I've read that Ibn Qudamah (ra) considered al-Hallaj a Wali:

[Abd al-Haqq Marshall]

As-Salaamu Alaykum,

Could you shed some light on this, akhee Abuz-Zubayr?

Jazakullah Khayr.

[abu hafs]

The below is from Ibn 'Aqil's repentance

“Among the things which I have transcribed is a disputed issue of ‘night’. Some say it is composed of black bodies. But I said, ‘What I have heard from Shaykh Abu ‘Ali [Ibn al-Walid] is correct,’ he said, ‘It is nothingness, and cannot be considered a body, nor anything else.’ And I believed that. But I repent to God – Exalted is He above all! – in renouncing them [the Mu’tazilites].

I believed in al-Hallaj as a religious man, an ascetic, and a saint; and I maintained that opinion in a fascicle (juz’) which I composed. But I repent to God – Exalted is He! – in renouncing him. I attest that he was put to death as a result of the consensus of the jurists of the time, and that they were right, and he was wrong.” (Ibn Rajab, al-Dhayl ‘ala Tabaqat al-Hanabila 1/322-4, ed. Dr. al-‘Uthaimin, Maktabat al-‘Ubaikan 2005)

George Makdisi suggests that Ibn Qudama’s omission of the aforementioned passage is an indication of his Hallajism. However, this assumption is far from accurate since Hallajism was not singled out with omission. Ibn Qudama had also omitted the paragraph with respect to the question of ‘night’ being ‘black bodies’ where Ibn ‘Aqil favours Mu’tazilism. It would be absurd to assume that this particular omission was due to Ibn Qudama’s Mu’tazilism. Likewise, it is equally absurd to assume Ibn Qudama’s Hallajism on that basis. The most probable reason for Ibn Qudama’s omission is to abridge the original text of the retraction by mentioning only the relevant passages.

http://www.hanbalis.com/index.php/%28book%29_The_Prohibition_of_Studying_Works_on_Sp eculative_Theology#_note-6

[Um Abdullah M.]

whose George Makdisi ?

[abu imaan an-nepalee]

orientalist dude

[Umm Ahmed]

whose George Makdisi ?

http://forums.islamicawakening.com/showthread.php?t=3453&highlight=yasir+qadhi