بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
Allāh says:
قُلۡ إِن كُنتُمۡ تُحِبُّونَ ٱللَّهَ فَٱتَّبِعُونِي يُحۡبِبۡكُمُ ٱللَّهُ وَيَغۡفِرۡ لَكُمۡ ذُنُوبَكُمۡۚ وَٱللَّهُ غَفُورٞ رَّحِيمٞ ٣١
Say (Oh Muhammad): "If you (really) love Allāh then follow me (i.e. the Sunnah), Allāh will love you and forgive you of your sins. And Allāh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." (3:31)
The Prophet (ﷺ) said:
فَإِنَّ خَيْرَ الْحَدِيثِ كِتَابُ اللَّهِ وَخَيْرَ الْهَدْيِ هَدْيُ مُحَمَّدٍ وَشَرَّ الْأُمُورِ مُحْدَثَاتُهَا وَكُلَّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلَالَةٌ, وكلَّ ضلالةٍ في النَّارِ
"The best speech is the Book of Allāh, the best guidance is the guidance of Muhammad, and the worst matters are the newly-invented matters. And every innovation is misguidance. And all misguidance is in the Fire." (Sahīh Muslim 867, Sahīh al-Jāmi' 1353)
The Prophet (ﷺ) said:
فَمَنْ رَغِبَ عَنْ سُنَّتِي فَلَيْسَ مِنِّي
"Whomsoever turns away from my sunnah then he is not from me." (Sahīh Muslim 1401, Sahīh al-Bukhārī 5063)
Chapter 1. The sunnah regarding making dhikr
Hadīth 1. The Prophet (ﷺ) said:
عَلَيْكُنَّ بِالتَّسْبِيحِ وَالتَّهْلِيلِ وَالتَّقْدِيسِ وَاعْقِدْنَ بِالْأَنَامِلِ فَإِنَّهُنَّ مَسْئُولَاتٌ مُسْتَنْطَقَاتٌ
Hold fast to At-Tasbīh, At-Tahlīl, and At-Taqdīs, and count them upon the fingertips, for indeed they shall be questioned, and they will be made to speak. (al-Tirmidhī 3583. Declared Hasan by Al-Albānī his checking)
Al-Albānī said regarding the statement: “count them upon the fingertips” – that it is a command from the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ). (Al-Daīfah 1/186)
Hadīth 2. ‘Abdullāh ibn ‘Amr narrated:
رَأَيْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم – يَعْقِدُ التَّسْبِيحَ قَالَ ابْنُ قُدَامَةَ – بِيَمِينِهِ
I saw the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) counting al-Tasbīh of Allāh on his fingers.
Ibn Qudāmah said (in his version: “With his right hand.” (Abū Dawūd 1502. Declared Sahīh by Al-Albānī)
Bakr Abū Zayd said: It is proven from the guidance of the Prophet (ﷺ) in word, action, and approval, that the dhikr is counted with the fingers of the [right] hand and nothing else. (Kitāb al-Subhah pg. 9)
Chapter 2. History of prayer/rosary beads
Bakr Abū Zayd said: Know that the Arabs did not have knowledge of the word subhah (rosary/prayer beads) in their language, nor in their worship during the pre-Islamic period, nor in their customs of play and amusement, and for this reason you will not find a mention of it in their speech, prose or poetry. Therefore Arab linguists have said that this word subhah is a newly-coined word. (Al-Subhah pg. 52)
Bakr Abū Zayd said: The rosary entered the Arab lands through two ways: The Sūfīs and the Rāfidah. al-Shihābi said: The spread of the rosary in some Islamic lands can be traced back to their use by the Sūfīs, who consider it (i.e. the rosary) an essential part of their practices and traditions. They use them in dhikr circles and keep them in a special container/box. There are people dedicated to using them in their supplications and remembrance, known as the “Shaykhs of the Subhah”. Some Sūfī sects see it as necessary to wear the rosary around the neck, as they believe this is more secure and rewarding.(Al-Subhah pg. 72)
Yāsir al-Fathī said: The rosary was introduced into the people of Islām. It was not known at all; neither in the era of the Prophet, nor in the era of the companions after the Prophet (ﷺ). Rather, it is an ancient Hindu Buddhist innovation that the Sūfīs introduced to the people of Islām. (Sharh Abū Dawūd 18/342)
Al-Albānī said: it (i.e. the rosary) is a symbol of the Christians. (Kitāb Radd ‘alā Abdullāh al-Habashī 1/64)
Chapter 3. Weak hadīths used to support the allowance of the rosary
Bakr Abū Zayd said: There is no authentic hadīth on the permissibility of counting dhikr on pebbles or date pits.
The most that has been narrated on this matter with chains of transmission traceable to the Prophet is three narrations, one of which is mawdū’ (fabricated), which is the hadith of Abū Hurayrah [to follow].
The narrations of Safiyyah and Sa’d ibn Abī Waqqās [to follow] do not establish for its legitimacy, and the authenticity of the chain of transmission of each of them is questionable. (Al-Subhah pg. 16)
Al-Albānī said: There are no narrations mentioning the rosary. There are narrations of tasbīh with pebbles, and whatever of them was traced back to the Messenger (ﷺ) is not authentic, and whatever was attributed to some of the Companions, then we have deemed weak all of them. (Kitāb Jāmi’ al-Turāth 17/271)
Yāsir al-Fathī also said: There is no proven hadīth or narration on counting (dhikr) with date pits or pebbles, and its action is not proven from a single companion. Rather, (the only narration) which is proven (is) that of Ibn Mas’ūd of rebuttal, and he is one of the scholars and jurists among the companions of the prophet (ﷺ). (Sharh Abū Dawūd of al-Fathī 18/342)
[for the narration of Ibn Mas’ūd see here: https://fawaaids.com/2024/10/15/ibn-masood-prohibiting-dhikr-on-pebbles-its-authenticity-and-points-of-benefit/]
Hadīth 1:
Abdūs ibn ‘Abdullāh > Abū Abdullāh al-Hussain ibn Funjūwayah al-Thaqafī > ‘Alī ibn Muhammad ibn Nassrūwīyah > Muhammad ibn Harūn ibn ‘Isā ibn Mansūr al-Hāshimī > Muhammad ibn ‘Alī ibn Hamzah al-‘Alawī > ‘Abdul-Samad ibn Mūsā > Zainab ibn Sulaymān ibn ‘Alī > Umm al-Hasan ibn Ja’far ibn al-Hasan > her father > her grandfather > ‘Alī marfū (raised to the prophet (ﷺ)) :
نِعْمَ المُذَكِّرُ السبحةَ ، َوإِنَّ أفضل ما يُسْجَدُ عليه الأرض، وما أنبتته الأرض
What a wonderful reminder is the rosary, and the best thing to prostrate on is the ground and on what the earth produces.
(Musnad al-Firdaws 4/98. Declared mawdū’ (fabricated) by Al-Albānī in al-Daīfah 1/184, #83)
Isnād:
Al-Albānī said: this isnād contains darkness upon darkness. Majority of them are majhūl (unknown) and some have been blamed;
Umm al-Hasan ibn Ja’far ibn al-Hasan – i did not find a written biography of her.
Abdul-Samad ibn Mūsā – al-Hāshimī [Abū Ibrāhīm]. Al-Dhahabī said in al-Mīzān [3/543] on the authority of al-Khatīb: they held him to be weak. Then Al-Dhahabī said: He narrates fabricated/strange narrations on the authority of his grandfather Muhammad ibn Ibrāhīm al-Imām.
[Al-Albānī then mentions that only Muhammad al-‘Alawī, Muhammad ibn Hārūn al-Hāshimī, Abū ‘Abdūllah al-Thaqafī and ‘Abdūs ibn ‘Abdullāh are known and are truthful/trustworthy.]
Thus, due to the above it is clear that the hadīth is weak and cannot be used as proof. (Al-Daīfah 1/184-185)
Meaning of the hadīth
Al-Albānī continues: the meaning of the hadīth is bātil (false) due to the following reasons:
- The rosary is a bid’ah (newly invented) that was not present at the time of the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ). Thus, how is it conceivable that the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) informed his companions about something that they had no knowledge of.
- The rosary opposes the guidance and the command of the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) [see ahadīth in chapter 1 above].
(Summarised from al-Daīfah of Al-Albānī 1/184-186)
Hadīth 2.
Sālih ibn ‘Alī al-Nawfalī > ‘Abdullāh ibn Muhammad ibn Rabī’ah al-Qudāmī > Ibn al-Mubarāk > Sufyān al-Thawrī > Sumayya > Abū Sālih > Abū Hurayrah marfū:
كان – صلى الله عليه وسلم – يسبح بالحصى
The prophet (ﷺ) would make tasbīh with pebbles.
(Tārīkh Jurjān of Abū al-Qāsim al-Jurjānī 68. Declared Mawdū (fabricated) by Al-Albānī in al-Daīfah 3/47, #1002.
Isnād:
‘Abdullāh ibn Muhammad ibn Rabī’ah Al-Qudāmī:
al-Dhahabī said in al-Mīzān: one of the weak ones, who narrated calamities (i.e. fabrications) on Mālik. (2/436)
Al-Albānī said: He was declared weak by Ibn ‘Adīy and al-Darāqutnī in al-Lisān. Ibn Hibbān said: He turns the narrations upside down (i.e. alters them). He may have altered more than one hundred and fifty narrations upon Mālik… Al-Hākim Al-Naqqāsh said: He narrated fabricated hadīths on the authority of Mālik. Abū Nu’aym (said): he narrated odd/strange narrations. (slightly abridged, Al-Daīfah of Al-Albānī 3/48)
Al-Albānī said: (regarding) Sālih ibn ‘Alī al-Nawfalī, I could not find a biography on him. (Al-Daīfah 3/48)
Hadīth 3.
Muhammad ibn Bashār > ‘Abd al-Samad ibn ‘Abd al-Wārith > Hāshim, who is Ibn Sa’īd al-Kūfī > Kinānah, the freed slave of Safiyyah > Safiyyah:
دَخَلَ عَلَىَّ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم وَبَيْنَ يَدَىَّ أَرْبَعَةُ آلاَفِ نَوَاةٍ أُسَبِّحُ بِهَا فَقُلْتُ لَقَدْ سَبَّحْتُ بِهَذِهِ . فَقَالَ ” أَلاَ أُعَلِّمُكِ بِأَكْثَرَ مِمَّا سَبَّحْتِ بِهِ ” . فَقُلْتُ بَلَى عَلِّمْنِي . فَقَالَ ” قُولِي سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَدَدَ خَلْقِهِ ”
“The Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) entered upon me and before me were four thousand date pits, I was making Tasbīh with them. He (ﷺ) said: ‘You have made Tasbīh with these? Should I not teach you that which is more than what you have made Tasbīh with?’ So I said: ‘Indeed, teach me.’ So he said: ‘Say: May Allāh be removed from all imperfections as much as the number of His creation (Subḥān Allāhi ‘adada khalqihī).’”
(al-Tirmidhī 3554, who declared it weak.
Declared Munkar (rejected) by Al-Albānī in Da’īf al-Tirmidhī pg. 464 and by Yāsir al-Fathī in Sharh Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/338.)
Isnād:
Kinānah:
Yāsir al-Fathī said: He is not strong – Al-Tahdhīb (3/476) , Ma’rifat Al-Thiqāt (1560) , Al-Jarh wa Al-Ta’dīl (7/169) , Al-Thiqāt (5/339). (Sharh Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/338)
Al-Azdī said: The isnād of his hadīth is not established (i.e. is weak). (Al-Tahdhīb 3/476)
Al-Tirmidhī said: His isnād is not that strong/reliable. Elsewhere he said: His isnād is not well-known. (Al-Tahdhīb 3/476)
Ibn Hajr said: (He is) acceptable. (al-Taqrīb pg. 145)
Hāshim ibn Sa’īd al-Kūfī:
Al-Tirmidhī declared the hadīth weak saying: This hadīth is gharīb (i.e. unique), we do not know it except from this route of the hadīth of Hāshim ibn Sa’īd al-Kūfī and his isnād is not well-known. Also, there is a hadīth on this issue on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās.’ (Sunan al-Tirmidhī 3554)
Al-Dhahabī said: (Yahyā) ibn Ma’īn said: He is nothing. Ibn ‘Adīy said: Whatever he narrates is not followed up. (Al-Mīzān 5/48)
Abū Hātim said: He is weak in hadīth. (Jarh wa Ta’dīl 9/104)
Ibn Hajr said: (he is) da’īf (weak). (al-Taqrīb #8166)
Text of the hadīth:
Bakr Abū Zayd said: Al-Tirmidhī’s statement ‘also, there is a hadīth on this issue on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās’ means what Muslim and others narrated on the authority of Ibn ‘Abbās, from Jawayriyah [to follow]. (Al-Subhah pg. 18)
Al-Albānī said: what indicates the weakness of these two hadīths [hadīth 3, and hadīth 4 to follow insha Allāh] is that this incident was narrated by Ibn ‘Abbās without the mention of pebbles:
عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ، عَنْ جُوَيْرِيَةَ، أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم خَرَجَ مِنْ عِنْدِهَا بُكْرَةً حِينَ صَلَّى الصُّبْحَ وَهِيَ فِي مَسْجِدِهَا ثُمَّ رَجَعَ بَعْدَ أَنْ أَضْحَى وَهِيَ جَالِسَةٌ فَقَالَ ” مَا زِلْتِ عَلَى الْحَالِ الَّتِي فَارَقْتُكِ عَلَيْهَا ” . قَالَتْ نَعَمْ . قَالَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم ” لَقَدْ قُلْتُ بَعْدَكِ أَرْبَعَ كَلِمَاتٍ ثَلاَثَ مَرَّاتٍ لَوْ وُزِنَتْ بِمَا قُلْتِ مُنْذُ الْيَوْمِ لَوَزَنَتْهُنَّ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ وَبِحَمْدِهِ عَدَدَ خَلْقِهِ وَرِضَا نَفْسِهِ وَزِنَةَ عَرْشِهِ وَمِدَادَ كَلِمَاتِهِ ”
On the authority of Ibn Abbās, On the authority of Juwayriyah that the Prophet (ﷺ) left her early when he went to pray the morning prayer, while she was in her place of prayer, then he returned after Duhā (forenoon) and she was still sitting there. So he said to her: Are you still in the same state that I left you in? She answered: Yes.
The Prophet (ﷺ) said: I have already said four statements after you, three times, and if they were weighed against what you have said today then they would outweigh what you have said. They are: SubhanAllāhi wa bihamdihī, ‘adada Khalqihī, wa ridā nafsihī, wazīnata ‘arshihī, wa Midāda kalimātihi. (Allāh is free from imperfection and praise is for him; to the number of his creation, the pleasure of His own Self, the beautification of His ‘Arsh and the extent of His words).
(Sahīh Muslim 2726 and others)
So this authentic hadīth indicates two things:
1. The person in the story is Juwayriyah and not Safiyyah as was mentioned previously… [hadīth 3 here].
2. The mention of pebbles [or date pits] in the story is rejected.
(Al-Daīfah of Al-Albānī 3/189-191)
Other isnāds of the above narration:
- Al-Tabarānī (Kitāb al-Du’ā 1740, al-Awsat 5472): Muhammad ibn ‘Uthmān ibn Abī Shaybah > his father who said: I found in my father’s book in his handwriting > Mustalim ibn Sa’īd > Mansūr ibn Zādhān > Yazīd ibn Mu’attib – the freed slave of Safiyyah > Safiyyah…
Al-Tabarānī said: We do not know this narration from Mansūr ibn Zādhān except by way of Mustalim ibn Sa’īd… (al-Awsat 5/334)
Yazīd ibn Mu’attib
Yāsir al-Fathī said: This is a gharīb jiddan (i.e. very unique) narration from Mansūr ibn Zādhān, and Yazīd ibn Mu’tab is majhūl (unknown). (Sharh Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/340)
Bakr Abū Zayd said: No biography was found for Yazīd. (Al-Subhah pg. 18)
2. (Natāij Al-Afkār of Ibn Hajr pg. 83) : […] Shu’ayb ibn ‘Abdullāh > Ahmad ibn Ishāq ibn ‘Utbah > Rūh ibn al-Faraj > ‘Amr ibn Khālid > Hadīj ibn Mu’awiyah > Kinānah, the freed slave of Safiyyah > Safiyyah…
Yāsir al-Fathī said: Ibn Hajr claimed in Natāij al-Afkār that Hāshim ibn Sa’īd al-Kūfī was followed up in this narration [thus declaring it Hasan], citing this path. I say: Hadīj ibn Mu’awiyah is not strong.
[Ibn Hajr said: He is truthful but makes mistakes ; Yahyā ibn Ma’īn said: He is nothing. Al-Nasā’ī said: He is weak. Al-Bukhārī said: They spoke about some of his hadīth. Ibn Sa’d said: He is weak in hadīth. Al-Bazzār said: He has a poor memory. (Al-Taqrīb pg. 158, Dār al-Ma’rifah print)]
Hadīj is much more famous than Hāshim ibn Sa’īd, having more companions/students, and a large group narrated from him. Likewise ‘Amr ibn Khālid who had many companions/students. Yet the narration of Hāshim – whom only three people narrated from – is more well-known and collected by authors of hadīth (i.e. books of Sunan, Musnad, Sahīh, Jāmi’), yet they didn’t collect the hadīth of Hadīj and ‘Amr. This narration has not come except from a very odd/unique source. And it is not unlikely that one inserted one hadīth into another hadīth. And no one collected/narrated this hadīth except [‘Alī ibn al-Hassan] al-Khula’ī despite his later period. How did these Imāms such as al-Tirmidhī, Abu Ya’lā, Al-Tabarānī, Ibn ‘Adīy, al-Hākim miss this hadīth (i.e. of Hadīj/’Amr)?
Rather, it can be asserted that this is a hadīth which is bātil (false); it was not narrated by Hadīj or ‘Amr ibn Khālid, as a number of critics have agreed that Hāshim ibn Sa’īd is the only one to narrate this hadīth of Safiyyah, and that it is only known from his hadīth:
Al-Tabarānī said: these ahadīth on the authority of Kinānah on the authority of Safiyyah are only known via Hāshim ibn Sa’īd al-Kūfī… [al-Awsat #8502]
Al-Tirmidhī said: This hadīth is gharīb (i.e. unique), we do not know it except from this route of the hadīth of Hāshim ibn Sa’īd al-Kūfī and his isnād is not well-known… [Sunan al-Tirmidhī #3554]
The approach of Ibn ‘Adīy also indicates that this hadīth is only known from Hāshim… (Summarised, Sharh Sunan Abū Dawūd 18/339 of Al-Fathī)
Hadīth 4.
Ahmad ibn al-Hasan > Asbagh ibn al-Faraj > ‘Abdullāh ibn Wahb > ‘Amr ibn al-Hārith > Sa’īd ibn Abī Hilāl > Khuzaymah > ‘Āisha bint Sa’d ibn Abī Waqqās > her father (Sā’d ibn Abī Waqqās):
أَنَّهُ دَخَلَ مَعَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم عَلَى امْرَأَةٍ وَبَيْنَ يَدَيْهَا نَوًى أَوْ قَالَ حَصًى تُسَبِّحُ بِهِ فَقَالَ “ أَلاَ أُخْبِرُكِ بِمَا هُوَ أَيْسَرُ عَلَيْكِ مِنْ هَذَا أَوْ أَفْضَلُ سُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَدَدَ مَا خَلَقَ فِي السَّمَاءِ وَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَدَدَ مَا خَلَقَ فِي الأَرْضِ وَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَدَدَ مَا بَيْنَ ذَلِكَ وَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ عَدَدَ مَا هُوَ خَالِقٌ وَاللَّهُ أَكْبَرُ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ وَالْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ وَلاَ حَوْلَ وَلاَ قُوَّةَ إِلاَّ بِاللَّهِ مِثْلَ ذَلِكَ ”
That he entered with the Messenger of Allāh (ﷺ) upon a women, before her was a date pit – or he said – pebble – that she would make Tasbīh with. So he (ﷺ) said: “Should I not inform you of what is easier for you then this, and better?… (to the end of the hadīth)
(al-Tirmidhī 3568. Abū Dawūd 1500. Al-Baghawī in Sharh as-Sunnah 1279. And others.
Declared da’īf by Al-Albānī in his checking of Tirmidhī and Abū Dawūd.
Declared da’īf by Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbād (Sharh Sunan Abū Dawūd 3/180)
Included by Muqbil ibn Hādī’ in ahadīth mu’allah dhāhiruha sihha (hadīth that appear to be authentic but contain defects/weakness) pg. 148)
(This narration was also collected by al-Hākim 1/547, Ibn Hibbān 837 al-Bazzār 4/40 – without ‘Khuzaymah’ in the isnād. Declared Munqati’ (disconnected/broken) by Al-Albānī in his checking of Mawārid al-Dhamān #2330)
Isnād:
Muqbil ibn Hādī said: if you go back to Al-Tahdhīb Al-Tahdhīb, you will not find a narration by Sa’īd ibn Abī Hilāl on the authority of Āisha bint Sa’d ibn Abī Waqqās… [i.e. the chain is broken/disconnected]. (ahadīth mu’allah dhāhiruha sihha pg. 148)
Khuzaymah:
Abdul-Muhsin al-‘Abbād said: this hadīth is weak and not established due to the presence of an unknown narrator in the isnād – and that is Khuzaymah. (Sharh Abū Dawūd 3/180)
Al-Dhahabī said: Khuzaymah, he is not known. (al-Mīzān 1/601)
Ibn Hajr said: He is not known – his lineage nor his condition. And no one narrated from him except Sa’īd ibn Abī Hilāl. (al-Taqrīb #1877, Natāij Al-Afkār pg. 81)
Sa’īd ibn Abī Hilāl:
Al-Sājī said: Ahmad said (about Sa’īd): he became confused. (al-Tahdhīb 2/48)
Ibn Hazm said: He is not strong (al-Tahdhīb 2/48)
Yahyā [ibn Ma’īn] also described him as confused in al-Fasl of Ibn Hazm 2/95. (Al-Da’īfah 1/189)
Al-Albānī said: Perhaps what supports this argument (i.e. of Sa’īd becoming confused and mixing up the narrations) is his narration of this hadīth, because some of the trustworthy narrators who narrated from Sa’īd do not mention Khuzaymah in their chain, so the chain becomes disconnected/broken.
This is why Hāfidh al-Mizzī did not mention ‘Āishah bint Sa’ad amongst the shaykhs (those who were narrated from) of (Sa’īd) Ibn Abī Hilāl, so this isnād is not without the defects of Jahālah (a narrator being unknown) or Inqitā’ (a break in the chain), so how can this hadīth be Sahīh or Hasan?! (Al-Daīfah 1/189)
Chapter 4: narrations attributed to the companions
[A separate page will be written focusing on the narrations attributed to the companions in this matter insha Allāh. But in summary as stated above:
Yāsir al-Fathī said: There is no proven hadīth or narration on counting (dhikr) with date pits or pebbles, and its action is not proven from a single companion. Rather, (the only narration) which is proven (is) that of Ibn Mas’ūd of rebuttal, and he is one of the scholars and jurists among the companions of the prophet (ﷺ). (Sharh Abū Dawūd of al-Fathī 18/342)]
Chapter 5. Using the rosary “to count accurately”
Bakr Abū Zayd said: The extremists have said about the (use of the) rosary:
“Counting with the fingers is only practical for a few remembrances, like those under a hundred. However, for those with many supplications and continuous remembrances, counting with their fingers can lead to mistakes and distraction when counting. Thus, this is the wisdom behind using the rosary.”
I say: In the pure Sharī’ah, there is no fixed number for dhikr that is restricted by condition, time, or place beyond a hundred. Anything else is considered unrestricted dhikr. Allāh, The Most-High says: “Oh you who have believed, remember Allāh with much remembrance” (33:41), among other verses, such as in Ali-Imrān (3:41), Al-Anfāl (8:45), and Al-Ahzāb (33:35).
Thus, imposing a restricted dhikr on oneself with a number that neither Allāh nor His Messenger (ﷺ) commanded is an addition to what is prescribed. (Al-Subhah pg. 101-102)
Chapter 6. Closing remarks
Bakr Abū Zayd said: It is undeniable that using the rosary for counting dhikr is imitation of the practices of the disbelievers and constitutes an innovation in the worship of dhikr and supplications. It’s a deviation from the legislate method of counting with the fingers, as demonstrated by the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) through his words and actions. This practice has been passed down by those who follow his guidance and continue to do so to this day. Matters of disagreement should be referred back to his teachings, which clarify the correct approach in times of disagreement.
Anyone who examines the history of using the rosary will know that it is associated with the rituals of disbelievers such as Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, and others, and that this practice entered the Muslim community from their places of worship, will understand that it is a (particular) characteristic of the places of worship of the disbelievers. Therefore, for a Muslim to adopt it as a means of worship is a misguided innovation, and this is clearly evident, and all praise is to Allāh.
Every servant who is sincere to themselves should free themselves of innovations in the religion and limit their practices to following the example of the Seal of the Prophets and Messengers and his companions (may Allah be pleased with them).
So, leave the rosary, Oh servant of Allāh, and emulate your Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) in the restricted dhikr and the method of counting with your fingers. Continuously engage in the remembrance of Allāh abundantly, without restricting yourself to a number not prescribed by Sharī’ah.
(Al-Subhah pg. 100-103)
fawaaids.com 