Inayat Khan and the Heresy of Universalism

بِسۡمِ اللّٰہِ الرَّحۡمٰنِ الرَّحِیۡمِ

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

ہُوَ اللّٰہُ الَّذِیۡ لَاۤ اِلٰہَ اِلَّا ہُوَ ۚ اَلۡمَلِکُ الۡقُدُّوۡسُ السَّلٰمُ الۡمُؤۡمِنُ الۡمُہَیۡمِنُ الۡعَزِیۡزُ الۡجَبَّارُ الۡمُتَکَبِّرُ ؕ سُبۡحٰنَ اللّٰہِ عَمَّا یُشۡرِکُوۡنَ

Sufism is a chest of jewels. It animates orthodox Sunni Islam, giving it life and color. It has been the primary vehicle in spreading orthodox Sunni Islam to the peripheries of the Muslim world, while simultaneously curbing the heretical and schismatic denominations like Shi’ism, Mu’tazilism and Kharijism. But be warned! It is also fertile soil for counterfeits to exploit and misguide the people using its name, terminology and aesthetic. The first Sufis were pious, ascetic and charismatic figures from among the Salaf, who have all without exception been praised and authenticated by the classical Sunni Muhaddithin. It is therefore impossible to unlace Sufism from Sunnism. Any attempt to do so would only result in the presentation of a dead Islam; Sunnism without Sufism would be akin to dry, dusty bones while Sufism without Sunnism would be like thrusting a student into a calculus class who has no understanding of basic arithmetic. The former phenomenon is represented primarily by Salafism, while the latter by antinomian, universalist “spirituality” that is utterly meaningless. Inayat Khan (1882-1927), the Indian heretic, pseudo-Sufi popularized universalism under the cloak of Sufism. The real, orthodox Sufis would never initiate a disciple who was not a Muslim. Yet Inayat Khan strove to introduce Sufism to the West and the non-Muslims in general through bypassing Islam altogether. Let us examine some of the heretical teachings of Inayat Khan. Explaining his teaching on God, Inayat Khan says, “The God of the Sufi is the God of every creed, and the God of all...He sees his God in the sun, in the fire, in the idol which diverse sects worship” (The Way of Illumination, p.25)

*Inayat Khan lays the foundation for the heresy of universalism which is the recognition of every deity that is worshipped as essentially one and the same and all forms of worship of the various religions equally valid.

Concerning the institution of Prophesy and divinely appointed guides, he says, “it is necessary for Him to speak through the lips of man. He has done this all through the history of man, every great teacher of the past having been this Guiding Spirit living the life of God in human guise. In other words, their human guises are the various coats worn by the same person, who appeared to be different in each. Shiva, Buddha, Rama, Krishna on the one side. Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mahommed on the other” (ibid, p.27)

*Inayat Khan is strongly implying that the fictional deities of the Hindus and Buddhists were Prophets like Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, peace be upon them. This idea that Buddha, Krishna and the like were Prophets of God or divinely guided teachers is held by similar heretical movements like the Baha’is, Ahmadiyya (Qadianis), Gohar Shahis and others. The truth is the institution of Prophesy was largely if not exclusively consigned to the House of Abraham when God chose him and his offspring for the special covenant. While the some of the offspring Abraham often relapsed into idolatry, they were also the only carries of monotheism in a world where every other population, culture and civilization was polytheistic and idolatrous. Some have identified Buddha as a prophet of the same God as the God of Abraham. But nothing in what we know of Buddha and his teachings indicate this. Any true Prophet or Messenger of God necessarily preaches uncompromising monotheism, condemnation of idolatry and the reality of the Resurrection. He also delivers oracles concerning the future, usually focused on the destruction of various nations for their evils.

Explaining his teaching on Scripture, Inayat Khan says, “There is one holy book, the sacred manuscript of nature, the only scripture which can enlighten the reader...The Sufi has in all ages respected all such books, and has traced in the Vedanta, Zendavasta, Kabala, Bible, Koran, and all other sacred scriptures, the same truth which he reads in the incorruptible manuscript of nature, the only holy book, the perfect and living model that teaches the inner law of life; all scriptures before nature’s manuscript are as little pools of water before the ocean.” (ibid, p.31)

*It is alarming that Inayat Khan and his followers apparently consider Vedantic interpretation of the Vedas, the Zoroastrian Avesta and its commentary called the Zend and the Kabbalistic writings like the Zohar “Scripture” akin to the Bible and Holy Quran.

Inayat Khan makes his antinomianism further manifest when he says, “The Sufi is free from beliefs and disbeliefs, and yet gives every liberty to people to have their own opinion.” (ibid, p.29)

the Sufi with tolerance allows everyone to pursue his own path...allows freedom of thought to everyone, since he himself is a freethinker.” (ibid, pp.32-33)

Sin and virtue, right and wrong, good and bad are not the same in the case of every individual; they are according to his grade of evolution and state of life. Therefore he concerns himself little with the name of the religion or the place of worship. All places are sacred enough for his worship, and all religions convey to him the religion of his soul. ‘I saw Thee in the sacred Kaba and in the temple of the idol also Thee I saw.’” (ibid, p.33)

*Here again Inayat Khan is basically teaching that in his conception the Sufi transcends the different and opposing religious traditions and communities, whereas the truth is that Sufism is inseparable from Islam and Sufism is a path that only a Muslim may traverse. The original Sufis taught not only strict compliance with the Shari’a but also the Sunna of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him.

If a qualified Qadi or Mufti were to make tafkir of Inayat Khan—that is excommunicate him from the Millat of Islam—I believe he would be justified, for in so many words Inayat Khan himself unmistakably implied his freedom and disassociation from Islam, “But if the following of Islam is understood to mean ‘the obligatory adherence to a certain rite’; if being a Mohammedan means ‘conforming to certain restrictions,’ how can the Sufi be placed in that category, seeing that the Sufi is beyond all limitations of this kind?” (ibid, p.38)

Having freed himself from the Shari’a of Islam, Inayat Khan also freed himself from the brotherhood or community (Milla and Umma) of Islam, “The Sufi, realising this, frees himself from national, racial, and religious boundaries, uniting himself in the human brotherhood, which is void of the differences and distinctions of class, caste, creed, race, nation, or religion, and unites mankind in the universal brotherhood. The Sufi welcomes all as his brothers, and is open to be the brother of all.” (ibid, p.48)

What apparently distinguishes Inayat Khan and his followers from the other pseudo-Sufi antinomians is their emphasis on music as a means of communion with the Divine. Inayat Khan was a musician and a musicologist. He claimed music is central to Sufism on the basis of the Chishti heritage. The truth is that the Islamic Shari’a strictly prohibits musical instruments, as it is narrated in a Hadith:

إِنَّ اللهَ بَعَثَنِي رَحْمَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ وَهُدًى لِلْعَالَمِينَ وَأَمَرَنِي رَبِّي ‌بِمَحْقِ ‌الْمَعَازِفِ ‌وَالْمَزَامِيرِ ‌وَالْأَوْثَانِ ‌وَالصُّلُبِ وَأَمْرِ الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ

Indeed, Allah has sent me as a mercy to the worlds and a guidance for the worlds. And my Lord has commanded me to destroy musical instruments, flutes, idols, crosses, and the customs of Jahiliyyah (Musnad Ahmad, v.36, p.646, #22307)

Based on an established interpretation of the Holy Quran, and many Hadith from the Prophet, peace be upon him, the Hanafi school of jurisprudence is of the opinion that musical instruments are strictly forbidden. It is a widespread myth that the Chishti order sanctions or promotes the use of musical instruments. The controversy over Sama—listening to devotional singing—should be studied carefully. The Chishtis allowed it under strict conditions; precluding its singing through the female voice and through forbidden musical instruments like the strings (guitar and the like) and woodwind (flute and the like), but making an exception for the drum (see Risalat Usul al-Sama of Fakhr al-Din Zarradi). Excepting the drum certainly may have a basis in the Islamic Shari’a.

Modern-day Qawwali and so-called “Islamic” music is a far departure from the original phenomenon of Sama with the Chishtis.

As I hinted to earlier, Inayat Khan’s antinomian universalism was hardly unique to him. Several other figures, both preceding and proceeding him, advocated a similar heresy in the name of Sufism. Riaz Gohar Shahi (1941-2001) was one such heretic who, in the garb of Sufism, attempted to deceive the people and lead them astray. Like Inayat Khan, he was one of the callers to the gates of Hell which the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, warned about. Today certain fake Sufi orders exist which are heterodox like the Madariyya, the Warisis (known for wearing distinctive unsewn yellow sheets), and the Haqqanis—followers of Nazim Qubrusi and Hisham Kabbani. These antinomians, universalists, perennialists, omnists, and pseudo-Sufi orders have served to disfigure the understanding of true Sufism which is in strict accordance with the Shari’a and is entirely an Islamic tendency. In the mind of many if not most non-Muslims, Sufism has been misunderstood as a libertine break with the Shari’a and Islamic orthodoxy due to their exposure to these pseudo-Sufis. But it is only a stupid donkey that imagines spirituality is only attained through freedom from legalism. Some argue that the outer form of the Religion, in its laws and rites of worship, is only a glass containing a refreshing beverage, but once a person has drank it fully and quenched his thirst he or she no longer requires the vessel and may discard it. Such an argument would hold water (no pun intended) if one only needed to drink a single time to never thirst again, otherwise in order to continuously drink in the future the glass must be retained!