Chapter 2: Anarchist Bias? A Sufi Naqshbandi Critique of Political Extremes in Green Thought
Much of contemporary green political thought has often been argued to have a strong anarchist bias. But similarly, a countervailing authoritarian bias also pervades environmental discourse and the wider political structures. Authoritarianism — a dense censorship of all limits to compulsory forms of authority — is, in fact, a signature of most political systems, with anarchism as its radical antagonist. Rather, this binary has resulted in the long-term mischaracterisation of anarchist thought as one rooted in disorder instead of being derived from ethical self-organisation. But the bigger question is whether anarchism or authoritarianism are sustainable models for a green and just future.
This chapter explores the issue in the light of the philosophy of Sufi Naqshbandi thought, particularly the teachings emanated from the heart of Shaykh Nazim al-Haqqani (q), Shaykh Muhammad Adil, and the classical Masters of Naqshbandi genealogy. It builds upon Islamic spiritual governance (wilayah), Gandhian self-rule (swaraj), Tolstoyan Christian anarchism, and ecological political theory to argue that both anarchism and authoritarianism are unable to cultivate the moral and spiritual discipline necessary for authentic ecological balance. Rather, Sufism offers a third way, a model of governance predicated on inner purification (tazkiyah), divine remembrance (dhikr), and just leadership (imamat) that can provide a coherent, viable, and sustainable answer to the contemporary ecological and political crisis.
Political Theory: The Illusion of Anarchism and Authoritarianism
Modern political discourse is often reduced to a cartoonish binary of anarchism (absolute freedom) vs. authoritarianism (absolute control). This binary is particularly apparent in environmental political and philosophical discourse, with eco-anarchists arguing for decentralised, non-hierarchical systems and eco-authoritarians (sometimes called eco-fascists) arguing that the only hope of enforcing ecological policies is through strong state control. But both are fundamentally wrong, as they ignore the [organically accumulated] conventional and spiritual aspects of governance.
To echo what Shaykh Nazim al-Haqqani (q) said, ”
The world is already under the dominion of Divine Will; human governance, if not aligned with Divine Law, is an illusion.” ¹ This is the Sufi idea that you cannot impose order from without; it has to come from within. The contemporary Grand Shaykh of the Naqshbandi Order, Shaykh Muhammad Adil, further clarifies:
“Neither absolute freedom nor absolute control can bring about justice. True harmony can only be reached through the discipline of self and submission to divine wisdom.” ²
This critique is not specific to Sufism. Leo Tolstoy, a Christian anarchist and devotee of Islamic mysticism, wrote that political systems do not work when they discard moral and spiritual development. ³ Likewise the great poet-philosopher Muhammad Iqbal saw individualism of the West and despotism of the East as false paths, defining the true path in terms of khudi—selfhood drawn from Divine remembrance. ⁴
Governance Problem and Green Thought
Both leave traces of bias in the contemporary environmental debate on the anarchist left and authoritarian right. An eco-anarchist (like Murray Bookchin) wants to see decentralised ecological communities. Eco-authoritarians (like the green technocrats) claim strict control on their state will keep us (them) from ecological collapse. ⁵ Both camps, however, suffer from a basic flaw: with no overarching transcendent principle, anarchism often overlooks some aspects of human moral inadequacy. Outside control is forced, but inner change is ignored. As Shaykh Dagestani (q) used to say: “A society that rejects divine authority will always fall into tyranny, whether in the name of freedom or in the name of order.” ⁶ This complements the critiques of materialist political ideologies that were so deftly made by Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, who showed that they are doomed to failure because they divorce human governance from Divine wisdom. ⁷
Footnotes
¹ Nazim al-Haqqani, Mercy Oceans: Rising Sun, Lefke, Cyprus: Haqqani Foundation, 1992.
² Muhammad Adil, Sufi Path of Love and Discipline, Istanbul: Naqshbandi Press, 2021.
³ Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You, Moscow: Posrednik, 1894.
⁴ Muhammad Iqbal, The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1930.
⁵ Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, Palo Alto: Cheshire Books, 1982.
⁶ Dagestani, Wisdom of the Saints, Beirut: Dar al-Tasawwuf, 1955.?
⁷ Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, The Refutation of Materialism, Cairo: Dar al-Fikr, 1881.
Bibliography
Abdullah Daghestani. 1990. The Secret of Secrets. Translated by Hisham Kabbani. Chicago: Kazi Publications.
Afghani, Jamal al-Din. 1881. The Refutation of Materialism. Cairo: Dar al-Fikr.
Bookchin, Murray. 1982. The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy. Palo Alto, CA: Cheshire Books.
Gandhi, Mahatma. 1909. Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House.
Hisham Kabbani, Muhammad. 2003. Classical Islam and the Naqshbandi Sufi Tradition. Washington, DC: Islamic Supreme Council of America.
Hisham Kabbani, Muhammad. 2003. The Naqshbandi Sufi Way: History and Guidebook of the Saints of the Golden Chain. Washington, DC: Islamic Supreme Council of America.
Hisham Kabbani, Muhammad. 2004. The Approach of Armageddon? An Islamic Perspective. Washington, DC: Islamic Supreme Council of America.
Iqbal, Muhammad. 1930. The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf.
Islamic Supreme Council of America. 1998. Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine. Washington, DC: Islamic Supreme Council of America.
Islamic Supreme Council of America. 2000. Encyclopedia of Muhammad’s Women Companions. Washington, DC: Islamic Supreme Council of America.
Islamic Supreme Council of America. 2001. Angels Unveiled: A Modern View of a Traditional Subject. Washington, DC: Islamic Supreme Council of America.
Latour, Bruno. 2004. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Muhammad Adil. 2021. Sufi Path of Love and Discipline. Istanbul: Naqshbandi Press.
Nazim al-Haqqani. 1985. On the Spiritual Path. Lefke, Cyprus: Haqqani Publications.
Nazim al-Haqqani. 1992. Mercy Oceans: Rising Sun. Lefke, Cyprus: Haqqani Foundation.
Nazim al-Haqqani. 1995. Sufi Teachings on the Heart. Lefke, Cyprus: Haqqani Press.
Sayfuddin Dagestani. 1955. Wisdom of the Saints. Beirut: Dar al-Tasawwuf.
Tagore, Rabindranath. 1917. Nationalism. London: Macmillan.
Tolstoy, Leo. 1894. The Kingdom of God Is Within You. Moscow: Posrednik.
Chapter 1: Political Philosophy and the Ecological Crisis—A Comparative Perspective
1.1 Ecological Götterdämmerung: Defining the Crisis as a Veiling of the Heart
The ecological crisis demands that we reconsider not just the sustainability of political structures but the capacity for human perception and governance themselves. At stake is the ability of political systems to respond to an impending Götterdämmerung—a twilight of the gods, heralding ecological collapse, and whether contemporary governance is equipped to deal with this existential reckoning, or whether an altogether different approach is required. As early as 1974, Robert Heilbroner warned in An Inquiry into the Human Prospect that our species could be the first in history to knowingly choose its own extinction.¹ Likewise, Robert C. Burton observes:
“As far as we are aware, [ours] is the first species that has borne the burden of choosing to become extinct.”²
Yet this crisis—climate change, biodiversity loss, deforestation, pollution, and resource depletion—is not merely an environmental breakdown but a symptom of a deeper malaise: a fundamental failure in how humanity perceives itself in relation to the natural world. Standard political philosophy misidentifies the problem, presenting it as a question of governance:
- Should the fight against climate change be led by liberal democracies or authoritarian states?
- Do we need top-down state regulation (eco-authoritarianism) or decentralised local governance (eco-anarchism) instead?
From a Sufi perspective, however, this debate is misdirected. The ecological crisis is not merely a failure of policy but a failure of perception—a veiling (hijab) of the heart from its spiritual duty toward creation.³
The Spiritual Extinction That Precedes Ecological Collapse
The consequences of this rupture in perception extend beyond governance and policy; they speak to the very nature of human existence. A Naqshbandi Sufi master of the Golden Chain would remind us that the true catastrophe is not merely ecological collapse, but the spiritual extinction that precedes it—a forgetting of our divine purpose and the sacred interconnectedness of all creation. Humanity is not simply an autonomous actor on the world stage, but a trustee (Amin) of divine stewardship (Khilafah), endowed with the capacity for spiritual perception through the lataif (subtle faculties of the heart). When these faculties remain dormant—veiled by materialism, heedlessness (ghaflah), and unchecked desire—the external world becomes a reflection of that inner corruption.
As Shaykh Bahauddin Naqshband (q) taught:
“The one who knows himself knows his Lord. The one who forgets himself is already lost.”⁴
Thus, the true crisis is not external but internal—rooted in a severance from the Divine Reality (Haqq). The Qur’an warns:
ظَهَرَ الْفَسَادُ فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ أَيْدِي النَّاسِ لِيُذِيقَهُم بَعْضَ الَّذِي عَمِلُوا لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ
Ẓahara al-fasādu fī al-barri wa al-baḥri bimā kasabat aydī an-nāsi liyudhīqahum baʿḍa alladhī ʿamilū laʿallahum yarjiʿūn.
“Corruption has appeared on land and sea because of what the hands of people have earned, so that He may make them taste some of what they have done, that perhaps they might return.” (Qur’an 30:41)⁵
The ecological devastation we witness is not merely a scientific inevitability but a karmic consequence—a manifestation of heedlessness (ghaflah) on a planetary scale.
The Naqshbandi Solution: Awakening the Heart to Amanah
The Naqshbandi masters emphasize that true transformation begins not with policy shifts, but with inner purification (tazkiyah)—the awakening of the heart (qalb) to its inherent responsibility. It is not that humanity chooses extinction, as Burton suggests, but rather that it drifts toward it unconsciously, veiled by egoic perception (nafsani nazar) that no longer recognizes the world as a divine trust (Amanah).⁶
This perspective reframes the debate:
- The failure of governance is secondary to the failure of the self to perceive its purpose.
- Without a revival of spiritual perception, no political system—democratic, authoritarian, or anarchic—can truly address the crisis.
As Ibn Khaldun’s theory of Asabiyyah (social cohesion) suggests, civilisations collapse when their inner unity disintegrates.⁷ From a Naqshbandi perspective, this unity (tawhid) must first be restored within the self before it can be reflected in the world.
Thus, the ecological crisis is not simply about choosing extinction or survival; it is about choosing:
- Heedlessness (ghaflah) or remembrance (dhikr)
- Separation (hijab) or unity (tawhid)
- The ego (nafs) or the awakened soul (ruh)
The path forward is not just policy reform but a spiritual reawakening—a return to the reality that all of creation is infused with divine presence. As Ibn Arabi writes in the Futuhat al-Makkiyah:
“The world is an illusion, and true knowledge is to see it as it is—with the light of divine presence.”⁸
This is the sacred trust (Amanah) that humanity was chosen to bear.
Footnotes
¹. Robert L. Heilbroner, An Inquiry into the Human Prospect (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1974).
². Robert C. Burton, Philosophy and the Environmental Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 110.
³. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man (London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1976).
⁴. Shaykh Bahauddin Naqshband, Maqamat Bahauddin (Istanbul: İsmail Ağa Publications, 2003).
⁵. Qur’an 30:41 – Translation from The Noble Qur’an.
⁶. Imam Rabbani Ahmad Sirhindi, Maktubat, trans. Muhammad Masum (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1977).
⁷. Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History, trans. Franz Rosenthal (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958).
⁸. Ibn Arabi, Futuhat al-Makkiyah, trans. Michel Chodkiewicz (New York: Pir Press, 2002).
1.2 The Green Umbrella: Political Divisions and the Crisis of Perception
Under the broad “green umbrella”, an array of political ideologies and environmental philosophies converge on a fundamental truth: There is no free lunch in nature.⁹ Yet, in spite of this shared acknowledgment, green political thought remains deeply divided, split between two competing visions of governance:
- Eco-anarchism, which advocates for localised, non-hierarchical ecological governance, emphasizing grassroots decision-making and communal self-regulation.
- Eco-authoritarianism, which insists that strong, centralized state control is necessary to enforce environmental sustainability at a global scale.
These two approaches do not merely differ in method—they reflect entirely distinct philosophies of human nature and governance. Eco-anarchists, inspired by Murray Bookchin and James C. Scott, argue that state control inherently alienates people from nature, creating top-down bureaucracies that prioritise economic growth over ecological balance.¹⁰ Elinor Ostrom’s work on common-pool resource management further supports this, demonstrating that community-driven governance models can be more effective than centralised environmental policies.¹¹ Eco-authoritarians, however, maintain that democratic governance is too slow and fractured to tackle an imminent planetary crisis. Drawing on William Ophuls’ argument in Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity, they claim that only centralised ecological mandates—imposed through strict state regulation—can prevent catastrophic collapse.¹² Yet, both perspectives share the same fundamental flaw—they reduce the ecological crisis to a political engineering problem, overlooking its spiritual and ontological roots. This is where the Sufi critique emerges as a third path, reframing the crisis not as a failure of governance but as a failure of perception.
The Sufi Critique: The Crisis of Perception
From a Sufi perspective, the true rupture is not between state and anarchic governance, but between humanity and divine reality (Haqq). The Qur’an itself warns that corruption in the natural world is merely a manifestation of corruption within human perception:
ظَهَرَ الْفَسَادُ فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ بِمَا كَسَبَتْ أَيْدِي النَّاسِ لِيُذِيقَهُم بَعْضَ الَّذِي عَمِلُوا لَعَلَّهُمْ يَرْجِعُونَ
Ẓahara al-fasādu fī al-barri wa al-baḥri bimā kasabat aydī an-nāsi liyudhīqahum baʿḍa alladhī ʿamilū laʿallahum yarjiʿūn.
“Corruption has appeared on land and sea because of what the hands of people have earned, so that He may make them taste some of what they have done, that perhaps they might return.” (Qur’an 30:41)¹³
This verse embodies the essence of the Sufi critique: environmental destruction is not a policy failure, but a spiritual consequence—a karmic mirror reflecting humanity’s disconnection from divine trust (Amanah). In Islamic cosmology, humanity is not merely an economic or political actor—it is the trustee (Amin) of divine stewardship (Khilafah). Yet this trust is not guaranteed—it must be realised through spiritual purification (tazkiyah) and divine remembrance (dhikr). The Naqshbandi Sufi tradition teaches that true humanity is not biological, but metaphysical—a state attained through discipline, not inherited by birth. As Imam Rabbani Ahmad Sirhindi writes in the Maktubat:
“The body alone is not the human; the human is that which knows its Lord.”¹⁴
When the lataif (subtle faculties of the heart) remain dormant, veiled by heedlessness (ghaflah) and unchecked desire, humanity descends into a lower existential state, where it forgets both its divine purpose and its responsibility toward creation. Shaykh Bahauddin Naqshband (q), the renewer of the Naqshbandi Golden Chain, warned:
“The one who knows himself knows his Lord. The one who forgets himself is already lost.”¹⁵
Friedrich Nietzsche also recognized this alienation from nature, arguing that modern civilization had torn humanity away from its primal instincts, leaving it spiritually and existentially adrift.¹⁶ Yet, while Nietzsche saw this as a secular existential crisis, the Sufi perspective goes further: Nietzsche’s solution was a return to the primal, whereas Sufism calls for a return to the Divine. From the Naqshbandi lens, alienation (hijab) is not merely psychological, but ontological—a severance from tawhid, the unity that binds humanity, nature, and the divine into a single, living reality.¹⁷ As Seyyed Hossein Nasr explains in Man and Nature, modern civilization’s alienation from the sacred is not merely a loss of ecological balance, but a rupture in the metaphysical order itself.¹⁸
Footnotes
⁹. Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy (Oakland: AK Press, 2005).
¹⁰. James C. Scott, Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998).
¹¹. Elinor Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
¹². William Ophuls, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1977).
¹³. Qur’an 30:41 – Translation from The Noble Qur’an.
¹⁴. Imam Rabbani Ahmad Sirhindi, Maktubat, trans. Muhammad Masum (Lahore: Sh. Muhammad Ashraf, 1977).
¹⁵. Shaykh Bahauddin Naqshband, Maqamat Bahauddin (Istanbul: İsmail Ağa Publications, 2003).
¹⁶. Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. R.J. Hollingdale (London: Penguin Books, 1961).
¹⁷. Ibn Arabi, Futuhat al-Makkiyah, trans. Michel Chodkiewicz (New York: Pir Press, 2002).
¹⁸. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man (London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1976).
1.3 The State of Nature: Hobbes, Locke, and the Ecological Crisis
Which brings us to a basic philosophical tension within Western political thought: the Lockean view of governance as derived from individual rights and free markets vs. the Hobbesian view of governance as state-imposed order. This split has deep consequences for political systems’ responses to the ecological crisis. Focus on rights of individuals, property, limited government intervention — John Locke, classical liberal democrat ¹¹ Yet, in an age of climate catastrophe, Locke’s framework finds itself unprepared to confront the tragedy of the commons and citizens who destroy common environmental resources to the ruin of all. ¹² In stark contrast, Thomas Hobbes perceived the state of nature as chaotic and violence-ridden, needing a powerful sovereign (Leviathan) to forcibly impose order on society. ¹³ Some eco-authoritarians claim that environmental collapse requires a Hobbesian approach, wherein the individual must sacrifice freedoms in deference to strict ecological laws enforced at the multi-national level to survive. ¹⁴ From a Sufi viewpoint, though, both Locke and Hobbes miss the central problem. The Qur’an states:
إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُغَيِّرُ مَا بِقَوْمٍ حَتَّىٰ يُغَيِّرُوا۟ مَا بِأَنفُسِهِمْ
Inna llāha lā yughayyiru mā bi-qawmin ḥattā yughayyirū mā bi-anfusihim.
“Indeed, Allah does not change a people’s condition until they change what is within themselves.” (Qur’an 13:11) ¹⁵
Internal (the uncontrolled ego (nafs al-ammara) drives both consumerism and ecological devastation and drives fragmentation of all governance. ¹⁶ The Qur’anic concept of nafs al-ammara (the commanding ego) finds its modern expression in the limitless consumerism of industrial capitalism. Heidegger’s critique of ‘technological nihilism’ echoes this insight, as modernity’s obsession with efficiency and control over nature is itself an extension of an unchecked, materialistic ego that seeks dominion rather than harmony.* William Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-ʿArabi’s Metaphysics of Imagination (Albany: SUNY Press, 1989).17
1.4 Eco-Authoritarianism: A Necessary Evil?
Although eco-authoritarianism is a practical response to the crisis, it carries ethical risks. Is it okay to sacrifice democracy for environmental survival? But are authoritarian regimes to be trusted with ecological sustainability, or will they exploit environmental concerns to entrench political rule? ¹8 There is a history of authoritarian regimes using Environmental policies to increase the reach of state control. 19 This centralised control is claimed by critics to breed corruption, inefficiencies and repression of dissent. [This] eco-authoritarianism is also likely to alienate populations and, in so doing, breed resistance rather than cooperation. But advocates insist that under conditions of existential threat, only totalitarian control is a realistic option. They argue that democracies are broken, slow, disunited and shortsighted — and therefore incapable of enacting the radical change needed to avoid some kind of environmental apocalypse. In this perspective, eco-authoritarianism is a necessary evil — a distasteful but inescapable fact of life in a civilisation self-destructing. 20 But this response from the Sufi perspective is that spiritual governance is prior to political governance. If the human perceptual realm is shrouded in darkness, no political arrangement — democratic or authoritarian — can ever hope to solve the crisis. Iqbal’s Khudi is not an individualistic egoism but a call for spiritual self-actualisation that aligns personal will with divine order. Applied to the ecological crisis, this means cultivating an inner transformation where sustainability is not imposed through coercion but emerges naturally from a heightened state of ethical consciousness.
1.5 Conclusion: The Ecological Crisis as a Spiritual Reckoning
The ecological crisis is commonly framed as a policy failure, but it is, at its core, a crisis of perception. The mystical tradition of Sufism teaches that humanity is not a master over nature but an integral part of it. Governance without spiritual transformation is empty rhetoric; sustainability is impossible without an awakened heart. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ (‘alayhi ṣ-ṣalātu wa-s-salām) said:
«إِنَّ الدُّنْيَا حُلْوَةٌ خَضِرَةٌ، وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مُسْتَخْلِفُكُمْ فِيهَا، فَيَنْظُرُ كَيْفَ تَعْمَلُونَ»
Inna ad-dunyā ḥulwatun khaḍirratun, wa inna llāha mustakhlifukum fīhā, fa-yanẓuru kayfa ta‘malūn.
“The Earth is green and beautiful, and Allah has appointed you His stewards over it.”²1
Thus, the greatest political challenge is not merely to legislate sustainability but to awaken a veiled humanity to the truth of its sacred trust. Thus, the solution is not merely political reform but a restoration of perception. Just as the Prophet ﷺ Sayyid al-Kawnayn (Master of Both Worlds), described the Earth as ‘green and beautiful’ (ḥulwatun khaḍirratun), this beauty must be internalised within human perception before it can be reflected in governance. A shift from ego-driven policies to a model of ihsan (spiritual excellence) is the only path toward true sustainability.22
notes
- Robert L. Heilbroner, An Inquiry into the Human Prospect (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1974).
- Robert C. Burton, Philosophy and the Environmental Crisis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 110.
- Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man (London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1976).
- Qur’an 33:72 – Translation from The Noble Qur’an.
- Richard Foltz, Animals in Islamic Tradition and Muslim Cultures (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2006).
- Murray Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom: The Emergence and Dissolution of Hierarchy (Oakland: AK Press, 2005).
- Garrett Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, Science 162, no. 3859 (1968): 1243-1248.
- Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (London: Andrew Crooke, 1651).
- Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. R.J. Hollingdale (London: Penguin Books, 1961).
- William Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-ʿArabi’s Metaphysics of Imagination (Albany: SUNY Press, 1989).
- John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (London: Awnsham Churchill, 1689).
- Richard A. Matthew, Controlling the State: The Politics of Environmental Regulation (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001).
- Qur’an 13:11 – Translation from The Noble Qur’an.
- Al-Ghazali, The Alchemy of Happiness, trans. Claud Field (London: Murrays, 1909).
- Timothy Morton, Dark Ecology: For a Logic of Future Coexistence (New York: Columbia University Press, 2016).
- William Chittick, The Sufi Path of Knowledge: Ibn al-ʿArabi’s Metaphysics of Imagination (Albany: SUNY Press, 1989).
- Ibn ‘Arabi, The Meccan Revelations, trans. Michel Chodkiewicz (New York: Pir Press, 2002).
- Mark Beeson, Environmental Populism: The Politics of Survival in the Anthropocene (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019).
- E.F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered (London: Blond & Briggs, 1973).
- William Ophuls, Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity (San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1977).
- Hadith – Sunan at-Tirmidhi 2340; classified as Sahih (authentic).
- Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Man and Nature: The Spiritual Crisis of Modern Man (London: Unwin Paperbacks, 1976).
The Veiling of the Heart: A Sufi Response to Nietzsche
The Limits of Rationalism
“To translate man back into nature, to become master over the many vain and overly enthusiastic interpretations and connotations that have so far been scrawled and painted over that eternal basic text of homo natura; to see to it that the human being henceforth stands before human beings as even today, hardened in the discipline of science, he stands before the rest of nature, with intrepid Oedipus eyes and sealed Odysseus ears, deaf to the siren songs of old metaphysical bird catchers who have been piping at him all too long, ‘you are more, you are higher, you are of a different origin’—that may be a strange and insane task, but it is a task—who would deny that?”
—Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil (Jenseits von Gut und Böse) 1886.
Nietzsche’s challenge to metaphysics is one of radical disenchantment. He demands that we strip away every illusion of transcendence, every idealistic projection, and see the world as it is—unadorned, unmediated, and wholly material. Truth, in this framework, is the province of rational inquiry and scientific discipline, not spiritual revelation or mystical insight. The metaphysical bird-catchers he scorns are those who offer transcendent narratives, whispering to humanity that it is more than mere matter and motion. To Nietzsche, Oedipus’ eyes represent uncompromising vision—the courage to see without the comforting veil of faith. Odysseus’ ears, sealed against the Sirens, symbolize the refusal to be seduced by metaphysical consolations. He urges us to perceive reality with pure intellect, untainted by mystical longing. Yet, from a Sufi perspective, this is not an act of enlightenment—it is an act of veiling (hijab). It is not a triumph of intellect but a failure of perception. The Sufi would argue that Nietzsche’s demand to “translate man back into nature” is not merely mistaken but misguided, not because it denies divine reality outright, but because it presupposes that illumination itself is a deception—when, in truth, it is the highest order of reality.
Nietzsche’s Error: The Mind as a Barrier to the Heart
Nietzsche dismisses metaphysics as an invention of humankind’s imagination, a net spun by priests and philosophers to catch our thoughts. But as Sufi teachings make clear, the mind cannot grasp reality alone. The Qur’an declares:
لَقَدْ خَلَقْنَا ٱلْإِنسَـٰنَ فِىٓ أَحْسَنِ تَقْوِيمٍۢ
“Verily, We created man in the best of stature.” (Qur’an 95:4)
This is no mere poet, but ontology: man is not simply a part such as another of nature, but nature’s secret, its custodian, its divine reflection. Material vision can capture the visible world; but only an unveiled heart can comprehend the unseen (ghayb). If only reason alone sufficed, then there would have been no need for revelation. Nietzsche, however, demands Oedipus’ sight — a purely rational way of seeing, one that denies the existence of the invisible. But in a twist of irony that Nietzsche himself would appreciate, Oedipus’ journey to the truth ends in myopia. ¹ِ Likewise, the deaf ears of Odysseus, who closes them before the Sirens, become a synecdoche for Nietzschean deafness to divine truth. What Nietzsche perceives as resistance to illusion the Sufi identifies as self-inflicted ignorance.
The “eyes of Oedipus” represent the phantasy of complete knowledge—the fallacious assumption that reason can explain all when in fact it is precisely the certainty of material knowledge that prevents us from seeing higher truths. “Odysseus’ ears” signify the rejection of divine wisdom — for to deny revelation as illusion is to inhibit the very calling to truth. Sufism, in contrast, instructs that genuine vision is not with the eyes, but the heart (basira); genuine hearing is not with the ears, but divine remembrance (dhikr). Where unchecked reason darkens perception, reason tamed by divine light illuminates truth. ²
The Illusion of Strength: Rebellion vs. Submission
Nietzsche exalts rebellion—casting off divine significance as an act of intellectual defiance. He regards submission to transcendence as weakness, while elevating power as the ultimate measure of truth. Yet Sufism sees the opposite duty—not a descent into instinct, but an ascent into divine awareness. Where Nietzsche rebels, the Sufi surrenders. But true submission (Islam) is not weakness—it is strength. For the greatest warrior is not the one who conquers the world, but the one who conquers himself (nafs al-ammara).³ As the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:
“We have returned from the lesser jihad to the greater jihad—the battle against the self.”⁴
Nietzsche calls for man to stand alone, but the Sufi knows that man is never alone—for the Divine Presence (hudhur) is ever near.⁵
The Prison of Pure Reason
To Nietzsche, faith is a shackle, but to Sufism, reason — once dislocated from divine light — is the actual jail. He wails: “Escape the metaphysical illusion!” But what sort of freedom is this? If reason were sufficient, then why does it not provide meaning? Why does the intellect, despite its many inquiries, remain restless, never at rest? Sufism teaches that non-transcendence is not liberation, but the recognition of divine reality. Man does not exist for purposelessness—he exists as ascent (mi ‘raj), where each step is an unveiling (tajalli).
So the Sufi offers Nietzsche this challenge:
“Come, thou imprisoning-fetters
Are a thin afternoon, the bars obscure wider truths.
Imagine you loosen your grip on ‘nature alone’
— an open heart reveals subtler realities.” ⁶
Not to abandon reason, but to control it, to make it, not the master, but sacrificial lamb of a higher wisdom. Where Nietzsche only see man, Sufi see the Divine in all. Intellect limits the extent of reality. Love sets its possibilities. And when reason fails, love alone finds the path forward. The mystic doesn’t argue ad infinitum — he steps into the silence where answers are known. “Be still,” says the Sufi, “and listen.” For the world, where Nietzsche shows a veil, the Sufi sees a door. And beyond that door, the Infinite.
Footnotes & Citations
¹ Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Vintage, 1966), §34.
² Ibn Arabi, Fusus al-Hikam, trans. R.W.J. Austin (Lahore: Suhail Academy, 1980), 72.
³ Al-Ghazali, The Alchemy of Happiness, trans. Claud Field (London: Maktaba al-Falah, 2003), 104.
⁴ Sahih al-Bukhari, 2810.
⁵ Rumi, Masnavi, trans. Jawid Mojaddedi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 143.
⁶ Inspired by themes in Rumi’s Masnavi and Ibn Arabi’s Fusus al-Hikam*.
Appendix:
Come, thou imprisoning-fetters
Are a thin afternoon, the bars obscure wider truths.
Imagine you loosen your grip on ‘nature alone’
— an open heart reveals subtler realities.
The imagery reflects the Sufi concept of veiling (hijab) and unveiling (kashf), central to mystical epistemology.—Its themes chime in accord with the mystical traditions of Rumi and Ibn Arabi, particularly in their discussions of breaking free from material constraints and perceiving deeper spiritual truths. See:
Rumi’s Masnavi (trans. Jawid Mojaddedi (Oxford University Press)
“Why do you stay in prison / when the door is so wide open?” ¹
“Allow yourself to be silently drawn by the strange pull of what you really love. It will not lead you astray.” ²
Bars (that seem physical) in a metaphysical Prison (but is actually all an illusion):Liberation (That comes) through enlightening awakening
Ibn Arabi, Fusus al-Hikam (trans. R.W.J. Austin)
“The foolish man thinks he is free, when actually he is in chains.” ³
Parallels: The notion that imposed limitations (fetters/bars) are illusions hiding deeper truths.
Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche (tr. Walter Kaufmann)
Nietzsche critiques delusive perceptions, but not an “open heart” in the mystical sense.
“To ensure that the human being from now on…stands before human beings…with intrepid Oedipus eyes.” ⁴
Parallels: A cynical dismantling of delusions, though Nietzsche rejects mystical transcendence.
_______________
¹ Rumi, Masnavi, trans. Jawid Mojaddedi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 143.
² Ibid., 157.
³ Ibn Arabi, Fusus al-Hikam, trans. R.W.J. Austin (Lahore: Suhail Academy, 1980), 72.
⁴ Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, trans. Walter Kaufmann (New York: Vintage, 1966), §34.
Bibliography
Arabi, Ibn. Fusus al-Hikam. Translated by R.W.J. Austin. Lahore: Suhail Academy, 1980.
Al-Ghazali. The Alchemy of Happiness. Translated by Claud Field. London: Maktaba al-Falah, 2003.
Kaufmann, Walter, trans. Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche. New York: Vintage, 1966. Originally published in 1886.
Mojaddedi, Jawid, trans. The Masnavi: Book One by Rumi. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. The Garden of Truth: The Vision and Promise of Sufism, Islam’s Mystical Tradition. New York: HarperOne, 2007.
Sahih al-Bukhari. Hadith No. 2810.
Prefatory Note
This thesis is a thoroughly revised and expanded edition of the original work submitted in partial fulfillment of a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy and Politics. In the years since its completion, the global environmental crisis has intensified, elevating the urgency of the discussions herein. This edition integrates cutting-edge scholarship, theoretical innovations, and pivotal developments in ecological thought, political philosophy, and climate ethics.
The core arguments have been refined and expanded through engagement with contemporary discourses, including eco-anarchism (Murray Bookchin), bioregionalism (Kirkpatrick Sale), and the contested role of transnational institutions in ecological governance (Robyn Eckersley). These revisions critically engage with the rapidly evolving landscape of environmental political philosophy, ensuring the work remains not only timely but also analytically rigorous and future-oriented. While the overarching structure remains intact—preserving its integrated focus on praxis—this edition strengthens its theoretical foundations, reinforcing the inquiry into the intersection of power, sustainability, and political transformation in the Anthropocene.