The fifth one of the maladies of
the heart is fondness for being praised and lauded. Psychology of the wish to
be praised rests with the person’s self love and thinking of oneself as good
and superior. Being praised tastes very sweet to this type of person. A person
with this malady should think that this is not a real superiority and goodness
or even if one presumes it as goodness, one should think that it is transitory.
Broader coverage of this subject will be given later on while the subject
matter conceit (kibr) is explained (see chapter 12).
Sixth of the maladies of the
heart is to hold a bid’at, which means to hold a heretical, wrong or aberrant
belief. Most Muslims suffer from this disastrous malady. The reason which leads
one into this malady is one’s attempt to rationalize or reason in the matters
which cannot be sensed through sense organs and which cannot be reached or
comprehended through calculations and believing in matters wherein reason errs
and makes mistakes. Every Muslim should follow the teachings of either one of
the two Madhhabs with respect to faith, i.e., “Mâturîdî” or “Ash’arî”.
Following the teachings of any one of them will protect or save a person from
the malady of heresies. For, in matters beyond the reach of mind, the scholars
of (the medial and therefore the only correct path called) Ahl as-sunnat
followed only the Qur’ân al-kerîm and hadîth-i-sherîfs, thus utilizing their mental capacities in delving into these
two sources and trying to understand their meanings. They wrote, in their
books, what they learned from the Ashâb-i-kirâm, who in turn
had acquired their religious learnings from the Messenger of
Allah.
[A person will become a
disbeliever if he denies or doubts about something which is taught clearly in
the Qur’ân al-kerîm or in hadîth-i-sherîfs. Giving wrong meanings
to commandments that are not taught clearly and are therefore doubtful would be
“bid’at.” A person becomes an ahl al-bid’at if he believes in his wrong
interpretation or understanding. However, if a person rejects the commandments
by saying, for instance, “How could this happen! This could not be! My mind
does not accept that!”, he will become a disbeliever. If a person asserts that
a prohibited (harâm) thing is permissible (halâl) and if his statement is based
on an âyat of the Qur’ân or on a hadîth, he does not become a disbeliever but he
becomes an “ahl al-bid’at.” Stating that the election of hadrat Abû Bakr and
Hadrat ’Umar to the post of Caliphate was not right constitutes a bid’at. On
the other hand, going further and stating that they did not have rights to the
post of Caliphate constitutes disbelief (kufr).
Muhammad Shihristânî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’
says in his book Milal wa Nihal that the scholars of the Hanafî
Madhhab followed the teachings of imâm Abû Mansûr al-Mâturîdî ‘rahimahullâhu
ta’âlâ’ with respect to faith (i’tiqad). For, Abû Mansûr al-Mâturîdî applied
the methodology (“usûl” and “furu”) of Imâm a’zam Abû Hanîfa ‘rahimahullâhu
ta’âlâ’, the founder of the Hanafî Madhhab. “Usûl” means “i’tiqad” belief.
“Furu” means “ahkâm-i-shar’iyya” or rules that are based on Islamic laws. The
scholars of “Mâlikî”, “Shâfi’î” and “Hanbalî” Madhhabs followed the teachings
of Imâm Abû Hasan al-Ash’arî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ with respect to faith
(i’tiqad). Abû Hasan al-Ash’arî followed the “Shâfi’î” Madhhab. Imâm al-Subkî
‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ who was one of the famous “Shâfi’î” scholars said that
he had studied the book of Abû Ja’far Tahâwî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ who was one
of the scholars of the Hanafî Madhhab, and noticed that it was almost the same
as the teachings of the “Ash’arî Madhhab in faith. They differed from each
other only in three points. Abdulwahhâb Tâj-ud-dîn al-Subkî, who was the son of
imâm abûl Hasan Alî Subkî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’, said that he had studied the
books of the scholars of “Hanafî” Madhhab in faith (i’tiqad)
and noticed that they were in disagreement with “Shâfi’î” Madhhab in faith in
thirteen points. But he said that their disagreements were on minor matters and that those differences did not mean that they had deviated from the correct path. They do not differ in essential matters. They both are in the correct (haqq) path. Muhammad Hadimî ‘rahimahullâhu ta’âlâ’ states in the three hundred and seventeenth page of his book Berîqa that he has studied the teachings of both ‘Mâturîdî and Ash’arî Madhhabs in credal matters and estimated that the discrepancies between the two Madhhabs, including the very minor differences, added up to seventy-three.]