repugnant. Anyone who reads al-Subki’s treatise will imagine that Ibn Taymiyyah was the very first to speak about this question, whereas he had been preceded in doing so. What is incumbent upon al-Subki and others is fairness and equity—qualities befitting scholars—yet al-Subki ignored the remarks of the scholars who lived before the Shaykh and portrayed Ibn Taymiyyah as an innovator in the matter.
Fakhr al-Razi (d. 606 AH) had already cited those who espoused that view and, in his Tafsir, presented the Quranic and rational proofs adduced by those who hold that the Fire will come to an end ⦗1⦘.
Third: Al-Subki ascribed to Ibn Taymiyyah the preference for the view that the Fire will perish, and he further claimed that Ibn Taymiyyah attributed that view to the early generations ⦗2⦘. A careful reading of Ibn Taymiyyah’s epistle shows that al-Subki’s claims cannot be accepted, for two reasons:
a) His allegation that Ibn Taymiyyah personally preferred the view of the Fire’s extinction is unfounded; such a preference is found neither in this epistle nor, to my knowledge, in any of his other works.
b) Al-Subki’s statement that “it is the view of the Salaf” is likewise incorrect, for the Shaykh’s actual wording is: “As for the claim that the Fire will perish, there are two well-known opinions on the matter among both the early and later scholars.” ⦗3⦘
Fourth: In his epistle al-Subki marshaled the largest possible number of Quranic verses and prophetic hadiths that indicate the Fire’s permanence. Ibn Taymiyyah was by no means unaware of these texts—far be it from him, may Allah have mercy on him, to deny their authenticity or their clear indication of perpetuity. Therefore, al-Subki’s exhaustive citation of the evidences adds nothing that had escaped Ibn Taymiyyah; rather, it reveals al-Subki’s disregard for the Shaykh’s knowledge of them, his consideration of them, and his acceptance of their implications. Accordingly, any hint or insinuation from al-Subki that seeks to brand Shaykh al-Islam as deviant is untenable.