How to respond to Ibn Hazm in his denial of the attributes of Allah, and is the hadith of the man who loved Surat al-Ikhlas because it contains the attribute of the Most Merciful weak?

The questioner : Ibn Hazm says, and the lecturer who brought this mentioned innovation followed him, that the term "attribute" and the use of this term is an innovation. This is the response to that claim. And is the hadith that the Companion loved Surat al-Ikhlas because it contains the attribute of the Most Merciful weak, as Ibn Hazm says?

The Shaykh : What does that matter to him? Is this hadith authentic or weak? Does Allah (Mighty and Majestic) have names or not? This is a self-evident truth: . Then, are these names words that do not contain the meanings befitting Allah (Mighty and Majestic), for which these names were established to indicate? For example, in the custom of people, a person may be called "Salih" (righteous) when he is actually wicked, but when Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is named "Al-'Alim" (The All-Knowing), is it possible that we do not understand that He has the attribute of justice? This is impossible. So, arguing with Ibn Hazm, or this one who reported from him, that the use of the word "attribute" is an innovation: let it be an innovation. The entire science of terminology is an innovation, and the entire science of language and eloquent rhetoric is an innovation. But these [innovations] are only the chains of narration that bring closer the realities that existed in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). When today grammar says, "Zayd hit 'Amr," and "Zayd hit" is a verb, "Zayd" is the subject, and "'Amr" is the object, if we spoke this language in the time of the Companions, they would understand it. But the reality, as they used to say when they meant that Zayd is the hitter and 'Amr is the one hit, they would say "Zayd hit 'Amr." The scholars of grammar explained this by calling this "nominative," this "subject," and that "object," and so on. These terminologies are for clarifying realities, and there is no dispute in them. As the scholars said, every people may agree on whatever they wish. If there is a language that emerged later so that the speaker can make people understand realities that exist in the Book of Allah and in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). The claim that the word "attribute" was not in the hadith, if this is true, is a statement that I do not recall now, and 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 called "Salih" when he has no righteousness in him, and a person is called "Hakim" (wise) when he has no wisdom in him? This is the doctrine of Ibn Hazm, and that is far deviation. Therefore, the scholars said about him, including Ibn 'Abd al-Hadi, that Ibn Hazm is a bold ignoramus because he denies the names and attributes. It is understood from this that these names are proper names, like you say "Al-Dawha" (the big tree) or "Qatar" (rain); is there a meaning under it? No. The names of Allah are not like that. I seek refuge in Allah from what he says.