Hadhrat Amir Shariat Syed Ataullah Shah Bukhari said:

“One side of the picture is that Mirza Qadiani had these weaknesses and flaws, there was no balance in his physical features, there was no proportion in height, there was a total dearth of morals, there was nothing in the way of character; lies were his style, his conduct was not correct, he was immature, cowardly and weak. He was a toad of the profession, the worst of his speech and writing was to make you want to throw up.

But I ask you: even if there was no weakness in him, even if he had been a figure of beauty if he had been endowed with handsome proportions if he had had a chest of 45 inches, and a waist so thin that not even the CID could find it, even if he had been brave, a beacon of character and an honor to his family, even if Abul Fazl and Faizi had filled his water, and if Khayyam had served him. If Ghalib had patronized him, or Shakespeare in English and Abul Kalam in Urdu, even then, if he had claimed prophethood, would Bukhari have considered him a prophet?

If Khawaja Gharib Nawaz Ajmeri, Sheikh Syed Abdul Qadir Jilani, Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Bukhari, Imam Malik (may God have mercy on him), Imam Shafi’i, Ibn Taymiyyah, Imam Ghazali or Hassan Basri claimed prophethood, would we consider them prophets? If Ali, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, claimed that the sword was in the right and the daughter was given by the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). Abu Bakr Siddiq, Umar Farooq Azam, and Usman Ghani also claimed that would Bukhari accept them as prophets? By no means! After the Holy Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasallam), there is not a single person in the universe who can sit on the throne of prophethood and be proud of the crown of leadership and prophethood, from whose footsteps prophethood has risen in the universe.”

Lahore-1952