The Impact of Ibn Mas'ud in Denouncing the Dhikr Circles in the Mosque of Kufa

The Shaykh : He went out, and Abu Musa al-Ash'ari met him and said: Look at the etiquette. I am drawing the attention of our brothers, the students of knowledge, who hardly have a question directed to one who is thought to possess knowledge before someone from here and someone from there jumps up and answers from his own opinion. The least that can be said is that he says, "No, I did not denounce them; I was waiting for your command and your opinion." A circle here, a circle there, as Abu Musa described. He removed the veil and mask from his face and said: There is nothing in it; it is a simple matter. He did not say, "You are clinging to a sin of misguidance," to belittle them. What were they doing? Tasbih, takbir, and tahmid, Allahu Akbar. Why did he denounce them? Is not tasbih, takbir, and tahmid prescribed? There are many, many hadiths about them. Yes, but they introduced a method, which is gathering, a sheikh, and each person being able to remember Allah, especially in seclusion. It does not need a sheikh so that they recite a hundred times. They do the swaying, oh Allah, with stones. They do not say a hundred and ninety-nine; they do not make it a hundred. As for the dhikr that came in the Sunnah, we do not add to it an addition of good, good, as they say. ButThe Shaykh : If they were limited to what is permissible and exceeded what was limited for them, it was not strange that he said, "Or are you clinging to a sin of misguidance?" The narrator of the story said, and here lies the lesson, "We have seen those people fighting us on the Day of al-Nahrawan." Therefore, I drew an analogy from this story based on the jurists' saying that minor sins are the herald of major sins. So I said that a minor bid'ah (religious innovation) is the herald of a major bid'ah, which is rebelling against the imams. The witness, may Allah reward you. So this Imam, truly Ibn Mas'ud, who tracks innovation in religion first, then strives to teach what he received from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) word for word. Do you think he would proceed to change what he received from the Messenger, with his hand between his two hands, receiving from him, "Peace be upon you, O Prophet," and then he comes up with a philosophy of his own and says, "Do not say now that the Messenger has died and the Messenger does not hear now, what do you say, and so on," from his own opinion and ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) in the text? It is not us who receive the text; between us and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) are fifteen centuries. He did not receive the text from the mouth of the Messenger fresh. How do you understand, my brother, that he would come with ijtihad from himself, which is not permissible? But my turn has not ended. How do you understand that Ibn Mas'ud would come to change the text he received directly from the Messenger with ijtihad, or rather with a philosophy of his own? Give me an answer, and may you be blessed.

The questioner : Does not this correspond to that?