Dr Abdus Salam - The ’Mystic’ scientist

thank you romair for your extremely well written and incisive arguement. you could not have put it together in a more eloquent manner, nor given a better arguement explaining what is wrong with most of our attitudes. misconceptions are a dangerous thing, and most people form opinions based on ignorance. the sword is definetely about to fall, its not just ahmedis, but hindus and christians are also mistreate dminorities in pakistan and this cannot be good for a nation or its people. this will probably be the reason why we never prosper,if w ecannot find a common platform amongst our communities then how can we even try and climb the ladder?why are we even using offensive and negative language to refer to each other. i beleive all of us are muslims if we honestly beleive in islam and the word of God and his prphets. interpretations vary and therefore can be the basis of a misunderstanding but if we listen and talk ina clearheaded fashion we shall see each others point of view and might just agree to disagree.otherwise as you put it, all of us would be following one faith. i beleive we should. the faith of being a pakistani, selfless patriotism, MULK SUB SAY PEHLAY, that should be our religion and that should be the way we profess our faith in God not by putting each other down and pointing fingers and raising swords and chopping heads. Urstruly and malik99 are you going to justify the killings of ahmedis, christians and hindus in pakistan and bangladesh?

sorry about the commas,sometimes when i write long indepth feratures such as this one, i lose track of my sentences and hence need commas to allow the reader some breathing time! glad you enjoyed the piece!

i thank you for your clarification, im glad people like you present informative and precise facts in the middle of arguements which tend to veer off the subject.

your welcome, im glad you enjoyed it!

Dr. Abdus Salam brought his wives to the Nobel ceremony because he was proud of his religion, proud of his tradition -- proud of his culture, -- proud of his Punjabi Dastaar -- proud of his Shalwar Qameez -- proud of his Nehru jacket...

...in short he was showing that despite the accolades despite all his great achievements in the field of science -- he was NOT an `Ibnulwaqt` -- he was still the `SAME` man -- who did not forget his roots....

...that he was still a peasant from Punjab who was proud of his true Muslimhood.........that he wanted to say to the Western Scientists that he gave the West a prfoundly original idea without imitating the West in his persona, in his core beliefs.....that he had achieved such such a great a stature -- that he was as much entitled to practice his OWN Jhangi NORMS -- as the NORMS practiced by the West and its Scientists......

However if for a moment he would have ``detached`` himself from his Jhangi Roots -- he could have seen as an unemotional analytical objective scientist with the Equational Sense of Parity and Balance -- that his two wives could have -- or should have -- deserved the SAME rights -- to have more than one husbands (as suggested by dost mitter sahib)......in establishing their Norms....but alas his two wives were no Abdus Salam........

my dear Zainab you wrote a great piece -- if ONLY you wouldn`t have dragged Islam into Salam`s Science...........

dost-mittar #57: ``This has been your favourite theme for quite some time. It could have been considered a ``progressive idea`` if you had said more than one spouse. But you invariably talk about more than one wife and not more than one husband. Unless you change your tune, it would just appear that you are trying to legitimise your religious beliefs under the cloak of progress.``

I have no reasons to legitimize anything or not legitimize anything. Nor do I have the authority. You are seeing things that do not exist. I was just commenting on an issue related to the good Dr., under discussion.

It`s not surprising that geniuses attribute their genius to some divitinity & hence would be religiously observant. I mean, what real explanation is there for someone from a very ordinary background ends up pushing the boundaries of knowledge.
However, their faith in a belief system does not, ipso facto, validate that belief system. If it did, we would end up with even more contradictions than we currently have. Ramanujan was a strong believer in a personal god who he believed wrote the equations that he came up with on his tongue. Such a personal god would be anathema to Professor Salam`s belief system. The existence of a personal god is either true because Ramanujan said so or not true because some other genius refuted it & so on.
Some geniuses, such as Feynman, straddle the area between agnosticism and atheism. Are they wrong or are they right?

To the author:
As far as I know this is a first serious biography on Professor Salam on Chowk. Kudos to you.
Fred Hail = Fred Hale?
Too many commas in the write up.

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

``#56 by Romair on November 29, 2004 12:47pm PT

If both his wives were happy, and he didn’t hide any of them, then more power to him. He actually does become, not only a great scientist and patriot, but perhaps a great person, as well....``

What a fantastic differentiator on how a person becomes a great person in modern times!!!!

Anil

Men are all hypocrites...truth is we all envy with Abdus Salam.....not for his noble prize but for the fact he had two wives. It is the dream of every man who had a dick and a brain (to dream) to be with more than one woman...at the same time...Abdus Salam showing up on the stage with both of his wives would have caused quiet some heartburn amongt other scientists present.....gora, kaala, peela alike....it was like a taunt by Abdus Salam to other Noble Laurettes(sp?)...ke bhai dekho you can win Noble but none of you have balls to have two wives in public...move over you lesser men.

Only reason most of us argue against the more than one wife is because we know one is enough headache...having two will set in permanent migraine....none of us is against having two or three women....but having more than one wife is insane....that only rich(like ???), famous(like Dharmendra), religious(like Skeikh Saeed) or brilliant (like Salam) people can offord. Everyone else is like Bill Clinton...we have it but we define ``it`` differently.

Malik99/Urstuly # various: Declaring people, “Muslim” and, “non-Muslim” is dangerous business. For the simple reason that if you want to, “live by the sword,” then, one day, you may die by that same sword also.

There is already a movement - albeit a small one - in Pakistan of declaring Shias to be non-Muslims. At its very extreme are tiny terrorist wings, which actually kill Shias. They don’t kill Shias because the hate them, as such. They kill them because, according to them, Shias are committing a, “sin” similar to the one you accuse the Ahemdis of committing. And this movement is based on arguments that, all its supporters say, are in the Quran.

On this site, there are those who consider Ahmedis, Sunnis and Shias to be, “Muslims.” There are others, like the both of you, who consider Ahmedis to be non-Muslims and Shias and Sunnis to be equal Muslims. And then there are those, like Naqshbandi, who consider Ahmedis to be non-Muslims, Sunnis to be Muslims, and Shias to be either non-Muslims or. “lesser” Muslims.

The fact that three individuals, who are emotionally attached to declaring Ahmedis to be non-Muslims, cannot amongst them agree on the status of Shias should highlight how ridiculous this whole exercise can get. Who is right? The two of you or Naqshbandi?

What is the most interesting in this whole scenario are the views of the Shias. As far as I know, they, as a group, like the Sunnis, consider Ahmedis non-Muslims also. And their scholars supported the govts declaration. In fact, Bhutto, himself, was a Shia. So they lived by the sword. Ironically, now that same sword may be (very) slowly falling on them.

This can happen to anyone, including you (and me). Tomorrow, if the Wahabis take over, they could declare Hanafis, Brelvis etc. non-Mulsims or lesser Muslims. If Naqshbandis take-over, they will declare Shias lesser Muslims (and maybe even non-Muslims).

What will you do then? Especially, if you or anyone is a Shia, who happened to support the Ahmedis being ruled non-Muslims.

I actually don’t follow the Ahmedi belief. I have issues with it, as do all non-Ahmedis. If I didn’t, I would become an Ahmedi. And obviously, Ahmedis have issues with the traditional Sunni belief that I follow. Otherwise they would cease to be Ahmedis. Anyone, under freedom of expression, has every right to consider others non-Muslims and not marry their children to the laters’.

However, I don’t think any State has a right to declare people non-Muslim. Because the state is a political entity, which is influenced by the powerful and the majority vote. For example, had Bhutto been an Ahmedi himself, do you really think, he would have pushed the Ahmedi legislation? Or would Ahmedis be officially non-Muslims if 75% of Pakistan’s population was Ahmedi?

Also, do let me (us) know which one out of you two and Naqshbandi holds the correct view on Shias. Obviously, since you have contradictory view, all three cannot be correct. So if your views on Shias are incorrect, then how can you say with certainity that your views on Ahmedis are correct?

Thanks Zainab for this very informative article!

Urstruly,

You and Maudoodi are misquoting Quran. Quran calls the dear Prophet (pbuh) “Seal of Prophets”, which is an Arabic idiom meaning prophet of highest rank and qualities. Nowhere does the Quran, or ahadith, declare dear Prophet (pbuh) the last prophet.

(Your Maudoodi also preached that a two-thousand year old prophet will descend from the skies on shoulders of two angels. Go figure.)

Quran mentions that Allah sent prophets to guide people as they went astray. Every evil mentioned in Quran is abundant today, even among the Muslims. It is therefore reasonable for one who believes in Quran to expect Allah to raise prophets to bring people back to the message of Quran. It wouldn`t be the first time ... you know ...


Malik,

Your opinion about Dr. Salam’s religion is your business. However, what you innocently try to justify as “Muslims exercise their right to retaliate” … is senseless violence against Ahamdis.

Furthermore, there is nothing about Dr. Salam that insulted Islam. Rather he remained devoted to Islam and its cause to the very end. You need to have your head examined.

Two wives...interesting...it is said that Erwin Schrodinger thought up the wave equation while spending some time with his mistriss in the Alps.

Of course, the latter is perfectly acceptable becaues gora-sahib is never wrong...

Romair:

``I have certain issues with educated people having two wives. It is allowed, under strict restrictions, in Islam (and in Pakistan). And, provided the restrictions are obeyed (specifically the rights of the women), it can be actually considered a progressive idea.``

This has been your favourite theme for quite some time. It could have been considered a ``progressive idea`` if you had said more than one spouse. But you invariably talk about more than one wife and not more than one husband. Unless you change your tune, it would just appear that you are trying to legitimise your religious beliefs under the cloak of progress.

If one is going to declare someone a great, “person,” then one has to be look at all aspects of that person’s life, without trying to suppress any information. In fact, one should encourage such a discussion, rather than ridiculing it. There are very few true great, “person(s)” and thus, they should be vetted thoroughly, before being declared, “great.”.

Being a great, “person” is different from being a great, “scientist,” or great, “leader” or great, “patriot.” One can be a flaming uncontrollable moral-less womanizer and still be considered scientist, leader or poet or patriot. But not a great person.

At the same time, all of us have our personality querks and difficiences. As do all great persons. No one is perfect. As an example, Jinnah’s achievements are considered great by who love or hate him. Yet, it is well documented that he was a not a good family man His father-in-law did not talk to him. His wife went into depression and died at a very young age of 29. And he refused to even acknowledge his only child as his own daughter, Leaving her barely nothing in his will (she, in return, did not visit his grave for over 50 years).

Gandhi was in a similar boat. With one of his sons, eventually converting to Islam. Were they great leaders. No doubt. Were they great, “persons?” Something to be debated.

I have certain issues with educated people having two wives. It is allowed, under strict restrictions, in Islam (and in Pakistan). And, provided the restrictions are obeyed (specifically the rights of the women), it can be actually considered a progressive idea. Since it is much better than the West’s norm of being married and having a group of secret mistresses on the side. It is actually a very secular idea also, since it opens up newer concepts of concentual unions, outside of a single religious interpretation..

However, what wss the status of Salam’s wives. It doesn’t matter if he married one in the village and she was illiterate. So did my grandfather, and he never married again. Were his wives happy? Or did he mistreat one, due to his own selfish motives and marry again? Etc.

If both his wives were happy, and he didn’t hide any of them, then more power to him. He actually does become, not only a great scientist and patriot, but perhaps a great person, as well. If the above is not the case, and he did mistreated or deliberately used one of them, then I am afraid, at least in my book, he ceases to be a great man. He become just a great scientist and patriot.

Unless, of course, we are willing to lower the standard and accept the fact that great persons can do as they please, to their wives. One would assume, at least some of the women on this site would be interested in this side a, “great person’s” personality.