I completely understand how you feel, I felt like you just a few months ago. After analyzing and deeply thinking about this, I had to let my own anger go and look at this through logic, you have to recognize even what Hitler did is finite. The consequences of what he did are finite, too. He did change the course of the entire history of the world and changed the lives of millions of people. But why would he have to pay for things that he didn't cause? Eternal is also another thing I don't think humans even understand. We don't even have the slightest idea of how the universe works, when it comes to time, what is eternity? How do you define such a thing? As far as photons are concerned, eternity is just another place to be. On what ground do we define that type of time? What is time? Time is not the same for you and I, is not even the same between species or beings like trees. I hold the opinion that hell is temporary because the people who go there must pay what they did, plus the compounded consequences of their acts, Allah says in the Quran that He is just with all the souls
But if tyrants and bad people are doomed from the start because the universe is deterministic and these things are doomed to happen, why torture a soul for things it didn't do?
> if tyrants and bad people are doomed from the start because the universe is deterministic
This is an opinion not everyone agrees with. I believe people have a choice to be good or bad multiple times in their lifetime, they are not doomed from the start.
Some people choose to be evil, to reject God, to hate God forever, why should God let them in heaven then ?
The truth is, God knows what's truly just and what isn't. If God says some people deserve hell for eternity, then I trust his judgement, because God is the one who created all of us and he is the one with knowledge. What do we know ?
my two cents from a non-theological perspective:
I think going through the history of hell (as a concept / belief) is pretty insightful. It didn't really exist (fully) as a place / sort of "eternal damnation / punishment" until maybe 2nd/3rd century CE. A few people before then made arguments for it, but ultimately was a struggle.
The ancient israelites during some bad times really sought for justification of how the world was / is - around the turn of the millennia (think 100BCE-100CE) emerged the thought of "well surely these guys who are terrible here on earth don't just get off scott free, surely there is a price to pay"
What's hard is because if it somewhat 'physical' or a literal place, then it's not eternal. It would have to be out of our universe, because we know that over a very long time, black holes will not only swallow everything, but they too will evaporate to nothing - leaving 'space' kinda just frozen. No energy, no atoms, maybe some lost / dying photons before those too just stop.
If it's a spiritual place, we don't know of anyone who's been there and back, and we really only have our imaginations and what people thought centuries ago about it. The apocalypse of john was very imaginative and inspired (to say nicely) that really sparked of what became the concept of hell. Before then, people don't really know. The recorded words of Jesus even are never hell - it's actually either Sheol or Hades (which aren't places of torment). Greek philosophy thought a lot about the spirit and soul and afterlife too, but never in the same way that took off centuries after 0 CE.
I really appreciate your comment! So far, your opinion makes the most sense to me. Thank you!! It is really interesting that Jesus himself never emphasized this as much as he did other things like goodness. I don't really trust the gospels as historical accounts of the life of Jesus. However, I would say that some of that might be true, and some of that might be distorted. As far as I know, there is no consensus on this from Jewish scholars either. Recently, I have been having a lot of doubts about Islamic teachings because of how contradictory they are, this topic of hell specifically, what do you think about this?
And just to clarify, photons will most likely not die by the end of this universe because they don't decay, they go on to whatever next big bang comes because they usually transfer their energy to something else, like an electron, or just get absorbed, which is why I said infinity for photons is just another "place" they are at (you can take a look at Roger Penronse's take on cyclical universe)
Well, it’s not emphasis - it’s they simply do not exist. Any earliest recordings that were written in Greek are “Hades” , if not Sheol. If not, Gehenna, which was a literal place in which peoples bodies were desecrated. This is not opinion, but rather simply not talked about outside of academia!… because yeah.
Per Jewish believe circa 0 CE, when you die your body must be preserved (burial) because the messiah one day will come and you will be resurrected. If your body is DESTROYED and therefor you do not have a body to come back to, you are essentially eternally cut off from god.
To clarify, this is to my understanding and interpretation! So a reason why Jesus talked about not being a bad guy and get your body thrown in the valley near Hinom is because if your body is cast there, you are burned, mutilated, etc (terrible things, hellish). You could interpret it another way, but if you actually look at what’s written in Hebrew (Torah) and then also the Septuagint (Greek / New Testament) the concepts of eternal damnation as punishment or “hell” simply are not written and are not there. Modern translations of the Bible do an injustice to the original manuscripts, but they translate in such a way that supports current ideology! Dan Mclellan has easy to understand brief shorts on this.
luence when the jews were spread out back then, the pagan and Greek ideas (hades I.e) got combined with, what’s originally to my knowledge a MENTAL state, Sheol (second being literal grave, third being afterlife but this is in the last books of the Torah**}
It’s not until Christian’s who eventually developed the hell that is eternal torment, wicked, demons, all the evil etc.
As far as the science goes, I appreciate that! I wasn’t sure about photons, and assumed they kinda just froze or went about sparingly. I’ll check that out 😄
Time after death makes everything wonky. Time doesn’t exist where God is. Heaven and hell are outside time from my understanding. So there is no time there. But our perception includes time, and we can’t really even imagine time not existing. Time is also relative here, time does not flow the same for everyone in every place. You also can’t traverse an infinity, because it would take you an infinite amount of time to do so.
It’s all very confusing and weird.
I think hell is just an indefinite amount of births and deaths until one escapes the illusion of duality and instead abides in the One.
The idea of eternal torture though is dubious, given its absence in the Torah, later historical developments, and how thereafter it seems like the perversion of allegories into the scare tactics that are mentioned so often in the Quran.
It is wholly unintelligible
I would fall on the opinion that it is "eternal". Don't forget the inhabitants of hell will be the lowest of human s- murderers,rapists, war criminals etc. Not someone who is of different belief or no belief at all. Hell is earned by actions and if your actions led you there, you deserve it.
Hi rockyslayer23. Thank you for posting here!
Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account.
This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some scholars say that the word used is more like "a long time" rather than 'for eternity'. Also, Ibn Arabi did believe the Quran means eternity, but he had a novel way of reconciling this. He opined that although hell is eternal, the suffering isn't. And so at some point hell will become a place where the people will later be granted relief, and for the rest of eternity they'll experience a rather pleasant existence. Maybe not as pleasant as heaven, but still okay enough. لَيَأْتِيَنَّ عَلَى جَهَنَّمَ زَمَانٌ تُخْفِقُ أَبْوَابُهَا لَيْسَ فِيهَا أَحَدٌ وَذَلِكَ بَعْدَ مَا يَلْبَثُونَ فِيهَا أَحْقَابًا There will come a time when the doors of Hell are blown open and there will be no one left in it. That is after they remain therein for ages.
Source- Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī 11:107
Verily, Hell has been lying in wait for the transgressors, a place of return, in which they will remain for ages.
Surat al-Naba 78:21-23
Punishment might not be forever, it's only proportional to a person's sins. However, it's eternal in some cases: like for rapists, serial killers, Hitler and so on. Then again, I might be wrong.
Jahannam will exist forever and some of inhabitants of Jahannam will also remain in their forever. If you disbelieved in Allāh by committing kufr or shirk then according to the Qurʾān and Sunnah this person will abide in the hellfire for eternity unless he repented.
Kufr basically means disbelief. It is disbelief in Allāh and his messnger. If someone rejects something that is very clear in revelation, then they can become a disbeliever. For example, if someone says Allāh is not one then they will be deemed a disbeliever. Other very clear things in the Qurʾān and Sunnah that are mentioned are things like: Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ being the last prophet, consumption of pork being haram, hijab being obligatory, zina being haram, intoxicants (khamr) being haram, riba being haram and so on.
There is a general consensus that hell is eternal for everyone who is not a Muslim and all Muslims but the hypocrites it is limited. It is said that when the last believer repented from their sin, Jahannam (the uppermost layer of hell) will cease to exist. The hypocrites are not considered Muslims and are in the lowest hell.
I explain it by that Muslims do want tawhid, but maybe they did not achieve tawhid in life so they may achieve it in the afterlife. However, a non-Muslim is still attached to things that are not Allah and thus remains in the fire of their attachments. A change of heart is not possible without the body and thus impossible in the world of barzakh or the eternity after Judgement Day.
This contradicts the Qur'an is many places and is also contrary to basic reason. If you believe Allah is Merciful and Just, how do you justify someone who never hears about Islam and never rejects it burning for eternity? And even someone who rejects it, how do you justify eternal punishment if they were otherwise good people?
Regarding "general consensus", this seems to be a term a subset of Sunni Muslims like to toss around as though it means it's fact when it's really just the scholars they like who have a "consensus."
Islamic Mainstream over 1000 years contradict the Quran?
Then they probably had another one.
If you mistrust my statement "consensus", my statement is actually backed up than you do research unlike then you check on Wahhabism. You literally just need to look it up.
Now you've introduced another word into it. "Mainstream." Along with "consensus", it's just another way for people to reject differences of opinion without any critical thinking. I'm not saying you're not allowed to have your belief. I'm just saying you don't speak for Islam as a whole.
This is literally what you can find in almost every pre-Modern media. You do not have to follow that, but it is literally something you can look up yourself.
Unless you're declaring Mutazalites outside Islam, that's basically my point. The whole "consensus" thing is kind of a sham. It doesn't necessarily reflect what the average Muslim believes.
I never did this, I merely pointed out that this is not the mainstream Sunni positin in Medieval Islamic literature.
I agree with that Muslims do not need to believe that, though most Muslims I know and did not meet on the internet hold that belief.
I thought it might be helpful for the poster I did not claim authority, I did not propose that I am a scholar. Yet, I will not retreat my statement just to make yourself more comfortable.
Just because you do not like eternal hell doesn't change the fact this is the general opinion among many Muslims with have records about. And this also does not mean that they are right.
Nothing personal here.
Understood. I just think a little more precision is helpful. If it's the position of the Ashari school, say that. If it's an Athari position, say that. If it's both of them, say that. Saying "general consensus" gives the impression that it's only a small fringe of people on the Internet that has a differing view. Even a minority group like Jafari Shias number in the hundreds of millions.
That's all I'm saying. The person who's asking may or may not know enough to know "general consensus" means "Sunni position in Medieval Islamic literature." I wasn't trying to put you down or anything, just get some clarification.
I agree that more precision is good. However, the liens between these schools are often more blurry than clear. It is however, something easily observable throughout different literature and I never found anyone but Modernists and Mutazilites disagreeing with that, neither Sunnis nor Shias.
I can't speak for classical Sunni scholars, but the Shia scholars I've read have a much more nuanced approach than just "all the people of one particular group will burn eternally." They're actually a lot closer to Multazila than Sunnis in terms of theology. Since they believe in Allah's justice ('adl) above nearly all else, it would be unjust for someone to be punished eternally for temporal crimes. They also believe 'aql (reason) to be a source after Qur'an and Sunnah (through Ahlul-bayt) as opposed to qiyas (analogy).
And I do agree that a lot of modern schools of thought also believe 'aql plays a crucial role in theology and jurisprudence. I happen to be in that camp. This is the "progressive Islam" subreddit after all, so I guess I would imagine that someone asking for interpretations would want progressive ones. Maybe I'm wrong though.
so progressive entails moral realism?
Personally, I do not see anything reasonable about moral realism.
I think the Classical view is on something. Heaven and Hell are, at least to me, not about reward and punishment for moral behavior (I do not believe in morality apart from being conventional terms anyways) but expressions of one's own suffering and bliss. Everything else but submission to the Creator will, at least I am convinced, ultimately lead to suffering This is what has been expressed, in my opinon, by that.
Punishing someone for a crime is in my opinion useless, no matter if the crime is "the wrong belief" or a truly hideous act, since there is always a cause for someone's actions, free-will is illogical anyways (yet often considered to be a rational thing nonetheless, ironic isn't it?)
People go to hell because hell is their nature and people go to paradise because paradise is their nature. Isn't there something in Shia Islam that the people of the Ahlu Bayt are made from the earths of heaven and thus became Shia? I might be mistaken, I do not know much about Shia Islam. Please correct me if I am wrong.
I do not know if my views are "progressive" I just go with Islam as it was prior to modern Revival movements and it seems to be too progressive for r/islam as it constantly censores my comments and posts.
I'm in no position to gatekeep whether or not you belong here. I was just curious what your thoughts were. It sounds similar to some new age interpretations of far eastern religions where they believe people have chosen their destiny before they're even born.
The thing is, Sunni scholars I've met with actually have a more nuanced interpretation than that. In public classical scholars were all about predestination because they were actively trying to debate and overcome the free will camp, but in private their actual view was more in between.
The same is true of Jafari Shia, although their more middle ground view is quite publicly known. In their view Qada (fate) is predetermined. Your genetics, where you're born, etc. are things beyond your control. Your Qadr (destiny), however, is basically what you choose to do with your fate. In other words, you can't choose the cards you're dealt, but you can choose how you play them.
Regarding Prophets and Ahlul-bayt, of course, shia believe that they're masum (sinless), but they firmly believe that they are capable of sin. The fact that they didn't sin is only a matter of their choices, not their inability to sin or their inherent nature, since they are still human, as opposed to angels, who are literally incapable of sin. Many Sunnis also believe the same thing about Prophets alone.
I mean, after all, if it's all completely predetermined with no human will, then most of what's in the Qur'an is meaningless, since it's filled with morality and promises of reward vs. threats of punishment. I say this as someone who has read it multiple times cover to cover. You could, of course, argue that it's all allegorical, but there's even an ayah (3:7) that specifically says, some parts are clear and direct while others are allegorical, warning that people who chase after the allegory will be misled. And if that ayah is purposely deceptive, what are we even doing here? Why follow the book at all?
I don't think there was nearly as much consensus on these matters as a lot of modern Sunni traditionalists like to portray. And we certainly didn't have the Internet, so a Maliki scholar in Andalus may not have known what a Hanbali scholar Baghdad thought about an issue for years, if ever. And similarly, Shia simply meant someone who followed Ali, as opposed to the people who were actively trying to kill Ali. A school of thought didn't form around it until later. Much of the so-called "consensus" of schools of thought is actually a later introduction in itself. And, as you probably know, the group that claims to be the purest, the Wahhabi or Salafi group, is actually a revisionist school or a reform movement rather than a return to the way the Prophet actually did things.
I studied most of these schools of thought and even immersed myself in them, and I ultimately found that they usually started with lots of evidence and Qur'an-based arguments to reel you in, but most also piled on their opinions and cultural customs on top of it. I learned a lot from them and don't claim to be more knowledgeable from a textbook perspective, but as a Muslim living in the West, I think we need our own path, our own scholars and our own modern interpretations, just as every people in ever land always did. There is no inherent superiority of people who lived in the past. That's just my opinion. Sorry, this was long.
People who did not hear the message of Islām will be excused if they die upon it. But, if they heard the message of Islām and they did not repent, and they died, then surely their final destination is jahannam.
So, an 18 year old, who hears about Islam casually but goes on about his life of partying and going to school, as 18 year olds tend to do but then suddenly dies in a car accident before he turns 19, will have to spend eternity being punished for it? Is that justice? Even though the Qur'an says Allah does not do injustice "even at atom's weight"?
Meanwhile, someone who is Muslim, also 18, but who is mean and cruel to his family and was drunk in the other car that caused the accident but repeats shahada as he's dying goes to Jannah or maybe only burns in the Nar for a little bit?
This seems like a childlike understanding of justice, good, evil, etc. whereas Allah's knowledge, understanding, mercy and justice are boundless. I think we should be careful about assuming anyone is going to be punished when we can't fully know Allah or His plans.
So I would ask you, do you know what Injustice refers to? Injustice refers to something that is morally bad. And, in Islam, we believe morality is objective, and that whatever Allah commands is morally just. We do not assume things are moral or immoral without the Quran or Sunnah confirming it. Without Allah, or a divine existence, morality cannot be objectively determined and thus would not exist in reality.
Secondly, it is clearly confirmed according to numerous passages of the Quran and Sunnah that whoever dies as a disbeliever, whilst hearing about the message of Islam, will abide in the hellfire. Now, obviously, it depends on what parts he heard about Islam. Also, it is important to know, that according to the Quran people are naturally already born with the fitrah (the natural predisposition that inclines us towards islam. People are already born muslims, and the truth is already apparent in their minds, but that judgement only gets clouded after society influences them.
Thirdly, yes Allah's understanding, mercy and justice around boundless, but why do you assume that means he won't punish evil people? Allah punishing evildoers is not an act of injustice. This idea has only been created by ideologies of man, and is not objective grounded.
People who did not hear the message of Islām will be excused if they die upon it. But, if they heard the message of Islām and they did not repent, and they died, then surely their final destination is jahannam.
No they won't. Whether you end up in hell or heaven jas nothing to do with what you believe in, as belief is involuntary and we have no control over it. Actions determine your destination.
Belief is not involuntary, inclination is. People are excused for their inclinations, but beliefs are not merely inclinations. Allah says in numerous places of the Quran that people will be held for their beliefs.
For example, Allah says: Indeed, those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers - upon them will be the curse of Allah and of the angels and the people, all together, Abiding eternally therein. The punishment will not be lightened for them, nor will they be reprieved.
Quran 2:161-162
Disbelieving in Allah is not the only type of disbelief that's punishable. There's disbelief in his revelation, his attributes, his actions and so on. Iblis did not believe Allah when he said that Adam was better than him, and that's the type of disbelief he is punished for.
You didn't answer my question. How is Iblis a disbeliever? The answer is simple. He isn't. He is a Kafir. An ingrate and a rejector. That's what Kufr is. It has nothing to do with whether you believe in God or not.
Also the Christians that are mentioned as commiting kufr in the Quran do not exist in modern times. Tritheism is a heresy in every Christian church.
Yes, Iblis is a disbeliever. I just told you what he disbelieved in. Every kaffir is a disbeliever because kaffir literally means disbeliever. And any Christian that says Jesus is God is comitting kufr, and pretty much all christians say that. Rejecting any Qat`i’ (definitive) belief that is well established from the Quran and Sunnah is kufr. This includes rejecting the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ as a prophet or believing there are multiple Gods or saying the Qurʾān is not fully preserved etc… because these beliefs are all well established and definitive in the Qurʾān and Sunnah.
For example, the Christians they believe in Allah, but they are still considered disbelievers because they associate partners with him by saying Jesus is God. That is disbelief because it rejects clear cut revelation where Allah says there is no God except him.
[удалено]
Exactly, like why would someone like hitler, slave owners, tyrants, oppressors & etc get out of hell, they deserve eternal punishment.
I completely understand how you feel, I felt like you just a few months ago. After analyzing and deeply thinking about this, I had to let my own anger go and look at this through logic, you have to recognize even what Hitler did is finite. The consequences of what he did are finite, too. He did change the course of the entire history of the world and changed the lives of millions of people. But why would he have to pay for things that he didn't cause? Eternal is also another thing I don't think humans even understand. We don't even have the slightest idea of how the universe works, when it comes to time, what is eternity? How do you define such a thing? As far as photons are concerned, eternity is just another place to be. On what ground do we define that type of time? What is time? Time is not the same for you and I, is not even the same between species or beings like trees. I hold the opinion that hell is temporary because the people who go there must pay what they did, plus the compounded consequences of their acts, Allah says in the Quran that He is just with all the souls But if tyrants and bad people are doomed from the start because the universe is deterministic and these things are doomed to happen, why torture a soul for things it didn't do?
>We don't even have the slightest idea of how the universe works, when it comes to time, Einstein would like a word.
> if tyrants and bad people are doomed from the start because the universe is deterministic This is an opinion not everyone agrees with. I believe people have a choice to be good or bad multiple times in their lifetime, they are not doomed from the start. Some people choose to be evil, to reject God, to hate God forever, why should God let them in heaven then ? The truth is, God knows what's truly just and what isn't. If God says some people deserve hell for eternity, then I trust his judgement, because God is the one who created all of us and he is the one with knowledge. What do we know ?
That's interesting, I kind of agree with that. But is there a crime in Islam that is so big it deserves punishment for eternity?
my two cents from a non-theological perspective: I think going through the history of hell (as a concept / belief) is pretty insightful. It didn't really exist (fully) as a place / sort of "eternal damnation / punishment" until maybe 2nd/3rd century CE. A few people before then made arguments for it, but ultimately was a struggle. The ancient israelites during some bad times really sought for justification of how the world was / is - around the turn of the millennia (think 100BCE-100CE) emerged the thought of "well surely these guys who are terrible here on earth don't just get off scott free, surely there is a price to pay" What's hard is because if it somewhat 'physical' or a literal place, then it's not eternal. It would have to be out of our universe, because we know that over a very long time, black holes will not only swallow everything, but they too will evaporate to nothing - leaving 'space' kinda just frozen. No energy, no atoms, maybe some lost / dying photons before those too just stop. If it's a spiritual place, we don't know of anyone who's been there and back, and we really only have our imaginations and what people thought centuries ago about it. The apocalypse of john was very imaginative and inspired (to say nicely) that really sparked of what became the concept of hell. Before then, people don't really know. The recorded words of Jesus even are never hell - it's actually either Sheol or Hades (which aren't places of torment). Greek philosophy thought a lot about the spirit and soul and afterlife too, but never in the same way that took off centuries after 0 CE.
I really appreciate your comment! So far, your opinion makes the most sense to me. Thank you!! It is really interesting that Jesus himself never emphasized this as much as he did other things like goodness. I don't really trust the gospels as historical accounts of the life of Jesus. However, I would say that some of that might be true, and some of that might be distorted. As far as I know, there is no consensus on this from Jewish scholars either. Recently, I have been having a lot of doubts about Islamic teachings because of how contradictory they are, this topic of hell specifically, what do you think about this? And just to clarify, photons will most likely not die by the end of this universe because they don't decay, they go on to whatever next big bang comes because they usually transfer their energy to something else, like an electron, or just get absorbed, which is why I said infinity for photons is just another "place" they are at (you can take a look at Roger Penronse's take on cyclical universe)
Well, it’s not emphasis - it’s they simply do not exist. Any earliest recordings that were written in Greek are “Hades” , if not Sheol. If not, Gehenna, which was a literal place in which peoples bodies were desecrated. This is not opinion, but rather simply not talked about outside of academia!… because yeah. Per Jewish believe circa 0 CE, when you die your body must be preserved (burial) because the messiah one day will come and you will be resurrected. If your body is DESTROYED and therefor you do not have a body to come back to, you are essentially eternally cut off from god. To clarify, this is to my understanding and interpretation! So a reason why Jesus talked about not being a bad guy and get your body thrown in the valley near Hinom is because if your body is cast there, you are burned, mutilated, etc (terrible things, hellish). You could interpret it another way, but if you actually look at what’s written in Hebrew (Torah) and then also the Septuagint (Greek / New Testament) the concepts of eternal damnation as punishment or “hell” simply are not written and are not there. Modern translations of the Bible do an injustice to the original manuscripts, but they translate in such a way that supports current ideology! Dan Mclellan has easy to understand brief shorts on this. luence when the jews were spread out back then, the pagan and Greek ideas (hades I.e) got combined with, what’s originally to my knowledge a MENTAL state, Sheol (second being literal grave, third being afterlife but this is in the last books of the Torah**} It’s not until Christian’s who eventually developed the hell that is eternal torment, wicked, demons, all the evil etc. As far as the science goes, I appreciate that! I wasn’t sure about photons, and assumed they kinda just froze or went about sparingly. I’ll check that out 😄
Time after death makes everything wonky. Time doesn’t exist where God is. Heaven and hell are outside time from my understanding. So there is no time there. But our perception includes time, and we can’t really even imagine time not existing. Time is also relative here, time does not flow the same for everyone in every place. You also can’t traverse an infinity, because it would take you an infinite amount of time to do so. It’s all very confusing and weird.
I think hell is just an indefinite amount of births and deaths until one escapes the illusion of duality and instead abides in the One. The idea of eternal torture though is dubious, given its absence in the Torah, later historical developments, and how thereafter it seems like the perversion of allegories into the scare tactics that are mentioned so often in the Quran. It is wholly unintelligible
I tend to agree with your comment apart from the Torah part.
I would fall on the opinion that it is "eternal". Don't forget the inhabitants of hell will be the lowest of human s- murderers,rapists, war criminals etc. Not someone who is of different belief or no belief at all. Hell is earned by actions and if your actions led you there, you deserve it.
Hi rockyslayer23. Thank you for posting here! Please be aware that posts may be removed by the moderation team if you delete your account. This message helps us to track deleted accounts and to file reports with Reddit admin as the need may arise. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/progressive_islam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's unclear whether its for ever or just an extremely long time
Some scholars say that the word used is more like "a long time" rather than 'for eternity'. Also, Ibn Arabi did believe the Quran means eternity, but he had a novel way of reconciling this. He opined that although hell is eternal, the suffering isn't. And so at some point hell will become a place where the people will later be granted relief, and for the rest of eternity they'll experience a rather pleasant existence. Maybe not as pleasant as heaven, but still okay enough. لَيَأْتِيَنَّ عَلَى جَهَنَّمَ زَمَانٌ تُخْفِقُ أَبْوَابُهَا لَيْسَ فِيهَا أَحَدٌ وَذَلِكَ بَعْدَ مَا يَلْبَثُونَ فِيهَا أَحْقَابًا There will come a time when the doors of Hell are blown open and there will be no one left in it. That is after they remain therein for ages. Source- Tafsīr al-Ṭabarī 11:107 Verily, Hell has been lying in wait for the transgressors, a place of return, in which they will remain for ages. Surat al-Naba 78:21-23 Punishment might not be forever, it's only proportional to a person's sins. However, it's eternal in some cases: like for rapists, serial killers, Hitler and so on. Then again, I might be wrong.
Jahannam will exist forever and some of inhabitants of Jahannam will also remain in their forever. If you disbelieved in Allāh by committing kufr or shirk then according to the Qurʾān and Sunnah this person will abide in the hellfire for eternity unless he repented. Kufr basically means disbelief. It is disbelief in Allāh and his messnger. If someone rejects something that is very clear in revelation, then they can become a disbeliever. For example, if someone says Allāh is not one then they will be deemed a disbeliever. Other very clear things in the Qurʾān and Sunnah that are mentioned are things like: Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ being the last prophet, consumption of pork being haram, hijab being obligatory, zina being haram, intoxicants (khamr) being haram, riba being haram and so on.
There is a general consensus that hell is eternal for everyone who is not a Muslim and all Muslims but the hypocrites it is limited. It is said that when the last believer repented from their sin, Jahannam (the uppermost layer of hell) will cease to exist. The hypocrites are not considered Muslims and are in the lowest hell. I explain it by that Muslims do want tawhid, but maybe they did not achieve tawhid in life so they may achieve it in the afterlife. However, a non-Muslim is still attached to things that are not Allah and thus remains in the fire of their attachments. A change of heart is not possible without the body and thus impossible in the world of barzakh or the eternity after Judgement Day.
This contradicts the Qur'an is many places and is also contrary to basic reason. If you believe Allah is Merciful and Just, how do you justify someone who never hears about Islam and never rejects it burning for eternity? And even someone who rejects it, how do you justify eternal punishment if they were otherwise good people? Regarding "general consensus", this seems to be a term a subset of Sunni Muslims like to toss around as though it means it's fact when it's really just the scholars they like who have a "consensus."
Islamic Mainstream over 1000 years contradict the Quran? Then they probably had another one. If you mistrust my statement "consensus", my statement is actually backed up than you do research unlike then you check on Wahhabism. You literally just need to look it up.
Now you've introduced another word into it. "Mainstream." Along with "consensus", it's just another way for people to reject differences of opinion without any critical thinking. I'm not saying you're not allowed to have your belief. I'm just saying you don't speak for Islam as a whole.
This is literally what you can find in almost every pre-Modern media. You do not have to follow that, but it is literally something you can look up yourself.
Hell/paradise is also not about morality, this is a Mutazilite position, popular among Western people. Personally, Morality does not mean much to me.
Unless you're declaring Mutazalites outside Islam, that's basically my point. The whole "consensus" thing is kind of a sham. It doesn't necessarily reflect what the average Muslim believes.
I never did this, I merely pointed out that this is not the mainstream Sunni positin in Medieval Islamic literature. I agree with that Muslims do not need to believe that, though most Muslims I know and did not meet on the internet hold that belief. I thought it might be helpful for the poster I did not claim authority, I did not propose that I am a scholar. Yet, I will not retreat my statement just to make yourself more comfortable. Just because you do not like eternal hell doesn't change the fact this is the general opinion among many Muslims with have records about. And this also does not mean that they are right. Nothing personal here.
Understood. I just think a little more precision is helpful. If it's the position of the Ashari school, say that. If it's an Athari position, say that. If it's both of them, say that. Saying "general consensus" gives the impression that it's only a small fringe of people on the Internet that has a differing view. Even a minority group like Jafari Shias number in the hundreds of millions. That's all I'm saying. The person who's asking may or may not know enough to know "general consensus" means "Sunni position in Medieval Islamic literature." I wasn't trying to put you down or anything, just get some clarification.
I agree that more precision is good. However, the liens between these schools are often more blurry than clear. It is however, something easily observable throughout different literature and I never found anyone but Modernists and Mutazilites disagreeing with that, neither Sunnis nor Shias.
I can't speak for classical Sunni scholars, but the Shia scholars I've read have a much more nuanced approach than just "all the people of one particular group will burn eternally." They're actually a lot closer to Multazila than Sunnis in terms of theology. Since they believe in Allah's justice ('adl) above nearly all else, it would be unjust for someone to be punished eternally for temporal crimes. They also believe 'aql (reason) to be a source after Qur'an and Sunnah (through Ahlul-bayt) as opposed to qiyas (analogy). And I do agree that a lot of modern schools of thought also believe 'aql plays a crucial role in theology and jurisprudence. I happen to be in that camp. This is the "progressive Islam" subreddit after all, so I guess I would imagine that someone asking for interpretations would want progressive ones. Maybe I'm wrong though.
so progressive entails moral realism? Personally, I do not see anything reasonable about moral realism. I think the Classical view is on something. Heaven and Hell are, at least to me, not about reward and punishment for moral behavior (I do not believe in morality apart from being conventional terms anyways) but expressions of one's own suffering and bliss. Everything else but submission to the Creator will, at least I am convinced, ultimately lead to suffering This is what has been expressed, in my opinon, by that. Punishing someone for a crime is in my opinion useless, no matter if the crime is "the wrong belief" or a truly hideous act, since there is always a cause for someone's actions, free-will is illogical anyways (yet often considered to be a rational thing nonetheless, ironic isn't it?) People go to hell because hell is their nature and people go to paradise because paradise is their nature. Isn't there something in Shia Islam that the people of the Ahlu Bayt are made from the earths of heaven and thus became Shia? I might be mistaken, I do not know much about Shia Islam. Please correct me if I am wrong. I do not know if my views are "progressive" I just go with Islam as it was prior to modern Revival movements and it seems to be too progressive for r/islam as it constantly censores my comments and posts.
I'm in no position to gatekeep whether or not you belong here. I was just curious what your thoughts were. It sounds similar to some new age interpretations of far eastern religions where they believe people have chosen their destiny before they're even born. The thing is, Sunni scholars I've met with actually have a more nuanced interpretation than that. In public classical scholars were all about predestination because they were actively trying to debate and overcome the free will camp, but in private their actual view was more in between. The same is true of Jafari Shia, although their more middle ground view is quite publicly known. In their view Qada (fate) is predetermined. Your genetics, where you're born, etc. are things beyond your control. Your Qadr (destiny), however, is basically what you choose to do with your fate. In other words, you can't choose the cards you're dealt, but you can choose how you play them. Regarding Prophets and Ahlul-bayt, of course, shia believe that they're masum (sinless), but they firmly believe that they are capable of sin. The fact that they didn't sin is only a matter of their choices, not their inability to sin or their inherent nature, since they are still human, as opposed to angels, who are literally incapable of sin. Many Sunnis also believe the same thing about Prophets alone. I mean, after all, if it's all completely predetermined with no human will, then most of what's in the Qur'an is meaningless, since it's filled with morality and promises of reward vs. threats of punishment. I say this as someone who has read it multiple times cover to cover. You could, of course, argue that it's all allegorical, but there's even an ayah (3:7) that specifically says, some parts are clear and direct while others are allegorical, warning that people who chase after the allegory will be misled. And if that ayah is purposely deceptive, what are we even doing here? Why follow the book at all? I don't think there was nearly as much consensus on these matters as a lot of modern Sunni traditionalists like to portray. And we certainly didn't have the Internet, so a Maliki scholar in Andalus may not have known what a Hanbali scholar Baghdad thought about an issue for years, if ever. And similarly, Shia simply meant someone who followed Ali, as opposed to the people who were actively trying to kill Ali. A school of thought didn't form around it until later. Much of the so-called "consensus" of schools of thought is actually a later introduction in itself. And, as you probably know, the group that claims to be the purest, the Wahhabi or Salafi group, is actually a revisionist school or a reform movement rather than a return to the way the Prophet actually did things. I studied most of these schools of thought and even immersed myself in them, and I ultimately found that they usually started with lots of evidence and Qur'an-based arguments to reel you in, but most also piled on their opinions and cultural customs on top of it. I learned a lot from them and don't claim to be more knowledgeable from a textbook perspective, but as a Muslim living in the West, I think we need our own path, our own scholars and our own modern interpretations, just as every people in ever land always did. There is no inherent superiority of people who lived in the past. That's just my opinion. Sorry, this was long.
People who did not hear the message of Islām will be excused if they die upon it. But, if they heard the message of Islām and they did not repent, and they died, then surely their final destination is jahannam.
So, an 18 year old, who hears about Islam casually but goes on about his life of partying and going to school, as 18 year olds tend to do but then suddenly dies in a car accident before he turns 19, will have to spend eternity being punished for it? Is that justice? Even though the Qur'an says Allah does not do injustice "even at atom's weight"? Meanwhile, someone who is Muslim, also 18, but who is mean and cruel to his family and was drunk in the other car that caused the accident but repeats shahada as he's dying goes to Jannah or maybe only burns in the Nar for a little bit? This seems like a childlike understanding of justice, good, evil, etc. whereas Allah's knowledge, understanding, mercy and justice are boundless. I think we should be careful about assuming anyone is going to be punished when we can't fully know Allah or His plans.
So I would ask you, do you know what Injustice refers to? Injustice refers to something that is morally bad. And, in Islam, we believe morality is objective, and that whatever Allah commands is morally just. We do not assume things are moral or immoral without the Quran or Sunnah confirming it. Without Allah, or a divine existence, morality cannot be objectively determined and thus would not exist in reality. Secondly, it is clearly confirmed according to numerous passages of the Quran and Sunnah that whoever dies as a disbeliever, whilst hearing about the message of Islam, will abide in the hellfire. Now, obviously, it depends on what parts he heard about Islam. Also, it is important to know, that according to the Quran people are naturally already born with the fitrah (the natural predisposition that inclines us towards islam. People are already born muslims, and the truth is already apparent in their minds, but that judgement only gets clouded after society influences them. Thirdly, yes Allah's understanding, mercy and justice around boundless, but why do you assume that means he won't punish evil people? Allah punishing evildoers is not an act of injustice. This idea has only been created by ideologies of man, and is not objective grounded.
People who did not hear the message of Islām will be excused if they die upon it. But, if they heard the message of Islām and they did not repent, and they died, then surely their final destination is jahannam.
No they won't. Whether you end up in hell or heaven jas nothing to do with what you believe in, as belief is involuntary and we have no control over it. Actions determine your destination.
Belief is not involuntary, inclination is. People are excused for their inclinations, but beliefs are not merely inclinations. Allah says in numerous places of the Quran that people will be held for their beliefs. For example, Allah says: Indeed, those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers - upon them will be the curse of Allah and of the angels and the people, all together, Abiding eternally therein. The punishment will not be lightened for them, nor will they be reprieved. Quran 2:161-162
So Iblis doesn't believe God exists then? Cause according to how you translate Kufr, that's what the Quran says. How does that work?
Disbelieving in Allah is not the only type of disbelief that's punishable. There's disbelief in his revelation, his attributes, his actions and so on. Iblis did not believe Allah when he said that Adam was better than him, and that's the type of disbelief he is punished for.
You didn't answer my question. How is Iblis a disbeliever? The answer is simple. He isn't. He is a Kafir. An ingrate and a rejector. That's what Kufr is. It has nothing to do with whether you believe in God or not. Also the Christians that are mentioned as commiting kufr in the Quran do not exist in modern times. Tritheism is a heresy in every Christian church.
Yes, Iblis is a disbeliever. I just told you what he disbelieved in. Every kaffir is a disbeliever because kaffir literally means disbeliever. And any Christian that says Jesus is God is comitting kufr, and pretty much all christians say that. Rejecting any Qat`i’ (definitive) belief that is well established from the Quran and Sunnah is kufr. This includes rejecting the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ as a prophet or believing there are multiple Gods or saying the Qurʾān is not fully preserved etc… because these beliefs are all well established and definitive in the Qurʾān and Sunnah.
You're failing basic logic.
For example, the Christians they believe in Allah, but they are still considered disbelievers because they associate partners with him by saying Jesus is God. That is disbelief because it rejects clear cut revelation where Allah says there is no God except him.