[Reader-list] On 'Khalq-e-Khuda'

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear Kirdar,

many thanks for your thoughtful response to my rather playful and non 
serious response to Ramaswamy regarding the phrase 'khalq-e-khuda'. I 
will now try and respond with a degree of seriousness, in order to 
respect the irritation that you express at the looseness with which 
words and terms in urdu/persianate literature are often thrown around in 
discussion.

The phrase khalq-e-khuda has an interesting career. 'Khalq' is an arabic 
term which denotes 'creation' (as Ramaswamy has pointed out), and is 
distinguished from 'Amr' (direction) as being one of the two primary 
functions of God - as 'Creator' and 'Director' of the universe. Iqbal 
himself does this in his The Islamic characterization of Allah is gender 
neutral. Contrary to what is commonly thought, 'Allah' in Islam is not a 
'father'. This is quite in opposition to the Christian concept of God, 
where 'he' is quite strongly paternal. The Judaic 'YHWH' has a tendency 
towards paternity (because of the scattered references to divine 
'paternity' in the Old Testament, but largely, for most variants of the 
Jewish faith, the sex of god is immaterial. And to speak of him in 
within an Islamic context in exculusively male terms is somewhat 
inappropriate. This is underscored by the fact that the foremost of 
divine attributes in Islam, mercy and compassion, expressed as 'rahman 
ir rahim' comes from the Arabic root 'rhm' which stands for a complex of 
meanings including womb, kinship, relationship etc. Clearly the 
compassion and mercy of god is matricial.

Similarly, the 'Ayat' or signs of God are expressed in a feminine sense, 
and the 'Khalq' or creation are signs, aya of God's rahm. Humanity 
springs from Allah's desire, and is a sign of Allah's love. That is why 
the 'Khalq' can be seen as a part of a feminine complex of signification.

In that sense, Khalq is what is 'made' or 'fashioned' by God. Hence, 
humanity, people, are God's consummate creation, his Khalq. Hence the 
phrase 'Khalq Allah' (God's creation - people) and Khalq-e-Khuda (same). 
The phrases are often used to indicate the special relationship that 
human beings have to god, whereby, even the simplest and poorest amongst 
us, in Islamic thought, are special to God. It is a universalization 
(and a universalizing, transcendental abrogation) of the older Judaic 
principle of the 'chosen people'. In Islam, everyone is called, all are 
chosen, but not all live up to the implications of the choice, or answer 
the call. Thus, the phrase, 'Khalq-e-Khuda' is a conventionl marking of 
the dignity of each human being, or human beings collectively, who, 
regardless of station, are seen as standing in a special relationship to 
God, requiring no mediation. In a way, it marks the very opposite of the 
notion of 'purity' or claims to specialness, as marks of dignity. The 
pure, imlplies the impure. The created however does not call into being 
the image or the idea of the uncreated. In Islam, there is nothing 
'uncreated'. In other words, to be khalq, (arabic - > persian, creation, 
one does not have to be khalis (arabic - clear as in clear water, 
persian, pure). Createdness, mere being, and purity are two distinct 
categories that do not require any relationship to one another.

Islamic ideas of democracy/anarchy have always priviledged the fact that 
the "Khalq Allah" are sovereign, because they bear the mark of divinely 
ordained dignity. That is why Kingship (a marking of one human being as 
superior to all others) has no scriptural sanction in Islam.

However, it needs to be remembered that the phrase, 'Khayr-ul Khalq 
Allah' (the greatest amongst Gods creations/people) is designated as a 
singular way of identifying Mohammed as prophet. But he too represents 
only the 'Insaan Kaamil', the man made perfect, and this too does not 
mean that he is automatically raised above all humans. He too has to 
listen to his companions, to his wives, indeed he is and can be 
admonished by them when it becomes necessary.

However, let us return to the word "Khalq"

Khalq can be singular or plural. Man/Person or Persons/People. It is one 
of the rare nominative cases in Arabic that does not change its ending 
with a change from singular to plural. One infers its collective or 
singulative status from the context. When someone says, 'Khayr-ul Khalq 
Allah' it is clearly a reference to the singularity of the person of 
Mohammed as Prophet. When one says 'Khalq Allah' or Khalq e Khuda' it 
refers to an abstract collective entity - the people.

In Arabic, the plural of some special nouns (regardless of whether the 
noun is grammatically masculine or feminine in the singular) is treated 
as feminine. Khalq (creation/created/people) is one such noun

Now it is well known that Persian grammar (like Bengali) has no use for 
gender. Hence the well known confusions about the sex of the saqi (cup 
bearer), and aashiq (lover) in Urdu/Persian poetry. Hence also the 
hilarious confusion about the transmutations in the meaning of the 
phrase "Harjai" when it travels from Persian to Urdu/Hindustani/Punjabi.

In Persian, Harjai (that which goes everywhere, is omnipresent) is a way 
of speaking about God. In Hindustani/Urdu/Punjabi - the word 'Harjai' 
because of the way in which the feminine ending 'i' is glossed together 
with a form of the infinitive 'jaana' (to go), when read in tandem with 
the qualifier 'Har' becomes - "she who goes everywhere/anywhere, with 
everyone/anyone" in other words - an euphemism for a female prostitute. 
In the slippage between languages, we can begin to see aspects of the 
divine even in a whore. And I like that. It bestows dignity and respect 
to sex work, and bespeaks a more civilized attitude to the person of the 
prostitute.

But let us return to comparative grammar.
Basically what we learn from this, and from other such examples is that 
Urdu and Arabic both have gender, while Persian does not. And generally, 
when Ideas travel from Arabic to Persian to Urdu we sometimes see the 
intermediate suspension of gender in the Persian, and the emergence of 
gender at either end.

Thus the compound Arabo-Persian term 'Khalq e Khuda' (Khalq arabic, 
Khuda, persian) reverts to a (feminine) gendered reading, hence 'Raj 
Karegi (feminine verb ending) Khalq-e-Khuda' in Urdu, because Urdu i 
this case simply conforms to the rule of the feminine ending of the 
special plural noun 'Khalq'

As far as I know Majma and Hujoom are not words in the same class as 
Khalq, probably (and I am speculating here) because they do not have to 
be read in terms of a theogony, which we cannot avoide doing when it 
comes to 'Khalq'

Be whatever it may, we can safely say that in an 
Urdu-Persian-Arabic/slash islamicate context, when we invoke 'the 
people' the default invocation has a feminine register. I think it makes 
for an interesting way of challenging the patriarchal character of much 
of Islamicate culture (especially when this is done from within).

I hope this helps clarify a few issues.

Finally, a few remarks about what you have called 'Jargon'. Personally, 
I am a militant of the Plain English Movement, and when faced with the 
choice of using a common as opposed to a technical vocabulary, I try and 
use the former. However, there are occasions, like now, when the 
necessity of the precise delineation of a concept, requires us to use 
technical terms (with the proviso that we try and use them with clarity, 
for the sake of meaning, and not for effect).

To insist on speaking and writing with an effort at clarity is not the 
same thing as writing in a way that is 'simple'. Sometimes 'clarity' 
requires a great deal of complexity. I am not a votary either of 
simplicity or of complexity in communication. It all depends on what we 
are talking about, and why we are speaking to one another.

This list is a clearing house of ideas. Of observations, opinions, 
reflections and questions of all kind. As long as we abstain from 
uncalled for personal attacks (of which we have seen a few) I do not see 
why there should be one style (erudite or instinctive, learned or 
irreverent) on the list, or even in the postings a single person makes. 
So I would ask you what benefits we would receive if for instance, the 
tone of the communication here suddenly acquired a relative flatness, 
without precision or depth. I would be equally disappointed if, in the 
name of depth and presicion, we were to give up on spontaneous and 
instinctive writing, or humour and plain fun and games. I do not see why 
one has to take place at the expense of the other. Do you see any 
reasons why this should happen?

And by the way, I do not quite see why writing while packing bags for 
Istanbul is either an ornament or a disadvantage to the fact of an 
attempt at communication. It is a fact. I do not have the privilege of 
sedentariness, my work takes me places, and makes me lose sleep. If we 
do not grudge anyone a situation of relative locational stability, then 
I fail to see why mobility should be such an issue.

Mystified, I remain

yours,

Shuddha