12-13-2009, 01:50 AM
Dears
Astaghfirullah! I must say. What a thoughtful issue has been raised.
Madrissa! Mashallah. Don't ask me to speak on this issue.
Can an MBBS doctor not become a religious scholar by studying religion, discussing with people of knowledge and doing all the required research. If so-called madrissa is a condition for being an aalim, then let me assure you, you will be bound to exclude a number of greatest names of history from the definition of aalims.
If one wishes to debate on it let me know, and I will give you concrete info on who can be called Aalim and what are pre-requisites not on the basis of my opinion, rather on the basis of other evidences.
One more thing, be clarified aalim denotes person of knwoledge and not aamal (person doing amal). Nobality is another thing and being aalim is another. We have a problem of mixing up both things.
I agree that Aalim of religion is simply like aalim of wordly knowledge. However, we are mixing the aalim with job orientation. It is most rebuttable presumption when ILAM comes into question. I can tell names of a number of men who had no designations (like mentioned in a post) but had done wonderful things that caused their name to be preserved as biggest aalims (wordly) for ever. Being aalim, there is no necessity of certifications since ILAM cannot be capped by doing this. I wonder if Newton was a designationholder of a field where he made never-ending achievements.
Certainly Zakir Naik is not applying for a job being religious scholar. At least the ones who say he is not an aalim are not even 1 percent of his ILAM. It is wonderful if they are.
Regards,
Kamran.
Astaghfirullah! I must say. What a thoughtful issue has been raised.
Madrissa! Mashallah. Don't ask me to speak on this issue.
Can an MBBS doctor not become a religious scholar by studying religion, discussing with people of knowledge and doing all the required research. If so-called madrissa is a condition for being an aalim, then let me assure you, you will be bound to exclude a number of greatest names of history from the definition of aalims.
If one wishes to debate on it let me know, and I will give you concrete info on who can be called Aalim and what are pre-requisites not on the basis of my opinion, rather on the basis of other evidences.
One more thing, be clarified aalim denotes person of knwoledge and not aamal (person doing amal). Nobality is another thing and being aalim is another. We have a problem of mixing up both things.
I agree that Aalim of religion is simply like aalim of wordly knowledge. However, we are mixing the aalim with job orientation. It is most rebuttable presumption when ILAM comes into question. I can tell names of a number of men who had no designations (like mentioned in a post) but had done wonderful things that caused their name to be preserved as biggest aalims (wordly) for ever. Being aalim, there is no necessity of certifications since ILAM cannot be capped by doing this. I wonder if Newton was a designationholder of a field where he made never-ending achievements.
Certainly Zakir Naik is not applying for a job being religious scholar. At least the ones who say he is not an aalim are not even 1 percent of his ILAM. It is wonderful if they are.
Regards,
Kamran.
