Why Ifa?

I strongly believe that the ability of humans to invent abstract concepts and subscribe to them, in large numbers, is the principal driver of human progress and civilization because subscribing to a common abstraction, in large numbers, creates mutual trust among the people, facilitates social cooperation, ameliorates social conflict and promotes nation building. As such, for a group of people to progress, in this world, and build a sustainable civilization, they must be able to subscribe to a common abstraction or story: myths, deities, spiritual philosophy and other “isms.” Unfortunately, when I look at Africa, specifically Yorubaland, I see a society where the people neither promote their traditional abstractions nor invent new ones. They mostly subscribe to different foreign abstractions. By the way, foreign abstractions are not necessarily bad except that they are often divisive and not germane to the local realities in Africa.

The question now is, if indeed subscribing to a common abstraction in large numbers creates mutual trust among the people, facilitates social cooperation, ameliorates social conflict and promotes nation building, what common or unifying abstraction should Africans embrace in order to build a progressive civilization? I cannot speak for other African nations but I can speak for the Yorubaland. I think Yorubaland should accommodate different abstractions or systems, but the unifying one must be Ifa.

Why Ifa?

1.  Ifa is the Yoruba knowledge base or the literary corpus of Yoruba mythology, epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy (moral, spiritual and natural philosophies), cosmology, and natural science. As such, without Ifa, the Yoruba, as a collective, are naked and empty.

 2.    It’s not enough to have a unifying abstraction or a common story that appeals to the populace, the abstraction must be malleable or adaptable to the present reality because human reality is dynamic and not static. Accordingly, Ifa should be nationally embraced because we find in the Ifa divination system some elements of mathematical, philosophical and technological knowledge that are relevant to the current information technology world.

     3.    In terms of information processing, the Ifa divination system converges not only with digital computers but also with quantum computers. In addition, the Ifa divination system has relevant applications in cryptography and quantum physics.

All in all, Ifa is qualified to be a unifying system in the Yorubaland because not only is it an indigenous system, its divination system, if properly studied and promoted, has some elements of mathematical, philosophical and technological knowledge that are useful in today’s information technology world. 

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0578517302?pf_rd_p=2edffb5d-036e-4cd0-bc77-99980e2d4856&pf_rd_r=FHXDRS4W78WFH2X4XADN

ORI, PERIODIC DIVINATION AND SACRIFICE

The question I’ve been asked again and again is this: “if Ori is indeed fixed and unchangeable, what then is the significance of periodic divination and ebo riru (sacrifice)?” 

While most people associate Ori with destiny, Ori is certainly not the only factor that controls human actions and the outcome of human actions. Human actions can be traced back to specific internal and external causalities. Ori is definitely the internal causality or the initial condition of human actions (the genes). 

If humans were digital computers, Ori would be the hardware while periodic divination and ebo ruru would be the software. In digital computers, the hardware is fixed but the software is “soft” and flexible. The hardware is what makes the computer powerful; the ability to run different software programs is what makes it flexible. Similarly, the Ori is what makes the human strong and powerful; the ability to engage in periodic divination and ebo ruru is what guides Ori to the path of Ire (the right path). After all, according to a common Yoruba aphorism: beni ose ri ola ori be lohun mu babalawo dafa oro run (the flexibility of reality is what necessitates periodic divination). Consequently, as Ori navigates reality, the periodic process of divination provides the necessary instructions or information for Ori while the act of ebo ruru guides Ori to the path of Ire; there’s no question that periodic divination and ebo ruru are significant to the strength of Ori.

ESU IS NOT SATAN

Before we can describe who Esu is, it is very important that we understand who Esu is not. Esu is neither the existential enemy of Olodumare (the Yoruba godhead) nor is he the bringer of evil on earth. So, now that we have some understanding of who Esu is not, let us look at who Esu is.

Who is Esu?
According to the Yoruba pantheon, there are four hundred and one (401) Orisa (deities) in Yoruba land. Two hundred and one of these Orisa are classified as higher or benevolent, while the other 200 are lower or malevolent Orisa. Esu is one of the two hundred and one higher or benevolent Yoruba deities. Esu is arguably the most powerful Yoruba Orisa, who is universally recognized and appealed to by all Yoruba regardless of their affiliation to other cults. Esu is the divine communicator and mediator between the Orisa and humans, the symbol of harmony, and the metaphysical guardian of oritameta (i.e.the crossroad).

As the mediator between the Orisa and men, Esu plays a role in the cults of other Orisa; especially, that of Sango, the powerful Orisa of thunder. Esu also has a close relationship with Orunmila (the patron saints of divination). The relationship between Esu and Orunmila is grounded in many myths. A myth relates that it was Esu who taught Orunmila the art of divination. In return, Esu, as the Orunmila instructor, demanded that Orunmila should ensure that a portion of every sacrifice prescribed and offered is given to him. Esu therefore has vested interest in the process of Ifa divination, and this is why babalawo almost always advise their clients to offer a sacrifice to Esu.

As the symbol of harmony, Esu often tries to achieve harmony between disharmonious elements. This is evident in a myth about Esu and two good friends. According to the myth, two good friends swore allegiance to one another but neglected to acknowledge Esu. These two friends worked on adjacent farms, separated only by a narrow path. One day, Esu walked on the narrow path between their farms, wearing a hat that is black on one side and red on the other. He exchanged pleasantries with both men as he walked past them. Soon after Esu had walked past, the two friends got to talking about his hat; one friend said the hat was black while the other friend said it was red. The two friends fell to violet quarrelling, arguing with each other about the color of Esu’s hat. The neighbors gathered around the farmland to stop the fight between the two friends, and then Esu arrived. The friends explained their disagreement, and Esu showed them the two-sided hat and chastised them for not putting him first in their doings (Davis 2010:176). Implicit in this myth are the following:

1.  The two-sided cap (red and black) is a metaphor for the binary nature of human reality (i.e. tibi tire).

2.  Opposites are part of a unified whole.

3.  The narrow path and the adjacent farms symbolize Oritameta (the crossroad), where life decisions are made – every decision is a crossroad.

4.  Esu sometimes creates chaos to show the false fabrications of oppositional ordering and reveal the underlying harmony.

5.  True belief may originate from sense-perception, but true knowledge rests on having adequate information.

Not only is the above myth embodies the nature and dialectic of the jointly completing relationship of opposites, it also explains the inherent binary nature of human choice and the crucial need for the refinement of human knowledge and choice through information mining.

And lastly, as the metaphysical guardian of the crossroad, Esu can keep peace in the market place and watch over the passageways and transition points in our lives. This explains why Orisa adherents offer sacrifices to Esu at the crossroads or at the passageways by the market place. Esu is many things, but Esu is certainly not Satan.

References
Davis, Erik. 2010. Nomad Codes: Adventures in modern Esoterica. Portland, OR: YETI Books.

Bolaji, Campbell. 2016. “Of color, character, attributes, and values of Orunmila.” Ifa divination, knowledge, power, and performance, edited by Olupona, Jacob K. and Rowland O. Abiodun, 302-304. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Robert, Pelton. 1980. The trickster in West Africa: a study of mythic irony and sacred delight. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.

Omotade, Adegbidin. 2014. Ifa in Yoruba thought system. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.

Traditional narratives or traditional lies? Let's examine Muhammed and Muhammedanism.

"There is little information about Muhammad in the Qur’an. The word “Muhammad” appears 4 times in the Qur’an. In three of the cases it could merely refer to a title, “the praised one,” or “chosen one.” Other names like Abraham appear 79 times, Moses 136 times, Pharaoh 74 times. The title “messenger of Allah” appears 300 times. Surah 33:40 is certainly a reference to a person, but it tells nothing about the life of Muhammad. Surah 48:29 also names Muhammad as a messenger of Allah" - Robert Spencer.

If there is little information about Muhammad in the Qur’an, where then did the name "Muhammad" come from? According to the available numismatic evidence, the name "Muhammad" first appeared, around 8th Century CE, in a coin that's minted by Abd al Malik (the 5th Umayyad Caliph). Abd al Malik coined the term "Muhammed(um)" as a phrasal commendation, meaning "praise be." The question is: praise be to who or what? It's "praise be" to Isa Ibn Maryam(Jesus), who, in direct protest to the Byzantium Church of Rome, was considered by the Monophysites/Nestorian Christians (I.e. the Umayyad) to be Abd Allah (I.e. servant of God) and Al Wali Rasul Allah (I.e. exalted messenger of God) and not Ibn Allah (I.e. the son of God) as claimed by the Byzantium Church of Rome.

The three phrases "Muhammed(um)," "Abd Allah," and "Al W(Ali) Allah," were transformed to proper names, around 9th Century CE, by the 7th Abbasid Caliph (Al Mamun) after he had usurped the Umayyad dynasty. Consequently, the phrase "Muhammed(um)," which originally meant "praise be," was redacted to a proper noun "Muhammed," and subsequently historicized as the Arabian prophet. Similarly, the phrase "Abd Allah," which originally meant "servant of Allah," was transformed to a proper noun "Abdullah," and subsequently historicized as Muhammed's biological father. Lastly, the phrase "Al W(Ali) Allah," which originally meant "exalted servant of Allah," was transformed to a proper noun "Ali," and subsequently historicized as Muhammed's son-in-law. 

For simplicity, the three aforementioned phrases can be illustrated with the following formulas:

Muhammed(un) (praise be to Isa Ibn Maryam) =Muhammed (Arabian Prophet/Christ).

Abd Allah (servant of Allah)=Abdullah ("Muhammed's father").

Al W(Ali) Rasul Allah (exalted messenger of Allah)=Ali (Muhammed's "son-in-law").

The Sassanid aristocrats of Iran adopted the last formula, which is the root of Sunni-Shia schism, today. And while some non-Arab Muslims can recite certain prayer words in the Quran, majority of them do not understand Arabic. Hence, their ignorance about the historical origin of Islam.

 

THE ROOT OF SUNNI-SHIA SCHISM

The Sunni-Shia schism emanated from these two formulas.

1. Muhammed(un) (who's the Arabian Christ) = Abd Allah (i.e. servant of Allah), where Abd Allah was later redacted to Abdullah  (I.e. alleged father of Muhammed) by the Abbasid political elites.

2. Muhammed(un) (who's the Arabian Christ) = W(Ali) Al-Amir Allah (i.e. the exalted representative of Allah), where W(Ali) was later redacted to Ali (I.e. the fabricated son-in-law of Muhammed).

As expected, the created object of Muhammedanism, who's Muhammed(un), had no male heir, making patrilineal succession difficult - note: originally, the word "Muhammed" was not a personal name; rather, it's a phrasal commendation, meaning "praise be" (I.e. praise be to Isa Ibn Maryam).

It suffices to say that the Western Arabs (the Ghassanids) adopted the first formula and created succession based on their Caliphate system while the Eastern Arabs (the Lakhmids) and the Sassanid Aristocrats of Iran adopted the later and created succession based on the fabricated family relationship between Ali and Muhammed(un). This explains why the Iranians are mostly Shites and the Saudis are mostly Sunni.

In conclusion: Muhammedanism, now Islam, was formulated by the Umayyad Caliph (Abd Al-Malik). It was later reformulated by the Abbasid Caliph (Al-Ma'mun). And its was finally consolidated by the Ottomans.

Is Jesus a Phantom Copy of Horus?

I’ve always been asked the following questions: if the story of Jesus is a phantom copy of the Horus and Mithra myths and if Horus and Mithra allegedly preceded Jesus chronologically, then can the assumption be made that Jesus was created as a phantom copy of Horus and Mithra? Two, can one simply conclude that the story of Jesus was plagiarized from the Horus and Mithra myths?”

No, the story of Jesus was not plagiarized from the Horus and Mithra myths, nor was Jesus created as a phantom copy of Horus or Mithra.

The story of Jesus and the myths of Horus and Mithra all came from the same source and were possibly written by the same authors around the same time.

So, what’s the common source of the story of Jesus and the myths of Horus and Mithra? The story of Jesus and the myths of Horus and Mithra were grafted from the  epigraphs on the walls of ancient Egyptian Temples - pictures they say speak a thousand words, and the ones on the walls of ancient Egyptian Temples live on on the pages of the Bible. I encourage my readers to engage in their our own diligent perusal of the ancient Egyptian epigraphs to reach their own conclusions. 

Now, if Jesus was not created as a phantom copy of Horus or Mithra, then what was Jesus created as? Jesus was created as a composite god in the likeness of Serapis while Serapis was created in the likeness of Osiris and Apis the bull. 

It suffices to know that nearly all the Greco-Roman gods came from Ethiopia, Egypt and Libya (see “the Black Athena” by Martin Barnal). For example, the Greco-Roman god, Zeus, was the same god as the hidden god of ancient Egypt called Amen. Today, Christians end their prayers by calling on the hidden god of ancient Egypt, Amen.

THE LAST OF THE EXISTENTIAL WARS BETWEEN THE MUHAMMEDANS AND THE YORUBA TRADITIONALISTS

The end of a dynasty.
One expedition into Yoruba heartland after another, the Fula Muhammendans destroyed, pillaged and depopulated Yoruba towns and kingdoms. Ifa and men of foresight had predicted the calamity that finally befell Yoruba kingdoms in the hands of Fula Muhammedans, but jealousy and rivalry among the Yoruba war-chiefs prevented unity of purpose. Whenever there was a war with the Fula Muhammedans, who had captured Ilorin, these chiefs usually acted against their own real and national interests, either by betraying their own nation and people or by colluding with the enemy. As a consequence of the inappropriate behavior among the chiefs, Yoruba country was weakened and it became an easy prey to the Fula Muhammedans who swore to rule over the entire Yorubaland. In fact, at one point, the capital city of the most powerful Yoruba Kingdom, Oyo, became tributary to Ilorin. This would change when Oluewu ascended the throne of Alaafin.

Soon after Oluewu’s accession, Shitta (the Muhammedan king of Ilorin) requested Oluewu to come to Ilorin, in person, to pay homage to him as his vassal, but Oluewu declined until he was advised, not without much effort, by his great chiefs to honor the request. Oluewu travelled to Ilorin where he was received with every mark of honor and distinction; but all the same, the shame and disgrace of it all, with unspoken resentment rankled in the chest of Alaafin Oluewu. Oluewu felt his humiliation keenly and was determined to resent it at all cost or die in the attempt. But that was not all; the Emir of Ilorin (Shitta) sent Jimba (his head servant) to place a copy of the Quran in the palace of Alaafin in Oyo, ransack the palace and bring anything of value he could find back to Ilorin.

Shortly after his first visit to Ilorin, Oluewu received a second request from Shitta, requiring Oluewu to come over to Ilorin to perform the humiliating ceremony known as “tapping the Quran” in order to become a true Muhammedan, but Oluewu flatly declined. Effort to get him to honor the request by his chiefs proved futile. Oluewu had had enough. Knowing fully well that his refusal could cost him his throne or even his life, he decided to launch a pre-emptive war against Ilorin once and for all. He invited the Baribas, who were excellent archers, to assist him in his war campaign against Shitta and Ilorin. Oluewu went to war with Ilorin; unfortunately, he was betrayed by his top generals and fell on the battle field. Oluewu death marked the end of the real traditional dynasty in Oyo - nearly 180 years ago, today.😥

Reference
Johnson, S. (1921). “The history of the Yorubas....”