ٱلْفَيَّاضُ،the abundant,وَحِكْمَتُهُand his wisdom,وَلَـٰكِنَّهُbut heلَمْdid notيَتَعَرَّضْaddressلِمَاwhatنُسِبَwas attributedإِلَىtoشَيْخِSheikhالْإِسْلَامِof IslamابْنِIbnتَيْمِيَّةَTaimiyaلَاneitherنَفْيًاnegationوَلَاnorإِثْبَاتًا.affirmation.
The abundant and his wisdom, but he did not address what was attributed to Sheikh of Islam Ibn Taimiya, neither in negation nor in affirmation.
ٱلْقِسْمُThe sectionٱلثَّانِي:two:مِنْofأَنْكَرَdeniedنِسْبَةَthe attributionٱلْقَوْلِof the sayingبِفَنَاءِabout the annihilationٱلنَّارِ،of the fire,إِلَىtoشَيْخِSheikhالْإِسْلَامِof IslamابْنِIbnتَيْمِيَّةَ،Taimiya,مِنْofهَـٰؤُلَـاءِtheseٱلدُّكْتُورِDoctorعَلِيٍّAliٱلْحَرْبِيِّAl-Harbiٱلْيَمَانِيِّthe Yemeniمُؤَلِّفِauthorكِتَابِof the book"كَشْفِ"Unveilingٱلْأَسْتَارِthe veilsلِإِبْطَالِto refuteإِدِّعَاءِthe claimفَنَاءِof annihilationٱلنَّارِ"the fire"حَيْثُwhereأَدَّعَىhe claimedفِيَهin itأَوَّلِيَّةَthe precedenceٱلسَّبَقِof the defenseفِيinٱلذَّبِّthe defendingعَنْaboutشَيْخِSheikhالْإِسْلَامِof Islamفِيinهَذِهِthisٱلْمَسْأَلَةِissueٱلْعَظِيمَةِ"the great".
The second section: Those who denied the attribution of the saying about the annihilation of fire to Sheikh of Islam Ibn Taimiya include Doctor Ali Al-Harbi, the Yemeni, the author of the book "Unveiling the Veils to Refute the Claim of the Annihilation of Fire," where he claimed precedence in defending Sheikh of Islam on this great issue.
وَقَرَّرَAnd he concludedفِيinخَاتِمَةِthe conclusionٱلْبَحْثِof the research"بَرَاءَةَ"the innocenceشَيْخِof Sheikhالْإِسْلَامِof IslamابْنِIbnتَيْمِيَّةَTaimiyaمِنْfromٱلْقَوْلِthe sayingبِفَنَاءِof annihilationٱلنَّارِthe fireبَرَاءَةٌthe innocenceٱلذِّئْبِof the wolfمِنْfromدَمِthe bloodيُوسُفَof Yusufعَلَيْهِupon himٱلسَّلَامِ"peace."
And he concluded in the conclusion of the research "the innocence of Sheikh of Islam Ibn Taimiya from the saying of the annihilation of fire, as the innocence of the wolf from the blood of Yusuf, peace be upon him."
هَذَا،This,وَبِاسْتِعْرَاضِand by reviewingكِتَابَهُhis bookنَجِدُwe findأَنَّthatحُجَّتَهُhis argumentفِي مَاin whatتَوَصَّلَ إِلَيْهِhe reachedمِنْfromنَتِيجَةٍthe resultتَتَلَخَّصُis summarizedفِيinٱلْآتِي:the following:
This, and by reviewing his book, we find that his argument in what he reached from the result is summarized in the following:
أَوَّلًا:First:قَامَHe conductedبِاِسْتِقْرَاءِa studyوَتَتَبُّعِand trackingكُتُبِthe booksابْنِof IbnتَيْمِيَّةَTaimiyaفَأَخْرَجَand extractedمِنْهَاfrom themنُصُوصًاtextsمِنْfromرَدُودِresponsesٱلشَّيْخِthe Sheikhعَلَىagainstمَذْهَبِthe doctrineٱلْجَهْمِیَّةِof the Jahmiyyaوَٱلْمُعْتَزِلَةِand the Mu'tazilaٱلْقَائِلِينَwho sayبِفَنَاءِabout the annihilationٱلْجَنَّةِof paradiseوَٱلنَّارِ،and the fire,عَلَّقَhe commentedعَلَىonتِلْكَthoseٱلنُّصُوصِtextsبِقَوْلِهِ:saying:"فَهَلْ"So is itيَصِحُّcorrectٱلْقَوْلُto sayبَعْدَafterهَذَاthisأَنْthatشَيْخُSheikhالإِسْلَامِof IslamابْنُIbnتَيْمِيَّةَTaimiyaيَقُولُsaysبِفَنَاءِof annihilationٱلنَّارِ"؟the fire"?
First: He conducted a study and tracking of the books of Ibn Taimiya and extracted from them texts from the responses of the Sheikh against the doctrine of the Jahmiyya and the Mu'tazila who say about the annihilation of paradise and the fire, he commented on those texts by saying: "So is it correct to say after this that Sheikh of Islam Ibn Taimiya says of the annihilation of the fire?"
وَٱلْجَوَابُ:And the answer is:أَنَّهُthat itيَنْبَغِيshould be knownأَنَّthatهَذِهِtheseٱلنُّصُوصُtextsمَنْصَبَّةٌare directedفِيinٱلرَّدِّthe responseعَلَىagainstمَذْهَبِthe doctrineٱلْجَهْمِیَّةِof Jahmiyyaوَٱلْمُعْتَزِلَةِand Mu'tazilaٱلْقَائِلِينَwho sayبِفَنَاءِof annihilationٱلْجَنَّةِthe paradiseوَٱلنَّارِ،and the fire,هَذَاthisلَاis notخِلَافٌa disagreementفِيْهِin itوَمَحَلُّand the placeٱلنِّزَاعِof the disputeفِيinٱلْمَذْهَبِthe doctrineٱلْقَائِلِwhich statesبِبَقَاءِof the permanenceٱلْجَنَّةِof paradiseوَفَنَاءَand the annihilationٱلنَّارِof the fireوَحْدَهَا.alone.
And the answer is: that it should be known that these texts are directed in response against the doctrine of Jahmiyya and Mu'tazila who say about the annihilation of paradise and the fire, this is not a disagreement in it, and the place of the dispute is in the doctrine which states of the permanence of paradise and the annihilation of the fire alone.