Javād Nūrbakhsh and the Niʿmatullāhī ‘Khaniqahi’ Order

Abstract

This chapter addresses the designation of Ṣūfi Master Javād Nūrbakhsh (1926– 2008) and the Niʿmatullāhī ‘Khaniqahi’ Order or Khāniqāh-i-Niʿmat Allāhī as sectarian. Within the field of Islamic Studies, or even the broader scope of the study of Islam, there is no sufficient term that equates with ‘sect’ or ‘sectarian’. Generally, Islamic history—from early on—is replete with examples of divisions between political alliances/parties (for example, shīʿat ʿAlī or shīʿat Muʿāwiya) pertaining to leadership (imāma) and schools of thought (madhhab) and to methods of reading and practicing the religion. Yet it has to be cautioned that none of these are tantamount to the ‘church-sect typology’ as set out in the sociology of religion for the Western Christian context. Max Weber (1922) and Ernst Troeltsch (1912) used the typology as a heuristic tool. In their theorising, the church was equated with the larger bureaucratic statesponsored organisation that ministered to the general population, whilst the sect was the smaller evangelical group that adopted a radical stance towards the state. Bryan R. Wilson (1959, 1992) later modified the typology to define sects by the way in which they positioned themselves in opposition to social values or demonstrated their indifference to societal norms. In this sense, it has been more about a study that assists in the categorisation of dissention and along with it claims about the return to true religion. As such, and despite my own reservations about the application of ‘sectarian’ to groupings within Islam, one point of entry into the debate might very well be the combined issue of the interpretation of religion and legitimation of rule that both dominated early debates and forced Muslims to pick sides. Obviously, Muslims gradually became aware of partisanship, dissention, apostasy (ridda), and secession (khawārij), although more sharply once a sense of orthodoxy had begun to take shape. Historically, the Ṣūfis are no strangers to intrigue and controversy regarding their allegiance to orthodoxy. Although Ṣūfism was never collectively viewed as heterodox or heretical, certain aspects of its belief system and praxis were