Jump to content

Talk:Abdus Salam/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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!


This whole discussion is absolutely pathetic and quite frankly none of the people here are exactly doing yourselves, Pakistan, Islam or Abdus Salam any favours by joining in this bickering. Stop disparaging each other, Ahmaddiya this, Sunni that. Your generalising is pathetic. If Abdus Salam called himself a Muslim, if he believed in God and the Prophet Muhammad, then he is considered for all intents and purposes a Muslim. Let this be the end of the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.21.39 (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Islam

In 1974, when the Pakistan National Assembly declared Ahmadis to be non-Muslims, he left Pakistan for London in protest.-I dont understand this sentence. How can declared that someone else isnt't muslim? Or he said that he is not muslim? Is very confused for me :(--Vojvodaeist 14:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That is a very good question and being an ahmadi I still don't understand why a government can decide someone's faith. Prof. Salam left the coutnry to as he had to accept his new status of a non-muslim in order to keep serving as the scientific advisor. Khokhar976 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC).

It is very confusing. People of Pakistan especially the ones in the religious circles. They cannot tolerate other religion except of what they believe. Islam is a true religion and it does not have any classes, or bodies or groups. It just people of theocratic Pakistan who made Islam complicated and extreme; this is so wrong. Abdus Salam was a mystic scientist, other than that, even though he was excommunicated; he always loved Pakistan no matter what. I deeply wish that dr. Abdus Salam was my physics and mathematic teacher.

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... The whole article is an eulogy.. often repeating how great a Scientist he was and how great a Muslim he was and how great a Pakistani he was..... All that stuff needs to be cleaned up. A small sample would suffice to get all three points across.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.166.88 (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


Sad indeed to read the discussions below

Salam-Einstein Religious Debates

There is no such thing.. they may have talked about religion among a boat load of "other" stuff. But it is not like they conducted public debates or anything this is really a stupid heading.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.166.88 (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It says he became professor in 1957 and this gave him the opportunity to debate with many scientists such as Einstein, Einstein died two years previously, the source itself seems dubious.


Ah, Read the Resource Reference. It confirms it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.135.34 (talk) 05:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

References

My feeling is that a lot of information is being added to this article without due references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.246.132 (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone should check the article for correctness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.79.183 (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The following biography should be added to the references:

Fraser, Gordon (2008) Abdus Salam: The First Muslim Nobel Scientist. Oxford Univ. Press.Zazouloustique (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Youngest Fellow of Royal Society

Salam was not the youngest fellow of the Royal Society as per email from Royal Society below;

Dear

Thank you for your enquiry, and apologies for the delayed reply – we have been very busy with a major refurbishment project here at the Royal Society Library.

The youngest Fellow ever to be elected to the Fellowship of the Royal Society was Charles Somerset, Marquess of Worcester, who was just 13 years old when he was elected in 1673. You can read about him on our Royal Society database of past Fellows by clicking here.

I think Salam’s Wikipedia entry is saying that, when he was elected to the Fellowship of the Royal Society in 1959, he then became the youngest living member at that time (as distinct from “youngest ever”); this may well be true, but would be rather complicated to check. He was 33 when he was elected, which is indeed quite young to become an FRS. However, off the top of my head I can think of some 20th century Fellows who were younger when they were elected – Stephen Hawking was 32, Srinivasa Ramanujan was 30, and Paul Dirac (the youngest 20th century Fellow, I think) was just 27.

I hope that’s of interest.

Kind regards,

Rupert

Rupert Baker Library Manager tel +44 (0)20 7451 2599 fax +44 (0)20 7930 2170 web royalsociety.org The Royal Society 6-9 Carlton House Terrace London SW1Y 5AG Registered Charity No 207043 See further with the Royal Society in 2010 – celebrate 350 years of excellence in science —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.238.2 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

What is his field?

Is Salam a theoretician or a nuclear physicist? Some sources such as "Nobel WInners", claims that he is a Pakistani nuclear physicist. Here is the site:

http://www.nobel-winners.com/Physics/abdus_salam.html

see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LK--StT2aU --Ceddyfresse (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

grammar, etc.

A lot of this article is really poorly written. Many of the mistakes look like the mistakes of a non-native english speaker. I have some of the mistakes, but some parts need to be rewritten by someone with more knowledge on these subjects than I possess and, preferably, a native speaker of English (or someone better versed in written English). Thanks. 99.67.184.222 (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC) Dan Hoying

Nuclear Weapons Programme

Some (Pakistanis or others) contributors have a big problem with Abdus Salam. I don't know what is wrong them, but they are keep changing Salam's page on Nuclear Weapons Section. I understand that Salam is not accepted in Pakistan for what he his, but please, keep Salam's page as neutral as it can be. On a regular basis, people are kept making changes in Salam's page and reverting and hiding his contributions to the Government of Pakistan. Indirectly or directly, Salam was a prime figure in Nuclear weapons programme led by Bhutto, I did not made these fact up. They are provided in a book written by Shahid-ur-Rehman. And, because the sensitivity of this program being highly critical to national security, Salam never admitted his role in the development of the programme. Neither, members of the Theoretical Physics Group (TPG) and Mathematical Physics Group (MPG) had confirmed their role in the development. Because his peaceful nature, Salam never went to international media such as BBC and CNN, to become a Nuclear whistleblower despite the fact Salam knew what was going in Pakistan, as members of TPG and MPG kept him informed. His role only came in public knowledge three years after his death, when Long Road to Chagai was published in 1999. Unlike A.Q. Khan who publicly advertised the programme, and almost risk his life in danger. Here is the reference that is written in the book:

Salam had managed a meeting of nuclear scientists to meet with Bhutto, and also participated. Salam did not motivated scientists at PAEC, but he had gravitated scientists teaching in academic universities to advance their research in PAEC. The TPG was headed by Salam until 1974. Because Riazuddin was in United States during 1973-1974 in a fellowship awarded by University of Maryland, Abdus Salam had headed the TPG, and TPG scientists directly reported to Salam over their progress. After Salam's departure, Riazuddin took control of TPG. The DTD and WGS directorates were sat up by Munir Khan, after Khan consulted Salam about the programme.

These are the facts that are provided in Long Road to Chagai, I did not made these up. Much is written in the book about the Salam's integral role, but because the section is expected to expanded in a wrong way, the work may not be saved/published in that section. And, author has written biased work of Abdus Salam after author had praised and given credit to Salam's role in the nuclear weapons development.

Pakistani people considered Ahmediya Muslims as non-muslim, and more less than human. Because of this nature, contributors are keep reverting the reliable facts because they considered this simply embarrassed to admit these facts. This strong smell of hatred is now effecting Salam's neutral page. This smell had kept him away returning to his country, the one he loved the most, now after his death; that smell is destroying his biography. So please STOP!, do not try to make an attempt to change any facts in the page. If you have a problem, simply do not read his page. At least leave it the way it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.0.105.21 (talk) 08:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nota bene* I have moved the above post from the top of the page and given it a title.
184.0, remember that editors are entitled to change the section, so long as they adhere to WP policy such as using wp:reliable sources and wp:neutral point of view. If you have a problem with any edit you may revert it, and discuss it here with the editor involved, or other editors to try to reach a consensus. There is also the NPOV noticeboard. You may wish to review wp:OWN and wp:AGF. (And please sign your posts ~~~~~ !) - 220.101 talk\Contribs 17:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Abdus Salam`s Name

His name as noted on the Nobel Award was only Abdus Salam. He did not write his name as Mohammad Abdus Salam.

This may lead people to think of some other person, so the name used should be Abdus Salam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wajahat malik (talk • contribs) 15:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


not the only edit you did. reverted back to the last version of ironboy11-- mustihussain (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

ok, I am changing his name only.- Wajahat malik (talk

He was commonly known simply as Abdus Salam and so by WP:COMMONNAME the heading is Abdus Salam. But his full name is Muhammad Abdus Salam I suppose and that's why at the beginning he is referred to as Muhammad Abdus Salam. Hope that helps.--Peaceworld 10:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Rv why

Sorry, my edit summary was incorrect, the source says "As we understand it". It is opinon and not fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

If you read the constitution of Pakistan (for example, Article 106), it clearly calls Ahmadis as non-Muslim.[1]
  1. ^ "Constitution of Pakistan". So, it would be wrong to call an Pakistani Ahmadi a Muslim, unless accompanied by this fact. --CopSuscept (talk) 00:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC) This user is a sock of Crème3.14159 (talk · contribs). --SMS Talk 04:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm surprised this debate occupies so much of the talk page, when surely 99% of readers are coming to read about Salam's work in theoretical physics (I'll assume 0.9% are interested in other aspects of his life and work). There was a recent ungrammatical edit inserting the word Qadiani, which I read from that article as derogatory, so it still seems to be a problem. I do not see how it logically follows from an amendment to the constitution of Pakistan concerning voting rights that being an Ahmadi makes him non-Muslim, particularly as other countries have other views and for most of his important work he wasn't even resident in Pakistan. The biography on the Nobel Prize site [2] clearly states "Abdus Salam is known to be a devout Muslim". For most readers, surely the best guide to an individual's belief is their own statements. I don't see how we're going to resolve which opinion is authoritative. So following User:Dachannien's suggestions of "weasel words" for the lead, that now says Salam was "the first self-described Muslim to win a Nobel Prize in science". Is that acceptable to everyone? --21:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Legacy section changed to favor Pakistan?

When last i visited this page a year or so ago, the legacy page noted that Abdus Salam's grave had been defaced, his ideas persecuted and that there was much vandalism related to his legacy given his Ahmadiyya status. Now it seems to have almost completely disappeared. Other than a single picture with a caption talking about a magisterial order there is no mention of vandalism or defacement at all! Has someone been vandalizing this page to present a Pro Pakistani POV narrative, because the talk page itself doesn't seem to discuss this?--Tca achintya (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Without more specifics of when you saw this, it's difficult to say what was seen as the article has a lot of changes, often from people trying to remove or modify references to him being Muslim. But these versions [3] [4] [5] [6] don't seem to have much more than is currently in our article about negative treatment after his death. There was some talk of his grave being defaced twice but this was removed as unsupported by the ref [7] (I didn't check the ref but I trust that the editor was not doing it for improper reasons). Otherwise, the only stuff I see is that relating to the word Muslim being removed from his grave by government order, which remains in the current/2015 [8] versions. The other thing is something about him being discriminated against, which is probably poor wording if it refers to his treatment after death, but in any case, remains in our article. There was something about a postage stamp being removed from circulation but whyever that was removed, the removal was proper as the source [9], doesn't actually support the claim. What it actually says is the stamp was issued, but let's not talk about it too much in case the government comes under pressure to remove it (this was years after it was issued, so by that stage there wasn't much that could be done, really the point seems to be more about the ridiculousness of the treatment of him rather than a serious suggestion the government would remove it and in any case whoever added it clearly did not understand what was being said). Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I had a look at the source relating to the grave being defaced twice. It seems it's a bit complicated, or an issue of WP:Syn. The source does say the headstone only has his name left. However it doesn't say it was defaced twice, actually it only talks about the vandalism and about how the was no attempt to investigate (but at least for the removal of the word Muslim, it makes no sense for any investigation if it was done on court orders). Anyway, since the source does say his headstone only has his name, and it appears to be an RS (and was published a while after the talk of the Muslim being removed), I think it's fair to reflect what the later source says. I've tried to do this without raising syn concerns [10]. I don't in any way fault the person who removed the defaced twice bit, and am sure they weren't trying to introduce a pro-Pakistan POV, instead simply fix a problem. Notably our original statement that it was defaced twice could have been wrong because we have no idea how many times it was actually modified. It could have been more than twice. Also I think it's best to distinguish the word Muslim being removed under government order, and vandalism which the government ignored. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Religion section (4.1)

Can someone please find me additional independent sources that confirm the phrase "Leaving Pakistan in protest was one of Salam's greatest regrets"? Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you questioning the reliability of the source, or suspecting that it's misinterpreted in the text? Because, if it's the latter, the exact quote might settle the issue.
Oxford DNB says "Salam deeply regretted having to leave his native country to pursue his chosen career"[11] - "protest" not mentioned in this context. GregorB (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In that case, it sounds like our original wording [12] which has been removed was definitely misleading. Saying that it it was one of his "greatest regrets" without qualification (even with the in protest part) would I'm pretty sure imply to most people it's something he later felt he shouldn't have done i.e. a mistake he wished he'd never done. But the wording you quote says he regretted that he had do it. In other words, he strongly wished he never had to do it but the circumstances required it (i.e. he still felt he had to do it even if he would have much rather that he didn't have to). Nil Einne (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

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!!

You guys will not rise above this religion stuff would you.. here is a sample of a few wiki entries that do not have anything on their respective religions... ( and thst how it should be!)

American Jew:

Richard_feynman

Israeli Jew:

[13]

Hindu: CV Raman

[14]


Christian: Dirac

[15]

Shinto/Buddhist: Yukawa

[16]

Chinese Buddhist Lee

Dirac may have been born into a Christian household, but as an adult he wasn't a practicing or a believing Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 17:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

[17] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.122.166.88 (talk) 19:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


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.


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??

Mister, who told you he died in the toilet? Tell me one simple thing. If someone close to you passes away in the toilet, would you tell everyone he died in the toilet or would you say he died at home? Honestly I thought you could think this simply, but apparently you can't. It was made up by anti-Ahmadis. He died at home not in the toilet. It is only made up by Ahmadi haters. --Muffingg (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

well now dnt claim that ull be the next prohet as you are listing things that as if god told you that he is with you guys ...Abdus salam was a great scientist who brought pride for our country thats a fact regardless of the beliefs he had due to our past rulers we hav suffered alot now please keep untiy among yourself only god knows who are his true believers and let him decide lets not interfere in it so stop fighting like jahils.


Below I list my reasons why the following entries do not discuss the religious stance of the following scientists:

Richard Feynman. A professed atheist. Quite a few New York City Jews of his generation were totally secular. The mother of his children was not a Jew.
Avram_Hershko. Many Israelis vof Ashkenazi ancestry view their Jewishness as a national and cultural identity, not a religious one. They are unwitting Canaanites. They limit their engagement with religious Judaism to 3 rite of passage: bris, marriage (Israeli law requires religious marriage), and funeral.
C V Raman. Many highly educated people of Hindu ancestry feel no more than a historical connection to Hinduism.
Paul Dirac. An avowed atheist and professed despiser of organised religion. Wolfgang Pauli is reported to have said of him: "There is no god, and Dirac is his prophet."
Yukawa, T D Lee: Religious belief of any sort plays little role in the cultural and mental life of most highly educated Japanese and Chinese.

Compared to the above, Salam appears to have been fairly religious. That Salam's family belonged to a minority sect is not unusual: George Ellis, Roger Penrose, Arthur Eddington, and Robert Millikan were all Quakers. Zazouloustique (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Well since religion seems to be of utmost importance to Pakistanis, when there is so much discussion on whether he was muslim or not, and since the Govt got "muslim" erased from his gravestone, perhaps you guys can mention "he was the first Ahmadiyya to win the nobel prize". That will do justice no, since Ahmadis consider themselves muslims (so they'll be happy) and all "real muslims" who hate them can be happy too (since it wont say muslim any longer).. Lilaac (talk) 16:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is wiki, it doesn't follow Pakistanis view. If someone wills to be called a muslim, i don't think that wiki should discriminate. Peaceworld111 (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Abdus Salam. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

outside link?

I have a conflict of interest, but would a filmed interview with Abdus Salam from 1986 be useful here as an outside link? Focus of conversation is science policy in Pakistan. Transcript is available. http://openvault.wgbh.org/catalog/V_5D66933CA5D94645BB064138A04D633B Mccallucc (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Done! Great find, though for such a neutral and relevant thing as an interview in such a forgiving section as External Links, you can go ahead and make such edits yourself -- just note the conflict of interest in your edit comments. SamuelRiv (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Abdus Salam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Abdus Salam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding a change to the caption for Abdus Salam's grave

I have noticed that the caption for the image of Abdus Salam's grave refers to it as "defaced", a term commonly associated with vandalism. In the interest of neutrality, I have decided to reword the caption, since not all parties will see the change to the wording on Prof. Salam's grave as vandalism. If anyone has any disagreements with my edit, I would appreciate and recommend that they state them here before changing my edit.

114.75.203.39 (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2017

GVKKKK (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Not done: Empty request Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Abdus Salam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Abdus Salam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2018

please change "who had kept him inform about the scientific development of the program." to "who had kept him informed about the scientific development of the program." because grammar. Thank you! Fozan Shahid (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done Minor edit only. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2018

"He was the first Pakistani and first person from Muslim world to receive"

Should be

"He was the first Pakistani and first person from the Muslim world to receive"

In fact, the phrasing is strange. Could be changed to:

"He was both the first Pakistani and the first Muslim to receive" IbrahimQasim (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Not very well written

This article is not very well written, for example,

Salam contributed to developments in theoretical and particle.[9]

NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2018

Add Peter West (Physicist) to list of doctoral students.

See for example the list of Salam's doctoral students on maths genealogy project [1] Gurplesnork (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ https://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=46565

Higgs mechanism applied to himself!

« Steven Weinberg and Salam were the first to apply the Higgs mechanism to electroweak symmetry breaking. »

Someone can correct this ? Danfarid133 (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2019

182.182.26.234 (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: Unclear what the request is. Likely a mistaken request. Ergo Sum 20:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abdus_Salam/Archive_1&oldid=1136490015"