Questioner: The ruling on supplicating for the ruler without riḍāka (your approval – masculine singular).
Shaykh: ‘Amr doesn’t approve?
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh: They say ‘Amr doesn’t approve.
Another Questioner: The Dā‘ī himself is not pleased.
Another Questioner: Without the Dā‘ī being pleased.
Shaykh: Ah, the pronoun refers to the nearest mentioned [noun].
‘Alī al-Ḥalabī: Our Shaykh, he mentioned the second-person pronoun (for ‘you,’ the addressee) [when he said] “without riḍāka” (your approval – masculine singular).
Shaykh: In any case, clarify your question because there’s now a misunderstanding.
Questioner: The ruling on supplicating for the ruler without the approval of the Dā‘ī who is making the supplication.
Shaykh: Heh, this clarifies it. But if you had stopped at “without riḍāhi” (his approval), the pronoun would refer to the nearest mentioned [noun].
Questioner: I said riḍāka (your approval – masculine singular), [not] riḍāki (your approval – feminine singular).
‘Alī al-Ḥalabī: Meaning, considering you [the questioner] as a Dā‘ī.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh: What is the difference between riḍāhi (his approval) and what was the second one?
‘Alī al-Ḥalabī: Riḍāka (your approval – masculine singular). It’s as if [the question is]: what is the ruling if you were to supplicate for someone else without your own approval [of doing so]?
Shaykh: Ah, so, once again, you must pronounce the kāf with a hams (whisper/aspiration, indicating the masculine form).
‘Alī al-Ḥalabī: Hahaha, this is from the science of Tajwīd (rules of Qur’anic recitation)!
Shaykh: Hahaha.
Questioner: May Allah preserve you, my master.
Shaykh: Meaning, you should say riḍāka (with the masculine suffix).
Questioner: Riḍāka.
Shaykh: Meaning, your breath should reach me (i.e., the aspiration should be audible).
Questioner: May Allah preserve you.
Another Questioner: …The hams [for] riḍāka.
Shaykh: Yes, isn’t this hams? Meaning, [the Dā‘ī] is compelled?
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh: You received the answer previously.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh: Correct.
Questioner: Alright. Perhaps the Shaykh, brother Abū Ṭalāl, mentioned to you that I am an Imām and Khaṭīb (preacher) in Iraq. And my presence in the mosque… we know of no other avenue for Da‘wah (Islamic propagation) there. Indeed, the Dā‘ī is effectively neutralized and his efforts obstructed if he is deprived of the mosque. And with this condition present (i.e., being allowed to preach if he supplicates for the ruler), perhaps… I mean, I don’t want to overstate the benefit or detail it extensively. There is a benefit if it (the platform for Da‘wah) is maintained through supplicating for the ruler. Meaning, now the specific situation has become quite clear.
Another Questioner: Meaning, he was removed or dismissed from his position.
Shaykh: You said this earlier.
Another Questioner: Yes, the reason is that he refused to supplicate for the president or the ruler there during the Jumu‘ah khuṭbah (Friday sermon). So, he is asking if it is permissible for him to supplicate for the ruler while he (the Imām) is not pleased [with him or with doing so] – this is the first point. And if there is permissibility in this matter, then [he asks about] the wording of the supplication. If this (supplicating) is permitted, then if there is a specific wording that you know of, could you advise him on it?
Shaykh: If you go along with the group (or authorities) in principle, and you believe that the problem will be resolved by this supplication, and that there will be no [negative] repercussions from it – meaning, one might fear that this is merely a bait that leads to further demands, and as the saying goes: “The people of Makkah know its paths best,” and “The owner of the house knows best what is within it.” So, if you believe—or rather, to use a more precise expression, if it is your preponderant belief—that the problem will be resolved, and that those lost benefits (of Da‘wah) can be regained by consenting to this bid‘ah (reprehensible innovation – referring to being forced to make a specific Du‘ā’ or the Du‘ā’ itself if it’s problematic), then it may be tolerated. However, if it is as I have conjectured as a possibility—that what follows it will be another demand, and then you will have to submit to a second and a third, and you then become, as al-Ghazālī says in his book, one of the “superficial scholars” (Mashāyikh ar-Rusūm – scholars who are concerned with outward forms rather than substance). Is the answer clear?
Questioner: Yes, it is clear.
Shaykh: Furthermore, if it is the first case (i.e., the problem is resolved by this one act and no further demands are made), your supplication should not contain any [other] violation. Because the violation of this bid‘ah (the coerced supplication or its problematic nature) is enough for us to deal with at present. So, let us not fall into another violation, such as praising a ruler who governs by other than what Allah has revealed. Rather, one should supplicate for his guidance, his success [in doing good], the rectification of his close advisors (biṭānah), and other such sound and permissible meanings. Perhaps I have answered [fully] now as well.
Questioner: Yes.
Shaykh: Al-Ḥamdulillāh (All praise is due to Allah).
(From Silsilah al-Hudā wan-Nūr #580, Question 6)
Saheehus-Seerah 