Discussion on which dhikr is better after the prayer: the tasbih thirty-three times or twenty-five times?

The Shaykh : All of this is related to rectifying the outward appearances, which are linked to the rectification of the inner states. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) said to his Companions one day, having seen them scattered in the mosque, meaning scattered. That hadith, while it has no relation to what is known among jurists as the principles, does have a relation to the branches. And these branches are divided into categories, as you know. But it suffices for us to know that it is an act of worship and obedience by which the Muslim draws near to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). Before I remind you of the hadith I intend to mention, I will present before it a hadith that is well-known to everyone and practiced by those who are keen to preserve the daily recitations and dhikr in general, and specifically the recitations and dhikr after the prayers. The hadith is... This hadith is well-known to everyone: thirty-three, thirty-three, thirty-three, completed with one glorification. As for the less well-known hadith that I intended to convey to you, and then to discuss with those of you who are versed in jurisprudence regarding its implication, it is what al-Nasa'i narrated in his Sunan and al-Hakim in his Mustadrak with a sound chain from Zayd ibn Thabit al-Ansari (may Allah be pleased with him) He mentioned the previous hadith meaning, in practical terms, instead of saying Subhan Allah thirty-three times, Alhamdulillah likewise, Allahu Akbar likewise, and then La ilaha illa Allah once, the alternative is that you say Subhan Allah, Alhamdulillah, La ilaha illa Allah, and Allahu Akbar. This is repeated twenty-five times: Subhan Allah, Alhamdulillah, La ilaha illa Allah, and Allahu Akbar. The group is twenty-five. The important point is that this was a vision. And a vision does not establish legal rulings unless it is supported by the Shari'ah. So when the man woke up in the morning and related his vision to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), he said to him The implication of this matter is clear: do it. But which is better? And is there any abrogating and abrogated? Here is the research. His saying (peace and blessings be upon him) Does this lift the previous ruling in the first hadith, the hadith of Muslim? Now, if you have an answer, give it; otherwise, we will proceed with it.

The questioner : Is my answer of yes or no sufficient?

The Shaykh : No, it is not sufficient. The question has two parts. The first is: does this text, "do it," lift the previous hadith and abrogate it? The second question is: if it does not lift it, what is the implication of this hadith at that time regarding the first one? We do not want to expose the matter in detail.

The questioner : I say, and Allah knows best, that it does not lift the first text, the first hadith, or the implication of the first hadith, because this contains an addition of action or an addition of a legal ruling.

The Shaykh : So what does he do? This is a negative answer... The positive answer.

The questioner : It means it is permissible for him to do this and do that.

The Shaykh : It is not your turn yet, Abu Anas. We started with the right side, we did not start with the chest, because our problem is the chests. Come, Professor Mashhur.
Mashhur: I recall a transmission and a juristic derivation for the question that arises in my mind, and I see it as correct, and Allah knows best, that it does not abrogate, and that this is from the category of difference in variety, not difference in contradiction. There is no room for saying there is abrogation due to the coming of other hadiths in which it is ten, ten, ten. This is what the Shaykh al-Islam mentioned in the twenty-fourth volume of the Fatawa when he mentioned difference in variety; he cited the tasbih and mentioned this formula twenty-five times, twenty-five times, twenty-five times, twenty-five times. As for the non-abrogation and the juristic derivation: "Do it" is a command that came after seeking permission. It is established among the jurists who were precise and branched out in the issue of the discussions of command that they said: the command that comes after seeking permission is like the command that comes after prohibition; at its least, it indicates permissibility, or that it indicates the state before the prohibition came, or before the seeking of permission came.

The Shaykh : Where is the seeking of permission here? May Allah reward you.
Mashhur: The seeking of permission: did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) give permission? Is it prescribed to relate the story to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) so that they may know the permissibility or impermissibility of it? The indication is what I do not know; I did not pay attention to the text of the hadith you recited. May Allah reward you with good. The seeking of permission is not apparent in it except by indication, unless there was a reason for them to ask the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). I recall in this regard exactly this matter, like the matter of The ruling of prayer in the sheep pens in this hadith is the ruling before the seeking of permission came. And likewise, this action is the ruling before the seeking of permission came. And the least of its states is permissibility, not abrogation. It does not have the strength for abrogation, especially since the context is a context of seeking permission, not a context of legislation. And Allah knows best.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you with good. But the research will be regarding "pray in the sheep pens" later. But does the ruling remain equal, whether one acts according to the first hadith or the other hadith? Is there no preference for one over the other, just as if this same question were directed at the recitations I mentioned? And from the words of Ibn Taymiyyah, he made it from the category of difference in variety, not from the category of difference in contradiction. This is agreed upon. But does the ruling remain the same: tasbih based on the first hadith or the other hadith? Is there no difference?

The questioner : I also recall the words of the Shaykh al-Islam (may Allah have mercy on him) that the matter differs according to the state of the person obligated. If he is in ease in his affairs, it is recommended that he come with the completeness of the dhikr and its fullness, and the tasbih thirty-three times, and that he resort to this to break the habit, nothing more. And if he is in straitness, hardship, and need, or similar, let him do the tasbih ten times.

The Shaykh : This is a correct answer regarding the difference among people, like voluntary Hajj, for example, and zakah and charity, and the like. But I say, the specific person for whom such a thing does not apply, if he wants to choose this or that, and does not want to vary as was said, for example, in the opening supplications, he does not want to vary as is the Sunnah. Is there a preference between them? I mean, let me give you an example. The one who does the tasbih ten times is from difference in variety, but the one who does the tasbih thirty-three times, there is no doubt that this will be better. So the previous answer does not apply to him regarding this specific point. I mean, we do not want to delve now into relative issues that differ from person to person. Rather, the research is as a principle in the Shari'ah: does it give preference or not?
Mashhur: It arises in my mind that the preference is for the thirty-three, the reasonable and well-known in application. It is as if this is the general guidance of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them), although this attribution requires reflection in the texts.

The Shaykh : Good. Does anyone have an answer?

The questioner : That he does this sometimes, meaning the twenty-five sometimes, but the original is thirty-three, as in the supplication in the Witr prayer, raising the hands in the Witr prayer and the supplication. Sometimes the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did that due to the scarcity of the hadith coming in it. The hadiths coming in the thirty-three are many, while this is a narration or an incident that happened, so he does it sometimes, but the original is that he does the other.

The Shaykh : This has already drawn attention... The question is ultimately defined for the one who does not want to vary. Does he prefer this over that, or that over this? I mean, now, what do the general people do for tasbih? With the thirty-three. So, if this hadith reached him and he does not want to vary, as is the case with the opening supplications and the tashahhuds, and so on, which is better in terms of the implication of the hadith text? That is the question.

The questioner : From the category of reviving the Sunnah, he does it for some time.

The Shaykh : No, no, we do not want side things. May Allah reward you. In terms of the implication of the text, that is it. You have no further contribution.

The questioner : In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. Regarding the indication of the text in the first text, the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in Sahih Muslim, which states that one should glorify Allah thirty-three times, until the end of the hadith, a great reward is established with Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) based on this hadith, which is the forgiveness of sins, even if they were like the foam of the sea. Allah knows best about this reward. Therefore, the aforementioned hadith holds the preference over that hadith.

The Shaykh : Fine, there is nothing in it.
Al-'Uwaishah: Our Shaykh, I was... I did not hear.

The Shaykh : Which is better if a person wants to perform one of the two sets of dhikr: the well-known glorification of thirty-three times mentioned in the hadith that our brother Abu al-Harith referred to here, or the hadith where they are all combined into twenty-five times: Subhan Allah, Alhamdulillah, La ilaha illa Allah, and Allahu Akbar? Which is better? We have reached the conclusion that both are permissible, but the research that has not yet been clarified is which is better. Do you see anything?
Al-'Uwaishah: I mean, our Shaykh, based on the study of the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and the noble Companions in the practical application of these texts, it appears to be thirty-three times.

The Shaykh : The question is about understanding the indication of the two hadiths, not for anything external to the subject.
Al-'Uwaishah: Regarding the two hadiths, the most famous and well-known is that the practice of thirty-three times is what is applied.

The Shaykh : Is there a repetition? Does anyone have a comment? What is your creation, O Abu Anas?

The questioner : I am a bit younger.

The Shaykh : We said there is a limit, you did not say anything, please go ahead.

The questioner : In terms of preference, the first hadith came directly from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whereas the second was not directly from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

The Shaykh : Fine, yes.
Muhammad Nasr: Our Shaykh, I see the second hadith is better, with the evidence that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) transferred them from what they were accustomed to, which was thirty-three, thirty-three, thirty-three, then La ilaha illa Allah to complete the hundred. When this Companion saw this dream, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) approved him on this dream, so this was an approval from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). He transferred them and said, "Do it." The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) does not transfer from the better to the lesser, but only from the lesser to the better. Then there is a benefit: in the first hadith, La ilaha illa Allah is mentioned only once, whereas in this one it is repeated many times, and the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) .

The questioner : I fabricated it in my mind.

The Shaykh : Fine.
Al-'Uwaishah: Our Shaykh, could it be a situational incident?

The Shaykh : What?
Al-'Uwaishah: A parallel incident, for example.

The questioner : I say, our Shaykh, the second hadith is better, with the approval of the first. The first is approved and agreed upon, but the second is better because when the Companion saw in the dream, he said, "What did the Messenger of Allah teach you?" He mentioned the narration of thirty-three times, and he showed him the twenty-five times. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said . It is known what was in the first hadith, so he added the second hadith and said . So the second is better in this dhikr, and Allah knows best.

The Shaykh : It appears to me, and Allah knows best, that this command from the Messenger (peace be upon him) gives preference to the last dhikr over the old dhikr, especially if we consider that the man seen in the dream is, Allah knows best, like the one seen in the legislation of the adhan, meaning he is an angel sent to that dreamer, because it is not for an ordinary man to swear by the Sunnah of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and say, "Do not do such and such." Even a scholar from among the scholars of the Muslims does not have the right to say such a thing, not even in a dream. When this dream was seen, and it is feared without a doubt that it might be a non-divine dream, the man presented it, just as 'Abdullah ibn Zayd presented his, and he presented the dream to the Messenger (peace be upon him), and his answer was . So it appears to me, and Allah knows best, that his command (peace be upon him) makes the second set of dhikr preferred in virtue over the first set. And what some of our brothers mentioned, that in the first hadith there is that great virtue of "his sins were forgiven, even if they were like the foam of the sea," this does not contradict the fact that the second set, if it is established as better than the first, may have the same virtue plus another virtue derived from the dream first, and then from the command of the Messenger (peace be upon him) to his Companions to do so. I was afraid that some might understand that this negates the legitimacy or abrogates the legitimacy of the first set of dhikr. And praise be to Allah, all the answers were in agreement that there is no abrogation, but rather the disagreement was about what is better. So let each person go in the direction he is facing, and race to do good. This is what was on my mind. Allow me a moment. The observation made by our brother Abu Anas has its validity, because the repetition of this best dhikr alone gives a special virtue in addition to the command of the Messenger (peace be upon him) with this dhikr.