i copied this some while back, when i intended to use but didnt get a chance. i dont know if its useful to you or if it is what you are looking for.
Most of the pious leaders of the early community maintained eternal attributes of God, such as knowledge, power, life, will, hearing, seeing, speech, majesty, glory, generosity, beneficence, honour, grandeur. Moreover they did not differentiate between essential and operative attributes, but spoke of both the same way. They also believed in such Qur'anic descriptives as 'two hands' and 'a face'. They did not interpret them, but simply said, 'These attributes have been mentioned in the Qur'an, and therefore, we shall call them revealed attributes.' As the Mu'tazilites deny the attributes and the early leaders, Salaf, maintain them, the latter are called Sifatiya (attributists), but the Mu'tazilites, Mu'attila. Some of the early leaders so exaggerate the existence of attributes that they make them analogous to the attributes of created things. Others restrict themselves to operative attributes.
Concerning the revealed attributes, there were two schools of thought among the early leaders. One school interpreted them in a way that could be suggested by the words themselves. The other group abstained from interpretation. They said : ''We know from reason that there is nothing like God; therefore, God does not resemble any created thing, nor does any created thing resemble Him. This we are sure of. We do not know, however, the meaning of the words applied to Him in such statements as: 'The Beneficent sat on the throne', 'I created with my hand', 'God came', and the like. We need not know the explanation of these verses, nor how to interpret them; but we are obliged to believe that God has no partner and that there is nothing like Him: that we have shown beyond doubt.''
Some later thinkers went beyond what the early leaders had said, maintaining that the attributes must be understood literally and explained just as they had been revealed, without any attempt to interpret them or hesitation in accepting them literally. These fell into pure anthropomorphism, which was contrary to what the early leaders believed.
A strict form of anthropomorphism had existed amongst the Jews; not, indeed, amongst all of them, but in a section of them amongst the Qarra'ites, who found in the Torah many words which would suggest such a conception. Some of the Shi'a also fell into one of two extremes: one was to make some of the imams like God, the other to make God like a man. When the Mu'tazilites and scholastic theologians arose, some of the Shi'ites abandoned their extreme views and adopted Mu'tazilism; some of the early leaders, on the other hand, adopted a literal interpretation and became anthropomorphists.
Among those early leaders who did not follow the principle of interpretation or adopt anthropomorphism was Malik b. Anas. According to him we know that God sits on the throne, but how is unknown. To believe that he sits on a throne is necessary; to ask how is a heresy. Ahmad b. Hanbal, Sufyan al-Thauri and Dawud b. 'Ali al-Asfahani and their followers held the same view. By the time of 'Abdullah b. Sa'id al-Kullabi, Abu 'l-'Abbas as-Qalanisi and al-Harith b. Asad al-Muhasibi, all of whom were among the early leaders, scholasticism had beem adopted by them, and the beliefs of the early leaders were supported by scholastic reasoning and theological arguments. Some taught and others wrote. Finally an argument took place between Abu 'l-Hasan al-Ash'ari and his teacher on a question concerning the 'good' and the 'best'. As a result of this argument Ash'ari went over to the early leaders and supported their views with scholastic methods. Ash'ari's views and methods were adopted by the Orthodox, and the name Sifatiya was now given to the followers of Ash'ari.
As the Mushabbiha (anthropomorphists) and the Karramiya also affirmed attributes, they have been included among the Sifatiya as two different groups.
(from: Muslim Sects and Divisions)
