The Distinction Between the Tariqah(Sufi Path) and the Jamaat-(Ecclesia)

Sayr'u Suluk I

"Seeking Haq (the truth) is a form of estrangement." - Hz. Ali (k.s)

How many times does a person open their eyes to the world? How many times do they begin to live? Upon birth, we assume that we see the world there for the first time and consider starting to live as an event that only happens once. We opened our eyes, and since then, we have been living the same life in the same world as the same person. Nevertheless, this is just a completion, an integration, a quickly grasped knowledge, and a sequentially unfolding habit because we comprehend all this without living through that same initial day. Whoever claimed that this is the first and everything that follows is a flow from it. Even if no one explicitly articulates it, there is an inner voice within us, self-speaking, highlighting the questions that need to be asked and the gaps that need to be acknowledged, promptly bringing them to the forefront – a habit and an eagerness for life. This eagerness propels us to run without considering where we step, and this habit thoroughly envelops, swallows us, and what makes us a reptile serpent. And a lie! This life comes after an irreversible beginning over everything thought to last a single time in this current. However, how many crossroads do people experience in this flow that has begun and continues, even at every minute, every moment, when observed? The first time they started speaking, the first time they laughed, the first time they felt fear. Whatever happened in these firsts, in all their second times, it is essentially the first time again. So, what compels humans to label one as first and the other as subsequent? Nothing but the unquestioned habit and the ambition which is made indispensable.

The 'first' concept is the foundation beneath all these assumptions, turning every embraced lie into an unblemished reality. Without the concept of 'first,' we would never comprehend what it means when someone says it is the first time; nothing could ever repeat. We could not have said, "This happened initially, and then it became that." We could not have articulated yesterday, contemplated tomorrow, and grasped the existence of the present. However, in exchange for all this, we would have been liberated from the habit of separating the past from the future irreversibly, flowing things into a come-and-go stream, and escaping the exhausting, disruptive, consuming habit—that is called time. Time is a concept based on the first; its primary function is eliminating the first. If we could obliterate the concept of the first, we would be free from all that time does. However, even before we understand this sentence, something immediately confronts us: the thought that this is impossible.

What could be the meaning of seriously contemplating something impossible from any perspective, and why should we consider it a solution? The immediate surrounding notion of impossibility dismisses all these statements as a mere expression of senseless rebellion. It is an automatic recognition without the need for conscious thought. Moreover, some of us look for ways to overcome all these negativities without daring to cancel the time. Can we find a solution to eliminate habit and repetition without wasting time on what we know is impossible? This is how the most brilliant and hard-working among us look at it. However, they try, test, and devise every solution and explore all solutions without sacrificing the first and the time. As a result, far from finding a solution, the situation is further complicated. The time loop strengthens further, and all those experiences are more powerfully thrust upon people. Every aspect becomes a habit, and repetition surrounds every side. The world, in its grandeur, manifests itself as a colossal machine. It overwhelms all efforts and all quests. Furthermore, it strikes down anyone who dares to challenge it. Then, once again, only the door is opened to the same dreams: if there were no such thing as 'first,' if we never understood what the first was, nothing would repeat, and we could not say in the beginning there was this, then that happened...

Without covering a barley's distance, human history has once again resorted to the wall of impossibility, helpless in the face of even the repetition of the same bankruptcy. But what if another way makes this proposal possible, which is immediately and permanently understood as impossible? And far from ignoring the 'first' concept, perhaps even embracing it and setting out on the path to success with that very concept? So, instead of erasing it, what if we returned to the idea of 'first' with even greater interest and truly understood it? Would we open our eyes to a life where nothing would repeat, and we no longer succumb to the game of things lining up in the guise of before and after? Indeed, at every moment. So, will humans find the opposite of deception and the deceived ones based on this same concept? And is it this very concept that both opens and closes the path? Is that why this concept is so strange, which gives meaning to everything? So, is this concept removed from strangeness again for this reason and never tainted by anything else?

Above all, if this is the case, is it a tried and tested path sought through countless solutions over the centuries? Let's answer. No, and Yes.

No, because these points, with desperate efforts, have been intricately woven and concealed through the ages by names avoiding touching the essence of the matter, redirecting attention to thoughts stemming from and resembling this point. These names have made their presence known in philosophy and theology.

Yes, because if this point were utterly closed even once on Earth, the existence of anything else wouldn't be possible. Beings keeping this point open have always existed on Earth. They are beings whose stories are told everywhere, yet despite personally showcasing these subtle points in all their simplicity, what they convey remains completely incomprehensible, and they are the initiates of the Tariqah, Marifah, and Haqiqah path, and this is precisely the starting point for all their other actions. Therefore, they are the most ancient beings, and what seems impossible is the best-known manifestation of the ancient law. However, it is only open to those who understand, see, and are worthy.

We've managed to address a significant issue that has been kept invisible under a thick veil of obscurity until now. Now, we are ready to discuss that the words in the title represent concepts related to the issue we confront. By meeting the conditions of Sayr u Sulûk (spiritual journey), Tariqah, the Sufi path, signifies the ways established by individuals who, entering the realm of the seemingly impossible, make everything possible. They create these paths on Earth to communicate the remedy for this affliction. In essence, the paths referred to by these words explicitly demonstrate that certain fundamental things, considered outright impossible, are indeed possible; even beyond a point, they show that these things are not just possible but compulsory.

Indeed, the subject of Tariqah, the Sufi path, can be approached from various perspectives. It intertwines with cultural history, religious history, hermeneutics, Gnosticism, and even areas like politics, war, and economy. It is common to approach it as Sufi orders, specifically in the context of a selected belief or community. There are numerous examples of such approaches. However, we will proceed from a more fundamental need that concerns all these contexts. Where within the human being did the Tariqah originate, and for which essential needs did it come into existence? That is our question. The 'first' and 'time' mentioned above also constitute the central concepts of these fundamental needs. Understanding why something comes into existence due to particular needs is crucial for fully comprehending that thing. After accepting this fact, it is essential to identify the needs accurately. Otherwise, we cannot see the primary reasons and the actual context in which that thing exists.

At this point, it is noticeable that a distinction needs to be made. Upon encountering concepts like 'first (and last),' 'time,' and the upcoming concepts like 'existence,' 'space,' and 'life,' one might assume that the term 'Tariqah' in today's language does not align with these concepts or may seem peculiar in this context. This is due to the incomplete or insufficient distinction between 'Tariqah' (Sufi order) and 'Jamaat' (community). Without distinguishing between 'Tariqah' and 'Jamaat,' it is impossible to accurately determine the needs, principles, and nature of the Tariqah, the Sufi order, and where and why it originated. Evaluating historical examples properly also requires making this distinction.

If we put it briefly, the essence of this distinction is as follows:

'Jamaat' (community) is a formation that sustains existence based on base, part-whole relationships, and a closed-circuit operation.

This definition encompasses any formation of a Jamaat. For instance, whether any of them have religious or anti-religious discourse and other groups based on class, social, economic, political, intellectual, and other criteria, we label them as a 'Jamaat' if they exhibit characteristics in line with the definition of Jamaat. Someone with a broader perspective will notice that a similar principle applies to any cluster. For instance, whether consciously or not, a theory of biological objects that establishes them in a manner fitting the definition of a jamaat essentially categorizes physical objects as a jamaat. Similarly, if the cluster of mathematical objects is set in a manner that fits the definition of a community, they, too, are Jamaat; in essence, they exhibit the same existential characteristics. These examples apply to any set of known, contemplated, believed, sensed, or imagined objects. Among them, there is only a relative qualitative difference, which does not constitute a fundamental distinction.

No community comes from the truth of the being. According to the above definition, existence is not a jamaat. On the contrary, putting entities into a jamaat results from obscuring the truth of the being. The reason lies in the nature of the elements constituting the concept of a jamaat.

As mentioned earlier, the elements that constitute the concept of a jamaat are 'basis,' 'part-whole relationship,' and 'closed-circuit operation.' If the meanings of these elements are deciphered, the nature of the Jamaat becomes apparent.

'Basis' is a concept necessary for everything and has ontological variations. The specific 'basis' for a Jamaat relies on the Jamaat itself. In other words, a Jamaat depends on itself. In this regard, a Jamaat's specific 'basis' is fake. Establishing a 'real basis' leaves the Jamaat without a basis.

The 'part-whole relationship' is a self-derived 'basis' specific to the Jamaat and the basis of the collective presence of the Jamaat's members. Jamaat's members come together, depending on and supporting each other, and they constitute a whole by standing together. The whole acts like a single person and is connected to each person within the community. All the components of the Jamaat, meaning the members (or elements) of the Jamaat, individually or collectively, within the whole, which resembles a single person, serve to sustain the whole. If we break this whole, we find individual pieces; if we gather single pieces, we reconstruct the whole akin to a single person. The object in the whole and the object in the part can only be determined through consistent interaction in a uniform place. We said uniform; for example, if we examine where the parts are placed in the whole and where the whole is placed in the parts, we would see a togetherness similar to Lego or a puzzle. The whole has not surpassed its parts, and the parts have not encompassed the whole. In this sense, it's as if neither the whole nor the parts genuinely exist. What exists is simply the community, Jamaat.

'Closed-circuit relationship' denotes the parts interacting with each other and the whole, while the whole is in a relationship with each part. This interaction involves the parts changing while depending on themselves. Change in this context refers to temporal movement, where one event precedes another, and spatial movements involve interactions and exchanges among the parts. This change is 'closed' because the Jamaat is self-based, not on anything transcendent. It is 'circuitous' because, for these reasons, this operation is cyclic. 

Not depending on something transcendent is a fundamental characteristic of the community. However, this needs to be understood well, as, on the surface, all communities operate within a discourse and belief system, including mechanisms of transcendence or complementarity. Otherwise, they cannot envision adding the parts to the community. When we say not depending on something transcendent, we mean the absence of an actual dependence on something transcendent as an essence. The community covers what should be transcendent by making it "sustainable" and begins to live by replacing it with itself. There are various ways and forms of making anything 'sustainable.' The standard principle among all these ways is the 'name' given to what is named as the transcendent thing. This name is the name of the Jamaat and sustains the Jamaat. Each Jamaat member is made a part of the community with this name. The closed-circuit relationship operates according to this name. This name is open, but in itself, it is lifeless. In this regard, the essence of the community is the dead name presented as if alive; in other words, it is death. 

Those incorporated into the Jamaat as parts are introduced through a form of death – a lifeless death. 

Ultimately, another fundamental characteristic of communities is their operation based on 'a self-based closed circuit,' preventing them from opening up, spreading, and walking by ignoring and covering what they leave outside. Therefore, beyond a certain point, each Jamaat tends to annihilate another Jamaat irrevocably, meaning without transitioning to a new original being. At the very least, this is the general pattern. The act of annihilation here is a form of establishing dominance over the other. Like the internal shifting dynamics within a Jamaat, Jamaats interchange positions in this sense, demolishing others and taking their place. The result obtained, in terms of inter-community relations, once again leads to the continuation of the Jamaat. In this regard, this destruction does not express a real opposition; this is a partial manifestation within themselves of the basic principles of the Jamaat, meaning their inherently destructive nature towards their enemy in truth. 

The true enemy Jamaat seeks to eradicate is not the other Jamaats but the transcendent truth of all existence—the inherent unity of all existence, which cannot coexist with the Jamaat. Still, Jamaat can only persist by covering it. In this regard, jamaats move in alliance and harmony as adversaries to the truth of all existence.

The Latin equivalent of the concept of Jamaat is "ecclesia" (Church). By looking at formations expressed by the terms "institution," "organization," "group," and "cluster" instead of Church and Jamaat, it is easily observable that the Earth is under the domination of the jamaat-ecclesia.

Due to the communalization of many things referred to as "Tariq," when the term "tariqah" is mentioned, associations have started to come to mind that do not align with the specific historical examples, principles, and purposes of the concept of 'Tariqah.' Indeed, one reason is the misinterpretation of the Tariqah; however, the main reason is the gradual communalization of the Tariqah.

To rectify these errors and understand the Tariqah's emergence in response to identified needs, we examine the Tariqah's concept from crucial points. 

The term' Tariqah,' meaning path, even at first glance, distinctly conveys that it is a search, a process, a pursuit, different from the Jamaat in many aspects. As will be seen later, this meaning is not merely linguistic; it defines the essence and manifestation of the Tariqah. Search, process, and pursuit are concepts of being on a journey and a traveler on the path.

What immediately stands out here is that the Tariqah, with its meaning of a path, is inherently significant in a very distinctive way, primarily as a journey for the traveler. Indeed, from the beginning, Tariqah draws attention to 'the Path and the Traveler.' This is not a coincidence. Regardless of the perspective, considering the traveler is the starting point for understanding the Tariqah. This distinction is crucial. Something that directs attention to the 'individual,' like the 'Traveler,' bringing focus to the person, fundamentally centers on the individual, not the community. The most striking aspect of centering on the individual is that, in any circumstance, the sense of being a direct individual, a unique entity, is felt or desired abruptly in beings. In the depths of every being, there is an unconditional yet yearning and longing feeling of being an 'individual.' Therefore, even hearing the word 'traveler' can evoke indescribable emotions and initiate contemplation in a person. 'Traveler 'Is the most accurate, perfect counterpart to the sense of being an individual. Considering these feelings, the ultimate implications of the distinctions will be more clearly understood.

As much as attention is drawn to the traveler, the search is another concept that the Tariqah brings attention to. 

With a sense of search, we can imagine someone adopting a purposeful path. Hence, the term "tariqah," in other words, the "path" is inseparable from the activity of seeking, evoking a sense of search regardless of the perspective. This is not merely a linguistic situation. The names and actions that come to mind when referring to the followers of the Tariqah or Sayr'u suluk are the most apparent evidence of this. Emphasizing this point is crucial to understanding the principles of the Tariqah's concept.

Here, there is a connection between the searcher and the searched. This connection, again, stirs emotional and meaningful feelings deep within, in very intimate places for each individual. Contemplating the search and the searched brings forth things we suddenly recognize. We are intimately familiar with these feelings but rarely examine or articulate them immediately. However, if we want to understand the Tariqah in terms of its foundations, nature, and the needs it addresses, in that case, we cannot set aside these intimately familiar feelings. This is a way to comprehend the path and the traveler. Understanding the situation and position of a searcher, knowing how one is situated, is crucial. Because what is to be found will bring the traveler to the path.

More than simply pointing, talking about a search requires considering situations of need, loss, and separation, without which the state of search cannot be addressed. Among these, 'separation' is already the fundamental state of the traveler. When we talk about the traveler, the search is the main reason behind the feelings of estrangement, melancholy, and longing. We will delve further into this concept later on.

Returning to the context, if we consider the search, we realize that the one embarking on the search is fundamentally in need, has experienced a loss, and is in a state of separation. One who believes they already possess or are not separated does not need to embark on a search. One expects to grasp little from the search. Therefore, the Tariqah addresses the nature of those in need, those who have experienced loss, and those who have been through separation; it aligns with this typical nature. It does not appeal to those who have not tasted loss or separation or need or have become unable to taste, hear, or feel them anymore. How could it?

Someone who hasn't tasted loss, especially separation, wouldn't embark on a search. We cannot imagine someone like that. Therefore, envisioning Tariqah in such circumstances is inconceivable. The Tariqah is not here. It is self-discovered by those experiencing losses, brokenness, and the pain of separation. For now, we want to avoid sketching these general statements with exceptions and records.

Anyone who feels a sense of loss, experiences the pains of separation, and carries a heaviness or brokenness in their heart is suitable for coming to the path, ready to embark on the journey.

Continuing to look from these perspectives, we observe that Tariqah also demands a nature of struggle, a warrior spirit. Those who have experienced separation and loss have taken action by setting out on the journey. In other words, the Tariqah is the endeavor of those whose fabric is suitable for battle, effort, and dedication—those willing to face and engage in the struggle. Entering the Tariqah, becoming a part of it, or embarking on the journey cannot be expected from those not inclined towards battle, struggle, effort, or diligence or those unwilling to face these challenges. They can show enthusiasm, but it is clear that mere enthusiasm is not a sufficient driving force to progress with patience and determination in the face of hardships.

By progressing this way, we see in detail that the need that gave rise to Tariqah emerged from escaping to be a jamaat. The Tariqah is a natural process of fundamental human needs, behavior, and life's spontaneous struggle and progression. It is unacceptable for this path, which is in no way compatible with a haphazard life that is the product of lightness, memorization, and habit, to be transformed into a form that has nothing to do with these characteristics. Those who distort the subject of Tariqah into unrelated forms make a fundamental mistake by equating the concepts of the Tariqah and Jamaat, attempting to define the Tariqah with baseless descriptions. Two groups of experts do this if we do not consider crowds unfamiliar with the subject. One group consists of those not within the Tariqah but attempting to examine the matter on a doctrinal basis. The other group consists of those who claim to be within a tariqah but muddy the matter with things unrelated to the concept of Tariqah—so-called! Representatives or enlightened! Individuals. The second group, by claiming to represent any tariqah, further adds to the misconceptions of the first group. To avoid falling into the mistakes of both groups, the essential step is to define the concept of Tariqah accurately first. As described above, we establish a foundation by defining the term jamaat. Moreover, we proceed by addressing ongoing questions about the subject based on this foundation specific to ourselves. It is a sturdy way.

Before defining Tariqah, let's reiterate that by 'Tariqah,' we refer to 'Sayr'u Sulùk.' 

'Tariqah' (Sayr'u Sulùk) is an active path based on the principles of 'source,' 'guide and traveler,' and 'open-circuit transformation,' a dynamic path of 'becoming.'

Indeed, we defined Jamaat as follows:

"Jamaat" is a formation that sustains existence based on 'basis,' 'part-whole relationships,' and a 'closed-circuit operation.'

While trying to understand the differences between the Jamaat and the path of 'Sayr'u Suluk' (Tariqah), it's possible to see the reasons for their confusion.

Both the Tariqah and the Jamaat have their origins. The origin in the Tariqah is vibrant and in motion, whereas the origin in the Jamaat is lifeless and static. Understanding this difference can be approached through various means. Still, the most apparent comprehension lies in whether the basis as the origin can be constituted in the individual's experience depending on this basis.

There is a general principle applicable to all kinds of origins and identities: If the origin of an identity cannot be fundamentally diagnosed and constituted in the person with that identity, in other words, if the person cannot perceive what they have taken as the most fundamental origin directly within themselves, if this situation is impossible for the relationship between that origin and the individual, that origin, and that identity cannot be considered as an original identity.

What does this mean? It means that if an identity is an original identity, the thing considered as the origin of that identity, for someone seeking their essence, ultimately becomes perceptible within that person. If not, a person searching for their essence must surpass or cast off that identity with a spontaneous self-command.

For someone seeking their essence, a non-original identity is a chain, a captivity. Suppose the name and attributes given in response to the question "Who are you?" are not authentic and cannot be directly diagnosed within the person. If this is impossible, someone seeking their essence rigorously questions these names and attributes. As a result of this questioning, one day, they are discarded from top to bottom. For someone not seeking their essence, it continues to be a prison.

Therefore, the original identity is a matter of existence; it is, in fact, the primary concern of anyone who takes their existence seriously. It is by no means something that can be postponed or set aside. If it is subject to postponement and being set aside, the reason is that the person has yet to question the matter of existence. In other words, it is the failure to realize that one lives without an original identity. Indeed, there are reasons for this—reasons for not yet arriving at a matter of existence, for instance, being exposed to an excessive and diverse range of non-original stimuli, living based on habits, and even approving a life dictated and confined by external entities. These are a few common reasons. We must immediately state that the Tariqah (Sayr'u suluk) precisely works on these reasons, creates a counter-effect against their impact, and primarily makes the individual aware of such chains. Thus, the person can come to themselves, look directly at themselves, not to something else, to answer the question 'Who are you?' and be the answer, be themselves. This point will become more apparent in the upcoming writings. 

Therefore, the issue of origin is a complex matter. When asked, 'Who are you?' and you immediately look at the answers that come to your mind, you will see that each answer is based on an 'origin.' Suppose these origins cannot fulfill the minimum requirements mentioned above. In that case, the names based on these origins, in other words, the answers we give to the question 'Who are you?' are not 'original.'

Let's state these two requirements more explicitly:

The roots of the original identity,

1) Displays the characteristic of the ultimate essence or an inherent connection to it.

2) This essence can be directly diagnosed and constituted within the individual.

The first requirement is related to an inquiry, a search concerning the ultimate origin and principles of existence in a broad sense. The second requirement pertains to the individual's original connection and eventual transformation with these origins and principles.

These two requirements co-occur, intertwined. What is happening in this intertwining is called 'Truth.' In other words, it is called 'Reality.'

Those within it are called 'Truths,' and the time they live in is called the 'Realm of Truths.'

Therefore, these two requirements are an execution of the 'Realm of Truths.'

We will not delve further into this in this text.

If these two requirements are not valid for an identity, that identity is not original. The origin of such a non-original identity is not alive; it is dead. It is not dynamic; it has no execution. It is static. This stagnation, this lifelessness, this existence based on those who 'sustain' with this fundamental identity, stands depending on itself. It is self-sustained. The origin is specific to the Jamaat, and, in this sense, the support, thus, depends on itself.

The situation is different for the Tariqah (sayr u sulûk). Sayr'u suluk is a search and an identity inquiry. The techniques, methods, procedures, and other principles established for this questioning are connected to an essence, which can be directly diagnosed and constituted within the one walking on that path. In this regard, this origin is alive and in execution. Again, in this regard, this origin and principle are vibrant. Connected to the rooting essence, it is not self-dependent nor self-derived. Instead, it is related to a transcendent essence.

This essence originates spontaneously, independent of those engaged in the path (sulûk), and flows like rivers. Flowing from the essence, it reaches the traveler on this essence and transforms them because what flows in is the traveler and their path. 

In this regard, the time of the Tariqah is not a closed-circuit operation; it is a transformation flow circulating from an open source.

These two points, namely the difference in resource and operation, are the foundation and roof differences between the Jamaat and the Tariqah. These differences, metaphorically speaking, manifest in the building, namely the individuals.

The 'part-whole relationship' in the definition of the Jamaat and the 'journey of the traveler with the guide' found in the meaning of the Tariqah is related to the above point.

These points should also be considered in terms of their principles. 

Metaphorically speaking, looking at it from the perspective of a building, the Jamaat is a built whole made up of parts. But, in the Tariqah, the individual contains the essence of the whole, and the whole is a 'unique' 'place' for each individual. We understand that the whole and the individual are "connected" to each other as an 'architectural work of art.'

The Jamaat's essence lies in connecting the parts to the whole. This connection is established in various ways. Therefore, the Jamaat can manifest in multiple forms. For example, in the form of a state, a political party, a community of thought or belief adorned with military, medical, economic, political, religious, and intellectual embellishments, and in any place. Examples are numerous.

To become a part of the Jamaat, one needs to recognize the legal identity of the Jamaat, pledge allegiance to its legal articles, and ensure compliance with them. If necessary, the individual undergoes various orientation processes to align with these. When the essential and sufficient results for full compliance are achieved, the environment required for becoming a part is ready. After this, the part gets integrated into the whole in some way, and the individual starts to serve by fulfilling the directives or providing benefits that align with expectations. In other words, there is a duty. As a designated or talent-oriented service, this duty carries a functionality feature. Through this functionality, the individual feels they are performing a task, giving meaning to their position. However, beyond the visible functionality, the primary duty is to keep the jamaat standing. Therefore, any error that undermines the stability of the Jamaat, even if there is no deficiency in service from a functional perspective, is considered a 'primary offense,' and security protocols are immediately activated by the Jamaat. If the individual has attempted this primary offense without much awareness, various pressure and guidance mechanisms are employed to dissuade them from this deviant and 'objectionable' behavior. If the matter is not too severe, the person is brought to compliance through investigation, trial, and punishment processes. The mildest outcome of this can be expulsion from the Jamaat. Someone expelled from the Jamaat joins another or returns to their internal Jamaat.

The Jamaat members are aware of what the 'primary offense' is. Still, they don't know why it is considered the 'primary offense' – they don't understand the source of the offense. In this sense, no member of the Jamaat fundamentally knows what the 'primary offense' is.

The unknown nature of the 'primary offense' creates a situation where it cannot be confirmed or denied. The 'primary offense' exercises dominance without affirmation or denial, leading to the subjugation and enslavement of the individual.

A person consciously commits this 'unknown' crime by eliminating the 'unknown' aspect, which means if the 'unknown thing' is made known and understood why and how it exists, thus the crime cautioned by the Jamaat becomes 'harmless' for the individual. Let's not say more about it.

This unknown thing, which is well-known but not fully understood, is the soft spot of the community. Therefore, this vulnerability is circled by extraordinary protection and precautions. Jamaat members take these precautions on their own, collectively forming a unity. Thus, the Jamaat sustains its existence by depending on itself.

Thus, the Jamaat covers the truths which can only be achieved by moving outside the Jamaat. As a result of this covering, the inner world containing truths is sealed off for the members. The Jamaat takes the place of the truths for the members who close themselves off the truths. In other words, the community occupies the inner world of its members. Ultimately, the community member is left oblivious to the truth.

In the context of 'Sayr'u sulk' or the Tariqah, it does not conceal truths; on the contrary, it engages in a 'counter' action against the concealment of truths.

Both the community (Jamaat) and the Tariqah (Sayr'u suluk) have an inner and an outer Self. 

As explained earlier, the Jamaat's inner self is heedlessness (Gaflah.) 

However, the inner self of the Tariqah is Gnosis (Marifah) and truth (Haqiqah).

The one recruited into the community observes the Jamaat externally while being heedless internally.

On the other hand, the one connected to the path (Tariqah) sees various methods, techniques, and practices externally and embarks on an internal journey towards gnosis (Marifah) and truth (Haqiqah).

The inside of the Jamaat is fake and filled with heedlessness. In contrast, the inner self of the Tariqah (Sayr'u suluk) is authentic and stands up.

The journey, 'Sayr'u suluk,' differentiates the Tariqah from Jamaat. If the true meanings and essential activities of this journey are dispensed, and the claim of the Tariqah is replaced by superficial elements like discourse, appearance, clothing, rituals, and myths, then what emerges is not a genuine Tariqah that brings the disciples to their truth but rather a variant of a Jamaat. The Jamaat's path is a sleep without awakening, a lifeless death.

In a Tariqah that fails to return to the original meaning of Sayr'u suluk, there is neither Marifah (God's knowledge) nor Haqiqah (the ultimate truth). However, the inner self of a Tariqah that preserves or reopens its original meaning, wisdom, and truth resides, akin to boundless oceans with shores that neither words can fully convey nor lifetimes can completely grasp.

The path of truth and knowledge is the path of those willing to be strangers (Gharibin.)

So, "Blessed are the gharibin!"

Note I. :For the entire conceptual framework of the Jamaat (Ecclesia / Church) definitions expressed in this article, we owe infinite gratitude to Prof. Dr. Yalçın Koç.

Note II. :The attribution of the statement narrated from Caliph Ali (ks) is as follows: From Hâce Abdullah al-Ensarî ( Sheik’l Islam Herevî), Junayd-i Bağdadî, Serîy-i Sekatî', Serîy-i Sekatî Ma'rûf-u Kerhî, Ma'rûf, from Jafar-i Sâdıq, Imam Jafar, from Muhammed al-Bâkır, from Imam Bâkır Zeynulâbidîn, Imam Zeynel, from Hz. Hussain, Hz. Hussain and his father Caliph Ali (ks)