Ibn Hazm says: "The term *sifat* (attribute) and its application to Allah is an innovated term"; what is the response to this statement?

The questioner : He saysThe questioner: That is, Ibn Hazm says, and the lecturer who followed him ... the innovation referred to: "The term *sifat* (attribute) and its application to Allah is an innovated term"; what is the response to this statement? And is the hadith that the Companions loved Surat al-Ikhlas the most because it contains the attribute of the Most Merciful weak, as Ibn Hazm says?

The Shaykh: And what concerns us is whether this hadith is weak or authentic? Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has names, yes or no? This is a self-evident truth . Then, do these names not contain meanings? Are they terms that do not contain the meanings befitting Allah (Mighty and Majestic), for which these names were established to indicate? For example, in common usage, a person may be named "Salih" (righteous), yet he may actually be wicked. But when Allah (Mighty and Majestic) has the name "Al-'Alim" (The All-Knowing), is it possible that we do not understand that He has the attribute of knowledge? It is impossible. So, the argument of Ibn Hazm, or of this one who quoted from him, that the use of the word *sifat* (attribute) is an innovation; let it be an innovation. The entire science of terminology is innovated, and the entire science of language and eloquent rhetoric is innovated. But these are merely styles that were innovated to clarify truths that existed in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). When a grammarian today says, "Zayd struck 'Amr," so "Zayd struck"; "struck" is a verb, "Zayd" is the subject, and "'Amr" is the object. If we were to explain this language in the era of the Companions, they would not understand it. But the reality is that they used to say it this way. When they meant that Zayd is the striker and 'Amr is the struck, they would say "Zayd struck 'Amr." So the scholars of grammar agreed to call this "nominative case," this "subject," this "object," this "subject," and that "object," and "object for the sake of" and so on. These terminologies are for clarifying truths, and there is no dispute over them. As the scholars said, every people may agree on whatever they wish.
So, if there is a language that emerged later so that the speaker can be able to make people understand truths that exist in the Book of Allah and in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him); then the statement that the word *sifat* (attribute) is not established in a hadith, if this statement is true—for I do not actually recall it right now—it does not harm us at all in what we are discussing. Are these beautiful names absolute names, as we said, where a person is named "Salih" (righteous) while he has nothing of righteousness in him, and a person is named "Hakim" (wise) while he has nothing of wisdom in him? This is the doctrine of Ibn Hazm, and that is far deviation. Therefore, the scholars said about him—and among them is Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi—that Ibn Hazm is a severe Jahmi, a severe Jahmi; because he denies the names and attributes, and he understands that these names are proper names. Do you say, for example, "al-Dawha" (the big tree) or "Qatar" (rain) has a meaning underneath it? No. Are the names of Allah like that? I seek refuge in Allah from what he says!