Dr Abdus Salam - The ’Mystic’ scientist

Divine -- Divine -- Divine -- Divine is a Bewafa Maashooqaa -- who chooses only the successful suitors......only temporarily

in the distant yesterday it was in bed with the Ceasers and helped build their Roman Empire -- then the Divine changed favors towards the followers of the Mohammed -- and helped Mohamedans to destroy the Roman Empire......

Divine helped Tariq of Jabale Taariq to conquer Spain and `civiilize` it into an Ibn Rushd or Avveroes`s Spain -- then turned traitor to Muslims and helped Isabella kick out the last of the Moors from Seville to Rabat Morroco....

Divine helped the Muslim Moghuls/Momgols to conquer India -- then betrayed the Muslims by helping the Christian Clives to chase last of the Moghuls to die and get buried in Burma....

and then the Divine changed sides again and helped the Heathen Hindus -- chase both People of the Book -- the Christians and the Mohammedans -- back to Karachi and London......

The Divine helped the Kurdish Saladins and Ottoman Turks to wrest control of the Holy Land from Crazy Crusaders -- then sided with the Crusader Tommys to recapture it from the Turks -- finally going over its only Chosen People -- the Jews -- helping them kick out both -- the Christian and Muslim Palestinians into the Mediterranian Sea......

so my Divine-loving friends -- Beware of the Divine...

those who fall under the spell of -- this fickle femme fatale -- against the dictates of Rationalilty Commonsense and Science -- meet with nothing else but -- betrayal, heartbreak -- get nothing else but a Futile Fantasia -- of a Futureless Fate -- of Foolish Failures -- spread all over the Islamic world of Muslim Sunni, Muslim Shia, Muslim Bahaiis, Muslim Mowahhidoon Druze and Muslim Ahmedis of Qadian......

Divine is a Friendly Delusion -- more apparent than real -- the Friend of only the striving-to-be-successful -- and the Enemy of the born-to be-Lazy-Losers...

it`s a shifting sand... its nobody`s Concubine...... Beware of the Divine......

Dear sattar2 Sahib:

The two other laureates, Glashow and Weinberg, with whom Salam shared the Nobel Prize are atheists. If in case of Salam, it was the fulfillment of a divine promise, what about Glashow and weinberg who get ticked off even by the mention of God?

This is what I want to suggest to you and many other Ahmadis, with due respect: You may believe whatever you like but for God`s sake don`t use Salam to promote your personal faith. By implication, you are trivializing his monumental achievements in science. If Mirza Sahib was truly a Promised Messiah, he shouldn`t need Salam as a prop. Surely he was much greater than Salam.

Salam was a religous person, okay. He might have received inspiration by his faith to do creative work. I don`t dispute it. But his religion doesn`t become any bigger simply because Salam was religious. By this logic, we might be forced to glorify fornication. Schrodinger, one of the founders of quantum mechanics (formulator of the theory of wave function), was a womaniser and received whatever inspiration that he needed from his girl friends (not his wife). That is the reason that it is dangerous to mix science with religion.

I respect you and your faith but exploitation of science to glorify religion is unethical. I do not have any contention with Ahmadiyyat. To me it is another faith in which millions of good people believe for their own good reason. Many Ahmadis are very good humans.

With regards,

Mohammad Gill

Romair:

``I would be interested in your views on laws that automatically give the kids to the wife.``

No, they do not.

No, it is not my belief system. I do not believe in polygomy, either polyandry or polygny. My question to you was simply what I said, that you always, including in your latest post, seem to be arguing that there is nothing wrong about a man having more than one wives, if both parties agree and never the other way around.

I guess what you are saying is that it is a mere coincidence that you are a muslim and this is also the position of islam which you believe in.

Gill Sahib,

Regarding your discussion with Xeneb, here are some thoughts I would like to share.

Islam, science, and Dr. Salam

Firstly, I don’t think science and religion are a terrible mix. On the contrary, I think these two entities complement each other quite well. Of course, this depends upon one’s understanding of each entity … and this is where Dr. Salam is a bit of an anomaly in the scientific community.

It seems that Dr. Salam drew quite a bit of inspiration from Quran. Exactly how much of a role did Quran play in his genius, is somewhat of an unquantifiable issue. One can argue, qualitatively of course, that Dr. Salam was a Nobel caliber scientist, with or without Quran. One can also argue that Quran may have played a role in inspiring Dr. Salam, which may have made him stand out among others in the eye of the scientific community.

Importance of all this to Ahmadi Muslims

There is another aspect of Dr. Salam’s genius (and that of Chaudhry Zafrullah Sahib) … that deserves to be noted. It is rooted in divine revelations to Promised Messiah, Mirza Sahib of Qadian (pbuh).

Divine revelations to Mirza Sahib (pbuh): Allah Almighty revealed to Promised Messiah that his followers will be greatly gifted and will go on achieve great success in the world. These were times when Ahmadi-Muslims were a small group of people, threatened and persecuted, united on faith in Allah Almighty and teachings of Quran. Examples of Dr. Salam and Chaudhry Zafrullah Sahib attest to fulfillment of Allah’s Word to Promised Messiah.

Divine revelations to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh): To illustrate this, consider the conquests of Roman and Persian empires by Muslim armies in early days of Islam. One can attribute these conquests to superior military skills of Muslim armies. Agreed. However, what makes these conquests more than mere conquests, at least for Muslims … are dreams and visions Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had where he was given keys to these kingdoms. Dear Prophet (pbuh) had these visions when Muslims were a small band of people, poor and downtrodden, united on principles of faith. Such grand prophecies … made at desperate times … when fulfilled, contain the signature of Divine approval and attest to the truthfulness of the message for the adherents.

Final question …

The issue now is … should one view conquest of Roman empire as a military success, or fulfillment of divine promises? For a non-Muslim, it is military success. For a Muslim, it is fulfillment of promise from Allah Almighty. Ahmadi Muslims, for similar reasons, view Dr. Salam and Chaudhry Zafrullah as more than great scientists and legal minds. Due to their faith in Quran and love for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), they are an embodiment of fulfillment of promise Allah made to Mirza Sahib of Qadian.

mohammed gill i just want to clarify eys i am proud of him for being an ahmadi but i am more proud of him for being a man of god and for that matter any hindu any jew any christian any beleiver anyone who has fear and love for God is a man of God for me. thus i dont think he was great because he was an ahmadi, i think he was great in his achievements and the legacy eh left behind because he was destiend to be as are thousands of people around the world. i simply wanted to pay a tribute to him and highlight a small fact that pakistan turns its face away from its own son simply because a constituition declaerd him to be unfit. a consituition that is chanegd and amended at the whim of every new prime minister or ruling party. how much importance do you want me to put in a law that is more unpredictable than monsoon rains?
he is resting in peace with a God who loves hima nd accepts him unconditionally. all this was just to bring out ppls prejudices, maybe to fix a few misconceptions or trigger peoples passions. thats all.

sattar # 95,

..... you are good!......... at least i am now convinced that if one was abused as a child, has a thing for arabs and camels, and needs the crutch of islam, it is best to be an ahmedi muslim ........ the only other sect that comes close is the one followed by the bhang inebriated malangs at bari imam who pound grass into heavenly nectar all day long chanting ``allah hoo``.......... i think they might be barelvis or bhangis ....... no? ........ doesn`t really matter - theirs is the most innocuous, if stuporous, form of islam .........

....... so when do you think you will be able to convert urstruly ? .......... he is a tough case, isn`t he? ...........

Urstruly #76: ``No wonder when your children are exposed to the truth later in life they turn into hamidms. Shame it is, isn`t it?

Hamidm2 #19: ``romair,

.........indeed, you are totally clueless !``

Urstruly, you keep trying to associate me with Hamidm, and he keeps trying to associate me with you. Both of you need to sit down, together, someday, and get your notes streamlined :-). Now to your arguments:

``Your post is a mixture of half truths and some outright blatant lies.`

You start every reply with this prefix. And then you never validate it. How about skipping the prefix next time.....

``Muslim sects never agree on anything is a blatant lie.....``

I never said Mulsim sects never agree on anything. Kindly control your habit of mis-associating words with someone and then calling them a liar. It is, however, a fact that they do have disagreements on who is, and isn`t a Muslim. This is a fact. Sectarianism, i.e. disagreements between sects is a problem in Pakistan. Go ask Shias, and you will find that many are afraid of the religious movements that are physically targeting them, as well as trying to declare them non-Muslims in Pakistan.

In fact, forget about all sects, even you and Naqshbandi, on this site, do not agree on a definition of who is a Muslim. Your views about Shias contradict his. Do answer this question, please. Are your views and Naqshbandi`s - two individuals who push Shariah of some sort - the same on Shias?

``every Muslim sect agrees on our national guiding light, the Objectives Resolution that forms the basis of our constitution. Every sect agrees to the authenticity of the constitution of 1973......current religious alliance of Sunnis, Wahabis, Shias, Naqshbandis and Deobandis under the banner of MMA is another example. Such an alliance has existed before under Nine Star of Quomi Itehad of 70s.``

Within the concept of Islamic jurisprudence, thought and most of all philosophy, Objectives Resolutions, MMA, Nine Star of Quomi itehad have absolutely no status. They are nothing other than political entities/concepts in a country called Pakistan. They have absolutely no authority in any matter, relating to religion, according to Islam. By giving MMA, i.e. a group of self-appointed scholars and politicians to prescribe religious law,i.e. declaring someone a Muslim or non, you are, in fact, committing, ``Shirk.``

I, thus, do not base my interpretation of Islam on what Qazi Hussain and Fazl-ur-Rahman, nor any of their related, ``ulema`` say. And you should not commit Shirk, by doing so, either. It is bad enough that you are paying into a system of the USA (much like Qazi Hussain`s daughter who lives in the USA, and his son(s) who studied there) that is targeting us Muslims, now you are commiting Shirk also.

Let us look at what the Quran says:

- The Quran addresses people as, ``O Believers,`` or ``O` Human Beings.`` It does not address them as, ``O` Pakistanis,`` or ``O` followers of the MMA.`` In fact, the concept of a nation-state, itself, is alien to Islam. Islam is based on a concept of Ummah within Islam, and a concept of human beings within the world. Both concepts cross borders of nation-states. Hence, what to talk of a political party, not even a country can legislate on affairs related to Islam, as a whole.

- Islam does not recognize a clergy. This, and Islam`s concept of egalatarianism is what I have found most appealing in this religion. I can communicate straight to God, as can you. I don`t need MMA`s maulvis for communication. MMA leaders and, ``aalims,`` in general, are no more of a Muslim than I am, and vice-versa. They cannot legislate, pass fatwas etc. on me. Nowhere in Islam is anyone allowed power over someone else, just because they practice religious as a profession. Muhammad, Khadija, Ayesha, Abu-Bakr, Umar, Usman, Ali, Fatima etc.; none of them practiced religion as a profession. Yet they were Khalifas, scholars etc. in Islam. They were appointed to these positions on the basis of their character and administration abilities. Not on the basis of being professional maulvis. Hence, the concept of MMA, ``ulema`` declaring me or anyone else a Muslim or non-Muslim has no basis in Islam.

- The question, under discussion is not whether you consider someone a Muslim or not. Quran is to be studied and interpreted by ordinary Muslims. You can read the Quran and come to the conclusion that Ahmedis are non-Muslims. Or that I am a non-Muslim. I can come to the conclusion that you are a non-Muslim, because you give MMA precedence over the Quran. In fact, I do not consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad a prophet or a messiah, based on my understanding of Islam. That is my right.

However, no State can declare any of us non-Muslims. A State is a political entity and has no authority over Islam, as a whole. What if tomorrow the Shia govt. of Iran declares every Sunni a non-Muslim. Will you then become a a non-Muslim, when you go to Iran?

Neither can any, ``aalim,`` make such a declaration. Who appoints someone an, ``aalim`` to begin with, and under whose authority do they consider to have more of a status than the rest of us?

Infact, can you point out where in the Quran is a method described through which someone can be declared a non-Muslim? Who is given that right? What is the procedure that should be followed? How far does that decree extend? To the best of my knowledge, the Quran does not describe any procedure for a State or, ``aalim`` declaring someone a non-Muslim or Muslim. Not yours or Qazi Hussain`s interpretation of the Quran, but a set of verses in the Quran. If you cannot point to any such set of rules, then I would suggest that you leave that right to Allah, and let him decide. And not commit Shirk, by giving that right to the MMA or the Nine Star of Quomi Itehad...........

Nikki #93,

Since you ask :

The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979
``for their contributions to the theory of the unified weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles, including, inter alia, the prediction of the weak neutral current``

For more details, try http://nobelprize.org/physics/laureates/1979/

Ahmadis = followers of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian. we follow Ahmadiyyat ad are referred to by all those who respect and revere us as Ahmadis and that is how we will remain. mulk say bahar beth kar jo log fatway daytay hain un ki koi nahee sunta...so we have a pseudo altaf hussain in the shape of urstruly dont we.
THANKS ARJUN for the clarification.

Urstruly Sahib …

You continue to gloat about unanimity of ullema against Ahmadi Muslims. This unanimity actually backfires against the mullahs. You wrote …

… every Muslim sect in every part of the globe unanimously agree that Quadianis are non-Muslims …

These ullema also agree that a two thousand year old prophet resides above clouds and will one day descent to earth on shoulder of two angels. What does this say about the caliber of these ignorant fools? Read on …

Evidence from Quran

Quran tells us that people of every prophet of Allah were vehemently and violently opposed by the corrupt elements of the society. Mullahs coming together to persecute Ahmadi Muslims fits perfectly with testimony of Quran.

Note that Jew ullema were also unanimous that Jesus committed blasphemy and deserved to be crucified. Were these ullema right? They were unanimous … you know …

Evidence from hadith

For hadith buffs, here’s more. Ahmadis were unanimously declared non-Muslims by all 72 sects of Islam. Incidentally, in a hadith the dear Prophet (pbuh) foretold that in later days one group of Muslims will be opposed by the remaining 72 sects, and this one group will be the truthful one. Here’s the hadith …

“ …my people will be divided into 73 sections, all of them will be in the fire except one.`` The companions asked, `Who are they O Messenger of Allah,` Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) said, ``They are those who will be like me and my companions.``

What newspapers reported fits accurately and perfectly with the hadith.

``One of the special importance of this decision has been that on it the consensus of Ummah has been in substantially correct manner. Throughout the history of Islam, such an overwhelming complete consensus has never been reached on any important topic. Other than the big religious scholars, holders of Shar`a, all the political leaders and political leaders of each group have agreed on this consensus. Other than these, all sufia karam, aarifeen Billah, the leaders of Tassawaf and practices had complete agreement. Excluding Qadianis all the rest of 72 sects which are considered to be of Muslims, agreed and are happy on the solution of this affair. Among the leaders of the nation and a`maideen, there does not appear to be any group which does not have a joyous attitude towards this decision. Nation should take a notice of this.`` (Nawa-e-Waqt, October 10, 1974)

++++

One may ask, how are Ahmadis similar to the community of the Holy Prophet, pbuh (as the Prophet, pbuh, claimed in the above-mentioned hadith)? Simply stated, Ahmadi Muslims follow Quran and sunnah, they follow a prophet of Islam (Mirza Sahib, pbuh), they are persecuted for declaring their faith and for praying, and they are not allowed to perform pilgrimage of Kabbah. These are some of the stark parallels between Muslims then and Muslims now.

++++

Details are available here ….

http://alislam.org/library/links/00000165.html

++++++++++++++++

Urstruly ... got any more ignorant, foolish claims?

romair mian,

.......... name three ``great men`` and i will show you three liers, hypocrites and generally dubious characters who did some ``great`` things ......... and please don`t mention any of the prophets unless you want to run the risk of blasphemy and worse ..........

....... many years ago my father, who i consider to be a ``great man``, was warning me about the hazards of smoking and said, `` son, a man who does not any have any vices is either an angel or a ch**tiya, so if you have to have a bad habit take up drinking or chasing women or something ``............ centuries earlier another huckster who billions of people think was a ``great man-god`` had said, ``let he who is without sin throw the first stone``

........ so the fact remains that abdus salaam was a great man according to the generally accepted definition of ``great`` ..........polygamy has nothing to do with it, as a matter of fact most great men tend to have a rather colorful sex life - they don`t have to live by the rules that you and i have to follow............ actually, i really can`t can`t think of any great man who has not commited a few indiscretions somewhere along the line ........ okay, bill gates might be the exception ......

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Xeneb:

Science and religion are a terrible mix. I do not want to hurt any sensibilities but I think there is a great deal of confusiob among us. Non-Ahmadis fail to appreciate the scientific achievements of Professor Salam and Ahmadis go overboard applauding him for the sake of his religion. Many of them believe that he was a great scientist because he was Ahmadi. If you are one of them, I don`t have any problem with that; I respect your faith, your beliefs, and religion. You have every reason to be proud of him because he was Ahmadi. I am proud of him although I am not one. I personally believe Professor Salam was a Muslim no matter what any body else may think about him. The reason is that Professor Salam said and professed that he was a Muslim and it`s none of my business to doubt him. I respect for what he was, a great scientist. Having said that let me also say that he was a great scientist not because he was a Muslim or Ahmadi. He brought respect to the Islamic world by his scientific achievements.

The other two laureates who shared the Nobel Prize with Salam are born Jews, non-believers, and atheists. They are great scientists not because of their personal beliefs but by their contributions to science. Bose was a Hindu; a subatomic particle ``Boson`` is named after him. All of them are (were) great scientists not because they were Muslim, Jews, atheists, or Hindu but because they contributed superbly to science. And Salam was no exception.

In the books and papers written by the westerners about Salam, the authors admire him immensely for his work (I wish some of us could also do that with a degree of honesty and integrity); they mention his religion only en passant. And that too because it has become contentious in Pakistan.

We should remember that Salam was honored for his work in science, not in religion. Fortunately, there is no Nobel Prize for work in religion.

Without any regard to his religious persuasion, I admire Professor Salam. I know how difficult it is to make even a minor original scientific contribution. Unless you have experience of that, it is hard to appreciate Salam`s contributions. Criticism is easy, a real creative contribution is hard.

Regards,

Mohammad Gill

Dost-Mittar #75 “In other words, you would continue to argue for one husband and many wives as you have been doing consistently, not just at this thread, and never the other way round”

No, I would not. Nor have I ever been making such an argument. I am just debating whether it makes sense for Salam to have more than one wife, and still be considered a, “great” man. I have no interest in polygamy. Nor do I favour it. But I do realize, everyone in a society may not be like me, with similar assets and liabilities.

As I said, you are seeing things that don’t exist. Perhaps, because you are bent upon finding things/rules/customs in systems, beliefs – specifically those that do not conform to your view of a specific, “correct” system – that are different from what you believe. And if they are different from your strict belief system, you automatically assume them to be regressive.

The definition of progressive and regressive is subjective. It has no absolutes. I don’t believe in gay marriage. I don’t believe in abortions. Does this make me regressive? In some societies, yes. In others, it makes me progressive. Even gays themselves, do not believe in polygamy and incestual marriage, while they argue for separation of Church and State on the issue of marriage. Do you support incest being legal? It should be legal, under a secular belief, but it isn’t. Quite the double standard, wouldn’t you say?

There is no society I know of, that has 100% identical rules for men and women. Men and women are different and thus affect society differently, and thus require some different laws. If my wife and I divorce, why does she get the kids? Why not have equal laws for both? Because, this society has decided, that men and women have to be under different laws, for this kind of an issue. And this has been willingly accepted by both men and women in the society. “Willingly” being the key word. If I don’t like that, I should leave the society.

Within the context of Islam, which will seem right to some and wrong to others, there are a certain set of abstract rules. Men are allowed to marry more than once, provided their wives have no issue with it. Men also have a 100% financial responsibility to support their wife and kids. Women have no such responsibility. Women are not even responsible for their own children’s finances, after their husband dies, in Islam. That responsibility goes to the paternal uncle. Why should I pay for my nieces and nephews, if my brother were to die? Why shouldn’t his wife pay? Regressive or progressive?

Isn’t that discriminatory against men? Maybe. Maybe not. It depends on how your society is constructed, and what traditions one follows. To the best of my knowledge, women are not, under any circumstance allowed to have more than one husband, in Islam. Is that discriminatory? Maybe. Maybe not. If your standard is that all laws should be 100% equal, for everyone, then yes. In which case women shouldn’t always get the kids either. And polygamy, polyandry, and incest should all be allowed.

If your standard is defined within an overall picture of rules set by a particular system, willingly accepted by the members of that society, then no. If women, themselves, willingly want to be allowed to have more than one husband, then it definitely is discriminatory. If women have no say in their husband getting married twice, then it is discriminatory. Otherwise, not.

However, your argument about 100% identical rules for men and women is impractical, and is not followed anywhere, including Canada. I would be interested in your views on laws that automatically give the kids to the wife. They are based on the fact that within a social context, women are better suited for this responsibility. However, in its essence, based on your criteria, it is a discriminatory law. As is the law banning incestual relationships.

I object to the repeated use of word ``Ahmadi`` by Quadianis and others while they use it to refer to them Quadianis. At least all Muslims should be very very careful while using this adjective. The word Ahmadi is a derivative of word Ahmad, which was one of the given names of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh). Therefore, we must be careful that not even with an inuendo Quadianis should be allowed to relate themselves to our Prophet (pbuh). This is the unanimous Fatwa of all Muslim ullema in this regard and therefore, it is binding upon us.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts