Talk:Iyalawo

Controversy

In the Americas and parts of Nigeria, such as Ode Remo and parts of Ijebuland, the position of the Iyalawo as a divining priestess of Ifá is contested on the grounds that in the Ifá Odus Ogunda Ka and Oshe Yekun, no one can become a full Awo Ifá without the presence of Orisha Odu, and in the Odu Ifá Irete Ntelu (Irete Ogbe), Odu herself says that she would only marry Orunmila if he promised not to permit women to be in the same room as her. These views appear to be suggested by books published in Nigeria as far back as the 19th century. For instance, the eminent Yoruba author James Johnson wrote in one of the most detailed early descriptions of Ifá that "Whenever this should be the case, a woman would receive from a Babalawo only one Ikin or Consecrated Palm nut called Eko, which she would carry about her body for her protection, and whenever divination should recommend and prescribe to her sacrifice to Ifa, she would, for the time being, hand over her Eko either to her husband or to her brother, or any other male relative according to prescription, who would include it in his own Ikins for the purpose of the worship and sacrifice in which she would participate." William Bascom, the foremost academic authority on Ifá among the Yoruba up until the time of his death, conducted extensive field work Yorubaland in 1937-38, 1950–51, and as late as 1960 and 1965. This field work was conducted in a large number of areas of Yorubaland including the cities of Ife, Igana, Meko, Oyo, Ilesa, Abeokuta, Osogbo, Sagamu, Ilara, Ondo, Ijebu Ode or Ekiti in Yorubaland. At no time during this prolonged series of studies did Dr. Bascom encounter a female Ifá priest or an informant who had heard of such a thing leading him to state unequivocally that “only men can be babalawos." Sources from Yorubaland going back to the mid-19th century generally state that only men can become Ifá diviners, although it is true that the Reverend Samuel Johnson did say in "The History of the Yorubas" that in his day, the Ifá priests of imperial Oyo were led by the Iyalemole, the priestess of the Alaafin's personal oracle.

In the Ifá Literary Corpus that Awos use for confirmation in the odu EjiOgbe which documents that Orunmila initiated his firstborn daughter. The arguments of Odu forbidding women are noted by the fact that Odu itself is feminine and means womb and her nature is to give birth. The odu is for men to become like a woman and have a womb. Women do not need an artificial womb because they were born with one.

While Ode Remo now takes a posture of not initiating women, it demonstrates a history to the contrary as noted in "Women in the Yoruba Religion" by Ode Remo author Oluwo Olotunji Somorin and other sources.

As mentioned above, even in the acknowledged spiritual capital of the Yoruba, women were not initiated into Ifa until at least the 1990s due to the Odus mentioned above, so the Iyanifa/Iyalawo is not traditional at least in Ile Ife. Either the controversies involved should be addressed in this article or all mention of the Iyanifa/Iyalawo should be removed from here as well as in the article Babalawo as it would give an obvious bias to one side of the controversy in the articles. Lozen8 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe both POVs should be included as Iyalawo's are initiated in the present-day (regardless of past initiation customs for women). Omo Obatalá ^(talk) 17:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Please return the controversy section to the Iyalawo page. Also, please retain all references, including your own (I suggest you include the argument regarding Baba Ejiogbe and that proponents feel that "Iyalawo's are initiated in the present-day (regardless of past initiation customs for women)" as well as those stating the other side of the issue (including the Bascom, Johnson and Eason references). It should all be done using NEUTRAL language, trusting the good readers of Wikipedia to come to their own conclusions. A reference to the controversy should be placed in the beginning of Babalawo where the Iyalawo is mentioned so interested readers can come to Iyalawo if they are interested in learning more about the controversy. Thank you. Lozen8 (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that after you agreed to include both points of view, you have now removed all mention of the controversy from this page. For obvious reasons, I have reverted the page until which time I can do a proper edit. Thank you.Lozen8 (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted what is now an obvious attempt to astroturf Omo Obatala's idealogy. As she/he seems intent on constant reverting of this article, we may have little choice but to escalate the issue or propose it for deletion as a WP:Point violation.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lozen8 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to back up your claims; also, please try to reach consensus before adding controversial issues to the article. Your demonstration of WP:Point is invalid; perhaps you might be interested in understanding Wikipedia's WP:COI policy. Omo Obatalá ^(talk) 17:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As you well know, the subject of the Iyanifa (or Iyalawo as call it) is a controversial one in its entirety. You yourself agreed above to retaining a discussion of the controversy, thus reaching a consensus. You were also invited to edit th article to make sure both sides of the issue are adequately addresses. Instead you deleted the entire section regardingthe controversy. I have provided citations to reliable (academic) sources on the subject. Please realize that most of your citations are to web pages and self-published works which are not considered the most reliable sources. Please read reliable sources. Wikipedia is intended to be informative and neutral, not a personal forum to air personal viewpoints or to propagandize in favor of one side of an issue or another. I have formally requested mediation. Thank you.Lozen8 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it is controversial for some. Consensus was reached, however, it became WP:UNDUE, therefore, it wasn't WP:NPOV. I did not provide any citations regarding the subject so please do not accuse me of such. Omo Obatalá ^(talk) 20:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

A consensus among whom precisely? And I wouldn't sell myself short like that. Although, as far as sheer numbers go, the Lucumis are generally acknowledged as having a large majority. According to Wikipedia, in Nigeria the traditional practitioners make up only 1.4% of the population and the Ooni of Ife the spiritual capital of the Yoruba is a born again Christian, and the Alafin of Oyo is a Muslim. Of course in Latin America and in the United States, the vast majority are Lucumi although the neo-traditionlists are making some significant gains in the U.S. Despite this. the views of neo-traditionalists (such as I have to presume you must be) also have value.Lozen8 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)