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

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear All,

There is an incomplete sentence in the second paragraph which might 
create some confusion. The sentence "Iqbal himself does this..." should 
read, "Iqbal himself makes this distinction in 'The Reconstruction of 
Religious Thought in Islam'. 'The Islamic characterization of Allah is 
gender neutral.' is a separate and new sentence, and should be read as 
following after the reference to Iqbal.

apologies for this error,

Shuddha


Shuddhabrata Sengupta wrote:

> 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
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject header.
> To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
> List archive: <https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>