Sufism is often represented in policy discourse as a spiritual tradition that promotes peace through its focus on practices of inward self-transformation and struggle against the self. This paper critically examines that representation by reconstructing the assumptions that underlie the political instrumentalization of Sufism as a peace-promoting resource. I argue, first, that such representation is dubious insofar as it tacitly relies on a view of Sufism as motivating civic disengagement and po…
Read moreSufism is often represented in policy discourse as a spiritual tradition that promotes peace through its focus on practices of inward self-transformation and struggle against the self. This paper critically examines that representation by reconstructing the assumptions that underlie the political instrumentalization of Sufism as a peace-promoting resource. I argue, first, that such representation is dubious insofar as it tacitly relies on a view of Sufism as motivating civic disengagement and political quietism. Furthermore, while some Sufi traditions do exhibit quietist tendencies, the historical and contemporary diversity of Sufi political engagement shows that focus on inward self-transformation does not always lead to political disengagement or nonviolence. Second, I argue that the ascetic self-discipline and forms of emotional detachment cultivated by “inward-looking philosophies” such as Sufism, Buddhism, and Stoicism can also be enabling psychological conditions for the exercise of violence. The analysis thus challenges the assumption that turning inward reliably aligns one with nonviolent ends, and calls for greater caution toward the ways inward-looking philosophies might shape political and moral sensibilities.