Religion Ancient India

A few days ago, I re-published (in: ‘The Inexorable Radiation of Waaqeffannaa, the Oromo Religion’ - http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/60798) an excellent paper written by one of Oromia’s foremost intellectuals, Mr. Getachew Chamadaa Nadhabaasaa, a theological analysis of Waaqeffannaa, the historical Oromo religion (under the title Waaqeffannaa - Testimony of an Indigenous Religion of the African Past and Present). 

As I intended to extensively comment on that text that serves as a founding text for a new phase of Waaqeffannaa, as written religion, I encrusted numbers in the text. Two parts of the commentary have already been published (‘Ancient Egyptian and Kushitic Religions and Waaqeffannaa Oromo Religion’ / http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/61419 and Waaqeffannaa Oromo Religion and the Unavoidable Death of Fake ‘Ethiopia’ / http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/63090). I will continue in the present article. My present comments relate to the numerated points in Mr. Nadhabaasaa’s text (as above). 

Commentary 

33. The author is probably acquainted with Islamic extremist literature on Islam, and all modern currents of Islamic theology derived from Wahhabism and Ibn Taimiya. In this, he is as wrong as all the Western Evangelicals and others who depict Islam through the words and the analyses of the deformers of Islam, namely the sheikhs who promise to stick to the tradition and, in doing so, they idealize the form and they deplete the contents. This view of the after death life was not shared by the great Islamic philosophers of the Golden Era of Islam, who were much closer to the theoretical approach of the Ancient Egyptians. The ‘reward’ concept reflects typically polytheistic and idolatrous approaches, and in this regard Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taimiya did the greatest harm to Islam; if one goes through pages of Mohyieldin Ibn al Arabi and Ibn Hazm, one realizes that there was a ‘function’ concept (in contrast with the ‘reward’ concept) among Islamic philosophers. 

34. This is very wrong; it does not make honour to an Oromo theologian to misinterpret terms of another religion. Behind this expression is hidden a misinterpretation of the name of ‘Islam’; it does not mean ‘slavery’ but ‘submission’. It makes a vast difference! In fact, there is no great disparity between Waaqeffannaa and Islam in this regard; what is considered as righteous and peaceful path for the Man to follow in life in Waaqeffannaa is called Islam (submission to God) within the context of Islam. Different names for the same concept. In fact, both religions demand of their followers to engage in the path of personal peace and integrity; slavery is totally impermissible in Islam. Malpractices of rulers rejected by the majority of Muslims in their times cannot be opportunistically used by a theologian of another religion because the act in itself reveals dishonesty. There is a vast difference between asserting that one religion has been the object of malpractice and using unrepresentative moments and denounced practices and persons to portentously denigrate the religion in question.