Ibn Percy's Translation:
"People say this is hypocrisy, that you make dua on the pulpit for tawfeeq for the leader. that this is clear hypocrisy.
First of all it’s possible that some are not clear on the meaning of the term tawfeeq. They think tawfeeq means to dominate and take control. However tawfeeq means that Allah guides him towards doing righteous acts in the land. That Allah helps him to carry out what pleases Allah.
Even for those who want another leader to take charge, Do you really want to tear down the country just to prove this is not the right person? Then you are not a person of principle. Then you don’t really have the best interests of Islam or your country in your heart.
Or you don’t mind that Allah guides the leader towards reforming himself and the country, to walk the straight path and to heal the wounds in the country. Which of those do you prefer? This is where truth and falsehood become clear.
As for the matter of Mudahana (appeasing the rulers). It is my heart that polices any act of appeasement, and it is only Allah that sees insides the hearts. As for the rest us of, you can not say this is appeasement except in one way. If a person describes someone with an attribute that is not within him. For example a ruler that robs his own country, while we describe him as trustworthy, or a dishonest ruler that we describe as honest,
However to make the dua “Oh Allah, guide the leader”, I will make this due for Sisi, I will make it for Abdullah bin Zayed, I will make it for Abdullah bin Abdul Azeez, I will make this dua for any one who leads the Muslim lands that Allah gives them tawfeeq that they carry the burden they have been loaded with, so that Allah causes them to be a cause for happiness for their peoples.
Making dua for the leader for goodness, for justice, for the path of light, that is a dua for the people who will be ruled by this man.
I forgive those who have seen this kind of appeasement with corrupt leaders, who may have been confused therefore. I have however given my opinion. If the leader does something praiseworthy, then praise him, and speak well of his praiseworthy acts. Because this grows and encourages the incentive to do good in the heart.
If he errs, if he does wrong, point his attention to this wrong, do not use this wrong as a cause to oppose him. There is a difference between constructive criticism, that in this criticism there is a way towards rectifying the wrong. As opposing to addressing this wrong in a way that causes enmity, and makes the leader feel that I am opposing him. I don’t call him a criminal, a tyrant, a failure etc… No. your act is wrong, when we say it in this way, and we are with you in rectifying in this way.
Thirdly, sometimes events unfold in a way opposite to how we want them, and we may not understand it because we’re not in a position to understand it fully. It may be that he is addressing something we are unaware of, because he is in a position of responsibility, and this is a fact that many may dislike, but this a fact. He is in a position of responsibility and so sees things on a higher plane than others, though he should be act in a manner of transparency with his people.
So either his wrong act is based on factors you are not aware of, or he is indeed in the wrong. Then I would communicate with him the message that I am not with you on this wrong, but we are with you in rectifying this wrong, and we will help you. and this is for any leader as well.
If the leader then continues in this way, and there builds up for him a large number of errors and wrongs, then it is natural that the people will not be with him at that point. However complete rejection in the way that I heard some say “Down with the next president”. Then what do you want? Do you want to build the country? or do you want to tear down the country?"