Imam al-Ḥaramayn, Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd and Ibn al-Humām

So as Bājūrī and others on Laqānī's Jawharat al-Tawḥīd mention as well: the taʾwīl of certain later scholars has been mentioned, and it has been said that their way is more judicious; it is aḥkam and aʿlam, according to the demands of their time.

However, it has been related from some Shāfiʿīs, for example, that Imam al-Ḥaramayn al-Juwaynī (a big name in Ashʿarī theology, one of its great imams) initially engaged in taʾwīl, but left doing so at the end of his life, and rendered it unlawful. He related the consensus of the predecessors on its prohibition. It is Mullā ʿAlī al-Qārī who relates this.

Now, the Māturīdīs in general stay a bit further away from taʾwīl; the Ashʿarīs embrace it a bit more. This is only an observation, and it could be wrong, but it seems that the Māturīdīs mention it in passing. And this is what is mentioned: Ibn Daqīq al-ʿĪd (most likely a Mālikī scholar; there is a difference of opinion, but he was a great scholar, and a very neutral one) followed a middle path, in which he says that the taʾwīl of these attributes is acceptable if the meaning is close to the popular usage of the Arabs, something that is in the common usage of the Arabs, and is permissible, because that is an acceptable way of doing it. It is unacceptable if it is some distant meaning.

Ibn al-Humām, one great Ḥanafī Māturīdī theologian, both in fiqh and in ʿaqīdah, says that it depends on the situation: that it is called for if there is a problem in the understanding of the people; otherwise it is to be left alone. So one will only interpret if the situation demands it, where people just need something to understand; otherwise it is left alone.