Friday Sermon delivered by Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad (aba) , Khalifatul Masih V, Head of the worldwide Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, on 5th October 2012 from the Baitul Futuh Mosque, London.
Translated from the Urdu by Amer Safir and Murtaza Ahmad
After reciting Tashahhud, Ta’awwuz and Surah al-Faatihah, His Holiness said:
“The Promised Messiah (as) stated:
“If one has knowledge of the life experiences of the Holy Prophet (sa) [that is, the circumstances he faced and incidents that occurred in his life], is fully aware of the condition of the world at the time of his advent and what the Holy Prophet (sa) achieved, he would call out in a trance-like state, ‘O Allah, Bless Muhammad (sa)!’ I say most truthfully, this is not mere thought and imagination, for the Holy Qur’an and world history fully bear testimony to what the Holy Prophet (sa) did. Otherwise why would it have been stated especially for the Holy Prophet (sa):
That is, Allah and His angels send blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! You also should invoke blessings on him and salute him with the salutation of peace. Such a pronouncement was not made for any other prophet. The only man who came to this world with complete success and complete conciliation was Muhammad (sa).”
The Promised Messiah (as) said:
“It is evident from this verse that the pious practices of the Holy Prophet (sa) were such that Allah the Exalted, did not specify any word to praise them [in other words to limit it] or quantify his attributes. Words may have been found, but they were not used.” [That is to say, praise of his pious practices was immeasurable]. “A verse such as this has not been stated in the glory of any other prophet. His soul was so pure and honest and his practices were liked by God to such an extent, that Allah the Exalted gave the perpetual commandment that in future, people should invoke blessings on him as a mark of gratefulness.”
It is, therefore, the duty of a believer that as he reads the teachings brought by the Holy Prophet (sa) and learns about his blessed model, he should also strive to follow in his footsteps and adopt those practices. He should, alongside this, send Durood and Salaam (salutations and peace) upon the Prophet (sa), for the great favour the Benefactor of Mankind bestowed on us. The Holy Prophet (sa) demonstrated the practical illustration of every teaching of Allah the Almighty to us, encompassing all aspects of life. By admonishing us to act in this way, he guided us to the path leading to God. He has shown to us the ways to obtaining the highest standards of worship of God. He provided to us understanding and realisation of our responsibilities of discharging the rights of creation, through which a believer can obtain the pleasure of God. All this demands that whilst we send Durood and Salaam (salutations and peace) upon the Prophet Muhammad (sa), we should also inform the world of his blessed model. We should make the world aware of his excellences and compassion. Whenever aspects of the blessed life of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) have been presented to non-Muslims who possess even the slightest amount of justice and fairness, then despite differences of opinions, they were compelled to praise the various characteristics of the life of the Prophet Muhammad (sa).
Presently, opponents of Islam raise objections against the Holy Prophet (sa) or upon the teachings that he brought. Such people’s hearts are either completely devoid of justice or they are entirely unacquainted with the various aspects of excellence in the blessed life of the Holy Prophet (sa). Further, they do not even want to make an effort to learn about them. As such, it is also our duty to make the world aware of the excellences of the life of the Holy Prophet (sa) and to this end we should use every single possible means at our disposal. I have already stated this numerous times previously. The nature of some people is such, or some people are so steeped in materialism or worldliness, that worldly people influence them more. When a worldly person or someone from amongst them makes a statement regarding the Prophet Muhammad (sa) they are more prepared to accept what he says and it has a greater impact upon them and they sometimes make an effort to reflect, as compared to when a Muslim says the same thing to them regarding the Holy Prophet (sa). It is for this reason that the views of their own famous people such as writers and scholars, regarding the Prophet Muhammad’s (sa) life, should be conveyed to them.
I shall now present extracts from the writings of those who were impressed by the life and personality of the Holy Prophet (sa) and subsequently wrote about him. Some amongst these writers and scholars were fiercely opposed to the Prophet Muhammad (sa), yet they were compelled to write the truth.
In his English translation of the Holy Qur’an, the writer George Sale writes with reference to Spanhemius – a staunch opponent of Islam, who said many negative things against the Prophet Muhammad (sa) – yet Sale writes:
“…for how criminal soever Mohammed may have been in imposing a false religion on mankind, the praises due to his real virtues ought not to be denied him; nor can I do otherwise than applaud the candour of the pious and learned Spanhemius, who, though he owned him to have been a wicked imposter, yet acknowledged him to have been richly furnished with natural endowments, beautiful in his person, of a subtle wit, agreeable behavior, showing liberality to the poor, courtesy to everyone, fortitude against his enemies, and above all a high reverence for the name of God; severe against the perjured, adulterers, murderers, slanderers, prodigals, covetous, false witnesses &c. a great preacher of patience, charity, mercy, beneficence, gratitude, honouring of parents and superiors, and a frequent celebrator of the divine praises.”
Despite acknowledging all of this, in other parts of his book George Sale raises allegations against the prophet Muhammad (sa).
Another writer, Stanley Lane-Poole, wrote:
“He freely forgave the Koreysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn in which they had afflicted him, and gave an amnesty to the whole population of Mekka…It was thus that Mohammad entered again his native city. Through all the annals of conquest there is no triumphant entry comparable to this one.”
In The Outline of History, professor H.G. Wells wrote regarding a major proof of the prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad (sa):
“Because those who knew Muhammad best believed in him the most… Muhammad was no impostor at any rate…there can be no denying that Islam possesses many fine and noble attributes… They created a society more free from widespread cruelty and social oppression than any society had ever been in the world before.”
In his book, Islam at the Crossroads, De Lacy O’Learywrote:
“History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races, is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.”
In other words, he says that historians who say that Islam was spread through force are relating ridiculous tales.
In a statement published in Young India, Mahatma Ghandi stated:
“I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind…. I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days, in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These, and not the sword, carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume [of a book on the Prophet’s biography], I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.”
Sir John Bagot Glubb, a Lieutenant General who passed away in 1986, wrote at the conclusion of his book:
“Whatever opinion the reader may form when he reaches the end of this book [which he was writing], it is difficult to deny that the call of Muhammad seems to bear a striking resemblance to innumerable other accounts of similar visions, both in the Old and New Testaments, and in the experience of Christian saints, possibly also of Hindus and devotees of other religions. Such visions, moreover, have often marked the beginnings of lives of great sanctity and of heroic virtue. To attribute such phenomena to self-delusion scarcely seems an adequate explanation, for they have been experienced by many persons divided from one another by thousands of years of time and by thousands of miles of distance, who cannot conceivably have even heard of each other. Yet the accounts which they give of their visions seem to bear an extraordinary likeness to one another. It scarcely appears reasonable to suggest that all these visionaries ‘imagined’ such strikingly similar experiences, although they were quite ignorant of each other’s existence.”
Regarding the migration of the companions of the Holy Prophet (sa) to Abyssinia (the Prophet (sa) was in Makkah at the time) he wrote:
“The list seems to have included very nearly all the persons who had accepted Islam and the Messenger of God must have remained with a much reduced group of adherents, among the generally hostile inhabitants of Makkah, a situation which proves him to have possessed a considerable degree of moral courage and conviction.”
In his book A History of the Intellectual Development of Europe, John William Draper wrote:
“Four years after the death of Justinian, A.D. 569, was born at Mecca, in Arabia the man who, of all others, exercised the greatest influence upon the human race… Mohammed, by Europeans surnamed “the Impostor”…Mohammed possessed that combination of qualities which more than once decided the fate of empires. A preaching soldier, he was eloquent in the pulpit [when delivering speeches], valiant in the field. His theology was simple: ‘There is but one God.’ [That the sum total of the religion is that God is One.]…Asserting that everlasting truth, he did not engage in vain metaphysics, but applied himself to improving the social condition of his people by regulations respecting personal cleanliness, sobriety, fasting, prayer. Before all other works he esteemed almsgiving and charity.”
A famous Orientalist, William Montgomery Watt, wrote in his book, Muhammad at Medina:
“The more one reflects on the history of Muhammad and of early Islam, the more one is amazed at the vastness of his achievement. Circumstances presented him with an opportunity such as few men have had, but the man was fully matched with the hour. Had it not been for his gifts as a seer, statesman, and administrator and, behind these, his trust in God and firm belief that God had sent him, a notable chapter in the history of mankind would have remained unwritten. It is my hope that this study of his life may contribute to a fresh appraisal and appreciation of one of the greatest of the sons of Adam.”
Such is a testimony of a biographer who was not favourably disposed towards the Holy Prophet (sa).
The famous Christian historian, Reverend Bosworth Smith, in his book Muhammad and Muhammadanism, wrote:
“Head of the State as well as of the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without Pope’s pretensions and Caesar without the legions of Caesar: without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a palace, without a fixed revenue; if ever any man had the right to say that he ruled by the right divine, it was Mohammed, for he had all the power without its instruments and without its supports.”
“Those who knew him best, his wife, his eccentric slave, his cousin, his earliest friend – he who, as Mohammed said, alone of his converts, ‘turned not back, neither was perplexed’ – were the first to recognize his mission [that is, his prophethood]. The ordinary lot of a prophet was in his case reversed; he was not without honour save among those who did not know him well.”
“The practices that Mohammed forbade, and not forbade only, but abolished, human sacrifices [that is, sacrificing humans] and the murder of female infants, and blood feuds, and unlimited polygamy, and wanton cruelty to slaves, and drunkenness, and gambling, would have gone unchecked in Arabia and the adjoining countries.”
“Nor could anyone have done what Mohammed did without the most profound faith in the reality and goodness of his cause [he had firm faith and conviction in his mission, claim and that he was sent from God; it is thus that a revolution was brought about]…there is everything to prove the real enthusiast arriving slowly and painfully at what he believed to be the truth.”
“To say that Arabia needed renovation was to say in other words that the time for a new prophet had come, and why might not that prophet be Mohammed himself? Sprenger, the most recent and exhaustive writer on the subject, has shown that for some hundred years before Mohammed the advent of another prophet had been expected and even predicted.”
“On the whole, the wonder is to me not how much, but how little, under different circumstances, Mohammed differed from himself. In the shepherd of the dessert [when he tended sheep], in the Syrian trader, in the solitary of Mount Hira, in the reformer in the minority of one, in the exile of Medina, in the acknowledged conqueror, in the equal of the Persian Chosroes and the Greek Heraclius, we can still trace a substantial unity. I doubt whether any other man, whose external conditions changed so much, ever himself changed less to meet them: the accidents are changed, the essence seems to me to be the same in all.”
Washington Irving, in his book Life of Muhammad, wrote:
“His military triumphs awakened no pride, nor vain glory, as they would have done had they been effected for selfish purposes. In the time of his greatest power he maintained the same simplicity of manner and appearance as in the days of his adversity. So far from affecting regal state, he was displeased if, on entering a room, any unusual testimonial of respect was shown to him.”
Sir William Muir was an Orientalist, who although saying quite a lot against Islam; wrote:
“Thorough and complete in all his actions, he took in hand no work without bringing it to a close. The same habit pervaded his manner in social intercourse. If he turned in a conversation towards a friend, he turned not partially, but with his full face and his whole body. In shaking hands, he was not the first to withdraw his own; nor was he the first to break off in converse with a stranger, nor to turn away his ear. A patriarchal simplicity pervaded his life. His custom was to do everything for himself. If he gave alms he would place it with his own hands in that of the petitioner. He aided his wives in their household duties…He was to all of easy access – even as the river’s bank to him that draweth water from it. Embassies and deputations were received with the utmost courtesy and consideration. In the issue of prescripts bearing on their representations, or in other matters of state, Muhammad displayed all the qualifications of an able and experienced ruler. What renders this the more strange is that he was never known himself to write. A remarkable feature was the urbanity and consideration with which Muhammad treated even the most insignificant of his followers. Modesty and kindliness, patience, self-denial, and generosity, pervaded his conduct, and riveted the affections of all around him. He disliked to say No. If unable to answer a petitioner in the affirmative, he preferred silence. He was not known ever to refuse an invitation to the house even of the meanest, nor to decline a proffered present however small. He possessed the rare faculty of making each individual in a company think that he was the favoured guest. If he met anyone rejoicing at success he would seize him eagerly and cordially by the hand. With the bereaved and afflicted, he sympathized tenderly. Gentle and unbending towards little children, he would not disdain to accost a group of them at play with the salutation of peace. He shared his food, even in times of scarcity, with others, and was sedulously solicitous for the personal comfort of everyone about him. A kindly and benevolent disposition pervaded all those illustrations of his character.
Muhammad was a faithful friend. He loved Abu Bakr with the close affection of a brother; Ali, with the fond partiality of a father. Zaid, the freedman, was so strongly attached by the kindness of the Prophet that he preferred to remain at Mecca rather than return home with his own father. ‘I will not leave thee,’ he said, clinging to his patron, ‘for thou hast been a father and mother to me.’ The friendship of Muhammad survived the death of Zaid, and his son Usama was treated by him with distinguished favour for the father’s sake. Uthman and Umar were also the objects of a special attachment; and the enthusiasm with which, at Hudaibiyya, the Prophet entered into the Pledge of the Tree and swore that he would defend his beleaguered son-in-law even to the death, was a signal proof of faithful friendship. Numerous other instances of Muhammad’s ardent and unwavering regard might be adduced. His affections were in no instance misplaced; they were ever reciprocated by a warm and self-sacrificing love. In the exercise of a power absolutely dictatorial, Muhammad was just and temperate. Nor was he wanting in moderation towards his enemies, when once they had cheerfully submitted to his claims. The long and obstinate struggle against his pretensions maintained by the inhabitants of Mecca might have induced its conqueror to mark his indignation in indelible traces of fire and blood. But Muhammad, excepting a few criminals, granted a universal pardon; and, nobly casting into oblivion the memory of the past, with all its mockery, its affronts and persecution, he treated even the foremost of his opponents with a gracious and even friendly consideration. Not less marked was the forbearance shown to Abdullah and the disaffected citizens of Medina [that is, the hypocrites], who for so many years persistently thwarted his designs and resisted his authority, nor the clemency with which he received submissive advances of tribes that before had been the most hostile, even in the hour of victory.”
Although he wrote in several places in opposition to the Qur’an etc., here he wrote:
“It is strongly corroborative of Mahomet’s sincerity that the earliest converts to Islam were his bosom friends and the people of his household; who, intimately acquainted with his private life, could not fail otherwise to have detected those discrepancies which, more or less, invariably exist between the professions of the hypocritical deceiver abroad, and his actions at home.”
Sir Thomas Carlyle, discussing the fact that Prophet Muhammad (sa) was illiterate, wrote:
“One other circumstance we must not forget: that he had no school learning; of the thing we call school-learning none at all. The art of writing was but just introduced into Arabia; it seems to be the true opinion that Muhammad never could write! Life in the Desert, with its experiences, was all his education. What of this infinite Universe he, from his dim place, with his own eyes and thoughts, could take in, so much and no more of it was he to know. Curious, if we will reflect on it, this of having no books. Except by what he could see for himself, or hear of by uncertain rumour of speech in the obscure Arabian Desert, he could know nothing. The wisdom that had been before him or at a distance from him in the world, was in a manner as good as not there for him. Of the great brother souls, flame beacons through so many lands and times, no one directly communicates with this great soul. He is alone there, deep down in the bosom of the Wilderness; has to grow up so, alone with Nature and his own Thoughts.”
Discussing the Prophet’s (sa) marriage and his domestic relations, Carlyle wrote:
“How he was placed with Kadijah, a rich Widow, as her steward, and travelled in her business, again to the Fairs of Syria; how he managed all, as one can well understand, with fidelity and adroitness; how her gratitude, her regard for him grew: the story of their marriage is altogether a graceful intelligible one, as told us by the Arab authors. He was twenty five; she forty. He seems to have lived in a most affectionate, peaceable, wholesome way, with this wedded benefactress; loving her truly, and her alone. It goes greatly against the impostor theory, the fact that he lived in this entirely unexceptionable, entirely quiet and commonplace way, till the heat of his years, was done.”
“Our current hypothesis about Mahomet, that he was a scheming Impostor, a Falsehood incarnate, that his religion is a mere mass of quackery and fatuity, begins really to be now untenable to anyone. The lies, which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man, are disgraceful to ourselves only…It is really time to dismiss all that. The word this man spoke has been the life-guidance now of a hundred and eighty millions of men these twelve hundred years [He was writing this in the 19th Century]… … A greater number of God’s creatures believe in Mahomet’s word at this hour, than in any other word whatever.”
In other words this is an entirely incorrect notion.
Lamartine, a French philosopher, wrote in his book, History of Turkey:
“If the grandeur of the design, the pettiness of the means, the immensity of the results, be the three measures of human genius, who would dare to compare humanly the greatest men of modern times to Mahomet? The most famous of them have agitated but armies, laws, empires; they have founded [when they founded anything] but physical potencies, often crumbled to the earth before themselves. Mahomet has recast armies, legislations, empires, peoples, dynasties, with millions of men, throughout a third of the inhabited globe. More than this, he recast altars, gods, religions, ideas, creeds, souls. He has founded upon a book, of which every letter is become a law, a spiritual nationality which embraces peoples of every tongue and race…”
“Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, the founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may ask, is there any man greater than he?”
John Davenport wrote:
“Is it possible to conceive, we may ask, that the man who directed such great and lasting reforms in his own country by substituting the worship of the one only true God for the gross and debasing idolatry in which his countrymen had been plunged for ages… to have been a mere impostor, or that his whole career was one of sheer hypocrisy? Can we imagine that his divine mission was a mere invention of his own, of whose falsehood he was conscious throughout? No, surely, nothing but a consciousness of really righteous intentions could have carried Mohammed so steadily and constantly, without ever flinching or wavering, without ever betraying himself to his most intimate connections and companions, from his first revelation to Khadijah, to his last.”
“Western princes had been lords of Asia instead of the Saracens and Turks, they would not have tolerated Mohammedanism as Mohammedans have tolerated Christianity, since they persecuted, with the most relentless cruelty, those of their own, faith whom they deemed heterodox.”
“There is no doubt that amongst all Lawgivers and Conquerors, there is not a single one whose life story is found in more details and authenticity than that of Prophet Muhammad” 
Michael H. Hart, in his book, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, wrote:
“My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world’s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular level.”
“How, then, is one to assess the overall impact of Muhammad on human history? Like all religions, Islam exerts an enormous influence upon the lives of its followers. It is for this reason that the founders of the world’s great religions all figure prominently in this book. Since there are roughly twice as many Christians as Muslims in the world [this refers to the time he wrote this], it may initially seem strange that Muhammad has been ranked higher than Jesus. There are two principal reasons for that decision First, Muhammad played a far more important role in the development of Islam than Jesus did in the development of Christianity. Although Jesus was responsible for the main ethical and moral precepts of Christianity [those that differed from Judaism), St. Paul was the main developer of Christian theology, its principal proselytizer, and the author of a large portion of the New Testament.
Muhammad, however, was responsible for both the theology of Islam and its main ethical and moral principles. In addition, he played the key role in proselytizing the new faith, and in establishing the religious practices of lslam. Moreover, he is the author of the Muslim holy scriptures, the Quran [in other words opponents will most certainly allege this], a collection of certain of Muhammad’s insights that he believed had been directly revealed to him by Allah. Most of these utterances were copied more or less faithfully during Muhammad’s lifetime and were collected together in authoritative form not long after his death. The Quran, therefore, closely represents Muhammad’s ideas and teachings and to a considerable extent his exact words. No such detailed compilation of the teachings of Christ has survived. Since the Quran is at least as important to Muslims as the Bible is to Christians, the influence of Muhammad through the medium of the Quran has been enormous. It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. On the purely religious level, then, it seems likely that Muhammad has been as influential in human history as Jesus.”
This is the writer’s own view point; however he does acknowledge that the Holy Prophet (sa) ranks first, in this regard. Further on, he also wrote that the Holy Prophet (sa) was both a spiritual leader and the head of state, but Jesus (as) did not obtain this status. Thus, in every aspect the example of the Holy Prophet (sa) presents his character in greater illumination.
Karen Armstrong wrote in Mohammed: A Biography of the Prophet:
“Muhammad had to start virtually from scratch and work his way towards the radical monotheistic spirituality of his own. When he began his mission, a dispassionate observer would not have given him a chance. The Arabs, he might have objected, were just not ready for monotheism: they were not sufficiently developed for this sophisticated vision [that is Tauheed, belief in the Unity of God]. In fact, to attempt to introduce it on a large scale in this violent, terrifying society, could be extremely dangerous and Muhammad would be lucky to escape with his life. Indeed, Muhammad was frequently in deadly peril and his survival was a near-miracle. But he did succeed. By the end of his life he had laid an axe to the root of the chronic cycle of tribal violence that afflicted the region and paganism was no longer a going concern. The Arabs were ready to embark on a new phase of their history.”
Referring to Christianity and the West, Armstrong wrote:
“Finally it was the West, not Islam, which forbade the open discussion of religious matters. At the time of the Crusades, Europe seemed obsessed by a craving for intellectual conformity and punished its deviants with a zeal that has been unique in the history of religion. The witch-hunts of the inquisitors and the persecution of Protestants by the Catholics and vice versa were inspired by abtruse theological opinions, which in both Judaism and Islam were seen as private and optional matters. Neither Judaism nor Islam share the Christian conception of heresy, which raises human ideas about the divine to an unacceptably high level and almost makes them a form of idolatry.”
Annie Besant wrote in the book, The Life and Teachings of Muhammad:
“It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel whenever I re-read them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.”
Ruth Cranston wrote in World Faith:
“Mohammad never instigated fighting and bloodshed. Every battle he fought was in rebuttal. He fought in order to survive… and he fought with the weapons and in fashion of his time. Certainly no Christian nation of 140,000,000 people [as this book was published in 1949] who today dispatch 120,000 helpless civilians with a single bomb, can look askance at a leader who at his worst killed a bare five or six hundred.”
“The slayings of the Prophet of Arabia in the benighted and bloodthirsty age of the seventh century look positively puerile compared with our own, in this ‘advanced’ and enlightened twentieth. Not to mention the mass slaughter by the Christians during the Inquisition and the Crusades – when, Christian warriors proudly recorded, they ‘waded ankle-deep in the gore of the Muslim infidels.’”
Godfrey Higgins wrote:
“Nothing is so common as to hear the Christian priests abuse the religion of Mohamed for its bigotry and intolerance. Wonderful assurance and hypocrisy! Who was it expelled the moriscoes from Spain because they would not turn Christians? Who was it murdered the millions of Mexico and Peru, and gave them all away as slaves because they were not Christians? What a contrast have the Mohamedans exhibited in Greece! For many centuries the Christians have been permitted to live in the peaceable possession of their properties, their religion, their priests, bishops, patriarchs and churches…”
He is comparing the Christians with the Muslims.
“In all the history of the Caliphs, there cannot be shewn anything half so infamous as the Inquisition, nor a single instance of an individual burnt for his religious opinion; nor, do I believe, put to death in a time of peace for simply not embracing the religion of Islam.”
Thus, this was the impact of the teaching that the Holy Prophet (sa) gave to the Muslims.
In History of the Saracen Empire, Edward Gibbon wrote:
“It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion [that it has always remained established] that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina, is preserved after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran….The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. ‘I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God’ is the simple and invariable profession of Islam [that is, there is none worthy of worship except Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger]. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol [in other words, this was the image of God which the Muslims never formed into an idol].; the honours of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.”
What he is trying to say is that on the other hand the Christians made a man into a god.
May God the Almighty enable the world to understand the rank of the greatest man. Instead of opposing and mocking him, may they strive to hold on to his mantle and come under his refuge, so that they can be saved from God’s Punishment. The only means of salvation today is the Holy Prophetsa. Every just writer and every truthful and sincere non-Muslim will acknowledge this. I have presented many extracts to this effect and there are innumerable other similar extracts from other non-Muslims in this regard. The truthfulness of the earlier Prophets is testified by following the Holy Prophet (sa). This is the status of the Seal of Prophethood, that every Ahmadi must promote all across the world and should make efforts to achieve this.
With this reference I should mention that a Khatme Nabuwwat conference began in Rabwah yesterday, and would have finished by today. There was nothing else in this conference apart from politically motivated talks, morally bankrupt dialogue and the uttering of profane and foul language – against the Promised Messiah (sa). All of this was carried out in the name of the love and the Seal of Prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad (sa). May Allah the Almighty grant such people wisdom. Despite acting in this manner, they believe that they are informing the world of the status of the Khatme Nabuwwat of the Prophet Muhammad (sa). Nonetheless, this is the way these people act. However as I stated, Ahmadis are duty-bound to enlighten the world of the reality and truth of the Khatme Nabuwwat (Seal of Prophethood) and this can be achieved by conveying the message of the Prophet Muhammad (sa) to the world. May Allah the Almighty enable us to accomplish this.
In my Friday sermon of 21st September two weeks ago, I mentioned lawyers and stated that the Muslims lawyers of the world should unite together. Whether other Muslim lawyers unite together or not, I do not know. However our Ahmadi lawyers have begun some work on this, including in Pakistan, with regards to the issues surrounding respect for religious sentiments and the limits of freedom of expression and freedom of conscience. They are looking into the degrees of restriction of freedom of speech. They have collected together some details in this respect and formed some points. The court verdicts in certain countries relating to this issue, their national laws and international laws have all been kept in view and certain issues have been raised. These have been sent here and I have then forwarded this to various Ahmadi lawyers across the world. As Ahmadi lawyers previously drew attention towards this, they have reported that they were sitting with some Muslim lawyers all of whom said to them, “If anyone can further this work in an organised way, it is the Ahmadiyya Jama’at. Therefore, you should raise this concern and issue in the world.” In any case, I have sent this to various Ahmadi lawyers across the world to reflect upon. They should report back regarding what could be done about this. They should promptly deliberate and send me whatever opinions they form. This is so that the various recommendations that are sent from Ahmadi lawyers in the world, can lead to an exchange of opinions. Thereafter, practical implementation of any of the selected opinions can be carried out, if required. May Allah the Almighty grant all these Ahmadi lawyers the ability to carry out this work rapidly.
Similarly, Ahmadi politicians across the world or those who are closely acquainted with politicians, should present this matter in some forum or the other in the best possible manner, that there should be some boundaries to freedom of speech or freedom of expression, otherwise the world will become embroiled in even more disorder than before.
In this connection I would also like to make an appeal for prayers, which I often appeal for. Pray most profusely for the Muslim Ummah [the Muslim world at large]. May Allah the Almighty grant wisdom to Muslim leaders, that they should not play with the lives of their citizens. May Allah grant wisdom to the citizens that they should not become tools for their unjust leaders and smite each other’s necks. May Allah the Almighty grant wisdom to Muslim Governments, that they should not become tools of the West and then attack one another. Nowadays, tension is building up between Turkey and Syria. Anti-Islamic forces are working to make Muslims fight amongst each other and to take full benefits themselves, and are making full efforts to implement this foremost agenda of theirs. Muslims do not understand this point. May Allah the Almighty keep the Muslims of the world in His protection and safety, and may Muslims come to understand this reality, and may they discharge their responsibilities.
- The Holy Qur’an, Ch.33:V.57.
- Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Malfoozat. Vol. 1. p. 421 (2003).
- Hazrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. Malfoozat. Vol. 1. p.24 (2003).
- George Sale. To the Reader. In: The Koran: Commonly called the Alkoran of Mohammed. J. B. Lippincott & Co., PA. pp.vi-vii (1860).
- Stanley Lane-Poole. Introduction. In: Speeches and Table Talk of the Prophet Muhammad. Macmillan & Co., London. p xlvi (1882).
- H.G. Wells. Part II: Muhammad and Islam. In: The Outline of History. University of Michigan Library., MI. p 269 (1920).
- De Lacy O’Leary. Islam at the Crossroads. Kegan Paul., London, p.8 (1923).
- Mahatma Gandhi. Young India. September 23rd 1924.
- John Bagot Glubb. The Life and Times of Muhammad. Hodder & Stoughton. 1970 (reprint 2002).
- John Bagot Glubb. The Life and Times of Muhammad. Hodder & Stoughton. 1970 (reprint 2002).
- John William Draper, M.D., L.L.D. A History of the Intellectual Development of Europe. Harper and Brothers Publishers., NY. P.244 (1863).
- William Montgomery Watt. Muhammad at Madina. Oxford University Press. pp. 335 (1981).
- Rev. Bosworth Smith. Character of Mohammad. In: MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM. Smith, Elder & Co., London. p. 235 (1876).
- Rev. Bosworth Smith. Character of Mohammad. In: MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM. Smith, Elder & Co., London. p. 127 (1876).
- Rev. Bosworth Smith. Character of Mohammad. In: MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM. Smith, Elder & Co., London. p. 125 (1876).
- Rev. Bosworth Smith. Character of Mohammad. In: MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM. Smith, Elder & Co., London. p. 127 (1876).
- Rev. Bosworth Smith. Character of Mohammad. In: MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM. Smith, Elder & Co., London. p. 133 (1876).
- Rev. Bosworth Smith. Character of Mohammad. In: MOHAMMAD AND MOHAMMADANISM. Smith, Elder & Co., London. p. 133 (1876).
- Washington Irving. The Life of Mahomet. Bernard Tauchnitz,. Leipzig. pp. 272-3(1850).
- Sir William Muir. Life of Muhammad.(Volume IV). Smith, Elder and Company., London.pp. 303-307 (1861).
- Sir William Muir. Life of Muhammad.(Volume II). Smith, Elder and Company., London.pp. 97-8 (1861).
- Thomas Carlyle. On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History. Wiley and Putnam., NY. p.47 (1846).
- Thomas Carlyle. On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History. Wiley and Putnam., NY. p.48 (1846).
- Thomas Carlyle. On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History. Wiley and Putnam., NY. pp.60-1 (1846).
- A. De Lamartine. History of Turkey (English Translation). D. Appleton &Co., NY. p.154 (1855-7).
- A. De Lamartine. History of Turkey (English Translation). D. Appleton &Co., NY. p.155 (1855-7)
- John Davenport. An Apology for Mohammed and the Koran. J.Davy & Sons., London. p.139 (1869).
- John Davenport. An Apology for Mohammed and the Koran. J.Davy & Sons., London. p.82 (1869).
- John Davenport. An Apology for Mohammed and the Koran. J.Davy & Sons., London. (1869).
- Michael H. Hart. THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY. Carol publishing group., p.3.
- Michael H. Hart. THE 100: A RANKING OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL PERSONS IN HISTORY. Carol publishing group., pp.8-9.
- Karen Armstrong. Muhammad – A Biography of the Prophet. Harper Collins Publishers., NY. p.53-54 (1993).
- Karen Armstrong. Muhammad – A Biography of the Prophet. Harper Collins Publishers., NY. p.27 (1993).
- Annie Besant. The Life and Teachings of Muhammad. Theosophical Publishing House., India. p. 4 (1932).
- Ruth Cranston. World Faith. Harper and Row Publishers., NY. P. 155 (1949).
- Godfrey Higgins. Apology for Mohammed. Lahore. Pp. 123-4 (1829).
- Godfrey Higgins. Apology for Mohammed. Lahore. Pp. 52 (1829).
- Edward Gibbon, Simon Oakley. History of the Saracen Empire. Alex Murray & Son., London. P.54 (1870).