Collective Dua (Ijtimai Dua) After Every Fard Salah/Namaz: Is Group Dua Sunnah or Bid‘ah?

Answered by Mufti Naved Akhtar ·

Question

What is the ruling on Iztemai Dua after every Fardh Salah? This is another serious issue that I have been facing since a long time. I asked many scholars regarding this matter, but their opinions varied, some say it's bidah, some consider it to be okay, some consider it to be mustahab.

Even in social media, I have seen difference in opinion in this matter among reputed hanafi scholars of our time.

I face this issue a lot more than others, the reason being that I am the Imam at the musalla made in our college, so I generally tend to make dua (in a loud voice) after every Fardh Salah as generally the Hanafi crowd expects in our area. However, I don't do it because the crowd expects me to do it, but because I have seen many reputed scholars also do this and take side of it.

But still, there are scholars against this view also, considering it to be bidah. And in our college, many different people come to pray, so at that time, many of them raise questions against this act after the salah, and I don't have any daleel or evidences to give to them regarding my amal.

So dear Mufti Sahab, I request you sincerely to help me out in this matter.

Please clarify the ruling in this matter, and what should an Imam who wants to adhere to the correct form of Islam, do after the salah. Should I keep doing the iztemai dua, or should I stop doing it to stop bidah.

I am fully open to change my way of action for the sake of Islam, I just want to follow the correct thing. Please help me out with this masla with references, evidences from the Qur'an, Sunnah and the classical scholars.

Jazakallah Khair in advance

Response

Assalāmu ‘Alaykum wa Raḥmatullāhi wa Barakātuh.

Making du‘a after Salah is a commendable and recommended act. Numerous narrations establish supplications and prescribed remembrances following the obligatory prayers. The Hanafi jurists have likewise recommended supplication after Salah. Al-Shurunbulālī states:

ثُمَّ يَدْعُونَ لِأَنْفُسِهِمْ وَلِلْمُسْلِمِينَ

“Then they supplicate for themselves and for the Muslims.”

The question, therefore, is not whether du‘a after Salah is legitimate, but whether the particular practice of the Imam regularly leading an audible congregational du‘a, with the worshippers responding Āmīn, is established as a continuous Sunnah.

Several respected scholars have permitted this arrangement on the basis of the general evidences recommending post-prayer du‘a, raising the hands in supplication, and collective du‘a. These evidences provide a basis for the permissibility of the individual acts. However, establishing the permissibility of these acts separately does not necessarily establish their particular combination as a continuously prescribed religious practice.

For instance, the narration of Ḥabīb ibn Maslamah رضي الله عنه concerning one person supplicating while others respond Āmīn supports the general legitimacy of collective du‘a, according to those who accept the narration. Nevertheless, its reported context concerns supplication when an army encountered an enemy; it does not describe a regular collective du‘a after every obligatory prayer.

This broader distinction between the general permissibility of collective du‘a and its regular observance after every Fard Salah was extensively examined by Imam al-Shāṭibī رحمه الله in Al-I‘tiṣām. Interestingly, he discusses almost precisely the same situation: an Imam discontinued the customary practice of leading du‘a after Salah while the congregation responded Āmīn. In examining the evidences advanced for the practice, al-Shāṭibī asks:

فَأَيْنَ الْتِزَامُ ذَلِكَ جَهْرًا لِلْحَاضِرِينَ فِي دُبُرِ كُلِّ صَلَاةٍ؟

“Where, then, is the evidence for consistently observing this aloud for those present after every prayer?”

His central argument is that although supplication after Salah and collective du‘a on certain occasions are established, the permanent observance of this particular arrangement was not the practice of Rasulullah ﷺ. Had it been an established congregational Sunnah, there would have been a strong reason for its transmission, particularly since the Messenger of Allah ﷺ regularly led the five daily prayers before his Companions.

Al-Shāṭibī further explains that the forms and specifications of devotional worship are governed by the guidance of the Lawgiver:

لِأَنَّ التَّعَبُّدِيَّاتِ إِنَّمَا وَضْعُهَا لِلشَّارِعِ

“The determination of devotional worship belongs to the Lawgiver.”

Imam al-Shāṭibī رحمه الله also examines several arguments advanced in favour of this practice. He explains that the general recommendation of du‘a after Salah does not establish its particular congregational form. Nor can greater blessings through collective supplication justify its permanent observance, since such blessings were even more attainable in the company of Rasulullah ﷺ and his Companions. As for teaching supplications, the need was greater during the Prophetic era, yet the Prophet ﷺ taught them in separate gatherings rather than establishing this practice after every prayer. Likewise, the general command to cooperate in righteousness does not independently establish a particular devotional arrangement as a continuous Sunnah.

Accordingly, general evidences recommending an act of worship should not automatically be taken as establishing every particular manner of observing it as a prescribed Sunnah. This does not mean that collective supplication is inherently objectionable. Al-Shāṭibī himself acknowledges its permissibility on particular occasions, such as when a community faces drought or another calamity, provided it is not instituted as a permanent congregational ritual.

Indeed, recognised jurists have differed regarding the permissibility of the customary post-prayer arrangement, and this disagreement deserves respect. ‘Allāmah Anwar Shāh al-Kashmīrī رحمه الله, for example, observes in Fayḍ al-Bārī that certain forms of post-prayer supplication may not be established from the Prophet ﷺ in their precise form, yet they cannot simply be considered innovations without any religious basis.

Therefore, it would be excessive to declare every instance of collective du‘a impermissible or to criticise scholars who have permitted it on the strength of general evidences.

Nevertheless, there is an important distinction between the permissibility of an act and the insistence upon observing it in a particular manner.

‘Allāmah al-Kashmīrī, while acknowledging that recommended acts may be observed regularly, introduces the following qualification:

نَعَمْ نَحْكُمُ بِكَوْنِهَا بِدْعَةً إِذَا أَفْضَى الْأَمْرُ إِلَى النَّكِيرِ عَلَى مَنْ تَرَكَهَا

“Indeed, we would judge it to be an innovation when the matter leads to censuring the person who omits it.”

This qualification is particularly relevant to the present discussion. As is commonly observed today, many worshippers have come to regard congregational du‘a as an essential part of the prayer routine, to the extent that omitting it is often viewed with disapproval, and those who leave without participating may even face criticism.

Mawlānā Muḥammad Yūsuf al-Binnūrī رحمه الله also examines the evidences advanced for congregational du‘a in Ma‘ārif al-Sunan. While acknowledging that the narrations provide considerable support for its basic permissibility, he concludes:

وَبِالْجُمْلَةِ الْتِزَامُهُ كَسُنَّةٍ مُسْتَمِرَّةٍ دَائِمَةٍ يُشْكِلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ عَلَيْهِ دَلِيلٌ مِنَ السُّنَّةِ

“In conclusion, it is difficult to establish evidence from the Sunnah for adhering to it as a continuous and permanent Sunnah.”

This brings us to an important juristic principle. An act may be permissible or recommended in itself, yet its manner of observance may become objectionable if it leads people to regard something as Sunnah or obligatory without adequate evidence.

It is mentioned in Al-‘Uqūd al-Durriyyah:

كُلُّ مُبَاحٍ يُؤَدِّي إِلَى زَعْمِ الْجُهَّالِ سُنِّيَّةَ أَمْرٍ أَوْ وُجُوبَهُ فَهُوَ مَكْرُوهٌ

“Every permissible act that leads the uninformed to believe that something is Sunnah or obligatory becomes disliked.”

Ibn ‘Ābidīn discusses a related principle concerning the continual specification of particular Qur’anic passages in Salah. He explains how an otherwise permissible practice can become objectionable when its regular observance creates the impression that other alternatives are not allowed.

It is also worth quoting the distinction made in Fatāwā Maḥmūdiyyah between mudāwamah (regular observance) and iṣrār (insistence). Mere regularity does not necessarily render a permissible practice objectionable. The concern arises when it is observed with such insistence that omission is no longer readily tolerated, thereby creating the impression that an otherwise non-obligatory practice is religiously necessary.

Applying these principles to the present practice, if congregants begin assuming that the Imam must lead du‘a after every prayer, wait for him as though participation remains part of congregational Salah, or criticise those who leave without participating, the practice has acquired an objectionable element beyond its original permissibility.

The fact that something may be permissible does not justify allowing it to acquire an unwarranted religious status.

In view of these considerations, the preferable and more cautious position, in our assessment, is to avoid maintaining audible Imam-led congregational du‘a as a fixed practice after every Fard Salah. This becomes especially important where its omission leads to criticism, displeasure, or the misconception that an established Sunnah has been abandoned.

The Imam and congregation should instead be encouraged to make their own supplications, preferably quietly. Imam al-Jaṣṣāṣ al-Ḥanafī also affirms that concealing supplication is preferable to making it audible. Care should further be taken not to delay the Sunnah prayers unnecessarily through lengthy supplications.

As for your particular circumstances, since the congregation is already accustomed to the existing arrangement, abruptly discontinuing it may create unnecessary misunderstanding and discord. You should therefore explain the matter gently and gradually acquaint the worshippers with its correct religious status. In the meantime, the familiar arrangement may be continued temporarily where necessary to avoid serious discord, while progressively reducing its frequency.

Subsequently, individual supplication should become the normal practice, with occasional collective du‘a reserved for an appropriate need, such as teaching or a particular communal difficulty.

The objective should not be to diminish the importance of du‘a or to criticise those who follow a recognised scholarly opinion. Rather, it is to preserve the distinction between what is established as Sunnah and what is merely permissible, while ensuring that an optional devotional arrangement does not acquire the status of a religious obligation.

In conclusion, du‘a after Salah is recommended, and occasional collective supplication is permissible. However, the permanent observance of the Imam leading an audible collective du‘a after every Fard Salah is not established as a continuous Prophetic Sunnah. The stronger and more cautious course is to discontinue this fixed arrangement, particularly where it has become a matter of insistence or its omission attracts criticism. In an established congregation, this should be implemented gradually and with wisdom.

And Allah Ta‘ālā knows best.

More questions