This is a post I never ever thought I'd have to make but since I'm given to criticizing other religions or their adherents I should be consistent and do the same for mine. Before I get into the meat of this post I want to offer a bit of relevant information.
Typically I find the reasoning for people changing religions to be weak. In particular I find that black people who convert from say, Christianity to Islam to only really be fooling themselves as, in my opinion a great deal of people born into Christianity are almost universally uninformed or mis-informed regarding the religion. I lay the blame for that squarely on the leadership. The other problem I have with such conversions is that many take the religions from which they convert to way more seriously then they took the religion from which they converted from. So for example when I hear people say, for example that they converted to Islam because they found it to be more stressful on the importance of family, I often respond that I know plenty of Christian denominations that stress the importance of family and that it is most likely that the denomination they belonged to did but they probably were too busy rebelling to pay attention.
On a related note, African-Americans have a special relationship with Islam given the activities of the Nation Of Islam. Many African-Americans who are Muslim today are Muslims largely by the example of Malcolm X and other high profile NOI persons. Through the NOI, Islam has been seen in the African-American community as the original religion of the black man, a wholly untrue statement but one that attracts many people. The NOI's reputation in dealing with "wayward" blacks has also attracted many black people, men in particular to Islam. The point here is that many conversions to other religions in the American Black community is largely due to a discomfort with the Christian church that most of us grew up with. The things that drive this desire to leave the Church are many but mostly fall into a few categories.
We have those that are frustrated by the churches apparent passivity in dealing with black issues.
We have those that reject Christianity as the religion of the white man.
We have those that reject the church because they don't feel accepted because they are a part of a marginalized group such as homosexuals and feel that the church is being too judgmental and dogmatic.
The first two people are generally grouped together because in general the dissatisfaction of the first group will usually lead them to information that puts them into the second group. Once one is in the second group there are a few things that happen. If one is wedded to the Heaven/Hell, Judeo-Christian idea of religion, then one is more likely to move towards Islam which, in spite of it's practicing differences is not much different from the Christian church in terms of monotheism, biblical history, etc. As an added bonus one can point to African countries that are Muslim and one can point to Muslims in African history.
For those of us not wedded to the Heaven/Hell, Judeo-Christian idea of religion, we tend to go towards Egypt and a few of us to the West African religions of the Yoruba and Assante. This is often the result of deep study into African history and culture as well as an acknowledgement that many African-American ancestors hail from these parts of Africa. Hence a great deal of us who find ourselves within the ATR community are there due not only because of a wish to find a more fulfilling religion but also to connect us to our history and heretofore lost people. One of the problems with this self discovery process is that many ATR adherents will present the particular faith system as the opposite of Islam, Christianity or Judaism. In this process they feel the need to make the ATR of their choosing conform to that which they object to or reject about those religions. Herein lies a huge problem. What happens in this process is the bending of an ATR to what we want a religion to be rather than conforming ourselves to that which the religion is about. Hence this post.
recently I had an e-mail appear in my inbox from a discussion group I am a part of. The e-mail posed what I thought was a ridiculous question: Is there right or wrong in Ifa?
"What a dumb question" I thought to myself. I was sure that someone would respond that yes Ifa has right and wrong, here's an Odu (story) and the question would be put to rest. I was shocked and disturbed when the following response came:
You have it right . Because Ifa is the Wisdom of nature. It is only concerned with balance not right and wrong. What is right and wrong involves dogma;ifa is gnostic as oppose to dogmatic. The bird is not bad for eating he ladybug;t is merely surviving and in the process, is keeping the planet from being overrun with ladybugs. It is the destiny of the bird to eat ladybugs. Ase? This is why Ifa has very few hard and fast taboos that apply universally to human beings. Because we make ans agreement with Spirit to follow a certain destiny when we re-inter the world ( Aiye), All of the Holy Odu do not apply to us, universally; thus the admonition against judging others . To assume that we know someones destiny, and therefore know what is good for them, is the height of arrogance. There would be no need for guidance from the ancestors and Orisa which speak through counsel with Orunmila , Iba Se. For example Orunmila says that it is best for a man to only one wife and yet in another Odu may speak of a man having more than one wife. This can be very confusing to the Western, linear mindset. The Odu that speaks of monogamy for the client is what puts that client in alignment with his destiny; however, the Odu that speaks to the other client about having a polygamous household applies to his destiny. The lack of dogma makes responsible for his/her life and therefore is empowering. That having been said , we come into the world good and blessed therefore Ifa teaches that simply having good character ( Iwa Pele) will assure that we are aligning ourselves with our destiny on the whole.
I responded:
must disagree somewhat with what is presented below. The fact that we strive for Iwa Pele, defined as "good" character means that there is good and bad in Ifa. Good character can only be good relative to something else. To take the bird example. it may be a matter of survival for a bird to kill an insect to eat, but would it be good for a bird to kill another bird? Well generally speaking, humans are the only species that kills other members of the same species, so given that it would be bad if a bird killed another bird. We would know that something is wrong.
I think that sometimes in our quest to be non-judgmental, we fail to allow ourselves to say when wrong is wrong is wrong. The fact that in yoruba society there existed "courts" prior to colonialism means that the ability to judge behavior is not outiside the culture of the Yoruba.
I want to note that when I said "bird" I meant to specify that it is abnormal if it happens at all) for a bird to kill another bird of the same species. Cross species killing may happen but is beyond the scope of the example. In response I was told:
What is Iwa Pele for one may not be Iwa Pele for another. A military person may have Iwa Pele in being a good killer. A priest my have Iwa Pele in being an understanding one. From what I understand Ifa does not jude the killer or the priest. We think we know what is good character this is where a lot of problem may come from. How do we know what is good or bad character for everyone? We do not.
Maybe good character comes in being able to accept all as what he is and realise if he is good at it he has good character as a killer. That way when dealing with him we will not expect him to act like a priest.?????
I responded by saying:
Presuming warfare is "good" then one can have "Iwa Pele" despite having to kill someone. That is, then, that killing may not be in and of itself a bad thing but the motive for killing may well be bad. There is a huge danger in supposing that something is bad only depending on how it is percieved. If we follow that thinking to it's logical ends, then having sexual relations with a child can be seen as "good" since by some reasoning it can be seen as beneficial. I'm not sure we want to go there.
A person who for their entire life is "good" who up and kills a person out of say jealousy. may well still have Iwa Pele , but as far as their actions are concerned they have done something wrong. we hear of this all the time when we see children or adults who are accused of crimes and their neighbors and family say how nice they were and the like. Whereas in other cases neighbors and family will say how they knew that such and such a person was "not right" or had an "evil" personality which is consistent with the bad behavior they exhibited.
Again. It is important to separate bad acts from bad character since people with good character can commit bad acts and people with bad character can commit "good" acts. Iwa Pele is supposed to be about the totality of ones actions and thoughts.
The last response to that was:
As a young priest I do not know what is good or what is bad. I only know that the best thing is to consult IFA because what maybe in accord with the destiny of the person I alone can not decide.
This has been a debate that I have seen in other groups and I do not understand how people determine good and bad. I have a friend that is very concerned with good and bad Karma so he does not achieve his goals and he makes a lot of people have problems for believing in him. I always think he puts too much attention on his lord and not enough on achieving his objectives.
The largest problem with the above response is that according to ifa, ones Ori (head, destiny) is chosen prior to the birth of the body. If there is no right or wrong then someones Ori could decide that they want fame and power by any means accessible. By the statement made by the priest, if that person came to a Babalawo who found that this persons destiny was to become rich and powerful by any means then the Babalawo would find himself in the position of giving the OK for murder if that option avails itself if such a thing would lead to the persons destiny. I cannot see how such a situation is deemed acceptible.
This was the basic close of the argument as the response to this was almost the same as the previous response. What is particularly disturbing is that the individual with whom I was having the conversation with could not even bring himself to say whether he thought that having sexual relations with a child was right or wrong. Now it is particularly disturbing that a priest could not make such an obvious judgment call. This individual brought up Karma (a hindu concept) to make his point. If one wants to use outside religious ideas to make the point in regards to Ifa, then one can simply go to Khemet where we find the Oracles of Maat where it states clearly:
"I will not mistreat children."
This is among 43 other Oracles discussing wrong behavior.
So then, One cannot state that ideas of right and wrong are the result of dogmatic religions such as Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Such a charge is simply unfounded. I find it disturbing that people are in Ifa in order to escape judgement or ideas of right and wrong. Of course there will be differences on what constitutes right and wrong but they will be there. If the leadership cannot say unequivocally that things such as child molesting is wrong, then the leadership of this religion will need to be held to account.
(17 years of informed commentary)
No comments:
Post a Comment