The majority of scholars say that if a sick person is not content and patient and instead is upset and complains and embarks in unislamic actions such as slapping the cheeks, ripping hair out, beating the chest, and the like, such a person is a sinner. This is agreed upon by consensus. However, if a person does this, will he still be rewarded for being afflicted with a calamity and does his behavior have any consequences? The majority of scholars say that his behavior has consequences, and he will receive no reward as compensation for the calamity he is experiencing. If he is content, that is for him, and if he is displeased, that is for him. Some scholars believe that a sick person will be rewarded even if he is not patient. This opinion was preferred by Ibn Hajar. The reward of being patient is additional to the reward received on account of calamities. However, the majority of scholars say that such a person will not receive any reward if he is impatient and upset. This is because if he is patient, it shows his pleasure and if he is enraged, it shows his anger. It seems that the opinion of Ibn Hajar can be broken down into two parts. There is no doubt that being content with predestiny is something that is required, but such a person will be sinful for lacking patience for what Allaah has decreed for him. As for the reward for being afflicted with calamity which is established by sacred text, according to the opinion of Ibn Hajar it is a separate issue. The majority of scholars are of the view that no reward is due for such as person because they regard being patient and illness as inseparable. Therefore, it cannot be seen that a person will be rewarded and sinful for the same thing, as that would be a contradiction. There is a scholarly discussion about a theological point of committing a prohibited act and then using it to carry out acts of worship, for example, would this prohibited act render a person’s act of worship invalid or not?
The Thaahiry School is of the opinion that it is absolutely invalid. The majority of the jurists, on the other hand, differentiate between whether the prohibition is connected to the actual object of the prohibited action or to its condition, or to the matter regarded as its integral pillar, because this would necessitate nullification. This is because without the condition, the action is invalid, and without the integral pillar, it is invalid. Hence, it is as if the prohibition is connected to the actual act of worship. Therefore, a distinction is needed between the action and that which the prohibition is connected to. This is why there is a distinction between the one who prays with a silk turban or while wearing a gold ring, wherein such a case his prayer is deemed valid but he is considered sinful for wearing prohibited items. This is because these actions are independent. The reason for this issue is because the prohibition is relates to an action which is independent of the integral parts of the prayer or its conditions. This is in contrast to a person who uses silk to cover his body for prayer, because covering the body is a condition of prayer. Therefore, the precept is connected to an issue which affects the prayer. The action is as if it is connected to the actual prayer itself. Hence, if the condition is invalid, the thing for which it was made a condition is also invaliud. The Thaahiry school of thought uphold that the entire prohibition is connected to the act of worship and therefore, everything is rendered invalid.