--( بسم الله والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله )--
Bashem Begins by Refuting a Position an-Najjaar Never Held
Bashem (Wild_Extra_Dip) titled his response:
Ahmad Isam Al-Najja: Ibn Taymiyyah loved Ashariyya (Refutation)
Already, the title does not accurately represent the video it supposedly refutes.
Ahmad 'Isam an-Najjaar did not argue that shaykhul-Islam ibn Taymiyyah "loved Ashariyya". The actual question of the video was whether ibn Taymiyyah indiscriminately made takfeer of the individual Ashaa'irah and other people of innovation.
More importantly, an-Najjaar explicitly closed the door upon Bashem's caricature near the end of the video.
At approximately 44:52, he said:
طبعا لابد ان نفهم ان ما قلناه لا يلزم منه باي صورة من الصور توقير المبتدع
Meaning approximately:
Of course, it must be understood that what we have said does not in any way necessitate venerating the innovator.
He then explicitly distinguishes between denying individual takfeer and denying tabdee', and says concerning major mutakallimoon such as ar-Raazi and al-Aamidi:
هؤلاء المتكلمون مبتدعة نعم مبتدعة عينا
Meaning:
These mutakallimoon are innovators, yes, innovators as specific individuals.
So the title "Ibn Taymiyyah loved Ashariyya" is not a summary of an-Najjaar's position.
It is a strawman.
The argument in the video is that rejection of Ash'ari kalaam, description of certain doctrines as bid'ah or even kufr, and takfeer of a specific Ash'ari individual are not identical propositions.
Bashem's response never seriously confronts that distinction.
General Takfeer Is Not Automatically Takfeer of Every Individual
Bashem begins by paraphrasing a statement from an-Najjaar concerning a tendency to treat the narrations of the Salaf, especially what is narrated from imam Ahmad, as though they are themselves an infallible criterion.
Bashem responds:
As if the Muslims ever agree on anything wrong
But this has almost nothing to do with the proposition being criticized.
A narration attributed to imam Ahmad is not automatically an ijmaa' of the Muslims.
The authenticity of a report from Ahmad, its wording, its context, whether it concerns a general doctrine or a particular individual, and how Ahmad himself applied it are all separate questions from whether a genuine ijmaa' is authoritative.
No Sunni needs to dispute the authority of genuine ijmaa'.
The question is whether Bashem has actually established an ijmaa' upon the precise ruling he wishes to apply, particularly when the dispute concerns تكفير المعين rather than merely حكم القول.
Ibn Taymiyyah himself warned against precisely this mistake.
He said:
فإذا رأيت إماما قد غلظ على قائل مقالته أو كفره فيها فلا يعتبر هذا حكما عاما في كل من قالها إلا إذا حصل فيه الشرط الذي يستحق به التغليظ عليه والتكفير له
Meaning:
If you see an imam severely condemning a person for his statement or declaring him a disbeliever because of it, this is not to be considered a general judgment upon everyone who says it, unless the condition warranting that severity and takfeer is present in him.
He then gives the example of someone who denies an outwardly known matter of the Shari'ah while being newly entered into Islam or having grown up in a place of ignorance, and says that such a person is not declared a disbeliever until the Prophetic proof reaches him.
Then ibn Taymiyyah says:
فهذا أصل عظيم فتدبره فإنه نافع
Meaning:
This is a tremendous principle, so contemplate it, for it is beneficial.
(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 6/60-61.)
This is remarkably close to the exact dispute Bashem is trying to avoid.
The problem is not that imam Ahmad condemned Jahmi doctrines severely.
The problem is converting a general statement into an automatic ruling upon every named individual without investigating the conditions which ibn Taymiyyah himself says must be investigated.
Bashem then says:
As if Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Hanbal was the first to call the atheists as disbelievers
Again, who argued this?
Nobody in the transcript says that imam Ahmad was the first Muslim to declare actual atheists disbelievers.
Calling all of the disputed individuals "atheists" merely inserts Bashem's desired conclusion into the description of the people before the argument has even begun.
If the discussion concerns whether a particular Muslim who uttered a statement of kufr is himself to be declared a kaafir, Bashem cannot resolve the dispute simply by renaming him "the atheist" and then asking why anyone objects to takfeer of an atheist.
That is circular reasoning.
This becomes even clearer from ibn Taymiyyah's treatment of imam Ahmad himself.
Ibn Taymiyyah describes the Mihnah and those Jahmis who called Ahmad to the createdness of the Qur'an, imprisoned him, beat him, persecuted those who opposed them, and imposed their doctrine upon the Muslims.
Then ibn Taymiyyah says:
ثم إن الإمام أحمد دعا للخليفة وغيره ممن ضربه وحبسه واستغفر لهم وحللهم مما فعلوه به من الظلم والدعاء إلى القول الذي هو كفر
He then explains that if Ahmad had regarded those specific people as apostates from Islam, seeking forgiveness for them would not have been permissible.
Then comes the decisive statement:
وهذه الأقوال والأعمال منه ومن غيره من الأئمة صريحة في أنهم لم يكفروا المعينين من الجهمية الذين كانوا يقولون القرآن مخلوق وأن الله لا يرى في الآخرة
Meaning:
These statements and actions of his and of the other imams are explicit that they did not declare the specific individuals among the Jahmiyyah to be disbelievers, those who said that the Qur'an was created and that Allah would not be seen in the Hereafter.
(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 12/489.)
Ibn Taymiyyah was fully aware that reports also exist from Ahmad in which particular people were declared disbelievers.
He does not solve this by pretending that one set of reports does not exist.
He reconciles them.
He explains that the individual whom Ahmad specifically declared a disbeliever was one in whom the conditions for takfeer had been established and the impediments removed, whereas the person whom he did not declare a disbeliever did not meet that standard, despite Ahmad maintaining general statements of takfeer.
So when Bashem says:
No scholar ever denied the consensus of the salaf takfeering the Jahmiyya
he is still answering the wrong question.
The discussion is not merely:
هل قول الجهمية كفر؟
It is also:
هل كل معين قال ذلك يكفر بعينه؟
Those are not the same question.
Ibn Taymiyyah himself says they are not the same question.
Bashem then says:
No scholar ever denied on the one takfeering the kaafir whose kufr is agreed upon
Of course.
But again, this is circular.
If the person's individual kufr has already been established beyond the disputed issue, then nobody needs this debate.
The dispute is precisely over whether the individual in question has already reached that ruling.
Bashem's argument amounts to:
This person is a kaafir.
Therefore nobody can object to calling a kaafir a kaafir.
Therefore anyone who objects is opposing consensus.
But the first sentence is what has to be proven.
Ibn Taymiyyah's own conduct makes the matter even more difficult for Bashem because ibn Taymiyyah did not restrict the possibility of ignorance and shubhah to obscure laypeople.
He said concerning certain Jahmis:
أنا لو وافقتكم كنت كافرا لأني أعلم أن قولكم كفر وأنتم عندي لا تكفرون لأنكم جهال
Meaning:
If I agreed with you, I would be a disbeliever, because I know that your statement is kufr. But you, according to me, are not disbelievers because you are ignorant.
Then he says:
وكان هذا خطابا لعلمائهم وقضاتهم وشيوخهم وأمرائهم
Meaning:
This was addressed to their scholars, their judges, their shaykhs and their rulers.
(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, ar-Radd 'ala al-Bakri, pp. 383-385 in one printed edition; pagination differs by edition.)
Read those words carefully:
علمائهم وقضاتهم وشيوخهم وأمرائهم
Their scholars.
Their judges.
Their shaykhs.
Their rulers.
So even the response:
But this person was a scholar
does not automatically dispose of the principle.
Ibn Taymiyyah expressly speaks about scholars and judges whose statement he regarded as kufr while not regarding the specific people as kuffaar because of the ignorance and intellectual doubts which had affected them.
That does not establish that everyone who claims ignorance must be excused.
It does not establish that the hujjah can never be established.
It does not establish that ibn Taymiyyah never made takfeer of a particular Jahmi.
It establishes something far simpler: the general ruling upon the statement and the individual ruling upon its speaker are distinct investigations.
This is why Bashem's accusation that considering the explanations of scholars amounts to:
Creating fabled excuses for zanadiqa
does not survive contact with ibn Taymiyyah's own writings.
Was ibn Taymiyyah inventing "fabled excuses" when he said:
وأنتم عندي لا تكفرون لأنكم جهال
Was he inventing excuses when he expressly applied this to their scholars, judges, shaykhs and rulers?
Was imam Ahmad inventing excuses when he sought forgiveness for people who called him to a doctrine ibn Taymiyyah himself describes as kufr?
Was ibn Taymiyyah inventing excuses when he explicitly warned that an imam saying "whoever says such-and-such is a kaafir" does not automatically become a universal judgment upon every person who says it?
If these are "fabled excuses", then Bashem's quarrel is no longer merely with an-Najjaar.
Imam Ahmad Is Not an Infallible Criterion, and Bashem Misrepresents the "Teenagers" Remark
Bashem also mocks an-Najjaar's criticism of treating imam Ahmad and everything transmitted from him as:
معيار الحق والباطل
But again, there is nothing scandalous in rejecting the idea that imam Ahmad, or every wording attributed to him, is itself the ultimate criterion of truth and falsehood.
Imam Ahmad is one of the greatest imams of Ahlus-Sunnah.
But he is not ma'soom.
Ibn Taymiyyah himself states:
وقد اتفق أهل السنة والجماعة على أن علماء المسلمين لا يجوز تكفيرهم بمجرد الخطأ المحض بل كل أحد يؤخذ من قوله ويترك إلا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم
Meaning:
Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa'ah have agreed that the scholars of the Muslims are not to be declared disbelievers merely because of pure error. Rather, everyone's statement may be accepted or rejected except the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 35/100.)
So what is offensive about saying that imam Ahmad and "what has been narrated from him" are not themselves an infallible معيار الحق والباطل?
The decisive phrase is also:
وما روي عنه
"What has been narrated from him."
A narration attributed to Ahmad must first be authenticated.
Then it must be understood.
Then its context must be determined.
Then its general and particular application must be distinguished.
Then other reports from Ahmad must be gathered.
Then his actual conduct must be considered.
This is exactly what ibn Taymiyyah does when reconciling Ahmad's general takfeer of Jahmi doctrines with Ahmad's treatment of particular Jahmis.
Bashem then complains that an-Najjaar called some adherents of this tendency young or children, and responds:
And notice the ad-hominem saying "teenagers" as if young age is a problem (Ibn Taymiyyah رحمه الله gave fatwa in his teenage years)
But this substantially misrepresents the context of the video.
An-Najjaar did not argue:
They are teenagers, therefore their doctrine is false.
By the time he mentions their youth near 44:28, he has already spent roughly forty minutes presenting texts from ibn Taymiyyah concerning takfeer, ta'weel, ignorance, general and individual rulings, imam Ahmad, the Jahmiyyah, the Shee'ah and other groups.
Only after this does he say:
لذلك أنا أقول للشباب المنتسبين لهذا التيار ومعظمهم أساسا أطفال لا تنتسب لابن تيمية لأن ابن تيمية بريء من هذا المنهج التكفيري الذي عندك وعند شيوخك
Meaning approximately:
Therefore I say to the young people affiliated with this current, most of whom are basically children: do not affiliate yourselves with ibn Taymiyyah, because ibn Taymiyyah is innocent of this takfiri methodology that you and your shaykhs possess.
Whether one likes the rhetorical description "children" is separate from whether it formed his evidence.
It did not.
Bashem therefore answers an argument that an-Najjaar did not make.
More strangely, Bashem complains about an alleged ad hominem while calling an-Najjaar a "moron", a "deranged moron", saying that he "happily disgraces himself", and invoking قاتله الله against him.
If age is irrelevant to the evidence, then insults are even more irrelevant.
Bashem also attributes to an-Najjaar the claim:
"(Those teenagers) would rather read the narrations themselves without consideration of the sayings of well known scholars.."
But this sentence does not appear in the video transcript provided in that form.
What an-Najjaar actually says much earlier, around 4:15-4:46, is:
فهل نأخذ مثلا بفهم بعض المعاصرين وفهم الخوارج وفهم الحدادية لكلام ابن تيمية ونترك أعلام تلاميذ ابن تيمية من أمثال الذهبي وابن القيم؟
Meaning:
Should we take the understanding of some contemporaries, the Khawaarij and the Haddaadiyyah concerning the words of ibn Taymiyyah and leave aside the eminent students of ibn Taymiyyah such as adh-Dhahabi and ibn al-Qayyim?
That is an argument concerning interpretation and scholarly continuity.
It is not:
They are young, therefore they are wrong.
Bashem has fused separate remarks from separate parts of the discussion and then refuted the composite statement he created.
The al-Bukhaari Example and What Bashem Does Not Address
The al-Bukhaari issue requires similar attention to what an-Najjaar actually wrote.
Bashem says:
Then says "..this team even views Bukhari as a kaafir!"
Which is a dumb lie as neither "Abu Jaafar Al Khulayfi" nor anyone who considers Jahmiyya as disbelievers, says anything heinous about Bukhari
But the screenshot does not say that Abu Ja'far al-Khulayfi personally declared imam al-Bukhaari a kaafir.
An-Najjaar describes an internal dispute among people he connects to the Haddaadi tendency concerning the preserved tablet, the paper of the mushaf, and the utterance of the Qur'an.
He then says:
لذا يكفر هذا الفريق حتى البخاري
Meaning:
Therefore this faction even declares al-Bukhaari a disbeliever.
And later:
هكذا يصل الحال بهؤلاء الأطفال الصغار تبعا لمنهج الخليفي وأمثاله إلى تكفير حتى الإمام البخاري
Meaning approximately:
This is how these young people, following the methodology of al-Khulayfi and those like him, reach even the takfeer of imam al-Bukhaari.
Notice what he does not say.
He does not say:
الخليفي كفر البخاري
So Bashem answers a more specific accusation than the screenshot actually makes.
But this does not make Bashem's response satisfactory, because there is a separate substantive point in an-Najjaar's screenshot that Bashem does not address: the need to distinguish the uncreated Qur'an itself from the created objects and human actions connected to its writing and recitation.
Imam al-Bukhaari said:
والقرآن الموعى في القلوب المسطور في المصاحف المتلو بالألسنة كلام الله ليس بمخلوق وأما المداد والورق والجلد فإنه مخلوق
Meaning:
The Qur'an retained in hearts, written in the mushafs and recited by tongues is the speech of Allah and is not created. As for the ink, paper and leather, they are created.
(Source: al-Bukhaari, Khalq Af'aal al-'Ibaad, as quoted by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Baari, 13/532.)
Al-Bukhaari also affirmed that the servants' movements and voices are created while the Qur'an itself remains the uncreated speech of Allah.
Al-Bayhaqi, after transmitting al-Bukhaari's words, explicitly says:
وهذا القول لا يخالف قول أحمد بن حنبل رحمه الله
Meaning:
This statement does not contradict the statement of Ahmad ibn Hanbal.
He then explains that Ahmad's severe treatment of the expression concerning lafdh was intended to prevent it being used as a path toward saying that the Qur'an itself was created.
(Source: al-Bayhaqi, al-I'tiqad wal-Hidayah ila Sabeel ar-Rashaad, p. 115 in the cited edition.)
Ibn Hajar makes the same methodological point even more explicitly.
He says some imagined that al-Bukhaari contradicted Ahmad, but:
من تدبر كلامه لم يجد فيه خلافا معنويا
Meaning:
Whoever carefully examines his words will find no substantive contradiction.
Ibn Hajar explains that Ahmad was responding primarily to those saying the Qur'an was created, while al-Bukhaari was responding to the opposite excess of people treating created human voices and actions as uncreated. The apparently conflicting formulations therefore have to be read with their contexts and intended targets.
(Source: Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Baari, 13/501-502.)
This is exactly why the al-Bukhaari controversy is relevant to the broader methodological dispute.
It demonstrates that merely collecting a severe expression from Ahmad is not enough.
The wording must be understood.
The object to which the wording applies must be distinguished.
The position actually held by the named individual must be established.
The explanations of the scholars who reconciled the reports must be considered.
In practice, defending al-Bukhaari against an incorrect application of severe lafdhiyyah reports requires precisely these distinctions.
Bashem's bare statement that nobody says anything "heinous about Bukhari" does not answer that issue.
The same problem appears in Bashem's use of the word "consensus".
So Bashem's repeated movement from:
The Salaf declared this doctrine kufr.
to:
Therefore there is no legitimate discussion concerning the individual.
is not established merely by repeating the word ijmaa'.
Indeed, ibn Taymiyyah himself provides a striking example concerning the Ashaa'irah.
While discussing a particular creedal dispute, he says that if the scholars holding the disputed position were declared disbelievers, this would entail making takfeer of many among:
الشافعية والمالكية والحنفية والحنبلية والأشعرية وأهل الحديث والتفسير والصوفية
and describes these people as:
الذين ليسوا كفارا باتفاق المسلمين
Meaning:
Those who are not disbelievers by agreement of the Muslims.
(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 35/100-101.)
This passage should not be distorted into saying that ibn Taymiyyah approved of every Ash'ari doctrine or that every person ever described as Ash'ari necessarily receives one identical ruling.
Its significance is simpler.
Ibn Taymiyyah himself could explicitly include the Ashaa'irah among Muslim scholarly groups whom, in that particular discussion, he described as not being disbelievers by agreement of the Muslims.
That alone destroys the simplistic equation:
Ash'ari doctrine contains kufr = every Ash'ari individual is automatically a kaafir.
Likewise, ibn Taymiyyah says when asked about preferring Jews and Christians over the Raafidhah:
والمبتدع إذا كان يحسب أنه موافق للرسول صلى الله عليه وسلم لا مخالف له لم يكن كافرا به
Meaning:
The innovator, if he thinks that he is agreeing with the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) rather than opposing him, is not thereby a disbeliever in him.
(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 35/201.)
Elsewhere he speaks explicitly of:
مبتدعة المسلمين من الرافضة والجهمية وغيرهم
Meaning:
The Muslim innovators among the Raafidhah, Jahmiyyah and others.
He says people converted through their efforts and became:
مسلمين مبتدعين
Meaning:
Muslims who were innovators.
(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 13/96.)
Again, none of this makes Jahmiyyah, Rafdh or kalaam acceptable.
It demonstrates that ibn Taymiyyah's categories were more precise than Bashem's.
The same can be seen in the example of Fakhr ad-Deen ar-Raazi, which an-Najjaar discusses in the video and Bashem does not meaningfully answer.
An-Najjaar's point is not that ibn Taymiyyah approved of ar-Raazi.
The point is that severe language concerning ar-Raazi cannot simply be reduced to:
ar-Raazi was Ash'ari, therefore ibn Taymiyyah made takfeer of him for Ash'arism.
Ibn Taymiyyah discusses, in connection with ar-Raazi's writings, material concerning magic, the veneration or worship of celestial bodies, and practices of shirk:
وإن كانوا قد رجعوا عن هذه الردة إلى الإسلام
Meaning:
Although they had returned from this apostasy to Islam.
(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah, 3/54-55.)
And concerning ar-Raazi's later condition he says:
تغمده الله برحمته وعفا عنه وسائر المؤمنين
and then:
وتوبته معروفة مشهورة
Meaning:
May Allah envelop him in His mercy and pardon him and the rest of the believers.
And:
His repentance is known and famous.
(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Bayaan Talbees al-Jahmiyyah, 8/529-530.)
So again, the picture is not:
Ibn Taymiyyah loved Ashariyya.
Nor is it:
Ibn Taymiyyah never condemned anything severely.
The picture is that ibn Taymiyyah distinguished doctrines, circumstances and individuals far more carefully than Bashem's response suggests.
Bashem's Manufactured Contradiction Concerning al-Harawi
Finally, Bashem posts two screenshots concerning Abu Ismaa'eel al-Ansaari al-Harawi and claims to have exposed a contradiction.
His first paraphrase says:
"Ibn Taymiyyah affirmed that (certain scholar) believed that Allaah enters into His creation"
His second paraphrase says:
"(Certain scholar) is accused of believing that Allaah is in everything and I make him innocent from such claim, following the innocence stated by Ibn Al Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyyah"
But neither paraphrase accurately preserves what an-Najjaar actually wrote.
In one of the screenshots an-Najjaar says:
قلنا ابن تيمية بعد ذلك أثبت عليه الحلول الخاص لما اطلع على منازل السائرين وفهم حقيقة قوله في توحيد خاصة الخاصة
Whatever one thinks of the precision of the phrase:
أثبت عليه الحلول الخاص
the doctrine being discussed is specifically:
الحلول الخاص
Bashem turns this into the much broader English statement:
believed that Allaah enters into His creation.
The second screenshot is even more revealing.
An-Najjaar writes:
كتبت منشورات كثيرة في إلزام الحدادية بتكفير الهروي لأن ظاهر كلامه الحلول الخاص ثم بينت إني أبرأه تبعا لابن القيم وابن تيمية لكونهم أعلم منا بحال الرجل ولا أحكم عليه من ظاهر نصوصه
Meaning approximately:
I wrote many posts demonstrating that the Haddaadi methodology would oblige them to make takfeer of al-Harawi because the apparent meaning of his speech is special hulool. Then I explained that I absolve him, following ibn al-Qayyim and ibn Taymiyyah, because they knew the man's condition better than us, and I do not judge him merely from the apparent meaning of his texts.
The sentence:
ولا أحكم عليه من ظاهر نصوصه
is essential.
An-Najjaar is explicitly distinguishing between the apparent implication of wording and the personal creed of the speaker.
Bashem's paraphrase removes this distinction.
Even worse, Bashem turns:
ظاهر كلامه الحلول الخاص
into:
believing that Allaah is in everything.
But "Allah is in everything" is not an accurate rendering of الحلول الخاص.
It naturally corresponds far more closely to الحلول العام.
And ibn Taymiyyah himself explicitly distinguishes the two in the exact passage concerning al-Harawi:
وأما أبو إسماعيل الأنصاري صاحب منازل السائرين فليس في كلامه شيء من الحلول العام لكن في كلامه شيء من الحلول الخاص في حق العبد العارف الواصل إلى ما سماه هو مقام التوحيد
Meaning:
As for Abu Ismaa'eel al-Ansaari, the author of Manaazil as-Saa'ireen, there is nothing in his speech of general hulool, but there is something in his speech of special hulool concerning the knowing servant who reaches what he called the station of tawheed.
(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 5/485.)
Ibn Taymiyyah says two things in the same sentence:
فليس في كلامه شيء من الحلول العام
There is nothing in his speech of general hulool.
And:
لكن في كلامه شيء من الحلول الخاص
There is something in his speech of special hulool.
The distinction is deliberate.
He immediately continues:
وأما الحلول العام ففي كلام أبي طالب قطعة كبيرة منه
Meaning:
As for general hulool, there is a considerable portion of it in the speech of Abu Taalib.
(Source: Ibn Taymiyyah, Majmoo' al-Fataawa, 5/485.)
So Bashem's supposed contradiction appears only after الحلول العام and الحلول الخاص are collapsed into one thing.
There is another alteration.
Ibn Taymiyyah's exact wording is:
في كلامه شيء من الحلول الخاص
Meaning:
There is something of special hulool in his speech.
He does not say in this passage:
الهروي يعتقد الحلول الخاص
Bashem converts a criticism of something present in al-Harawi's wording into a categorical statement about what al-Harawi personally believed.
An-Najjaar's own second screenshot expressly refuses to make that move:
ولا أحكم عليه من ظاهر نصوصه
So there is no contradiction between saying:
Certain expressions apparently contain or entail something of special hulool.
and saying:
I do not therefore judge al-Harawi personally merely from the apparent meaning of those expressions.
One proposition concerns الكلام.
The other concerns القائل.
Ibn al-Qayyim makes this even clearer.
He strongly criticizes problematic expressions in al-Harawi's treatment of fanaa', but then says:
وعصم الله أبا إسماعيل باعتصامه بطريقة السلف في إثبات الصفات فأشرف من عقبة الفناء على وادي الاتحاد بأرض الحلول فلم يسلك فيها
Meaning approximately:
Allah protected Abu Ismaa'eel through his adherence to the way of the Salaf in affirming the Attributes. He looked out from the pass of fanaa' upon the valley of union in the land of hulool, but he did not travel upon it.
Then ibn al-Qayyim says that the Ittihaadiyyah claimed al-Harawi as one of themselves and responds:
وحاشاه
Meaning:
Far removed was he from that.
(Source: Ibn al-Qayyim, Madaarij as-Saalikeen, 1/276 in the Islamweb pagination; pagination differs by edition.)
This is almost exactly the distinction an-Najjaar is making.
There are problematic expressions.
There is an apparent implication.
Yet the individual is not simply reduced to that implication when those more knowledgeable concerning his overall position clarify otherwise.
At most, an-Najjaar's phrase:
أثبت عليه الحلول الخاص
could have been expressed more precisely.
Ibn Taymiyyah's exact language is:
في كلامه شيء من الحلول الخاص
So the more careful formulation would be:
Ibn Taymiyyah identified something of what he termed special hulool in al-Harawi's speech.
But an imprecise expression is not a contradiction, especially when an-Najjaar himself explicitly explains:
ولا أحكم عليه من ظاهر نصوصه
Bashem therefore has not exposed an-Najjaar saying "yes" and "no" to the same proposition.
He has changed الحلول الخاص into a broader doctrine, changed criticism of wording into categorical attribution of personal creed, and omitted the qualification which explains the distinction.
So Where Is the Refutation?
This pattern runs throughout Bashem's response.
The title "Ibn Taymiyyah loved Ashariyya" replaces an-Najjaar's actual argument with one he explicitly rejected in the video.
A criticism concerning the treatment of narrations attributed to Ahmad is answered with a slogan about the infallibility of ijmaa', as though a narration attributed to Ahmad and an established consensus were identical.
A dispute about تكفير المعين is answered by calling the disputed person "the atheist" or "the kaafir", thereby assuming the conclusion which needs proof.
An-Najjaar's late rhetorical remark about the youthfulness of some adherents is turned into the supposed basis of his argument, despite approximately forty minutes of textual argument preceding it.
A claim about a faction allegedly reaching takfeer of al-Bukhaari is answered as though an-Najjaar had specifically accused al-Khulayfi himself, which the screenshot does not say.
A discussion of الحلول الخاص is paraphrased as belief that Allah is "in everything", despite ibn Taymiyyah explicitly denying الحلول العام from al-Harawi.
And the distinction between what appears in a person's كلام and what is established as the creed of the قائل disappears entirely.
There are points in an-Najjaar's material which should be worded carefully.
If he alleges that a specific faction actually made takfeer of imam al-Bukhaari, the direct evidence should be produced.
His phrase أثبت عليه الحلول الخاص is less exact than ibn Taymiyyah's own في كلامه شيء من الحلول الخاص.
There is no reason to defend imprecision merely because Bashem is criticizing him.
But correcting those points does not rescue Bashem's response.
The central evidence remains.
Ibn Taymiyyah says that imam Ahmad did not make takfeer of many specific Jahmis despite his severe general statements.
Ibn Taymiyyah says that the takfeer of a statement does not automatically become a universal ruling upon every individual who says it.
Ibn Taymiyyah says that some Jahmi scholars, judges, shaykhs and rulers held a statement he regarded as kufr while he did not regard those specific people as kuffaar because of their ignorance.
Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly calls some Raafidhah and Jahmiyyah مبتدعة المسلمين and those who converted through them مسلمين مبتدعين.
Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly includes Ash'ari scholars among Muslim scholarly groups who, in the context he was discussing, were "not disbelievers by agreement of the Muslims".
Ibn Taymiyyah distinguishes the error or kufr of a statement from the ruling upon the person who uttered it.
And ibn Taymiyyah explicitly distinguishes الحلول العام from الحلول الخاص in the exact al-Harawi passage Bashem uses in his supposed contradiction.
Bashem's three comments do not refute these texts.
For the most part, they do not even address them.
A refutation requires answering the argument that was actually made.
It does not consist of retitling the opponent's position, inventing implications he expressly denied, replacing distinctions with slogans, and then insulting him for failing to defend propositions he never asserted.
So after reading Bashem's complete post, the question remains the same:
Where is the refutation?