Note: The Alislam Team assumes full responsibility for any errors or inaccuracies in this translation of the Friday Sermon.
Friday Sermon delivered by Hazrat Mirza Bashiruddin Mahmud Ahmad (ra) Khalifatul Masih II July 20, 1923
Topics: What Makes a Muslim Superior, Complete Obedience to God, Self-Examination, True Islam, Obedience to Khilafat, Hazrat Ali and Muawiyah, Unity in Faith, Malkana Shuddhi
After reciting Tashahhud, Ta'awwuz, and Surah Al-Fatihah, Huzoor (ra) said:
There is a question which, in my view, should arise in the heart of every Muslim — and I believe it does arise in the hearts of all sensible people — though, looking at outward appearances, I am compelled to conclude with regret, and reason testifies, that perhaps it does not arise in everyone's hearts. Or if it does arise, they do not have the courage to resolve it. Or if they have the courage to resolve it, they are unable to do so. And when they are unable to resolve it, they do not have the courage to ask others to help them resolve it. Or if they do resolve it, they do not have the courage to act upon the resolution.
Yet this is such an important question that without resolving it, a person who believes in One God and worships One God can never find true comfort, and can never attain peace of mind. So the very purpose for which a person accepts a religion, takes on disputes with the entire world, sacrifices all manner of benefits — I am not speaking here of those who drape the cloak of religion over themselves merely as a label, but rather of those who make all kinds of sacrifices for religion — even such people are negligent in resolving this question.
What is that question? It is this: What is the difference between us and other people?
In my view, this question should arise in the heart of every intelligent person: "I have accepted this religion — so what is the difference between me and the one who has not accepted it?" Regarding this question, I have no concern with Hindus, Jews, Christians, and Sikhs specifically. In terms of being fellow human beings, they are all my brothers. But in relation to this question, there is no connection with them — because this question will arise in my heart in one form, and in theirs in another. In my heart, the question will arise: "What is the difference between a Muslim and a Hindu?" But in a Hindu's heart, the question should arise: "What is the difference between a Hindu and a person of no religion?" Similarly, a Christian should ask: "What is the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian?" Every adherent of every religion should ask this question in their own way.
But I take up the form in which it arises in the heart of a Muslim — and that is: What is the difference between a Muslim and a non-Muslim?
As Muslims, we engage in all sorts of disputes with others. Right now there is the matter of the Shuddhi of the Malkanas — we go to them, spend our wealth, advise them not to apostatize, and are contending against those carrying out Shuddhi. Why are we doing this? Have the Malkanas changed from the condition they were in before? Has any difference come about in their intellect, appearance, or knowledge? If not, then why are we advising them and spending our money?
Or consider others who carry out Tabligh (preaching) — they sometimes suffer beatings, sometimes bear financial loss, and are separated from their loved ones. Why do they do all this? The straightforward answer is: "So that people accept Islam and become Muslims." But alongside this, another question also arises — and should arise: Why should people become Muslims? Why should they not remain Hindus, or why should they not become Hindus?
What is it about you? What special distinction do you possess that they should accept your religion? And why should you make every kind of sacrifice so that people remain Muslims or become Muslims?
The answers to this can be given in various forms. For example, one could say: "We have accepted Muhammad (saw) — they too should accept him." But in my view, this is no answer. This is like someone saying: "My bag has more money in it because I received it from Makkah." What does accepting Muhammad (saw) mean? It means that he (saw) brought something from God Almighty. But what we must examine is: what did he bring?
A letter-carrier may be very noble, and another less so — but does the letter carried by the nobler one become more honorable than the one carried by the less noble? Can one take greater pride in it? No. So the mere fact that something came through Muhammad (saw) is not a matter of honor unless what was received is itself superior and higher than what others received. It can only be a source of honor if it is superior.
Then perhaps someone might say: "Since we offer prayers to God, others too should become Muslim and worship God." But this too is not valid, because the adherents of other religions also perform worship in their own ways — and outwardly, their forms of worship are often more difficult and arduous.
Perhaps someone might say: "We give charity." But this answer is also not valid. The followers of other religions also give great charities.
Perhaps someone might say: "We believe in God's Book." We say: believing in a book is no special virtue — the followers of other religions also believe in what they consider to be God's books. Perhaps someone might say: "Those books have been abrogated." Indeed, they have been abrogated — but the question is: why were they abrogated? They too were from God. So ultimately the same question returns: what superiority and what distinction do we have over others?
Philosophers say — and they say truly — that the questions "why," "what," and "whose" either exhaust a person or drive him mad with no end in sight. For example: "Who created the earth?" Answer: "God." Then: "Who created God?" — what answer can there be? So philosophers say that "why" and "what" are questions that lead to deception. But this is not correct — that every "why" and every "what" drives one mad or leads to error. Rather, those "why" and "what" questions do this which are beyond the scope of human reason. Otherwise, answering them is necessary.
For example, a child asks: "Why is there water in the field?" This question should be answered, because telling the child "Don't ask why" means the child should remain ignorant. The answer could be: "Water was drawn from a well or canal," or "It is rainwater." If the child then asks: "Why was the canal built?" — not answering will leave the child ignorant. The answer: "If water were not given, crops would not grow." If the child asks: "Why do crops grow?" — not answering: "Humans eat food from crops and stay alive" — will leave the child ignorant. So we must explain. The child may then ask: "What is the need for humans to live?" — this answer is difficult for a child because the answer would be either philosophical or religious. For a child, one might say: "When someone pinches you, why do you cry? Similarly, no one wants to endure the pain of hunger or die from it." But for an adult, one would explain academically that the purpose of human creation is such that the progress of the next world depends on this life, so God has placed in every person the desire to live and earn something for the next world.
So to an intelligent adult, one would explain in this manner. But at some point, the chain of questions must stop. For instance, if someone asks: "Why did God place this desire in humans?" — we will say: "God's attributes require it." If they ask: "Why do God's attributes require it?" — we will say: "This is a question about a Being whose essence is beyond our grasp."
So the question is: Why should we be Muslims? In my view, no concise answer is possible except one. And that answer is: We Muslims are better than others because we are Muslim.
One can give a lengthy speech about the virtues and excellences of Islam, but the brief and correct answer is: We are better than the followers of other religions because we are Muslim and they are not Muslim.
Someone might say: "Muslim is just a name you have given yourselves — and can a person become better than others merely by giving himself a name?" We have not merely given ourselves a name. When we call ourselves Muslim, it means: we accept all of God's commands. And followers of other religions do not accept all of God's commands.
A non-Muslim might say: "There are people among you too who do not follow God's commands." We will say: indeed, even among those who call themselves Muslims there are such people. But if anyone can follow all of God's commands, only a Muslim can — and only for a Muslim is it possible to do so. For you, it is not even possible.
The analogy is this: two travelers are on a journey where water is unavailable. One has water with him; the other does not. The one with water says to the other: "You made a mistake by not bringing water." The other replies: "If I haven't brought it, you haven't drunk yours either." The first can say: "I have water with me — when I need it, I will drink. But you will not be able to." So even if a non-Muslim has the intention to follow all of God's commands, he cannot become a complete servant of God while remaining a non-Muslim. And the Muslim, though he claims to be Muslim and sometimes falls short — he can be Muslim.
This is the difference between a Muslim and a non-Muslim. The definition of a Muslim is: one who is a complete servant of his Lord. And for anyone other than a Muslim, it is simply not possible to be so — because complete commands do not exist in any other religion in their perfect form. And when there are no perfect commands, no matter how much effort one makes, one cannot equal a Muslim in becoming God's obedient servant.
The analogy is that of one person who has a horse and another who does not. For casual walking, both are equal. But when the one with the horse needs it, he can ride and travel — while the other cannot keep up with him unless he borrows a horse from someone. Similarly, a non-Muslim cannot walk the path of God's obedience equal to a Muslim unless he borrows the means from a Muslim — and when he borrows, he will become a Muslim.
But this is the answer to the outsider's question. The question about yourselves is: Are you Muslim or not? When you argue with others on the basis that "we are Muslims" — and you should argue with evidence and show people that Islam is the highest religion — then the question arises and should arise: Are you really Muslim?
If you are not Muslim, then what does it mean to say "We are Muslim, therefore we are superior to others"? The self will say this question has been raised incorrectly — it should not have been said: "Since we are Muslim, we are superior." Rather, it should have been said: "If we are Muslim, then we are superior" — because calling oneself Muslim is merely a claim, and until there is proof of it, how can anyone be superior?
People know that physicians treat patients and people benefit. But is every person who calls himself a physician accepted as one? They say a certain physician, whenever he passed through a graveyard, would cover his face. Someone asked: "People usually feel shame before the living — you feel shame before the dead?" He said: "I feel shame before the dead because the living have suffered no harm from me — but the dead have. All these buried people are the result of my treatment." So a person does not become a physician merely by calling himself one — rather, someone who knows nothing of medicine but calls himself a physician is a fraud.
Similarly, if someone says "We are Muslim, therefore superior to others" but is not actually Muslim — who could be a greater fraud than such a person? This is like someone saying: "Since I call myself a physician, you should get treated by me." Or someone saying: "Since I call myself a king, everyone should become my subjects." Or someone saying: "Since I say I like such-and-such property, it should be given to me." People would call such a person insane.
We cannot become Muslim by mere words, and we cannot be so until we actually are. So we cannot say we are superior to the followers of other religions simply because we are Muslim — rather, we can say: if we are Muslim, then we are superior to non-Muslims.
Now the question arises: Are we Muslim? Upon the answer to this question depends all the comfort, peace, success, and prosperity of our entire lives.
If the self says: "Yes, you are Muslim." If the intellect says: "Yes, you are Muslim." If your deeds say: "Indeed, you are Muslim" — then no one can be more fortunate than us, and no one can be in a greater state of contentment.
But if the self says: "Be quiet — do not even raise this topic." If this question produces anxiety within you, and your heart begins to tremble — then this means that just as an actor in a theatre is made a king and for a moment becomes happy, but at the same time his real condition is that there is nothing to eat at home, and "whatever I earn from this performance, that is what we will eat" — this is your condition too.
If the answer to this question is in the negative, then remember: no one in the world can be more unfortunate than us — because others are at least striving and searching for the right path. But we have sat back, content. And if we do try, others will say: "There is no difference left between you and us. Your condition is just like ours."
So this question must be resolved by every Muslim. But as I have said, regrettably many people's hearts do not even produce this question. Then many, even if it arises, do not try to resolve it. And many who try cannot resolve it. And when they cannot, they do not have the courage to ask others. And if they do ask and resolve it, they do not have the courage to act upon the resolution.
Their condition is like the saying: an ugly person does not look in the mirror. A beautiful person keeps looking to check if any spot or stain has appeared, so they can clean it. But an ugly person thinks: "Better to leave the stain than to suffer the anguish of seeing my own ugliness." Similarly, those whose inner self is ugly do not examine it, and those whose self is beautiful keep examining it.
But those who do not examine their self because of its ugliness — tell me, if filth is covered up, does the impurity go away? Or does a pigeon, by closing its eyes, become safe from the cat's attack? Never. The impurity does not go away, nor can the pigeon be saved — it is deceived, and the cat devours it. Similarly, if someone sprinkles ash over filth and thinks it is clean, he too is deceived, and in this way the people of his household will fall ill, or the impurity will soil the clothes and corrupt the worship.
So this question — "Are we Muslim?" — is extremely important, but regrettably many people do not resolve it, or do not wish to, or cannot.
I see many people making great sacrifices for the faith — sacrifices that are enviable. Many endure hardships for the religion to such an extent that one's heart aches wondering how to help them. Many toil for the faith, and seeing their labors, one feels admiration. But these very people sometimes, in the slightest surge of ego, destroy all their joy and comfort — and the condition becomes as a poet has described:
"It was a dream, whatever was seen; what was heard was but a tale."
And it appears that what was thought to be beautiful has proved to be utterly ugly from within — and the one who had perfume applied on the outside has filth emerging from within. Like a person who has had a fine garment stitched and kept it for Eid or a wedding, but when he takes it out to wear, he finds that mice have gnawed through it.
This is exactly the state of affairs when it becomes known that a sincere person — one who sacrifices for the religion, who exhausts himself for Islam, who is a source of comfort and joy for us — forgets in the slightest matter that "I am Muslim, and I must obey God Almighty's commands, not get caught up in this or that command selectively." In this or that command, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, and Sikhs also obey God. Then what difference remains between me and them? The difference is only this: that a Muslim obeys in ALL commands, while they are caught up in selective obedience.
What is the difference between a Muslim and a Hindu, a Muslim and a Christian, a Muslim and a Jew? Only this: they say, "We will accept this but not that." But the Muslim, leaving aside this and that, says: "I will accept everything."
If this is the difference between a Muslim and a non-Muslim — if this is the standard — then if a person accepts a thousand things but does not accept one, he puts a knife to his own Islam with his own hands. Because Islam does not say: obey 99 out of 100 commands. Islam does not say: obey 999 out of 1,000. Islam does not say: obey 99,999 out of 100,000. And Islam does not even say: obey 9,999,999 out of 10,000,000. Rather, Islam says: obey every single thing. And Islam is the very name of the one who calls himself Muslim obeying every single thing.
The only exception is what is left undone due to the weakness of the self — meaning, if someone is walking and stumbles and falls — that is another matter. But if someone says: "My self is not prepared to accept such-and-such a thing" — then he exits Islam. The one who fails to comply with a command due to the weakness of the self can still be called a Muslim, but the one who outright refuses outward obedience exits Islam. **This is why it has been said: the one who abandons prayer does not become a kafir, but the one who denies prayer becomes a kafir.**¹
I have repeatedly drawn your attention to reform your selves and to present a high example and noble model for coming generations — and not to leave behind such an example that becomes a cause of stumbling for them. A poet has said:
"If the builder lays the first brick crooked, the wall will go crooked all the way to the Pleiades."
If today you do not present a complete and perfect example of obedience, then the condition of those who come after will be even worse — and in this way, all the efforts that the Promised Messiah (as) made for the reformation of people will be rendered futile.
So, O friends! O dear ones! My advice is: since this is the difference between a Muslim and a non-Muslim — that a Muslim is a complete and perfect servant — then prove yourselves to be Muslims accordingly. Kill your ego. What is needed is that the "I" should depart, and you should work like the parts of a machine.
But I also observe that workers quarrel over the smallest matters and make those matters an obstacle in the path of religion. Looking at the state of my own self, I understand that I am not prepared to obey even a king unless it is God Almighty's command. But for the sake of God Almighty, obeying even the lowliest person is not the slightest burden upon me.
Today, if a disagreement arises between any two of our people on some matter, it cannot be of the magnitude of what arose with Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib — because at that time, differences had begun on matters of belief. But I remember an incident from that period. I was the officer of Madrasah Ahmadiyya, and Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib was the Secretary of Sadr Anjuman. A matter arose that was beyond his authority and was a cause of humiliation for me — namely, he directly wrote to an employee of the Madrasah and sent him somewhere. Hazrat Khalifatul Masih I (ra) received a complaint about this, as it had caused disruption in the work. He asked me about it.
I wrote to Maulvi Muhammad Ali Sahib that he should have acted through me regarding that matter, so that I could have made alternative arrangements for teaching. Upon this, he took offense — because he was accustomed to acting independently and could not tolerate anyone saying anything contrary to his opinion. He wrote to me: "Your approach is wrong." He wrote in an advisory tone — though he had no right to do so — saying: "The Anjuman has appointed me Secretary. You should obey me."
To this I gave the same answer: "Whatever authority the rules have given you, I am prepared to obey even your most minor instruction under that authority. But the question here is that this particular action of yours was not within the bounds of the rules." I was never an advocate of obedience to the Anjuman — but whatever arrangement the Khalifa of the time had made, I was prepared to accept in all circumstances. So I wrote: "Within your authority, whatever order you give, I am prepared to obey it." And despite the disagreement, I continued to follow his directives.
So every command should be obeyed — not that one accepts what one likes and rejects what one does not. Many people say: "If the Khalifa tells us this, we will accept it." But what standing does the Khalifa have? Among you, there are those who surpass the Khalifa in knowledge, intellect, wealth, and acumen. Then why do you obey him? Because God has appointed him, and you obey for God's sake.
So when you obey for God's sake, then obey everyone who is working for God's cause — and completely annihilate your ego. If you obey me because of some skill or talent of mine, I am not prepared to accept that. And I say with full sincerity: I do not see in myself any such talent on the basis of which people would obey me, and there is nothing I can see such that, if the robe of Khilafat were removed, even a single person would obey me for that thing. My obedience is rendered solely because God has placed me in this position, and you obey me for God's sake.
So when you are such obedient servants of God, then obey whoever stands for God's cause, and remember well: without complete obedience, there can never be success.
So forget your egos and become obedience personified. Your state should be such that even if someone abuses you, even strikes you with shoes, but then calls you for Islam's sake and treats you worse than slaves — bear everything and do not turn away from obedience. If you do not do this, you are not within Islam.
When war broke out between Hazrat Ali (ra) and Hazrat Muawiyah (ra), a Christian king wanted to take advantage of the opportunity and attack Hazrat Ali (ra). When news of this reached Hazrat Muawiyah (ra), he sent word to the Christian king: **"If you attack, the very first general who will come against you on Ali's side will be Muawiyah."**² The result was that the Christian was frightened off.
If Hazrat Ali (ra) and Muawiyah (ra) could unite despite such a great conflict, then who among you has such a great quarrel? Between which two of you is there a dispute over rights as great as the dispute between them? Between which two of you are there such rivers of blood flowing as flowed between them? Between them, the blood of loved ones and their bones stood crying out: "Do not reconcile!" But when the matter of God arose, there was no disagreement left between Ali and Muawiyah.
If people understand that in matters of religion, all personal disagreements of every kind should be set aside, then firstly, disagreements would not arise at all — and if they do arise, they would be of the kind that can be concealed when it comes to matters of faith.
Every disagreement that arises has two aspects: first, that recourse is made to the authorities; second, that it is not. And if someone does not seek recourse, it means he has forgiven — and after forgiveness, the matter should not be mentioned again. People do suffer harm from other people, and even people of the highest rank make mistakes — but when there is a question for the sake of God, then one should unite.
This is the very thing that distinguishes a Muslim from others. And this is the very thing through which you can become Muslim. And only when you yourselves become Muslim do you have the right to bring others into Islam.
May God Almighty grant you all understanding and bestow upon you the ability to become true Muslims. Ameen.
(Al-Fazl, July 31, 1923)
References:
¹ This is a well-known Islamic juridical principle. The distinction between the one who abandons prayer out of laziness (tarik al-salat) and the one who denies its obligation entirely (munkir al-salat) is discussed in classical fiqh literature. (See Majma' Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 1, p. 36, under the entry "ars")
² The incident of Hazrat Muawiyah (ra) warning the Christian king against attacking Hazrat Ali (ra) is recorded in early Islamic historical sources. (Majma' Bihar al-Anwar, Vol. 1, p. 36)
Related Resources