Asian and African Area Studies, 7 (1): 50-64, 2007

The Tariqa’s Cohesional Power and the Shaykhhood Succession Question

A New Logic in the Sufi Organization: The Continuation and theDisintegration of the T arīqas in Modern Egypt1)
Takahashi Kei*

Abstract
The present article examines the logic behind “succession” to the leadership (mashyakha)
within the tarīqas, and some factors involved in their disintegration in early 20th
century Egypt.
Throughout the history, the question of succession to mashyakha has been afrequent cause of conflict among the members of tarīqas, which at times led to theirdivisions. Until the beginning of the 19th century, however, the word “tarīqa” did notnecessarily refer to an organization but literally to the “Sufi Way,” which is a specificmethod of devotion. Actually, each tarīqa consisted of a number of small groups orfamilies headed by their own leaders (shaykhs); this implied that a tarīqa did not haveto be a single unified organization.
Through the institutionalization of the Egyptian tarīqas initiated by the state in the
19th century, a new logic in the Sufi organization was introduced, whereby each tarīqa
had to be an organization headed by a single shaykh. This logic created a situation
which encouraged leaders of those subgroups/families within a given tarīqa, who were
now ranked as deputies (khalīfas), to claim that they were shaykhs of the independent
tarīqas.
In 1905, this new logic was stipulated in the regulations, which must have aimed at
the stability and the continuity of the existing tarīqas. However, this could not stop therecurrence of the divisions. Rather, a number of khalīfas started to claim independence
from their shaykhs.
By analysing a case of how al-Habībiyya gained independence from al-Rifā‘iyya,
one factor responsible for the increase in the disintegration of the tarīqas can be pointed
out: the new logic in the Sufi organization itself provided grounds for justifying theclaims of those khalīfas who wanted to be shaykhs of their own tarīqas. In otherwords, the state’s very endeavor to stabilize the tarīqas served on the contrary to create
instability.

* 高橋 圭，Research Fellow, NIHU Center for Area Studies/Visiting Fellow, Institute of Asian Cultures, Sophia
University
Accepted July 9, 2007
1) This is a revised edition of the paper read at the second World Congress for Middle Eastern Studies (WOCMES-2)
held at Le Meridien Amman in Jordan on 11-16 June 2006.

50

TAKAHASHI: A New Logic in the Sufi Organization

1. Introduction
While the issue of “succession” among the Sufis is generally discussed as a matter of their genealogy(silsila), this paper approaches the issue from the point of view of their organizational aspects—
generally recognized as “tarīqa.”Throughout history, the question of succession to the leadership (mashyakha) has been afrequent cause of conflict among the tarīqas, which at times led to their divisions. In many instances,these conflicts were brought about by some ambitious deputies (khalīfas) who claimed that they were
not khalīfas but leaders (shaykhs) of their own tarīqas.
In Egypt, under the centralizing policy of Muhammad ‘Alī (who reigned through 1805-48) andhis successors, which finally crystallized into a nation state, the institutionalization of the tarīqas was
initiated; the Egyptian tarīqas were placed under the supervision of a unitary authority―initially,
the Shaykh al-Bakrī, and subsequently, the Sufi Council (majlis al-ṣūfī)—and each group wastransformed into a more rigid organization [De Jong 1978]. Although it reflected the rulers’ rather
simple interest, i.e., control and taxation, the noteworthy aspect of this institutionalization was thatthe rulers were fully aware of the fact that in order to control the tarīqas effectively, they needed to
be well organized and stabilized in the society. Consequently, the primary function expected of
the institution for the tarīqas was to act as a mediator in the conflicts within the tarīqas in order toprevent the recurrence of divisions.
However, this could not bring an end to the divisions within the tarīqas; instead, we observe an
increase in these divisions and an explosion of the emergent tarīqas in the nineteenth century.
From 1895 to 1905, the state intensified its control over the tarīqas by issuing regulations(lā’ihāt) stipulating various aspects such as the status of shaykhs and khalīfas, the relationshipbetween them, and the conditions for their appointment. The regulations must have aimed to define
the tarīqas as more systematized organizations; tarīqas should be “modernized” in order to stabilize
them within the Egyptian society. However, these regulations, too, were unsuccessful in bringing an
end to the recurrence of divisions. In fact, immediately after these regulations were issued, a numberof khalīfas requested the government to appoint them as shaykhs of their own tarīqas.
Therefore, the following question arises: Why did the divisions within the tarīqas increase
despite the state’s endeavor to stabilize the tarīqa organizations? More specifically, how could the
khalīfa justify his claim of independence when his tarīqa had become a rigid organization in thisperiod?
In my opinion, some new factors are involved in the logic of the Sufi organization that was51

Asian and African Area Studies, 7 (1)introduced by the very institutionalization itself.
Based on this hypothesis, I will begin my discussion by examining the manner in which this “newlogic in the Sufi organization” was introduced and established within the Egyptian tarīqas; I will thenproceed to answer the aforementioned question by analyzing the case of tarīqa al-Habībiyya, which
attained its independence from tarīqa al-Rifā‘iyya in 1925 following a serious conflict.

2. Tarīqas before 1812
With regard to institutionalization, the evolution of the Sufi organization in modern Egypt can bedivided into three phases. The first phase is the period before 1812, when there were no official
institutions for the tarīqas in Egypt. The second phase is from 1812 to 1895, when the institution for
the tarīqas was introduced in Egypt. The last phase is from 1895 to the present when institutions forthe tarīqas were reorganized and incorporated into the state’s administration.
2.1 Tarīqas and “Sufi Orders”
It is a well-known fact that tarīqas in the Arab world throughout history have not been monolithorganizations but have comprised small individual groups. In Ottoman Egypt too, most tarīqas
consisted of a number of small groups headed by their own shaykhs; this implied that a tarīqa did nothave to be a single unified organization [Winter 1992: 128-166].
A close analysis of the chronicles and biographies written at the beginning of the nineteenth
century reveals the more important fact that during these days—and probably, even before then—these small groups within the tarīqas were not necessarily regarded by their contemporaries asbranches of their mother tarīqa or as sub-tarīqas. Indeed, the word “tarīqa” did not represent theSufi organization at all; rather, literally, it referred to the “Sufi Way,” which is a specific method of
devotion: rituals (hizb, wird) and genealogy (silsila).
‘Abd al-Rahmān al-Jabartī (1756-1825), a well-known historian of the late Ottoman Egypt,
counted in his chronicle numerous Ulamas—and several Mamluks and Ottomans—who were
initiated into tarīqas [Jabartī 1879-1880a: 297-299, 1879-1880b: 2, 59, 147-148]. He himself wasinitiated into al-Khalwatiyya.2)
The descriptions of these intellectual Sufis almost entirely focused on their good characters(ādāb and akhlāq), their learning (‘ilm and ma‘arifa), and their genealogies (isnād and silsila);
however, apart from the description of their participation in the dhikr sessions, there is scant materialon their activities as members of the tarīqa or its organizational aspects. It appears that al-Jabartī2) He was a disciple of Mahmūd al-Kurdī (1715-1781) [Jabartī 1879-1880b: 61-68].

52

TAKAHASHI: A New Logic in the Sufi Organization

was more interested in the question of who succeeded to the tarīqa than what groups they formed or
the kind of activities they practiced.
On the other hand, in his references to the collective activities of popular Sufis, al-Jabartī neverreferred to these groups as “tarīqas.” Here, I would like to quote two passages from his chronology,
both of which clearly reflect al-Jabartī’s view on the Sufi groups.
The first quotation is a description of a saint’s birthday (mawlid), in which Sufis gathered andperformed their rituals.

He (a French captain) was afflicted with syphilis, and he made a vow to hold this celebration.
When he recovered slightly, he began to light some lamps and candles in the mosque and theshrine. Then, he paid the jurists to recite the Qur’ān in the daytime for studying and asked others
to recite Dalā’il al-Khayyryāt of al-Jāzūlī at night in the mosque. Then, the situation continued
to grow in scale and the people of innovations (bida‘)—such as groups (jamā‘a) of al-‘Afīfī, alSammān, al-‘Arabī, and al-‘Īsawiyya—joined to them. Among them were those who gathered ina circle and performed mock recitations of al-Jalāla, and chanters sang qaṣīdas and popular lovesongs. Among them were those who recited verses from Burda al-Madīh of al-Būṣīrī [Jabartī
1879-1880c: 39].

Presently, al-‘Afīfiyya, al-‘Arabiyya, and al-‘Īsawiyya are recognized as sub-tarīqas (furū‘) of
al-Shādhiliyya, and al-Sammānyya as a sub-tarīqa of al-Khalwatiyya. However, al-Jabartī did notregard them as tarīqas at all, and instead, referred to them as “jamā‘a.” As will be mentioned in thenext chapter, these groups came to be recognized as tarīqas in the nineteenth century.
The second quotation relates the activities of Sufis in the kiswa procession; in 1810. When acertain ‘Uthmān Agha restored the Zayn al-‘Abidīn shrine, he sent for the Sufis in order to transport
the kiswa to cover the tomb inside.

Then, he sent for the people of Satanic tarīqas (ahl al-turuq al-shaytāniyya) known as Sufi bannerbearers (al-ashāyir). They are market men (suqa) and holders of mean occupations (arbāb al-hirafal-mardhul) who attach themselves to the masters of famous shrines such as al-Ahmadiyya, alRif‘āiyya, al-Qādiriyya, al-Burhāmiyya, and so on [Jabartī 1879-1880d: 120].

In the above quotation, while referring to them as the people of Satanic “tarīqas,” al-Jabartī
never regarded them as members of any established tarīqas such as al-Ahmadiyya, al-Rif‘āiyya, al53

Asian and African Area Studies, 7 (1)Qādiriyya, and al-Burhāmiyya, but as rabble who tried to relate themselves to the founders of thesetarīqas.
Both passages make it evident that al-Jabartī never conflated the members of the honorable
tarīqas with the groups of popular Sufis even if the latter associated themselves with these tarīqas; heclearly distinguished the Sufi Way (tarīqa) from the Sufi group (jamā‘a).3)
This view was also shared by contemporary Sufis. For example, Ahmad al-Sāwī (1761-1825) is
known as the founder of al-Sāwiyya, which is presently a sub-tarīqa of al-Khalwatiyya. However,̣
cannot be found in his biography written by his direct disciples. He
the word “tarīqa al- Sāwiyya”

was recognized as one of the many shaykhs of al-Khalwatiyya, and his group was literally known aṣ“jamā‘a al- Sāwī
” or “jamā‘a al-ustādh” [Maghribī et al. 1928: 50, 58, 60, 69, 78].4)

2.2 Shaykhs’ Authority
Although “tarīqa” was a name given not to specify the organization but the teaching, it is clear fromthe description of the contemporaries quoted above that Sufis gathered and formed groups (jamā‘a)bearing the names of the specific tarīqas. Indeed, even the intellectual Sufis formed certain groups,
or a kind of salon (majlis), where they performed dhikr under their shaykhs [Maghribī et al. 1928:
34, 37].
These groups, however, could hardly be called “organizations” in the modern sense of theword: typically, they consisted of guides (shaykhs/murshids), their direct disciples (murīds), and lay
members (muhibbs) who for the most part were attracted by the shaykhs’ personality, charisma,or blessings. In most cases, these groups maintained their unity by the face-to-face relationshipbetween the shaykhs and the other members; therefore, when the shaykhs passed away, these groups
would easily dissolve.
Indeed, there were shaykhs in some tarīqas who appeared to represent the tarīqas symbolically;in many cases, however, they were the heads of the saint-families rather than the actual leaders ofSufi groups. The core of al-Ahmadiyya, al-Qādiriyya, al-Rifā‘iyya, and al-Burhāmiyya—generally
known as the four principle tarīqas in Egypt—were in fact collectives of saint-families, and the3) There were exceptions, of course; it is probable that al-Sa‘diyya and al-‘Īsawiyya were considered as both tarīqa
and jamā‘a, known to practice peculiar rituals [Jabartī 1879-1880c: 39-40; Jabartī 1879-1880d: 190].
4) It is probable that the same view was shared even by ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Sha‘rānī (d. 1565/66), one of the most
famous Sufis in medieval Egypt. According to Michael Winter, al-Sha‘rānī, himself initiated into al-Ahmadiyya,
blamed other members of the tarīqa. Winter explains this incoherence as follows; “The explanation for this seemingly paradox lies in Sha‘rānī’s concept of Sufism and in the nature of the Ahmadiyya which was not a compact
tā’ifa, like the Shādhiliyya, but a widespread and rather vague movement which expressed itself on different social
levels .... For Sha‘rānī the main thing in any Sufi relationship did not necessarily mean belonging to a certain order,
or even practicing a saint cult.” [Winter 1982: 99-101].

54

TAKAHASHI: A New Logic in the Sufi Organization

mashyakha of the tarīqas was inherited by the heads of the most important family among them.
However, these shaykhs’ actual authority over the other members was very limited [De Jong 1978:
14-19; Winter 1992: 133-138]. In al-Ahmadiyya, for example, which consisted of 13 families (bayt,
pl. buyut), the heads of the al-Marzuqī family inherited the title of its mashyakha from the beginningof the eighteenth century. However, their authority over the members of al-Ahmadiyya was limited
to Cairo and the neighboring areas, and the right to supervise the shrine of Ahmad al-Badawī inTantā—the most important shrine in al-Ahmadiyya—was in the hands of the al-Shinnāwī family.
The authority of the shaykh of al-Qādiriyya, which was inherited by the heads of al-Jīzī family, wasalso very limited. While there were numerous tekkes inhabited by the members of al-Qādiriyya in
Egypt, many of them were outside the supervision of this shaykh and run by their own leaders. As
for al-Khalwatiyya and al-Shādhiliyya, there were no shaykhs who could represent the tarīqa evennominally. Al-Khalwatiyya was a collective of small groups that comprised individual shaykhs
and their direct disciples, and there was no supreme authority that could unite these groups. For
example, the biography written by the direct disciples of Ahmad al-Sāwī, a Khalwatī shaykh, does
not reveal any indications of a substantial relationship or fellowship sentiment among the brothers(ikhwān) beyond the relationship they had with their master.5)
In sum, the organizational aspects of the tarīqas until the beginning of the nineteenth century—that is, until the end of the Ottoman society in Egypt—can be understood as follows: in general,
the tarīqa was not a single, unified organization but a collective of small groups or families. Eachgroup/family, while sharing a common teaching or, more likely, just bearing a common name, stoodindependently under the control of its own shaykh, where there were no organizations or orientations
to unite them. It appears that contemporary Sufis were more interested in the succession andmanifold of their teaching (tarīqa) than in the continuation of their groups (jamā‘a).

3. Institutionalization of the Tarīqas
3.1 Tarīqas under the Authority of the Shaykh al-Bakrī
In 1812, Muhammad ‘Alī, the governor of Egypt, issued a decree declaring the jurisdiction of the
shaykh of the al-Bakrī family (Shaykh al-Bakrī), one of the notable Sharifian families in Egypt, over
the tarīqas in Egypt. Shaykh al-Bakrī was authorized to supervise the activities of the tarīqas under
his jurisdiction and to intervene in their affairs. By virtue of this decree, an institution for the tarīqas
was introduced in Egypt for the first time, and the state’s control over Sufi groups was initiated [De5) Biography of Ahmad al-S ̣āwī hardly indicates that there existed any substantial relationship between Ahmad
al- Sāwī
̣ and other Khalwatī shaykhs.

55

Asian and African Area Studies, 7 (1)Jong 1978: 20-95]. In 1847, an agreement (ṣakk) was reached between the shaykh al-Bakrī and the
shaykh al-Azhar, in which it was confirmed that the affairs related to the tarīqas should be under thejurisdiction of the shaykh al-Bakrī and that the shaykh al-Azhar would not interfere in such matters.
This agreement must have reflected the ruler’s desire to undermine the resources of al-Azhar, which
was growing increasingly powerful from the latter half of the eighteenth century. Since many
Ulama of al-Azhar were members of the tarīqas, this institution deprived al-Azhar of Sufi resources.
However, the actual effectiveness of this agreement was unknown.
Participation in this institution, or more accurately, acceptance of the jurisdiction of the shaykh
al-Bakrī, was in fact more voluntary than compulsory. As a consequence, the tarīqas that did notbenefit from this institution or those that were active in areas unaffected by the authority of the
shaykh al-Bakrī remained independent. Although the institution secured the authority inherited
among the successive shaykhs within the al-Bakrī family, its actual effectiveness was largely dependent on each shaykh’s abilities.
3.2 A New Logic in the Sufi Organization
First, I would like to examine the reasons for introducing an institution of this type. What were its
benefits for the state and the tarīqas? For the state, the institution could serve as a useful tool for thecontrol of the populace.
First, this institutionalization can be understood as a part of the state’s centralizing policy. The
shaykh al-Bakrī of the time, himself residing in Cairo, placed his agents (wakīl al-mashyakha) all
over Egypt. These agents acted as intermediaries between the shaykh and the tarīqas in the regions.
By placing a supreme authority in the center and keeping its agents in the regions, the state attempted
to reinforce its control over the populace extending to all corners of its territory.
Additionally, the institutionalization served the purposes of taxation; as some tarīqas containedgroups of people who were not organized in the guilds, the state could order the shaykhs of thesetarīqas to collect tax from these groups through the institution. For example, Muhammad ‘Alī
assigned Muhammad Yāsīn, who was in the position of the Leader of the Merchants (shāhbandar
al-tujjār), to the shaykh of al-Rifā‘iyya in order to collect tax from snake charmers, jugglers, andacrobats, many of whom were members of al-Rifā‘iyya and were not organized into any guilds [DeJong 1978: 37].
In addition, a central authority of this type provided certain benefits to the shaykhs of thetarīqas. Nominal as it might have been, mashyakha al-tarīqa was an attractive position that was
accompanied by a certain authority over its members and a measure of property such as zāwiyas andshrines. Consequently, as I stated at the beginning, the question of the succession to mashyakha has
56

TAKAHASHI: A New Logic in the Sufi Organization

been a frequent cause of conflicts at least among the candidates. By associating themselves with the
shaykh al-Bakrī, those shaykhs in position could maintain their authority and their property. Since
the shaykh al-Bakrī, along with his rival the shaykh al-Sādāt, had long been an influential figure
among the Sufis and Ulamas in Egypt, frequently acting as a mediator when conflicts arose among
them, it was natural for him to be chosen as the supreme authority over the Sufis. In some ways, thiscentral authority functioned to protect the vested interests of those existing shaykhs.
Regardless of the benefits that both sides may have enjoyed, the institutionalization brought
about a drastic change in the form of the tarīqas.
The institution for the tarīqas, by its nature, required supreme authority in each tarīqa. In
order to ensure the proper functioning of this institution, each tarīqa was represented by only one
shaykh—shaykh al-tarīqa—who was not merely a nominal leader but was now responsible for “his”
tarīqa and was authorized to manage all the affairs therein. As a result, the autonomy enjoyed byeach group within the tarīqa until then was considerably restricted. The leaders of these subgroups,
who were now ranked as khalīfas of the tarīqa, had to choose from the following options: accepting
the control of shaykh al-tarīqa, retaining his independence, if possible, outside the jurisdiction of
shaykh al-tariqa, or leaving the existing tarīqa to establish his own tarīqas.
In fact, we observe an explosion of emergent tarīqas in the nineteenth century. Many of thesubgroups that were known as “jamā‘a,” “tā’ifa,” or “bayt”—but never “tarīqa”—began claimingthat they were independent “tarīqas.” For example, the houses (buyut) of al-Ahmadiyya came to berecognized as its sub-tarīqas (furu‘). As mentioned earlier, al-Afīfiyya and al-Sammāniyya, whichwere known as jamā‘a by al-Jabartī, came to be known as independent tarīqas during this period.
This change in the form of tarīqas can be explained as the introduction of a new logic in the Sufi
organization; in other words, a tarīqa has to be an organization headed by a single shaykh. Whilethe basis of the organization is its teaching—specific rituals and genealogy—the continuity of theteaching can be achieved by the continuity of the organization. Here, we can recognize the present
and generally accepted understanding that “tarīqa” means “Sufi Organization” or “Sufi Order.” Now,
one tarīqa cannot contain several subgroups and it must be a unified organization; moreover, thedivisions of the organization were understood as the divisions of the tarīqa itself and vice versa.
This process of the transformation of the tarīqa into an organization can be traced, albeit
roughly, by paying attention to the changes in the meaning of the word “tarīqa” in contemporary
sources.
As we have seen, the word “tarīqa” itself did not represent the actual Sufi groups in the chronicleof al-Jabartī. Indeed, even in the decree issued in 1812, this distinction was observed; while we
57

Asian and African Area Studies, 7 (1)cannot find the word “tarīqa” in the text at all, the expression “the groups of the Sufis (tawā’if alfuqarā’ al-ṣufiyya)” was used [Bakrī 1905: 377]. In the agreement between the shaykh al-Bakrī andthe shaykh al-Azhar, issued in 1847, the expression “shaykhs of the tarīqas (mashāyikh al-turuq)”
appears [Bakrī 1905: 43]; however, it is difficult to ascertain whether or not “turuq” (pl. of tarīqa)
in this context signifies the actual Sufi group. In ‘Alī Mubārak’s geography published in 1886-88,
the word “tarīqa (al-tarīqa al-ṣufiyya)” clearly signifies substantial Sufi groups [Mubārak 1886-1888:
129-130]. Moreover, the title of “the supreme shaykh over the shaykhs of the tarīqas (shaykhmashāyikh al-turuq al-ṣufiyya),” which was initially held by the shaykh al-Bakrī and subsequently by
the chairperson of the Sufi Council, was said to appear for the first time in the 1880s [De Jong 1978:124]. It appears that in the 1880s at the latest, the word “tarīqa” came to signify both “the Sufi Way”
and “Sufi group.”

4. The Making of “Sufi Orders” in Egypt
4.1 Regulations for the Tarīqas
Eventually, the institution was reborn with the reform initiated from 1895 by Muhammad Tawfīq alBakrī (1870-1932), the shaykh al-Bakrī of the time.
In 1895, the Regulations for the Tarīqas (lā’iha al-turuq al-ṣufiyya) were issued as a Khedival
decree. By virtue of this decree, an administrative body was created in the form of a Sufi Council(majlis al-ṣufī ) consisting of the shaykhs of the major tarīqas and with “the supreme shaykh over the
shaykhs of the tarīqas” as the chairperson.6) In 1905, the Internal Regulations for the Tarīqas (allā’iha al-dākhiliyya li’l-turuq al-ṣufiyya) were issued. These regulations provided guidelines for theorganization and the activities of the tarīqas; they also elucidated the statuses of the shaykhs andkhalīfas.
This reform must have had a great impact on the various aspects of the Egyptian tarīqas. Here,
we can point out that the new logic in the Sufi organization was stipulated in these regulations.
For example, in the second section of the Internal Regulations, the status of the shaykh al-tarīqa is
stipulated as follows7):

Article 2 One person cannot be appointed as the shaykh of two tarīqas.
Article 3 Each shaykh of a tarīqa is independent of the other. Every shaykh is associated with
6) In principle, the office of “the supreme shaykh over the shaykhs of the tarīqas” was no longer held exclusively by the
shaykh al-Bakrī but would be appointed by the Khedive; in fact, the shaykh al-Bakrī held this office until 1946.
7) My primary reference for these regulations is the text translated in English in [De Jong 1978: 201-214].

58

TAKAHASHI: A New Logic in the Sufi Organization

his own tarīqa. No shaykh is subordinate to another, and there must be only one shaykh in asingle tarīqa.
Article 11 The chiefs of the branches of the tarīqas in rural districts should not be addressed
as “shaykhs” of al-tarīqa but exclusively as “nā’ibs.”

The very fact that these regulations were stipulated proves that the new logic was not fully
established in the Egyptian tarīqas at that time. However, at present, this logic has become a lawthat must be adhered to by all the tarīqas.
4.2 Sufi Organization
These regulations were not only provided but thoroughly implemented under the more rationalizedadministration.
The formation of the tarīqa organization had already been initiated in the process of institutionalization; the basic structure of the organization was arranged in the mid-nineteenth century and has
not undergone major changes to date [Berger 1970: 68-69; De Jong 1978: 47-50].
A notable feature of the tarīqa organization was the incorporation of two new offices—nā’ib and naqīb—into its structure; until then, members were ranked across four positions—shaykh,khalīfa, murīd, and muhibb—according to their spiritual attainment. Nā’ib and naqīb, chosen fromamong khalīfas, were functions rather than spiritual grades, and they played crucial roles in the
management of the organization.
Nā’ib was a chief of a branch who, acting as the shaykh’s agent, managed affairs in his branch.
Beneath the nā’ib, were the naqībs, who handled more subtle matters.8) Although nā’ibs and naqībs
were chosen by the shaykh, they had to receive their official appointment by the Sufi Council.
Shaykhs and nā’ibs were not always on good terms. For example, a memorandum issued in1943 from the Sufi Council reveals that friction between shaykhs and nā’ibs was increasing, andthe Council had received a number of petitions from both sides.9) As will be mentioned in the next
section, some nā’ibs even claimed independence from their shaykhs.
With regard to the mashyakha, it was stipulated in the internal regulations (sec. 2 art. 6) thatthe eldest son should succeed to the office. However, the appointment of new shaykhs required
approval from the Council.
8) For example, four naqībs were assigned under each nā’ib in Alexandria in 1946. Cf. Egyptian National Archives,
Cairo, al-‘Abidīn records (Mahfaza al-‘Abidīn, abbreviated hereafter as MA) 539, 12 August 1946, “List of Nā’ibs
and Naqībs of the Tarīqas in Alexandria.”9) MA539, 24 April 1943, “A Memorandum from the Supreme Shaykh over the Shaykhs of the Tarīqas to Shaykhs ofTarīqas.”59

Asian and African Area Studies, 7 (1)Although a shaykh was in charge of both spiritual guidance and the management of theorganization, several shaykhs actually entrusted the management to their deputies (wakīls). The
memorandum issued in 1943 pointed out the increase of this practice and stipulated that the appointment of wakīls was permitted only in exceptional cases such as the shaykh’s illness and only withpermission from the Council.10)
With regard to the activities of the tarīqas, agents (wakīl al-mashyakha) of the Supreme Shaykh
over the Shaykhs of the Tarīqas, placed throughout the country, played crucial roles. Typically,
these agents were local notables chosen from among the members of tarīqas, sharīfs, or custodiansof the shrines.11) As the regulations stipulated conditions for their activities, it was these agents who
actually directed them. For example, when the birthday of King Fāruq I was to be celebrated on
February 11, 1943, the Council notified each agent on the details of arranging the celebration anddirecting the tarīqas on the day.12)
It is concluded here that as a result of the state’s thorough intervention as illustrated above, the
new logic in the Sufi organization was fully established in the Egyptian tarīqas, transforming theminto a single unified organization in mid-twentieth century at the latest.
4.3 A Conflict over the Independence of al-Habībiyya from al-Rifā‘iyya
Despite the fact that this new logic was stipulated and implemented by the state, which must haveaimed at the stability and continuity of the tarīqas, the divisions within the tarīqas continued.
In fact, immediately following the issuance of the Internal Regulations in 1905, a number ofkhalīfas appealed to the Sufi Council, claiming that they should be appointed as the shaykhs of their
independent tarīqas.13)
In most cases, these khalīfas finally attained independence from their previous shaykhs. However, this was not always easily achieved. Serious conflicts frequently occurred between the khalīfas
and their shaykhs, and the decisions made by the Sufi Council did not always satisfy both sides.
Here, I would like to analyze a case of one such conflict—the conflict over the independenceof al-Habībiyya from al-Rifā‘iyya. This conflict arose when Muhammad ‘Abd al-Hādī al-Habībī,
the nā’ib of al-Rifā‘iyya, appealed to the Sufi Council, claiming that he should be appointed as the10) MA539, 24 April 1943, “A Memorandum from the Supreme Shaykh over the Shaykhs of the Tarīqas to Shaykhs ofTarīqas.”11) On the conditions for the appointment of wakīls see the Internal Regulations for the Tarīqas, section 3, article 1 &2 [De Jong 1978: 210-211].
12) MA539, 7 February 1943, “A Notification from the Supreme Shaykh over the Shaykhs of the Tarīqas to the
Wakīls.”13) For example, the following tarīqas obtained their independence during this period: al-H āmidiyya from alQāwuqajiyya, al-Mughāziyya from al-Sibā‘iyya, and al-Shahāwiyya from al-Burhāmiyya [De Jong 1978: 175-180].

60

TAKAHASHI: A New Logic in the Sufi Organization

shaykh of tarīqa al-Habībiyya.14)
The following is the story of this conflict.
In 1905, Muhammad ‘Abd al-Hādī al-Habībī requested the Sufi Council to appoint him as
the shaykh of al-Habībiyya; however, his request was immediately rejected. In the same year, heturned to the National Court of Appeal in Cairo (Mahkama al-Isti’nāf Miṣr al-Ahliyya),15) but his
claim was dismissed. However, in 1911, when the chairperson of the Sufi Council was replaced, theindependence of al-Habībiyya was accepted. This time, however, the Ministry of Interior opposed
this decision and the case was taken to the court again. Muhammad ‘Abd al-Hādī al-Habībī’s claim
was not accepted, and he was ordered to continue as the nā’ib of al-Rifā‘iyya. However, in 1925, theMinistry of Interior suddenly accepted his claim and al-Habībiyya finally obtained independence.
This was achieved due to a personal relationship between Muhammad ‘Abd al-Hādī al-Habībī
and Muhammad H ilmī ‘Īsā, who was appointed as the Minister of Interior in 1924; further, bothMuhammad ‘Abd al-Hādī al-Habībī and Muhammad H ilmī ‘Īsā belonged to the same political party(H izb al-Ittihād).
This raises the following question: Why did Muhammad ‘Abd al-Hādī al-Habībī want to claim
his independence from al-Rifā‘iyya and on what basis did he justify this claim?
It is difficult to identify his precise reason for claiming independence from al-Rifā‘iyya. However, there are some indications that already in the 1880s, al-Habībiyya was virtually recognized as
an independent tarīqa [Mubārak 1886-1888: 17]. Officially, however, it was ranked as a house (bayt)of al-Rifā‘iyya, and the head of al-Habībiyya—Muhammad ‘Abd al-Hādī al-Habībī—was given thetitle of nā’ib.16) Moreover, al-Rifā‘iyya has never permitted the existence of sub-tarīqas till date [AlTaṣawwuf al-Islāmī 2001: 49]. I speculate that the head of al-Habībiyya had long been yearning for
its official independence from al-Rifā‘iyya.
The justification of his claim can be found in his petition to the Court in 1905.

Muhammad ‘Abd al-Hādī al-Habībī claimed that tarīqa al-Habībiyya was an independent tarīqa.
Its founder was his grandfather, the late Muhammad Ahmad al-Habībī, whose shrine is located on
al-Sayyida Zaynab street in Cairo. He was initiated into tarīqa(s) by shaykhs who belonged to al14) For this incident, my primary reference is the trial records in MA539, which comprised 13 documents. See also [DeJong 1983: 187-188].
15) National Courts were established in 1883 to exclusively treat the cases that involved Egyptians; its codes werebased on those of the Mixed Courts established in 1875 [Hoyle 1991: 186].
16) This was proven in five documentary evidences submitted to the courts by the shaykh al-Rifā‘iyya. Cf. MA539, 21
Rabī‘ al-Awwal 1300, 1304, 10 Rabī‘ al-Akhar 1305, 19 Rajab 1305, n.d.

61

Asian and African Area Studies, 7 (1)Ahmadiyya, al-Shādhiliyya, al-Khalwatiyya, al-Naqshbandiyya, and al-Rifā‘iyya. He taught allthese tarīqas to his disciples until his death. He (Muhammad ‘Abd al-Hādī al-Habībī) continued(his claim) that this tarīqa had its specific form of prayers and rituals (ṣalawāt, ahzāb, and awrād).
Muhammad Ahmad al-Habībī had appointed the late Muhammad al-Habībī, his (the claimant’s)
father, as the successor of this tarīqa.17)

In sum, his claim was based on the fact that his grandfather, the founder of al-Habībiyya, hadreceived several tarīqas other than al-Rifā‘iyya, which Muhammad ‘Abd al-Hādī al-Habībī had takenover from his father (Muhammad al-Habībī) and also on the fact that its prayers and rituals weredifferent from those of al-Rifā‘iyya.
This claim appears to be reasonable in view of the new logic in the Sufi organization: The baseof an organization is its teaching. Since al-Habībiyya differs from al-Rifā‘iyya in its teachings—
prayers, rituals, and genealogy—it should also differ from al-Rifā‘iyya in its organization.
If this is the case, then why was the claim repeatedly rejected by the authority?
The answer lies in the logic itself. The grounds on which he claimed independence were commonalities shared by all tarīqas in Egypt. It has been a common practice to initiate one person into
several tarīqas, and it is not difficult to find a prominent shaykh who would have introduced new
rituals and composed his original prayer manuals in a tarīqa. Thus, his claim, if accepted, could also
lead to the division of other tarīqas in Egypt.
In fact, in his report on the incident in 1905, the Supreme Shaykh over the Shaykhs of theTarīqas expressed his fear that if he had accepted the independence of al-Habībiyya, it would have
served as a precedent for other ambitious khalīfas in justifying their demand for independence, andthis would have triggered the division of other tarīqas in Egypt.18) The same fear was shared by the
Ministry of Interior. In 1911, when the new chairperson of the Sufi Council accepted al-Habībiyya’s
independence, the Ministry was strongly opposed to his decision.
Eventually, Muhammad ‘Abd al-Hādī al-Habībī obtained his independence through a personalconnection with the then Minister of Interior; this implies that the Sufi Council could not solve theproblem.
The conflict over the independence of al-Habībiyya presents an interesting case; his claim, which
was grounded in the new logic of the Sufi organization, led to an unfavorable situation for the state.
Ironically, the new logic in the Sufi organization, which was introduced and established through17) MA539, 24 February 1906, “The Conclusion of the Trial at the National Courts of Appeal in Cairo.”18) MA539, 30 January 1907, “Report from the Supreme Shaykh over the Shaykhs of the Tarīqas to the Palace.”

62

TAKAHASHI: A New Logic in the Sufi Organization

the institutionalization initiated by the state, itself served as the grounds for the divisions within the
tarīqas in the twentieth century.

5. Conclusion
The case of al-Habībiyya was merely one of many such conflicts. Therefore, I do not believe it ispossible to specify all the factors responsible for the increase in the divisions within the tarīqas during
this period.
However, at least one factor can be pointed out: the new logic in the Sufi organization that was
introduced in the nineteenth century provided grounds for justifying the claims of those khalīfas whowanted to be shaykhs of their own tarīqas. In other words, the state’s very endeavor to “modernize”
the tarīqa organization and stabilize it within the Egyptian society served on the contrary to create
instability.
This irony can be explained in part by reviewing the evolution of the organizational aspect of
the tarīqa as illustrated in this paper. Until the beginning of the nineteenth century, as a tarīqa was
not an organization but a teaching, it could be maintained as long as a single person succeeded to its
teaching. However, with the introduction of the new logic in the Sufi organization by its institutionalization, a tarīqa no longer could be maintained without its organization; now the continuity of its
teachings could be achieved only by the continuity of its organization. At this stage, the weaknessof the Sufi organization19) came to be the critical feature that could endanger the stability or, in theworst case scenario, very the existence of the tarīqa itself.
References[Documents]
Egyptian National Archives. Cairo. al-‘Abidīn records (Mahfaza al-‘Abidīn, abbreviated as MA) 539.

[Printed Matters]
Primary Sources
Al-Taṣawwuf al-Islāmī 272, November 2001.
Bakrī, Muhammad Tawfīq al-. 1905. Bayt al-S iddīq.
̣al-Qāhira: al-Mu’ayyad.
Jabartī, ‘Abd al-Rahmān al-. 1879-1880a. ‘Ajā’ib al-Athār fi’l-Tarājim wa’l-Akhbār. vol. 1. al-Qāhira: Bulāq.
＿．1879-1880b. ‘Ajā’ib al-Athār fi’l-Tarājim wa’l-Akhbār. vol. 2. al-Qāhira: Bulāq.
＿．1879-1880c. ‘Ajā’ib al-Athār fi’l-Tarājim wa’l-Akhbār. vol. 3. al-Qāhira: Bulāq.
＿．1879-1880d. ‘Ajā’ib al-Athār fi’l-Tarājim wa’l-Akhbār. vol. 4. al-Qāhira: Bulāq.
19) Since the unity of the Sufi organization is, in most cases, fundamentally maintained by the shaykh’s charisma, it
can easily disintegrate with the emergence of competitors [Gilsenan 1967].

63

Asian and African Area Studies, 7 (1)Maghribī, Ismā‘īl b. ‘Abdallāh al-Sāwī, al-, Qāsim al-Shishtī, Ahmad al-Shishtī, Muhammad al-Kutubī, Muhammad al-S ̣āwī . 1928. Al-Nur wa’l-Wuddā’ fī Manāqib wa Karāmāt ‘Umda al-Awliyā’. al-Qāhira: al-S ̣idq
al-Khayriyya.
Mubārak, ‘Alī. 1886-1888 (rep. 1969-). Al-Khitat al-Tawfīqiyya al-Jadīda li-Miṣr al-Qāhira wa Muduni-hā wa
Bilād-hā al-Qadīma wa’l-Shahīra. vol. 3. Bulāq (rep. Dār al-Kutub).
Secondary Sources
Berger, M. 1970. Islam in Egypt Today: Social and Political Aspects of Popular Religion. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
De Jong, F. 1978. Turuq and Turuq-linked Institutions in 19th-Century Egypt: A Historical Study in Organizational Dimensions of Islamic Mysticism. Leiden: Brill.
＿．1983. Aspects of Political Involvement of Sufi Orders in 20th Century Egypt (1907-1970): An
Exploratory Stock-Taking. In G. M. Warburg and U. M. Kuperschmidts eds., Islam, Nationalism andRadicalism in Egypt and Sudan. New York: Praeger, pp. 183-212.
Gilsenan, M. 1967. Some Factors in the Decline of the Sufi Orders in Modern Egypt, The Muslim World 67:
11-18.
Hoyle, Mark S. W. 1991. Mixed Courts of Egypt. London: Graham and Trotman.
Winter, M. 1982. Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt: Studies in the Writings of ‘Abd al-Wahhābal-Sha‘rānī. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Books.
＿．1992. Egyptian Society under Ottoman Rule, 1517-1798. London and New York: Routledge.

64