The General Meaning: which is used for those in opposition to
the Shee'ah, so it is said: Those who claim adherence to Islaam are of two classes: Ahl us-Sunnah and the Shee'ah. So Shaikh
ul-Islaam titled his book in reply to the Rawaafid "Minhaaj us-Sunnah" and in it he made the two meanings clear, and clearly
stated that the positions of the innovated sects are from the Ahl us-Sunnah only with this particular meaning [of Ahl us-Sunnah
wal-Jamaa'ah].
This meaning covers everyone except for the Shee'ah, such as the Ash'ariyyah, especially
since with regard to the subject of the companions and the Khulafaa (caliphs) the Ash'ariyyah are in agreement in methodology.
The Specific Meaning: Which is used for those in opposition to
the innovators and the people of the innovated sects, and this is the more frequent and well known usage. So when they say
in the books of criticism of narrators about a man, that he was from Ahl us-Sunnah and the like, then what is meant is that
he was not from one of the innovated sects such as the Khawaarij, the Mu'tazilah and the Shee'ah and he was not a person of
theological rhetoric (Kalaam) and innovated ideas.
With this meaning, the Ash'ariyyah do not enter into it at all. Rather they are
outside it and Imaam Ahmed and Ibn al-Madeenee have stated textually that whoever involves themselves in any theological rhetoric
is not counted amongst the Ahl us-Sunnah, even if by that he arrives at the Sunnah, until he abandons debating and surrenders
to the texts. So they do not lay down as a condition that a person merely agrees with the Sunnah, rather that he must take
and derive with it (alone). So he who takes from the Sunnah is from its people even if he makes an error, and he who derives
from somewhere else is in error even if in conclusion he agrees with it. But the Ash'ariyyah as you will see, take and derive
from other than the Sunnah and they do not agree with it in their conclusions, so how can they be from its people [people
of the Sunnah].
Imaam Muhammad Ibn Saalih
al-’Uthaymeen said:
“So - for
example - the Ash’arees and the Maatureedees are not considered from Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah in this particular
matter (i.e. concerning the Names and Attributes of Allaah). Rather, they oppose what the Prophet (saw) and his Companions
were upon with regards to accepting the Attributes of Allaah - the Most Perfect - upon their haqeeqah (real meaning).
Imaam Abu al-Qaasim Sa’d
bin Alee az-Zanjaanee (d.471) [He is the trustworthy Haafidh, knowledgeable of the Sunnah. His biography can be seen
in ‘Tadhkira al-Huffaadh’ and others.] said, “you have asked me, may Allaah help you, to explain what is
correct according to me from the madhab of the salaf and the righteous khalaf to do with the Attributes of Allaah. So I reply
with the reply of the faqeeh Abu al-Abbaas Ahmad bin Umar Suraij [He is the Imaam of the Shaafi’iyyah of his time and
was regarded greater then the greatest of the Companions of Shaafi’ee even al-Mazanee.] - for he was asked about this…
‘and it is authentic from all of the People of Religion (Diyaanah) and Sunnah till this day that it is obligatory upon
all Muslims to have faith in all of the verses and authentic narrations from the Messenger of Allaah (SAW) as they occur,
and that inquiring about their meanings is a bid’ah [meaning those meanings other than their obvious meanings. This
is the only way to understand this statement as it is the only way in which it conforms to what ibn Suraij writes at the end
of his letter].…for example His saying, ‘the Most Merciful rose over the Throne’ ….our belief to do
with the mutashaabiha (allegorical) verses is to accept them and not reject them. And neither to make ta’weel of [them
with a differing explanation (to the clear meaning of the verse) or ta’weel of the opponents] (? Ta’weel al-Mukhaalifeen),
and neither do we take them with the tashbeeh of the anthropomorphists…and we submit to the narration and verse literally
as it was revealed. And we do not say (of them) with the ta’weel of the Mu’tazila, or the Asha’riyyah,
or the Jahmiyyah, or the Mulahhida, or the Mujassima, or the Mushabbiha, or the Kiraamiyyah, or the Kayfiyyah. Rather we accept
them without ta’weel, and we have faith in them without likening (Him to creation). And we say faith in them is obligatory,
saying as they say is the Sunnah, and seeking ta’weel of them is a bid’ah.’” [‘Ijtimaa Juyush
al-Islaamiyyah’ (pp. 170-174) of ibn al-Qayyim. ‘Mukhtasar al-Uluw’ (pp. 226-227) of adh-Dhahabee, summarised
and verified by al-Albaanee
Abd al-`Aziz al-Rajihi al-Salafi writes in his 'Sharh al-`Aqidat al-
Tahawiyya':
أهل السنة يثبتون الرؤية والفوقية، الجهمية والمعتزلة، والخوارج وجمهور
الإمامية المتأخرين ينفون الرؤية والفوقية، الكلابية والأشاعرة يثبتون الرؤية
وينفون الفوقية والعلو .
'The Ahl al-Sunnah affirm (both) the vision and Allah's aboveness
(fawqiyya),
the Jahmiyya, Mu`tazila, Khawarij and the majority of the
latter-day Imamiyya negate both
the vision and Allah's aboveness, while
the Kullabiyya and the Ash`aris affrim the ru'ya
but deny Allah's
Aboveness and Exaltedness (`uluww).' He then goes on to prove that there
can be no ru'ya except in a direction (that is, the upper direction).
Shaykh ’Abdul-Qaadir
al-Jeelaanee (d.561H) - rahimahullaah - said:
“It
is essential to carry the Attribute of al-Istiwaa (Allaah’s Ascending) by His Dhaat (Essence) over the Throne. Istiwaa does not mean sitting and touching - as the Mujassimah and Karraamiyyah say;
nor does it mean ’uluww (grandeur and highness) - as the Ash’ariyyah say; nor does it mean isteelaa
(conquering or dominating over) - as the Mu’tazilah say. None of this is
related in the Sharee’ah. Neither has this been related from any of the
Salafus-Saalih, from the Companions and the Taabi’een, nor from the Ashaabul-Hadeeth (Scholars of Hadeeth). Rather, it is related from them that they carried al-Istiwaa with its apparent meaning.”al-Ghunyatut-Taalibeen (1/50)