The Shaykh’s discussion with some students regarding the issue of the tasbih beads: whether they are to be used with the right hand only or with both hands.

The questioner : We count them with the fingers, and the right hand was not specified to the exclusion of the other.

The Shaykh : Yes, and what about the hadith of Ibn 'Umar?

The questioner : The hadith of Ibn 'Umar: And Muhammad ibn Qudamah, the Shaykh of Abu Dawud, added: .

The Shaykh : No, let’s leave out the addition. What is the narration of the others?

The questioner : .

The Shaykh : Okay, did he say "with his hands"?

The questioner : In the language of the Arabs, they would use the singular for "hand" and "eye" while intending the plural.

The Shaykh : No problem, that is possible, but here, first: what is the immediate implication of the narration, which is the original? Is it the right hand, the left hand, or both hands? What is the linguistic implication?
As for the fact that the singular is used to mean the generic, as they say, that is correct, but what is the immediate implication here? If we set aside the narration of ?

The questioner : By Allah, O Shaykh, regarding this, it is like the eye, the hand, and the leg; it is not possible [to assume the plural], because they would say: "He walked with his leg" and "He saw me with his eye," while they meant both eyes. And in the same way, this hadith: means: with his hands.

The Shaykh : Is that the immediate implication for you?

The questioner : And if it is not the immediate implication, it is a known thing.

The Shaykh : No, it is not known. Then he said: "Call it a possibility," meaning, for example: How do you understand it from the perspective you are circling around, or from the perspective I am circling around?

The questioner : If you use the word "foot": If no other narrations come that specify it, the original meaning is both feet, if no narration restricts it to such and such.

The Shaykh : Good, so you understand this hadith to mean that the intended meaning is both feet?

The questioner : No, but the other narrations clarified it.

The Shaykh : What did they clarify?

The questioner : That his foot is one of his feet.

The Shaykh : Where are the other narrations?

The questioner : .

The Shaykh : By Allah, up to this moment I have not heard of this. We only know the narration of al-Bukhari: , as for "one of his feet," that is an addition; if it is established, we take it, otherwise we stop at what is transmitted and that is all, without addition.

The questioner : The original principle is no addition, because I am not a memorizer.

The Shaykh : Yes, that is the original principle. So, as I say, we hold to the original, which is the narration: , and we set aside the narration: . Similarly, here you set aside what you assume exists in another narration: "one of his legs." So, what did He, Blessed and Exalted is He, place His foot on, more than one foot, or is the immediate implication one foot?

The questioner : No, in this hadith the original meaning is one foot.

The Shaykh : So what is the difference between this and that?!
Then, another aspect: do we not know that the original rule for the right hand is for sacred matters, if that is the correct expression, or respected matters, and the left hand is for other things? Is this not a principle and a rule for us all?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : So, if that is the case, and even if we grant for the sake of argument that "hand" means the generic, would not this rule imply that the hand which is not permissible for blowing out the nose, let alone for cleaning oneself after relieving oneself, must be sanctified and the remembrance of Allah must be elevated above being counted with it, taking the general texts into account?!
This is the reality, if our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) says: , eat with the right hand, drink with the right hand, and similar matters that do not equal the value of the sanctity, dignity, and exaltation of the remembrance of Allah, His glorification, His magnification, and His praise in any way that is mentioned at all.

The questioner : This is... as for the things that are done with one hand, the right hand is specific to them, such as eating, as you mentioned, may Allah reward you.

The Shaykh : Yes, but I did not understand what is behind your saying: "with one hand"?
They are two hands, so what made us use one hand for food, drink, taking, and giving, except that he loved to use the right hand in everything?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, why?

The questioner : And also, here, O Shaykh, the beginning is with the right hand. Now, in supplication, we do not supplicate with one hand, and we do not carry the mushaf with one hand; we carry it with both hands.

The Shaykh : Why?

The questioner : Because it is among the things done with both hands.

The Shaykh : No, that is not it.

The questioner : And because texts have also come regarding this matter.

The Shaykh : It is not for that, but rather because the Sunnah has clarified to us that we supplicate with both hands. So this is an analogy with a difference. The Messenger (peace be upon him), as you know, says: . Based on such a clear and evident hadith, we build on what we said, that he does not supplicate with one hand. But if a hadith came that did not clarify this clear explanation, we would not be able to say: that he supplicates with both hands.