The argument has been made by serious theologians across multiple traditions: a God of infinite mercy and unlimited power would eventually reconcile all conscious beings to Himself. Hell, on this view, cannot be permanent — because a God who permits the permanent suffering of conscious beings when God could end it is not the God of unlimited mercy. Universal salvation (universalism) is not wishful thinking. It is a theological position derived from the nature of God as the tradition describes it.
Several classical and contemporary Muslim scholars have engaged sympathetically with versions of this argument. It is not a position without theological resources.
The case for universalism
The Quranic statement is striking: “My mercy encompasses all things.” (7:156). The word “all” (kulli shay) is not qualified. It does not say “all believers” or “all who submit.” It says all things. If divine mercy is truly unlimited in scope, and God is truly unlimited in power, what prevents that mercy from eventually reaching every soul?
The classical answer invokes human free will: God respects the genuine choices of conscious beings, including the choice to persist in rejection. A God who overrides that choice — who reconciles beings to Himself against their will — produces not genuine love but cosmic annexation. Hell, on this view, is not divine punishment but the logical conclusion of a sustained, persistent refusal to turn toward what is good.
The tension with infinite mercy
But the free will response has limits. Even if human free will explains why God does not simply override persistent rejection, it does not explain why God could not continue to offer, across any span of time, the conditions that might eventually allow even the most hardened rejection to soften. A God of unlimited time, unlimited patience, and unlimited love — offering reconciliation eternally without compulsion — would not need to close the door.
Several classical scholars in Islam discussed the question of whether the punishment of hell would eventually end — some arguing for permanent punishment, others for eventual cessation. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya argued for the eventual ending of hellfire, though not for universal salvation as such. The tradition is not unanimous on the permanence of hell’s punishment.
What can honestly be said
The honest acknowledgement is that the tension between infinite divine mercy and the possibility of permanent punishment is a genuine theological difficulty that the tradition has not fully resolved. What can be said is that the God who weighs every circumstance, intention, and limitation — who knows what a person genuinely had the capacity to understand and choose — will not apply a crude standard of formal religious membership at the final judgment. The tradition is clear on this. What lies beyond that clarity, in the specific question of whether any punishment is truly permanent, is a question the tradition has been willing to hold with uncertainty rather than resolve prematurely.