Talk:Abdus Salam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Pakistan which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Pakistan and Pakistan-related topics. This article is related to History of Pakistan. For guidelines see WikiProject History of Pakistan and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.


Contents

[edit] Please write something about his work

This article is really poor. It is so sparce on description of his work in Physics. He was a great Physicist first and foremost.. believe it or not, but a lot of people do not care whether or not he was a Muslim and how good or bad a Pakistani he was and so on... Sad indeed to read the discussions below

[edit] Salam and Pakistani Government

When Abdus Salam won the Nobel Prize in 1979 he called on Gen Ziaul Haq and offered to donate all his prize money to the establishment of a science centre in Pakistan if the government would agree to provide the rest.

Zia?s response was effusive but, as it later turned out, flippant. After an agonising delay the reply that Salam received from the government was that it would subscribe no more than what Salam did. Flabbergasted, he wrote to Gen Zia. It was incredible that a government of 150 million could spare no more than a scientist could. No reply ever came from Zia. Obviously, the government?s offer had his approval. Salam quietly donated his hundred thousand dollars to his school in Jhang where at the age of 12 he had streaked across India for setting an all-time record not in mathematics alone but in English as well.

The tale doesn't end here. Years later, Salam thought of taking up his idea of the science centre with a better-educated Benazir Bhutto. He was here and asked to see her. He was told that the prime minister was busy but he should call the next day. His Government College buddy Dr Aftab Ahmad told me some years later that tears floated in the eyes of Salam when he told him that ?the prime minister has no time to see me even today and nobody is prepared to say when she will see me if at all?. He was packing his bags to leave.

Of course, Salam never thought it prudent to raise the subject with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. He knew that when Nawaz Sharif went to their common alma mater he recalled every distinguished alumnus including his Gwalmandi chef but not Salam. For Nawaz Sharif, Salam just did not exist. MarcAurel 14:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sunni bigots!
When reading this article I actually wanted to read something about Dr. Abdus Salam's relationship with the Pakistan government. Not being honest about his treatment is an affront to his memory. We should still mention that he is mentioned in the introduction chapter in the Pakistani physics text books as a famous Muslim scientist and Government College has embraced him, placing plaques in the Physics department and creating an Abdus Salam chair [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.28.181 (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Salam and Islam

Does Pakistan defines who is a Muslim? --Bhadani 16:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That's besides the point. Point is what Abdus Slam believes himself to be and this article is about Abdus Salam and not if his faith was agreeable with anyone else. There are other articles on this elsewhere with all the necessary discussion. As a separate points it amazes me that Dr Abdus Salam who remained Pakistani all his life (despite disadvantages) and brought tremendous honours to the country, these bigots will not even allow him to say what he believes himself to be. No wonder Sunnis are the most backward nation in the world. Yahya 17:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it is appropriate that he not be listed as a Muslim, since Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and most other Islamic nations do not recognize the Ahmedis as a legitimate sect of Islam. 68.155.76.103 01:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it is appropriate that we don't consider you human you Sunni harami monkey as the whole world considers you Sunnis haramis terrorists.
If you knew better you would realize your statement is laughable, in truth the differences between Sunnis and Shias are few.
Really? Ask Shias and Sunnis who are cutting each others' throats everywhere.

The differences are unfortunately used by certain parties for their own agendas to create divison. Also, the West is not "the whole world". 65.43.146.158 21:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole world apart from Sunnis considers Sunnis terrorists. Ask anyone; West, Russians, Chinese, Indians, Japanese, Thais, Catholics, protestants..so on and so on...you name it.

Thank you for engligthening us with your great observations. Do you know that the bigots in Saudia Arabia and elsewhere consider Shias to be non-Muslims and have laws against them???

in reply: Um, yeah. We knew that. Also, there's a long tradition among Protestant Christians of considering the Pope the Antichrist (I think that makes him insufficiently Christian, though you'd have to ask them). Also also orthodox Jews in Israel often don't consider Reform Jews Jewish. My bet is a similar attitude comes with Theraveda and Mayahana Buddhism, but you'd have to ask a Buddhist. From me: Christians are Christians, Muslims Muslim, Jews Jews, Buddhists Buddhist. Point #1: it's your relationship with the divine that matters, not someone else's opinion thereof. Point #2: Those who don't care about conceptual niceties often define us. If guy read the Qu'ran and prayed to Allah (blessed be his name) then he's Muslim in the eyes of the rest of the world. Point #3: Don't call people Sunni monkeys or Shi'a terrorists if they're writing in Wikipedia. Terrorist monkeys don't type. Remember Salam's line about "the common heritage of mankind"? Remember it.

Anathema! We all know Protestants are apostates and Martin Luther is a heretic! Saudis Arabia doesn't even tolerate Shi'ites. If we are to take such non-sense seriously, neither Shi'a or Shi'ite are Muslim, and neither Protestants nor Catholics are Christians, and we might as well edit all articles on religion out of existence!

[edit] New Note

Abdus Salam believed in One God and Muhammad (SAW). If you look at articles about Jewish scientists, they are identified as such; the Jewish people are proud of thier scientists (as well they should be)...maybe Muslims should be as well!!

Actually Ahmadis believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a messiah.It is unfortunate that there are so few well-known contemporary Muslim scientists. 65.43.146.158 21:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream muslims believe that Jesus will be the last prophet after Holy Prophet (saw). There is no contradiction in beliefs as far as finality of prophethood is concerned. The crime of Ahmadis is that they believe that Jesus was the metaphorical description of Mahdi who was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. Thus the difference is ironic. Ahmadis believe in the Mahdi while the rest are eagerly waiting for his appearance to believe in him Khokhar976 16:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Why does a Qadiani refer to "mainstream muslims" when in fact, your prophet Mirza declared all people who don't accept him as a prophet to be outside the fold of Islam?

And why shouldn't he? Any non-believer in a prophet is a kafir.

Muslims believe that Muhammad (pbuh) was the Last in the Line of Prophets to be appointed by God. As Jesus was appointed before Muhammad, there is no issue.

No there is an issue. According to your beliefs, Muhammad could not finish the job so God had to resurrect Jesus to finish the job for Muhammad. If a prophet had to be resurrected, why was it not Muhammad who, being the greatest prophet deserved to be sent back? The answer is no prophet from past will come back as all are dead otherwise it would have been Muhammad who would have come back and not a comparatively inferior prophet Jesus.
Also if Jesus does come after Muhammad, he does come after Muhammad, it does not matter if Jesus was before Muhammad as well. You are clinging on straws.

There is no irony in the fact that prominent scholars who are very inclusive, excluded Qadianis from Islam beceause they appear in the guise of Muslims, whilst believing in their own prophet and establishing their own religion, which declares all Muslims to be outside the fold of Islam.

Nothing new here. Jew Ulema (all of them) declared Jesus to be false and actually put him to cross. Even though Jesus was a true prophet and incidentally a Jew himself. Your Ulema are just repeating the treatment to the previous prophets.
Incidentally, Jews were also told that Prophet Ilyas will be resent to the Jews. Jews (as the harami Sunnis of today) expected the same Prophet Ilyas to come back bodily. When they enquired Jesus where is Prophet Ilyas who was Prophesised to come back and accompany the Messiah, Jesus pointed towards John (Prophet Yahya) and said he is Prophet Ilyas. At this Jews, like you haramis, refused to believe Jesus, as they, like you Sunni haramis, demanded to see Prophet Ilyas come back from past bodily himself and not metaphorically as Prophet Yahya. Because you Sunni haramis are jahil as far as religion is concerned so you do not know that this has happened before as well.

Your "Mahdi" by the way claimed that all the Mahdi ahadith were dubious - and he also believed that the real Jesus might well come after him anyway.

He is the Mehdi and the prophet and has put right what falsehood has been spread in the name of ahadith. That is what Prophets do they cleanup falsehood and that is why they are needed.
Ahadith were compiled several hundred years after the death of the prophet and there is no guarantee from Allah to preserve them unlike Quran.

Finally, it would behove you to discuss Professor Salam, a great scientist regardless of religion rather than spread your hateful and duplicitous propaganda here.

He is a great scientist from the true and real religion of Islam, while you haramis are from false and dead political movement that you try to pass as Islam. The way you are being kicked around everywhere in the world shows even Allah is not with you. And Salam does NOT need your patronising, keep it to yourself. Don't even take this great man's name with your dirty Sunni tongue. You mistreated him when he was alive, no need to shed alligator’s tears now. He could do without your help and despite your opposition when he was alive, he certainly does not need any of your support now.
Jesus said “a tree is known by its fruit”. The fruit of your Sunni religion are bitter for everyone to see and so is your religion false. Live with this fact.


whatever the point may be, Qadiyani's are worst than a kafir. You people call yourselves muslims but you are a shame to their name. You all are harami and so were your forefathers those who accepted qadiyanism. if mirza was to be a prophet or whatever you think, then why did he die in a toilet while trying to pass shit??

[edit] List of degrees

I think the article is the poorer for listing the many degrees and awards, which all major scientists accumulate but which are not listed in biographies. It is considered in poor taste.68.155.76.103 01:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Well we all know what your taste is like from your bigoted comment above in Salam and Islam.
Since when is the truth bigotry? He is just stating mainstream opinion, which may or may not be his opinion. 65.43.146.158 21:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
When do Sunnis tell truth or are honest? They are the most corrupt (in all sense) and prejudiced people in the world. Feel free to check how Pakistani law and Sunni society treats non-Sunnis. Countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria (all Sunni dominated) are among the most corrupt/dishonest in the world.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Salam Nobel.jpeg

Image:Salam Nobel.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's Abdus, not Abdul

Just logged in to make the observation that the name "Abdus" is most times mispelled "Abdul" through all the page, including the picture. Confronted with Encyclopaedia Britannica just to be sure. Zeta Sagittarii (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Udzu (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmadi comment in intro paragraph

Malik07 said: "Pakistani government is not an authority on Islam" and "Strictly speaking Shais [sic] are not Muslims according to Shais [sic; presumably Sunnis] and vice versa, you can't bring arbitrary criteria of who is who"

Actually, Shias and Sunnis (and Ibadis) most certainly do consider each other Muslims. However, Ahmadis, like Baha'is and Druze, are not considered Muslim by any section of mainstream Islam. Ahmadis do consider themselves Muslim, and are usually viewed as Muslim in the West (hardly an authoriy on Islam itself). Mentioning the latter without the former is not WP:NPOV. The Pakistani government's view of Ahmadis is highly relevant given the subject matter. Udzu (talk) 11:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this article is the appropriate place to resolve this, outside of the conflict that erupted over the epitaph on his tombstone. I think it's appropriate - at least unless we can get a significant amount of analysis from more Wikipedians - to simply use some weasel words in the intro and indicate at least that some people consider him to be the first Muslim Nobel laureate in science. --DachannienTalkContrib 22:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Udzu (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Shias ARE considered Kafir by Sunnis and Sunnis kill Shias in Pakistan and other places for the same reason. Here are some of the fatwas of Sunnis against Shias;
http://www.freewebs.com/islamic-site/articles/SunniFatwa-AzharFatwa.html
{xQuote}Sunni Scholars of early Islam fatwas
The following Sunni scholars of early Islam are known to have openly considered the Shi'a as Kafir. I have listed some of them:
1) Abu Hanifa an-Nu'man — "and those who doubt Shia as kufr are kafirs"
2) Ibn Hazm — "Shia are not even Muslims", when Christians debating him brought a Shia book as reference. See: al-Millal wa al-Nahl 213/2
3) Al-Ghazali. See: Ghazali's al-Mustasfi 110/1
4) Ibn Khaldoun — "astray people", "Shia are the source of all deviant groups in Islam history".
5) Nizam al-Mulk in his Siyasatnama, chap 41, where he fully attacks The Rafidhun. {/xQuote}
Now if this matter of who is kafir was not political, any Sunni would surely consider Shias kafir after Abu Hanifa has declared them kafir.
Conversely Shias have also declared Sunnis Kafir. So for consistency sake we should be able to go to all Sunni/Shia articles and be able to add a line "This person is considered non-Muslim by some". If we can’t do it to Sunni/Shia articles then doing it to Salam is prejudicial and arbitrary.
There isn't a single agreed upon definition of who a Muslim is and that is also supported by scriptures. Also this Deobandi molvi (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sw6Qyqjh04) clearly negates the concept of "khatm e nabuwat" the key point of contention…even then this person is not only not considered Kafir but is actually the founder of the Deobandi group. The question then is who is a Muslim?
If the argument is that Sunnis and Shias both consider Ahmadis Kafir then Sunnis and Ahmadis both consider Shias kafir too and Shias and Ahmadis both consider Sunnis kafir as well. You can play it any way you like, in the end it is down to politics.—Preceding unsigned comments added by 89.243.238.215 (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you really comparing Sunni views towards Shias with their views towards Ahmadis? There are Shia mosques in Saudi, Shias graduating from al-Azhar and there certainly aren't any constitutional amendments proclaiming Shias non-Muslim. Most Sunnis do consider Shias part of the Ummah.
The Shia-Sunni conflict is centuries old and well documented. A few examples here or there do not mean anything as the beliefs of Shias and Sunnis have not changed i.e. neither has changed their beliefs about themselves or about each others. The current lull is a political ceasefire after much bloodshed over centuries…and is an agreement to disagree, nothing else. Even then Sunnis routinely kill Shias in Pakistan and elsewhere for being Kafir. No point pretending that they consider each other Muslim strictly as it is only from a political and practical purposes to avoid any confrontation and bloodshed as per past. Sunnis and Shias are not the same and never will be. There are important fundamental beliefs differences especially in certain Shia sects that just can not be acceptable to Sunnis and vice versa.
In India many Hindu children study at Madrassas and some even read Quran but that does not mean Hindu Muslim beliefs have become acceptable to each other. It’s absurd of you to use narrow examples to deduce general inferences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.96.181 (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a bit like comparing Catholic views on Protestants and Mormons: the former may be considered heretical, but the latter are not even considered Christian.
No its not. You just picked an arbitrary example that fits your prejudice. Let’s stick to real facts as per discussion.
Secondly, the Pakistani government's view on Salam's religious identification certainly is relevant to this article. Udzu (talk) 13:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
How is it relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.96.181 (talk)

Deobandi Fatwa on Shias

[Quote]“Shias are kafirs and those who doubt their being kafir are kafirs themselves.”[/Quote]

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2005%5C11%5C30%5Cstory_30-11-2005_pg3_4

Some of the beliefs of Shias despised by Sunnis and reason for Shias to be considered Kafir by Sunnis

http://www.kr-hcy.com/shia/kufr.shtml

Munir Report

One of the most famous public documents in the history of Pakistan is known commonly as the Munir Report, its official title being: Report of the Court of Inquiry constituted under Punjab Act II of 1954 to enquire into the Punjab Disturbances of 1953. The disturbances referred to were instigated by a number of religious leaders (ulama) in pursuance of their demand that the government officially classify Ahmadis to be a non-Muslim minority community, and take certain other actions against members of this movement.

The disturbances were eventually quelled by the authorities, and a public court of inquiry appointed with Justice Muhammad Munir as president and Justice Kayani as member to investigate the causes of the trouble. The inquiry went into the underlying issues behind the events, carrying out an incisive analysis of the ulama's concept of an Islamic state. Its 387-page Report, which soon became a historic document, was presented in April 1954.

Referring to the ulama's call for Pakistan to be run as an official `Islamic' state, and to their demands against Ahmadis, the Report says:

``The question, therefore, whether a person is or is not a Muslim will be of fundamental importance, and it was for this reason that we asked most of the leading ulama to give their definition of a Muslim, the point being that if the ulama of the various sects believed the Ahmadis to be kafirs, they must have been quite clear in their minds not only about the grounds of such belief but also about the definition of a Muslim because the claim that a certain person or community is not within the pale of Islam implies on the part of the claimant an exact conception of what a Muslim is. The result of this part of the inquiry, however, has been anything but satisfactory, and if considerable confusion exists in the minds of our ulama on such a simple matter, one can easily imagine what the differences on more complicated matters will be. Below we reproduce the definition of a Muslim given by each alim in his own words.

(p. 215)


There then follow in the Report the answers given by various ulama to the question, What is the definition of a Muslim. At the end of the answers, the Report draws the following conclusion:

``Keeping in view the several definitions given by the ulama, need we make any comment except that no two learned divines are agreed on this fundamental. If we attempt our own definition as each learned divine has done and that definition differs from that given by all others, we unanimously go out of the fold of Islam. And if we adopt the definition given by any one of the ulama, we remain Muslims according to the view of that alim but kafirs according to the definition of every one else.

(p. 218)


After this, under the heading Apostasy, the Report refers to the belief held by the ulama that, in an Islamic state, a Muslim who becomes a kafir is subject to the death penalty. The Report says:

``According to this doctrine, Chaudhri Zafrullah Khan, if he has not inherited his present religious beliefs but has voluntarily elected to be an Ahmadi, must be put to death. And the same fate should befall Deobandis and Wahabis, including Maulana Muhammad Shafi Deobandi, Member, Board of Talimat-i-Islami attached to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, and Maulana Daud Ghaznavi, if Maulana Abul Hasanat Sayyad Muhammad Ahmad Qadri or Mirza Raza Ahmad Khan Barelvi, or any one of the numerous ulama who are shown perched on every leaf of a beautiful tree in the fatwa, Ex. D.E. 14, were the head of such Islamic State. And if Maulana Muhammad Shafi Deobandi were the head of the State, he would exclude those who have pronounced Deobandis as kafirs from the pale of Islam and inflict on them the death penalty if they come within the definition of murtadd, namely, if they have changed and not inherited their religious views.

``The genuineness of the fatwa, Ex. D.E. 13, by the Deobandis which says that Asna Ashari Shias are kafirs and murtadds, was questioned in the course of enquiry, but Maulana Muhammad Shafi made an inquiry on the subject from Deoband, and received from the records of that institution the copy of a fatwa signed by all the teachers of the Darul Uloom, including Maulana Muhammad Shafi himself which is to the effect that those who do not believe in the sahabiyyat of Hazrat Siddiq Akbar and who are qazif of Hazrat Aisha Siddiqa and have been guilty of tehrif of Quran are kafirs. This opinion is also supported by Mr Ibrahim Ali Chishti who has studied and knows his subject. He thinks the Shias are kafirs because they believe that Hazrat Ali shared the prophethood with our Holy Prophet. He refused to answer the question whether a person who being a Sunni changes his view and agrees with the Shia view would be guilty of irtidad so as to deserve the death penalty. According to the Shias all Sunnis are kafirs, and Ahl-i-Quran, namely, persons who consider hadith to be unreliable and therefore not binding, are unanimously kafirs, and so are all independent thinkers. The net result of all this is that neither Shias nor Sunnis nor Deobandis nor Ahl-i-Hadith nor Barelvis are Muslims and any change from one view to the other must be accompanied in an Islamic State with the penalty of death if the Government of the State is in the hands of the party which considers the other party to be kafirs. And it does not require much imagination to judge of the consequences of this doctrine when it is remembered that no two ulama have agreed before us as to the definition of a Muslim. If the constituents of each of the definitions given by the ulama are given effect to, and subjected to the rule of `combination and permutation' and the form of charge in the Inquisition's sentence on Galileo is adopted mutatis mutandis as a model, the grounds on which a person may be indicted for apostasy will be too numerous to count.

(p. 219)

http://www.aaiil.info/misconceptions/fatwas/munir.htm

—Preceding unsigned comments added by 89.243.96.181 (talk)