Ibn Taymiyya, may Allah have mercy on him, said (3/36) after mentioning the speech of al-Dārimī, al-Khallāl, the Judge (al-Qāḍī) Abū Yaʿlā, and al-Harawī; he said in his refutation of those who denied Al-Ḥadd:
I say: A group of the people of jurisprudence (fiqh) and hadith have denied it, among those who follow in affirmation the path of Ibn Kullāb, al-Qalānisī, Abū al-Ḥasan, and their likes in these meanings, and who barely exceed what the likes of these affirmed, despite the knowledge they possess of jurisprudence and hadith, such as this Abū Ḥātim [al-Bustī], Abū Sulaymān al-Khaṭṭābī, and others. For this reason, there is found in the speech of al-Khaṭṭābī and his likes that which is thought to be contradictory, as he interprets (taʾwīl) at times and leaves it at others. Yet it is not contradictory; for his root principle is to affirm the attributes that are in the Qurʾān and the reports conforming to it, or what is in the Mutawatir reports, excluding what is in the mere reports, or excluding what is in the non-Mutawatir ones.
And this is the method of Ibn ʿAqīl and his likes.
And it is one of the two methods of the Ashʿarite Imams, such as the Judge Abū Bakr ibn al-Bāqillānī, and despite this, they affirm them as abstract attributes (ṣifāt maʿnawiyya).
Al-Khaṭṭābī said in his al-Risāla al-Nāṣiḥa: (And among that which must be known in this chapter and concerning which the statement must be made precise:
is that it is not permissible to rely regarding the attributes upon anything except the well-known hadiths, whose chains of transmission have been proven authentic and whose transmitters are of proven integrity. For a group of the people of hadith have clung to wordings from them that are not authentic by way of the chain of transmission, but are rather from the narration of isolated and anomalous reports, so they made them a root principle regarding the attributes, and included them in their totality:"
قال ابن تيمية رَحِمَهُ اللهُ (٣/ ٣٦) بعد أن ذكر كـلام الدارمي والخلال والقاضي أبي يعلى والهروي، قال في رده على من أنكر الحـد:
قلت: وقد أنكره طائفةٌ من أهل الفقـهِ والحديثِ ممن يَسلك في الإثبات مَسلك: ابن كُلَّاب، والقلانسي، وأبي الحَسَن، ونحوهم في هذه المعاني ولا يَكاد يتجاوز ما أثبته أمثال هؤلاء، مع ما له من معرفـة بالفقه والحديث كأبي حاتم [البستي] هذا، وأبي سُـليمان الخطابي وغيرهما، ولهذا يوجد للخطابي وأمثاله من الكلام ما يُظَنُّ أنه متناقض، حيث يتأوَّل تارةً، ويتركه أُخرى، وليس بمتناقض؛ فإن أصله أن يثبت الصِّفات التي في القرآن والأخبار الموافقة لـه، أو ما في الأخبار المتواترة دون ما في الأخبار المحضة، أو دون ما في غير المتواترة.
وهذه طريقة ابن عقيل ونحوه.
وهي إحدى طريقَي أئمة الأشعرية كالقاضي أبي بكر بن الباقلاني، وهم مع هذا يثبتونها صفات معنوية.
قال الخطابي في «الرِّسالة الناصحة» له: (ومما يجب أن يُعلمَ في هذا الباب ويحكَم القول فيه:
أنه لا يجوز أن يُعتمد في الصِّفات إلَّا الأحاديث المشهورة، التي قد ثبتت صحة أسانيدها وعدالة ناقليها، فإن قَومًا من أهلِ الحديثِ قد تعلَّقوا منها بألفاظٍ لا تصح من طريق السَّند، وإنَّما هي من رواية المفاريد والشَّواذ، فجعلوها أصلاً في الصِّفات، وأدخلوها في جملتها:
