Questioner: I’ve also been confronted by some Hindu friends of a question similar to the one which has been asked of my friend in regard to the photographs or pictures of Hazrat Masihe Maud and Hazrat Krishna. I want to know one argument that I’ve put to them whether that has validity. I have often said that one is an artist’s impression of what Hazrat Krishna was. That may or may not be true. The artist has brought his own impressions onto the canvas or the paper. And in the other case, in Hazrat Masihe Maud case, it was a reflection or an aqsa and it was a photograph. And I’m certain that if Hazrat Naseem Aslam was ever asked if an artist would paint his picture, he would have refused. In fact, Hazrat Masihe Maud was very reluctant even to have his photograph taken. And he did say that he did not want this to be used in a manner which might in one day lead to some form of idolatry.
Huzoor (rh): That is true, but still this does not solve the whole problem. That is one aspect. The fact is that if the question was framed differently, then this answer would be not only valid, it would be just right. If it were framed in the way that you don’t promote painting and yet you concede to the idea of photography, why do you do that?
That is the correct answer to that. But if the question is that Hazrat Krishna’s figure is objectionable to you and Hazrat Masihe Maud photograph is not objectionable to you, then the answer would be different, the one which I have already given. That there you attribute Allah’s attributes to Krishna. So that very fact makes it unacceptable to us. There we do not wrongly attribute any attributes to Naseem Aslam which are beyond human attributes. And being photographed or otherwise he remains the same, a servant of Allah.
