contexts.

Furthermore, the term ‘sweet’ (عذب) is not derived from just one root or single meaning. It has multiple meanings across various contexts, such as sweetness, prohibition, and strike, with each having its own distinct connotation. ‘Sweetness’ with a ‘فتح’ (open) pronunciation refers to pleasantness, whereas in other pronunciations (e.g., with a kasra or a dhamma), it may refer to strike or prohibition.

After considering all these points, it should be noted that the discussion of a word’s meaning is not merely a linguistic issue. The original etymology is not the key to understanding such matters. These kinds of discussions require sound rational arguments and legitimate religious evidence, which, in this case, are lacking.

Thus, the Sheikh’s comparison is unfounded and can be seen as a fallacy. Moreover, it does not yield any valid conclusions, except for the claim that torment has its own kind of sweetness—a sweetness that no other pleasure can replace. However, in response, one could argue that if this kind of sweetness is considered, it would refer to the bitterness, pain, and suffering itself, which would not contradict the notion of torment and affliction, and the focus is on the painful and difficult nature of Hell’s fire and punishment.

The commentator Qaisari, in his explanation, speaks of this concept with such subtlety that he leads these unfortunate and lost individuals into a state of despair. In such a moment, when they are completely helpless, as the saying goes: “what would God desire from them?”—and once they kneel and come to God in total surrender, God forgives all their past transgressions. At that point, they become immersed in passion and longing, and God is lost in His love and self-sufficiency, crying out in an ecstatic state, saying: “Let whatever happens, happen, and whatever has passed, return, with the eternal decree stretching into all of eternity.”

Of course, such language is more suited to poetic or romantic mysticism, not to scholarly investigation. Though the commentator Qaisari attempts to provide some intellectual reasoning and also mentions intercession (Shafa‘a) and intercessors, this remains another baseless discussion. As the saying goes, “In the judge’s house, there are many walnuts, but there is also a reckoning.” The intercession of the intercessors and the intercession of God are both confirmed, but does this include those who are hostile and disbelieving? This is another claim, one that requires evidence.

As previously noted, intercession is for those who have a trace of divine love in their hearts, who have accepted truth in some way, and who view God as their protector, not for those of obstinacy, animosity, and disbelief, who remember nothing of God except hatred.

Thus, the issue is not about the existence or absence of intercessors, for each of these matters is resolved and established in its own domain. Rather, the discussion is about whether the enemies of the truth and the leaders of disbelief will be excluded from these meanings. Those who are placed in the special coffin of fire and become occupants of the wrath of Hell have no hope of salvation, for they are not on any straight path.

There is an abundance of intercession and intercessors, and indeed, God is the most merciful of the merciful. Each of these concepts possesses an infinite quality, but this does not negate the possibility that some may be excluded from intercession by divine wisdom, or that some may fall outside of its scope.

In any case, the commentator Qaisari does not pass by the story of Jirjir (the plant growing in Hell), just as Balī Afandi did not pass by “Akram al-Dhayf, even if he is a disbeliever.”

After all the statements of the Sheikh, Qaisari, and other commentators of the Sheikh’s words, no clear or substantiated evidence emerges to support the notion of non-eternality or cessation of punishment for the inhabitants of Hell. Relying on personal whims, subjective opinions, or emotional sensitivity is never appropriate for academic scrutiny, particularly when there are abundant and clear religious sources confirming the eternity of punishment in Hell. Rationality does not contradict these sources, and detailed analysis of these finer matters is not within the scope of ordinary reasoning.

Mr. Feyz and His Engagement with the Thoughts of Mulla Sadra

Mr. Feyz has not given much importance to the sources that he himself would have had access to, and instead, following Mulla Sadra, he has engaged with the thoughts of Ibn Arabi, diverging from the main discourse.

As was expected from the late Mulla Sadra, a master of rational discussions, Mr. Feyz was anticipated to critically examine the opinions of the Sheikh and the commentators of his books, along with the followers of his school, and to scrutinise the legal conformity of these opinions. Similarly, it is expected from the late Feyz that he would apply a critical approach to the transmissions (narrations) and reports in this field, pointing out the lack of substantiation in these narrations and their inadequacies, in contrast to the firmly established and certain documents, and thereby pave the way for others to follow.

Haji Sabzevari’s Theory

The late Haji Sabzevari, the author of the Manzumeh of philosophy, further propagated this divergence in his commentary on Asfar, introducing an unfounded innovation to absolve the mystics.

He states: “There is a difference between eternal residence in the fire (Hell) and eternal torment. What is firmly established and agreed upon in Islamic religion is the eternal residence in Hell and the fire, but the eternal and continuous punishment is not necessarily agreed upon, and it is possible for all the disbelievers and opponents to be in the fire of Hell without undergoing any punishment.”

The late Haji says: “This is an opinion, and its denial does not constitute disbelief for the one who holds it, because what is necessary is never denied, and something that is denied is never necessary.” His opinion aligns with that of the Sheikh, who states: “If Hell and the fire were eternal, its torment and hardship would not be continuous.”

What should be said about the statement of the late Haji Sabzevari is that he has only adopted the distinction between fire and punishment as an extension of the belief of Ibn Arabi and Mulla Sadra, and it has no other justification. This distinction between fire and punishment has no basis except for the subjective musings of the Sheikh and others, and in fact, all sources testify to the unity of eternal punishment, suffering, and fire. The reflection of this in the mind is merely an imagined concept and does not provide any evidence for its truth.

Thus, the distinction between fire and punishment has no legitimate or substantive foundation, and is only a mental construct aimed at absolving the Sheikh or distancing him from the accusations of takfir (excommunication). The Sheikh himself was aware of this, as he states: “If there is consensus, then there is no punishment,” meaning, in reality, he does not consider consensus to be of great importance or definitive value, although he does not deny its possibility.

We are not engaged in discussions of disbelief or faith, nor are we concerned with whether this issue is necessary or theoretical. Our pursuit is to establish the truth of the matter, and in this context, we do not delve into secondary or external issues. Our point to the late Haji is that the separation he proposes between fire and punishment has no legal or rational justification, and is merely a mental misconception.

Unfortunately, what is evident in the statements of the mystics on this matter is the confusion between the divine and the created realms. The mystics have entangled the language of mysticism with psychological and extraneous fallacies, merging the realm of divine simplicity and manifestations with the possible and created aspects of existence.

Clarification of the Matter

Existence and all beings and manifestations of being—whether general or specific, attributes and the attributed, substances and accidents, instances and concepts, thoughts and actions—although all are manifestations of the divine essence and the various aspects of the divine names and attributes, this profound mystical statement should not contradict the created aspects of existence. The language of divine simplicity should not ignore human action, reward, duty, punishment, and the consequences of one’s moral choices. In fact, these two aspects have separate foundations and should not be conflated.

In essence, while all existence is a manifestation of the divine essence and the attributes of divine beauty and majesty, this belief should not conflict with human free will and responsibility. Likewise, the reward and punishment, the consequences of disbelief and faith, and the moral and volitional aspects of humanity, are not incompatible with the divine truths and positive decrees of God. Fire, torment, Paradise, pleasure, and all such consequences have a dual relationship with God as manifestations of His essence and with the created world as aspects of possibility and causality. These two realms are entirely separate and distinct.

From the perspective of the divine, existence is simple and pure creation, and all beings and their various manifestations are the reflections of the divine names and attributes. These divine realities, which are necessary by nature, cause the entire cosmic order of existence and are inextricably linked to the consequences of human actions, including reward, punishment, and divine retribution.

Eternity in the Qur’an

In this section, the verses in the Qur’an related to Hell, punishment, fire, and its various characteristics are thoroughly discussed, so that the baselessness of claims denying the eternity of Hell’s punishment and the divergence of such views from the Qur’anic perspective can be made clear.

The Qur’an presents a great deal of material on this topic, and it explicitly and comprehensively describes the states and characteristics of the misguided, obstinate, and rebellious individuals. There is no ambiguity or vagueness in this regard in the general principles and truths. This stands in stark contrast to the various mystic views mentioned earlier, which are never unified and each presents a particular interpretation, albeit unsupported by any solid evidence. These mystic perspectives are not defensible against the Qur’an—the sole book of divine revelation—and their claims are baseless.

In contrast to the divergent opinions of some mystics, there are three main erroneous and unfounded ideas they pursue in opposition to the Qur’an:

Though this view contradicts the apparent meanings of Shari’ah, the apparent texts are meant for ordinary people, and the higher truths of religion are reserved for mystical experiences and spiritual revelations.
Although the apparent meanings of the Qur’an suggest eternal punishment, these meanings are not reliable due to internal and external reasons.
It is true that the apparent meanings of Shari’ah indicate eternal torment and punishment in Hell, and these meanings are binding, yet there are other hidden truths that the Qur’an does not explicitly reveal, and these are made known to the pious through their hearts and inner vision.

None of these arguments is reasonable, as they clearly contradict rational thought. The Qur’an is the only revealed book that addresses all of the secrets and speaks of them clearly. Its apparent meanings remain authoritative, and the religious tradition has always followed this direct approach. The Qur’an does not conceal any truths, and the inner meanings of the Qur’an do not contradict its apparent meanings. The apparent and the hidden are in harmony with each other, and any mystical thought that suggests otherwise is based on confusion and misinterpretation.

Therefore, in reference to the Qur’anic verses on Hell, punishment, and torment, it is clear that the punishment for the inhabitants of Hell is eternal and without any alleviation, and there is no possibility of comfort or ease for them. Everything in Hell is suffering and torment.

آیا این نوشته برایتان مفید بود؟

بلی 0 خیر 0

Eternality from the Perspective of Shia Narrations

Shia Sources

آیا این نوشته برایتان مفید بود؟

Library

Significant Sciences and Perspectives (Volume One)

The Scroll of Love

Attributes of Health and Prosperity

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید لغو پاسخ