Sufi is typically described as a type of religious movement with an excessive veneration and an unquestioned allegiance toward the master. It is also understood as an association or brotherhood with a strictly hierarchical structure that exercises a high degree of control over its adepts (Trimingham, 1970; Buehler, 1993; Werbner, 2003; Schmidt, 2004:109-26). The vitality and enduring influence of Sufism therefore supposedly comes mainly from personal appeal of the Sufi sheikh that is religiously justified and socially accepted by the disciples. This charisma derives from the teaching lineage (silsilah) and intimacy with God combining the inner-path of religious devotion and the requirements of sharia’s observance (Buehler, 1993:10). Those scholarly studies implicitly suggested that routinisation has generated an established rule of conduct, set of doctrine, and institutional arrangement. Those views also implicitly imply that the Sufi master has an authoritarian control over and always received unreserved obedience from the disciples. Given this, Sufi movement is still considered as being dominated by a self-appointed leader with unreserved obedience from the disciples and shaped through continuous routinizing personal charisma which is maintained over generations by successive line of genealogy. As a result, Sufism supposedly attracts only marginalized segments of society with inadequate education, low social status or ongoing rural connections (Chih, 2007:21). Concomitantly, the emergence of an educated urban middle class that embraced rationality, ideas of progress, individualism and democracy therefore appeared to leave little space for this allegedly old-fashioned Islamic movement. By focusing on Naqshbandi Haqqani Sufi movement in Indonesia, this paper tries to re-examine that established view and demonstrate internal struggle and dynamics within the Sufi movement and the efforts of the Sufi sheikh in performing his role as a supreme leader, spiritual guide, and sole religious authority within the movement. This paper argues that religious authority of the Sufi sheikh is not necessarily unlimited and to some extent even often contested and negotiated due to different social backgrounds of and conflicting interests and perception among the disciples. The case of Naqshbandi Haqqani movement in Indonesia shows that a Sufi sheikh cannot rely only on his own charisma. Instead, he must also have organisational skills and decentralise his authority to maintain solidarity within the movement.