is pleased with it, this is not enjoined. Such supplication was previously practised, but was later forbidden, for Allah may accept that person’s repentance or punish him.

Noah’s supplication for the destruction of the people of the earth came after Allah had informed him that none of his people would believe except those who had already believed. Even so, it is established in the authentic hadith concerning intercession that he will say:

“I offered a supplication against the people of the earth which I had not been commanded to offer.”

Although he had not been forbidden to make it, neither had he been commanded to do so. It would therefore have been better for him to offer only supplications that were enjoined, whether obligatory or recommended. Supplication is an act of worship, and Allah is to be worshipped only through what He has enjoined, whether obligatory or recommended. Had this supplication been commanded, it would have formed part of the law prescribed for Noah; we would then have to consider whether our law abrogated it.

The same applies to Moses’ supplication:

“Our Lord, obliterate their wealth and harden their hearts so that they will not believe until they see the painful punishment.”

If this was a supplication he was commanded to make, it would remain to consider whether our law accords with it. The general principle in our law is that if a supplication is obligatory or recommended, it is good, and the one who offers it is rewarded. If it is forbidden, as in praying for unlawful bloodshed, it is a sin and an act of disobedience. If it is disliked, it diminishes the standing of the one who offers it. If it is permissible, with neither offering it nor refraining from it preferable, it counts neither for nor against him. Such is the matter. And Allah, glorified be He, knows best.