Muta Baruka: A New Faculty of Interpretation (Plus Comments)

Greetings, the following article is written by Muta Baruka and might be interesting to read and/or comment on.

Is the bible the Word of God? Most reggae musicians - Rastafarian or otherwise - accept that it is. Like any other Jamaicans, we were all taught to believe that there was no teaching of morality or history outside of the bible. In writing this article, I am aware that it might go against the perception of you, the reader. May you keep an open, searching mind as you continue reading my reasonings.

When Rastafarians began the quest to find Self, the only book that was available to us was the bible and so the totality of what we understood to be true was based primarily on interpretation of this book. Even the idea of Haile Selassie as an afrikan God was justified and validated by the bible. We, as afrikan people brought here from afrika under inhumane conditions, were forced to live - even now - without any kind of identity. This was also justified through the bible by the European invaders and those afrikans who sought to rationalize this enslavement by declaring that this was an Act of God. The influence of this book runs deep. Over the years, Rastafarians declare themselves to be Israelites as referred to in the Old Testament, so that words and phrases such as Zion, Promised Land, the wicked Pharaoh and Jah became part of the language of the Rastafarian movement.

What I am really trying to say here, is that our own religious knowledge goes back no further than the 6,000 year history presented by this bible, (from Genesis to the beginning of this century, according to the bible, is 6,000 years). History and archeological evidence prove Ethiopia and Egypt existed thousands of years beyond that - much, much more than a mere 6,000 years.


Rastafarians have been very influential because of our music and cultural practices. For Rastafarians to move forward in this time, we will have to go beyond the bible, we can no longer continue to justify Haile Selassie’s divinity through the Davidic link. Ethiopia existed thousands of years before Abraham walked out of the Ur of the Chaldees. Even Egypt, which as been demonized by the authors of the Old Testament, existed thousands of years before Israel.

We can not continue to close out other information that is not in line with the bible. The bible is just one set of peoples’ understanding of human behavior and personality. The events recorded in the bible are on the periphery of afrikan knowledge. Stories recorded in the bible have their genesis in other indigenous people’s folk tales. What we are taking as history is other people’s mythology.

In Ethiopia, whether by
design or accident, the Church has not gone beyond the story of Solomon and
Sheba to justify Ethiopia’s presence in history. We can clearly see that there was a deliberate attempt to erase the feminine representation of Ethiopia’s personality and this resulted in a rise in a system of patriarchy that was very alien to afrikan culture. One would conclude that Ethiopia’s religious beginning starts with the union of Makeda and Solomon, but the only information received about Makeda is that she worshiped the sun and that she conceived for Solomon.
The significance of the Queen of Sheba’s visit to Solomon is very important in validating Ethiopia’s link with a Jewish heritage because this is used to substantiate Ethiopia’s true monarchy and lso the Godhead linkage.

A return to the feminine principle is very important in the unraveling of our ancient spirituality. What we have professed has helped us so far, but it’s up to us to now move it further. We can no longer be like Christian fundamentalists - or Islamic fundamentalists for that matter - who are stuck in a history that does not provide them with an understanding of new thoughts and new life styles. We are living in a new era of information - a time when one can travel from London to New York in three hours, when one can click a switch and illuminate a stadium filled with thousands of people, a time when a person committing a crime in one part of the world can be viewed instantaneously in another through modern technology. This is the age of information, but inspiration without information sometimes leads to superstition.

Given what I know now, I refuse to accept this limited view of Ethiopia and its contribution to world spirituality because this view has stagnated our concept of religion in afrika and how we relate to other cultures. I refuse to keep validating my perception of the divinity of Haile Selassie through an Israelite god. Ideas of emperors being gods existed long before the presence of the Israelites in Egypt. We, as Rastafarians, can find the essence of our spirituality in an Ethiopia and Egypt void of Israelite interpretation.

We are the creators of our destiny, we are the shapers of our future and our spirituality must reflect this new faculty of interpretation. We must not be afraid of the deep. Rastafari can only continue if we who profess this faith, understand that afrikan philosophy and Afrikan spirituality cannot be bound into any book.

Our need to understand each other and our environment is very crucial in the rationalization
of our existence. This can only be realized through clarity of perception. Religion does not offer clarity. What religion offers is a perception and this perception comes through belief. This belief comes through faith and, as we know, faith is not knowledge. Faith is what we would like our perception to be or not to be. Haile Selassie declares, "We must not confuse Spirituality with Religion." Rastafari must not be bound by religious perceptions because this will cause stagnation of the movement and thereby create fundamentalism. We must be open to the different cultures of afrika and not demonize them because of biblical interpretations.

The journey is never-ending and the race is not for the swift. There are many rivers to cross and so much trouble in the world. We will have to wake up and live! Rastafari must continue to rock the boat with a new faculty of interpretation.

http://www.mutabaruka.com/newfaculty.htm

I have a lot of respect for Muta Baruka, because he is not afraid to sound his voice and say the politcal incorrect thing that must be said.

So when I respond by expressing my disagreement with the article, I will do so in a thoughtfull way. I think Muta wrote this article as a start of a debate or reasoning, and as he apologizes when he "might go against the perception of the reader", I too apologize in advance for having to respond in disagreement as well.

I think, that Muta takes a few preconceptions which are not accurate. For example, he says the history written in the Bible is only 6000 years old. Well, the first three words of the Bible ("In the beginning") would place the Bible older than these 6000 years if the earth was older (and I believe it is).

He says, that "Egypt is older than Israel", which indicates that Muta believes the Old Testament to be the "History of Israel". Well, it's not. The Bible is the total history of creation, and we don't know how old creation is. Muta refers to scientifical ideas around the age of the earth and so on, but these ideas are all based on western conceptions mistakenly called "science".

Muta says that the "Church" (whatever that may be) doesn't look beyond Solomon and Sheba in their sighting of Ethiopia. That maybe true, but Muta forgets that Ethiopia is mentioned in the very first page of the Bible.

He then continues by establishing that (emph. mine) "For Rastafarians to move forward in this time, we will have to go beyond the bible, we can no longer continue to justify Haile Selassie’s divinity through the Davidic link".

In my opinnion, Muta is very right in his statement that in order to see the Ethiopian Emperor as Divine or "God", one has to "move beyond the Bible". I would like to add, one would have to go pass HIM's own statements. The fact that HIM has left the visible spectrum (some say he died) is another reason why -indeed, in my words- His Majesty can not be seen as the/an Incarnation of the God described in the Bible. So I agree with Muta here, even though our conclusions are quite different and show in my idea our (pre)conceptions.

It's all about, how do we define God or "The Divine"? One could look to it from what is usually called a Biblical Perspective, one can also adhere to a Pagan perspective or one can have a view just like the Hindu's have ("The Force").

I disagree with Mutabaruka, that just because it turns out that HIM cannot be "Biblically" seen as JAH, we must therefore turn to other sources that do confirm what is conceived.

His own definition of God, as he says "The feminine aspect", is his own. It's based on his conceptions. To say that these conceptions are "older than the Bible" is absurd, in my opinnion. I have started my reply by giving counter-argumentation against the arguments Muta gives in order to "move beyond the Bible" so to speak. When the Bible speaks about "in the beginning" (of Creation, whichever age is might be), there is nothing "before the Bible".

It's about: do we recognize there is a Creator, a Person, apart from His Creation? Was everything created by itself or by an external Creator?

It's obvious, and I recommend Muta for this too, that he is not claiming to "know it all". He says, that would make him like "fundamentalists". I don't think there's anything wrong with being a fundamentalist, for it means: "standing on a foundation". Where there is no foundation, how can there be a building? Any storm will take it away.

So what I see in this article is not so much a new idea, but a recognition of the fact that because of several reasons, HIM (His Imperial Majesty) can indeed not be seen as "God" in the "Biblical sense".

Within Rastafari, there has allways been -if you will- two streams. One is of a more Othodox Christian weay, the other is more of an Esotheric way. It's obvious, that these two exclude each other's concepts of "God/Divine".

Our doctrines concerning God/The Divine therefore are not identifyings us as being (or not being) Rastas.

I do think, that those who are more of the Orthodox Christian thought, will more and more turn to the belief that HIM is not JAH, but an Ikon of Christ. And those who are more esoptheric, will see the fact that Haile Selassie left the visible spectrum in the context that HIM was "only showing us that we are all divine".

I don't think, that either two of the streams should call the other "non-African". Both streams are based on a poisitive look to HIM and what HIM said. HIM was a supporter of the Bible and Christianity. If only for that reason alone, we should not call eachother "non-African" in our believes when we follow a more Christian way or a more esotheric way?

One is not "more" African than the other. The simple reason for that is, throughout the whole planet people have conceptions of the Divine like Muta has them. And thoughout the whole planet, people have conceptions of God like the Christian Orthodox have them.

One last remark: it's true that the "Bible" and "Christianity" are used as tools by the enslavers to keep a certain control. Isn't that something which all Rastas see?

However, the Bible itself condemns the slave drivers, identifies Babylon System and places Africa in a spercial position from the first page and beyond.

Then, there as another tool which the Babylonians use(d) to keep the slaves -and themselves- under satanic control. This is what is now called "science". The very same science that teaches Muta about "older than the Bible" and so on. It's theories of evolution, which are used to this day to justify white supremacy (eugenics) for example