Ibn Hajar al-Haytami wrote in his Fatawa Hadithiyya:
Ibn Taymiyya is a slave which Allah has forsaken and misguided and blinded and deafened and debased. That is the declaration of the imams who have exposed the corruption of his positions and the mendacity of his sayings.
Whoever wishes to pursue this must read the words of the mujtahid imam Abu al-Hasan (Taqi al-Din) al-Subki, of his son Taj al-Din Subki, of the Imam al-`Izz ibn Jama`a and others of the Shafi`i, Maliki, and Hanafi shaykhs…
In short, his words are not given any importance whatsoever; rather they are thrown aside into every wasteland and rocky ground, and it must be considered that he is a misguided and misguiding innovator (mubtadi` dall mudill) and an ignorant who brought evil (jahilun ghalun) whom Allah treated with His justice, and may He protect us from the likes of his path, doctrine, and actions, Amin…
Know that he has differed from people on questions about which Taj al-Din al-Subki and others warned us. Among the things Ibn Taymiyyasaid which violate the scholarly consensus are:
That he who violates the consensus commits neither disbelief (kufr) nor transgression (fisq)
That our Lord is subject to created events (mahallun li al-hawadith)
That He is complex or made of parts (murakkab), His Essence standing in need similarly to the way the whole stands in need of the parts (taftaqiru dhatuhu iftiqara al-kulli li al-juz’)
That the Qur’an is created in Allah’s Essence (muhdath fi dhatillah) 
That the world (al-`alam) is of a pre-eternal nature (qadim bi al-naw`) and that it existed with Allah from pre-eternity (wa lam yazal ma` Allah) as an everlasting created object (makhluqan da’iman), thus making it necessarily existent in His Essence (fa ja`alahu mujaban bi al-dhat) and not acting deliberately (la fa`ilan bi al-ikhtyar) 
His sayings about Allah’s “corporeality,” “direction,” “displacement,” (al-jismiyya wa al-jiha wa al-intiqal), and that He fits the size of the Throne, being neither bigger nor smaller, exalted is He from such a hideous invention and wide-open disbelief (kufr), and may He forsake all his followers, and may all his beliefs be scattered and lost! ( Here )
His saying that the fire shall go out (al-nar tafni) 
That the prophets are not free from sin (al-anbiya’a ghayru ma`sumin) 
That the Prophet(s) has no particular status before Allah (la jaha lahu) 
That the Prophet(s) must not be used as a means (la yutawassalu bihi) 
That the undertaking of travel (al-safar) to him(s) in order to perform his(s) visit (al-ziyara) is a disobedience (ma`siya) in which it is unlawful to shorten the prayers 
That it is forbidden to ask for his intercession in view of the Day of Need
That the words (alfaz) of the Torah and the Gospel were not substituted, but their meanings (ma`ani) were
Some said: “Whoever looks at his books does not attribute to him most of these positions, except that whereby he holds the view that Allah has a direction, and that he authored a book to establish this, and forces the proof upon the people who follow this school of thought that they are believers in Allah’s corporeality (jismiyya), dimensionality (muhadhat), and settledness (istiqrar).”
That is, it may be that at times he used to assert these proofs and that they were consequently attributed to him in particular.
But whoever attributed this to him from among the imams of Islam upon whose greatness, leadership, religion, trustworthiness, fairness, acceptance, insight, and meticulousness there is agreement — then they do not say anything except what has been duly established with added precautions and repeated inquiry. This is especially true when a Muslim is attributed a view which necessitates his disbelief, apostasy, misguidance, and execution. Therefore if it is true of him that he is a disbeliever and an innovator, then Allah will deal with him with His justice, and other than that He will forgive us and him. 
 The Jahmis believed that the Qur’an was created.
 These are of the crassest expressions of kalam and speculation in which one could possibly indulge.
 This was refuted by San`ani in Raf` al-astar.
 This is a logical corollary of his belief that contradicting the ijma` on matters of belief and law is neither kufr nor fisq.
 A reference to Ibn Taymiyya’s manner of answering questions specific to the Prophet with generalities about all human beings.
 The scholars’ refutation of this heresy innovated by Ibn Taymiyya is detailed in the second volume of the present work.
 Ibn Hajar says in Fath al-Bari (1993 ed. 3:66) about Ibn Taymiyya’s prohibition to travel in order to visit the Prophet: “This is one of theugliest matters ever reported from Ibn Taymiyya.”
The Saudi salafi scholar Bin Baz (d.1999CE) persisted in saying that it is forbidden to travel with the intention of visiting the Prophet and comments that this was not an ugly but a correct thing for Ibn Taymiyya to say!
 Ibn Hajar al-Haythami al-Makki’s Fatawa hadithiyya (Cairo: Halabi, 1390/1970) p. 114-117.
Imams of the Shafi’i school, among them Taqi al-Din Subki, Ibn Hajar Haytami and al-Izz ibn Jama’a, gave formal legal opinions (fatawa) that ibn Taymiya was misguided and misguiding in tenents of faith, and warned people from accepting his theories.
The Hanafi scholar Muhammad Zahid al-Kawthari has written:
“Whoever thinks that all the scholars of his time joined in a single conspiracy against him from personal envy should rather impugn their own intelligence and understanding, after studying the repugnance of his deviations in beliefs and works, for which he was asked to repent time after time and moved from prison to prison until he passed on to what he’d sent ahead.”
A salafi scholar spent eight (8) years examining Ibn Taymiyah, and presented his PhD dissertation at Yale University!
Quote: “If you actually do the research you will find history is more complexed than reality and history is not as black and white and yes trends developed. It is my position that even later Athari Aqidah is a developement that the Sahabah did not have the types of beliefs that later Athari aqidah had.
Ibn Taymiyah volumes right I believe and Allah knows best that if Imam Barbahari read Ibn Taymiyah Imam Barbahari would have rejected Ibn Taymiyah.
This is my opinion because Barbahari mind in the 3rd century would not have admitted Ibn Taymiyah as a fellow Hanabila.
Ibn Taymiyah was a developement of the Hanabila. With my upmost respect to my brothers in the room with the Athari Aqidah please remember Ibn Taymiyah greatest opponents in the beginning was his fellow Hanabila then Subki and other came to criticize him after. When Ibn Taymiyah began his fellow hanbila were the first to criticize him”. [End of quote]
(Edited by ADHM)