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....”

Why Is Ifa Divination System a Base2 System?

A curious Awo recently asked me, "why is it that Ifa is a base 2 system and not a base 6 system like a common dice?"

First off, to understand the ethno-mathematical structure of Ifa system, one must understand basic probability, exponents and the basis of natural numbers.

There's no secret as to why Ifa is a base 2 system. Nature, for the most part, operates as a base 2 system (Tibi Tire). The two legs of Ifa, the Chinese I Ching and even the computer systtem were created to simulate nature. Consequently, they're all base 2 systems. This explains why each shell in the 4x2 quantum Opele chain has two sides and why supplicants commonly phrase their questions, to Ifa, as two mutually exclusive affirmatives. 

Structurally, not only can each two-sided shell, in the 4x2 quantum Opele chain, be used to simulate nature (I.e. the dualistic decision making process of the human mind), it can also be adapted to produce bits of information. However, a six-sided dice (base 6 system) just does not have this structural advantage. In other words, a six-sided dice cannot capture the dualistic decision making process of the human mind. Consequently, it cannot be used to produce information to aid decisions. 

In other words, There's no question that a 4x2 quantum dice chain (6^8 possibilities) has more computational power than a 4x2 quantum Opele chain (2^8 possibilities). However, a six-sided dice has a structural limitation. It cannot capture the dualistic process of decision making. Consequently, quantum dice chain cannot be used to produce information to aid decisions. 

Has the Hieroglyphics Ever Been Deciphered?

The question that I've been asked, over and over again, is this: "has the hieroglyphics ever been deciphered." This is a very sensitive question. Consequently, it's always been met with a polite parry, but I'll attempt to answer it as briefly as possible regardless of whose feelings may be hurt. 

The hieroglyphics is the pictographic ancient Egyptian writing system. It's supposedly ideographic, phonographic, determinative and complex. 

THE NOTABLE ACTORS IN THE HISTORY OF DECIPHERMENT

1. Ibn Wahshiyya the Nabataean (circa 8th-10th Century CE) was allegedly one of the first historians to be able to at least partly decipher what was written in the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs.

2. Thomas Young (of the famed double-slit experiment in quantum physics, circa 1773-1829 CE) was an English polymath who made significant contributions in the decipherment of ancient Egyptian writing scripts including hieroglyphics.

3. Jean-Francois Champollion (circa 1790-1832 CE) was a French scholar who's credited for allegedly deciphering the hieroglyphics; although, there were accusations of plagiarism. Champollion' system of decipherment rested on Thomas Young's earlier works.

4. Joseph Fourier (of Fourier Series in Engineering and Applied Math, circa 1768-1830 CE) was a French mathematician, arguably one of the greatest mathematicians ever, who provided Champollion with some knowledge of calculus and statistics which allegedly helped in the decipherment of the hieroglyphics. Fourier was one of the scientists who accompanied Napoleon on the Egyptian expedition (circa 1799 CE). It's this expedition that led to the discovery of the Rosetta Stone - a trilingual stone; a key device in the decipherment. 

THE METHOD AND SYSTEM OF DECIPHERMENT

Both Young and Champollion reverse engineered the demotic Egyptian script on the Rosetta Stone to decipher the pictographic hieroglyphics. Young relied heavily on calculus and statistics in his system while Champollion relied heavily on Coptic, a language thought to be closely related to the ancient Egyptian language.

THE TWO KEY ASSUMPTIONS THAT WENT INTO THE DECIPHERMENT 

1. That all the three writing scripts and texts on the Rosetta Stone have the same meaning.

2. That the hieroglyphics is both ideographic and phonetic. 

Now, has the hieroglyphics been deciphered?

First off, even if I agree that the Rosetta Stone is authentic and not fictitious, the two assumptions above have to be correct for me to somewhat agree that the hieroglyphics has been deciphered. Secondly, if the hieroglyphics is indeed ideographic and phonetic. I agree, that one can map Latin alphabets (which English is based on) to the phonetic alphabets of the Egyptian script, but it's absolutely impossible for one to map same to ideographic alphabets. For example, under the Yoruba system, double stripes is a symbol of one of the two legs of Ifa. But here, in the West, double stripes is Adidas. In other words, you cannot arbitrarily map phonetic alphabets to symbols or ideograms like the pictographic hieroglyphics except if you're present in the culture from whence the symbols emanate. So, to the extent that I can't independently substantiate the two assumptions that were made above, I don't believe that the pictographic hieroglyphics texts of the ancient Egyptians has ever been deciphered.

I hope this answer your question. Ire o.

Odu Ose Otura

If I were to personify Ifa, I would say Ifa was the first feminist in the traditional Yoruba society.

In the Odu Ose Otura, Ifa speaks unequivocally about gender equality (not to be confused with gender role), and it goes something like this: "In anything we do, if we do not guarantee the place of women, that thing will not succeed. We should acknowledge the power of women, if we acknowledge the power of women, the world will be more balanced and peaceful.” Basically, this odu teaches us that men and women are equal, and men should not undervalue women.

The question is: if Ifa, which is the totality of Yoruba's spiritual, moral and natural philosophies, frowns upon the oppression of women and speaks so explicitly and eloquently about gender equality in the traditional Yoruba society, why then do we find traces of misogyny in the Yoruba society, today? Let's look no further than the religious proselytizing of the Abrahamic faiths (mainly Christianity and Islam) in the Yorubaland.

In other words, misogyny, as a concept, was introduced into most African societies; more specifically, Yorubaland by the Christian missionaries and Mohammedan Islamists. And as evidenced by the Odu Ifa verse above, prior to the advent of Christianity and Islam, misogyny was totally frowned upon in the traditional Yoruba society.

In fact, it suffices to know that, in the Old Kingdom, the Alaafin and the Oyomesi rejected Mohammedanism, now Islam, as the religion of the state, for its misogynistic doctrines, leading to an all out war and the enslavement of the Yorubas by the Mohammedans and the the Portuguese.

All in all, be a man; respect the womb. Look your lady in the eye; plant a kiss into her lips; recite Odu Ose Otura into her ears and tell her how much she complements you.