Think Ethiopia

ርዕስ: ምድራዊው መልአክ ቅዱስ ያሬድ
ደራሲ : በታደሰ ዓለማየሁ
የሕትመት ዓመት : 2018
ዘውግ : ሥነ መለኮት
የገፅ ብዛት : 589

ደራሲው በበርካታ የሃገር ውስጥና የውጪ ቋንቋ የተዘጋጁ መጻሕፍትና ጥናታዊ ጹሑፎች ዋቢ በማድረግ እንዲሁም ዐቅሙ የፈቀደው ቦታዎች ድረስ በመሔድ በመጎብኘት ቃለ መጠይቅ በማድረግ መጽሐፉን አዘጋጅቶታል። መጽሐፉ አጠቃላይ 14 ምዕራፎች አሉት።

በየምዕራፉ የተነሱትን ሐሳቦች በጥቂቱ ፦

ምዕራፍ አንድ የሚዳስሰው ስለ ምስጋና ነው። መቼ ተጀመረ እና አከፋፈሉን እግዚአብሔር በባሕርይው ምስጉን መሆኑን እንዲሁ ፍጡር ለፈጣሪው፣ ፍጡር ፍጡሩን የሚያመስግንበት ምስጋና፣ ፈጣሪ እኛን ልጆቹን የሚያመስግንበት ምስጋና ሁለተኛው ክፍል ደግሞ ስለ ዜማ፥ የቃሉ ትርጉም፣ አጀማመር፣ አከፋፈል፣ እንዲሁም ዜማ በኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋሕዶ ቤተክርስቲያን ያለውን ሁኔታዎች ይዳስሳል።

በምዕራፍ ሁለት በአባታችን ቅዱስ ያሬድ ላይ የተጻፉ ቅዱሳት መጻሕፍትን ይዳስሳል ከመሐል ዐዲስ አበባ እስከ አኵሱም፤ ከሐይቅ እስጢፋኖስ እስከ ፈረንሳይ፤ ያሉትን በርካታ ገድላት ፈትሾበታል። እንዲሁም አስከትሎ መልክእ፣ ተኣምር ፣ አርኬ ፣ ነግሥ፣ ዚቅ፣ .....ተዳሶበታል።

በምዕራፍ ሦስት፣ የተነሡት በቅዱሱ አባት በታሪክ ምንጭነት የሚያገለግሉ የብራና ጹሑፎችን የተመለከተበት ክፍል ነው። የአባታችን ድርሳኑ፣ ገድሉ፣ ተኣምሩ፣ በወርኀ ግንቦት 11 ስንክሳሩ በአንደኝነት ምንጭ ተጠቅሟቸዋል። ሁለተኛው የታሪክ ምንጮቹ ፣ ምዕራፍ፣ ጾመ ድጓ.. ሦስተኛው ምንጭ ደግሞ EMIP 33 (Manuscript ) ተጠቅሟል። (4)ኛ ገድለ አረጋዊ 5ኛ ... እስከ ተኣምረ ኢየሱስ ያሉትን ተመልክቶበታል። በዚህ ክፍል በምንጭነት ደረጃ እስከ ስምንተኛ ምንጭ ድረስ ተከፍለዋል።

ምዕራፍ ዐራት፣ የሚያትተው በሃገር ውስጥና በውጪ የተጻፉ መጻሕፍት እና ጥናታዊ ጹሑፎች ፣ ጋዜጦች ፣ መጽሔት የመመረቂያ ጽሑፍ ተዳሰዋል። በምዕራፍ ዐምስት በቅዱስ ያሬድ ላይ አሻሚነት የሚታይባቸው የታሪክ ክፍሎች ተተችተዋል፣ የአባት እናት ስም፣ የትውልደ ሐረጉ፣ የተወለደበት ዓመተ ምሕረት በሰፊው በመዳሰስ ዐመቱን በቤተክርስቲያን የዘመን አቈጣጠር መሠረት ዐሳይቷል። ቅዱስ፥ ተሠወረ ወይስ ዐረፈ? ስለ ዖፈ አሮድዮን፣ ስለ ወፎቹ ቀለማት፣ ያሬድ ወደ ኢየሩሳሌም ሰማያዊት በአካል መነጠቅ ወይስ መመሰጥ? ስለ ዝማሜ ማን ጀመረው፣ ስለ ቅኔ አጀማመር ወዘተረፈ በርካታ ርእሰ ጉዳዮች የተዳሰሱበት ሰፊ ክፍል ቅዱስ ያሬድን ለዘመናዊው የዘፈን መነሻ ተደርጎ የተሳለበትን መንገድ በብርቱ ይሞግታል። ባቲም በሉ አንቺ ሆዬ ምንም ዐይነት ዝምድና ከዚህ ከመላእክት ምስጋና ጋር ኅብረት የላቸውም ። በዓላማም ሆነ ባላቸው የዜማ ሁኔታ አይገናኙም ዘፈናችሁን ይዛችሁ እዛው ብሎ ዘመናዊ የዘፈን ተንታኞችን ይሞግታል (በብርቱ ሠርጸ ፍሬ ስብሐትን ከተናገራቸው ከጻፋቸው ተነሥቶ ሞግቶታል)።

ዘፈን ኀጢኣት አይደለም የሚሉትንም አበክሮ ያስረዳል። በዘፈን፣ በመዝሙር፣ በሙዚቃ፣ በዜማ ከቃላታቸው ትርጕም ጀምሮ ያለውን ልዩነት በዚህ ክፍል ዐሳይቷል ። በምዕራፍ ስድስት፣ በዚህ ክፍል ጸሐፊው ዓለማየሁ ታደሰ እርሱ ያመነበትን መረጃዎች በዚህ በኩል ልቤን ያደላድሉታል ብሎ ያመነበትን የቅዱሱን ሕይወት ከልጅነት እስከ ተማሪነት ፣ ከተማሪነተ እስከ መምህርነት እስከ ቅዳሴዎችንና ውዳሴዋን ማዜሙ፥ የዐጼ ገብረ መስቀል በቅዱሱ አባት ዜማ ያሳዩትን ተመስጦ እስከ ምናኔው ያለውን በሙሉ ያትታል ቃል ኪዳን መቀበሉን ዐሳይቶ መሠወሩን ነግሮን ታሪኩን ይደመድማል ከላይ እንዳልነው ይህ ምዕራፍ የጸሐፊው አቋምም የታየበት የታመነበት የቅዱሱ፥ የታሪክ ክፍል ነው።

በምዕራፍ ሰባት፣ ደግሞ የቅዱስ ያሬድ፥ ትምህርቱ በልጆቹ ላይ የተጓዘውን ሰንሰለት ያሳያል በአክሱም፣ በዙር አባ (አምባ)፣ በቤተልሔም የድጓ ምስክር ጉባኤ ቤት መምህሮቻቸውን ከነ ገዳማቱ ታሪክ አስነብቧል።

በምዕራፍ ስምንት፣ የቅዱስ ያሬድ፥ ድርሰቶች ምንጫቸውን ጥቅሶቹን ከነምዕራፋቸው እያጣቀሰ ያስቀመጠበት ክፍል ነው። የቅዱስ ያሬድ ድርሰቶችን በየክፍላቸው እያስቀመጠ በአጭሩ ሐተታ ሰጥቶበታል። የዘመናቱን አከፋፈል ከነትርጉማቸው እንዲሁም የዐቢይ ጾም ሳምንታትን ያሳያል።

በምዕራፍ ዘጠኝ፣ የቅዱስ ያሬድ፥ የዜማ ዐይነቶችን ያብራራል፣ ከነምሳሌነታቸው ያስነብበናል። እንዲሁም የቅዱስ ያሬድ ያዘጋጃቸውን ስምንቱ የዜማ ምልክቶች ፦ ድፋት፣ ሂደት፣ ቅናት፣ ይዘት፣ ቁርጥ፣ ጭረት፣ ርክርክ ፣ ደረት ምሳሌነታቸውን ጠቅሶ ያስቀምጣል።

በኋላ የተነሡ ሊቃውን የጨመሯቸውን ሁለቱ ምልክቶችንም አብራርቷል፣ ድርስና አንብር ናቸው። ሊቁ የዜማ አርእስቱ በሃያ ሁለት ከፍሎ ማዘጋጀቱን ከነማብራሪያውም በዚሁ ምዕራፍ አስቀምጧል። የቅኔ ዜማ፣ የቅዳሴ ዜማ ፣ የቅዱስ ያሬድ "ቅዳሴ"፥ ካልታተሙት ስድስቱ ቅዳሴያት አንዱ የእርሱ መሆኑን ቀሲስ አምሳሉ ተፈራን ጠቅሶ ያስቀምጣል። ጸሐፊው በዚህ ምዕራፍ የቅዱስ ያሬድ የዜማ ጠባያትን እና ይዘትን አብራርቷል። እንዲህም ይላል፦ "የቅዱስ ያሬድ ድርሰት ከቅዱሳን መላእክት የተገኘ፣ ዜማው ነቀፋ የሌለበት ንጹሕ፣ ነውር የሌለበት ቅዱስ፣ ምሬት የሌለበት ጥዑም፣ ኅልፈት የሌለበት ሕያው፣ የማያስቀምጥ የሚያነቃ፣ የማያስተኛ የሚያበረታ፣ የማያደክም የሚያተጋ የማያሰንፍ........። የቅዱሱ ያሬድ ዜማ ሰማያዊ በመሆኑ ኅሊናን የመመሠጥ፣ ሥጋዊ ደስታንና ኀጢአትን ከማሰብ የመጠበቅ፣ ሰማያዊውን ድንቅ የምስጋና ምሥጢር የማሳወቅ ኀይል አለው። ( ዓለማየሁ ታደሰ ፣ ምድራዊ መልአክ ገጽ 434፣ 2018 ዓ.ም)። የቅዱሱ ዜማ ለእኛ ለኢትዮጵያውያን ምግብአችን መሆኑን አብራርቷል። መላእክት ምስጋና እንጀራቸው እንደሆነ እኛም የቅዱስ ያሬድ ዜማ ምግባችን ነው ይላል።

በምዕራፍ ዐሥር፣ አቋቋም፥ ምንድርን ነው ብሎ ከነታሪካዊ አመጣጡ እንዲሁም፣ የጎንደሬ አቋቋም እና የመምህራን ሐረጉን በሠንጠረዥ ዐሳይቷል። የተክሌ አቋቋም ታሪኩን እስከ ዘር ሐረጉ ዐሳይቷል፤ ድጓው የራሱ ይትበሃል እንዳለው አቋቋሙም አለው ብሎ አትቷል። ሌላኛው ርእሱ በዚህ ምዕራፍ ስለ ማኅሌት ነው ታሪካዊ ሁኔታውን ፈትሾ በውስጡ ስለ አሉት አገልግሎቶች በስፋት ጽፏል፣ አስከትሎ በማኅሌት የምንገለገልባቸውን ነዋየ ቅዱሳትንም ከነትርጕማቸው ተንትኗል። በማኅሌቱ ላይ የሚለበሱትን አልባሳትም ምንነታቸውን የያዙትን ውክልናም አብራርቷል። በዚህ ምዕራፍ መጨረሻም ላይም ሥርዐተ ዑደትን ዐሳይቷል። የተቀጸል ጽጌ ታሪካዊ ሁኔታና የዑደተ ሆሣዕናን ምንነት አብራርቶበታል።
በምዕራፍ ዐሥራ አንድ፣ ስለ ቅኔ ምንነት በቅዱሳት መጻሕፍት ውስጥ እንዲሁም አጀማመሩን ያስረዳል ። ቅኔ፥ በቅዱስ ያሬድ የተጀመረ ነው ቤት የማይመታበት ጊዜያት ቢኖሩም አልፎ አልፎ ግን ቤት እየመታ በሁለትም በሦሰትም በዐምስትም ቤት የተወሳ ሁኖ ሂደቱ የቅኔ መንገድን የተከተለ ነው ይላል ።

በምዕራፍ ዐሥራ ሁለት፣ ቅዱስ ያሬድ ለሃገር ያበረከተውን ትሩፋትና ተግዳሮቶች ጠቀስ እናድርጋቸው፦ ዜማው ለሃገር ሀብት ነው፣ የመጀመሪያ ደራሲ ነው፣ የመንፈሳዊ ቅኔ ጀማሪ፣ የዜማ ምልክቶች ጀመሪ፣ ...ወዘተረፈ ። ተግዳሮቶቹ ምንድርን ናቸው፦ የተቃዋሚዎች መነሣት ነው፣ የሊቁን ዜማ ለመጠቀም ዐጼ ገብረ መስቀል ለካህናቱ ቢያሳስቡም እሺ በጄ ያላሉ ነበሩ። (ያንገራገሩቱ ሁሉም በክፋት አይደለም ከእግዚአብሔር መሆኑን ሳናውቅ መጠቀሙ ተግቢ አይደለም ያሉ በክፉ የተቃወሙ ናቸው። ምድራዊ መልአክ፣ ገጽ 510 ተመልከት ) ። የዮዲትና የግራኝ አሕመድ መነሣት ለትምህርቱ መስፋፋት ሌላኛው እንቅፋት ነው። መምህራን ባሉበት ቢያስተምሩም ዜማው መሠረቱን ሳይለቅ ነገር ግን አንዱ አጠር አንዱም ዘረም ሌላውም በጣም በማስረዝም የቆሜ የአጫብር የቤተልሔም ወዘተረፈ የሚባለው ልዩነት ተፈጠረ ይላል ታደሰ ዓለማየሁ። ማኅሌተ ገንቦ፥ ይህ ድርጊት ሌላው ተግዳሮት ነው ። (አሁን በማኅበራዊ ሚዲያ የምናው እስክስታ እውነትም የቅዱስ ያሬድ ዜማ አንዱ ፈተና ነው)። ታሪካዊ መነሻው ካህናቱ ከፋሲካ ማግስት እስከ ጰራቅሊጦስ በመሳፍንቱ በመኳንንቱ ቤት ተጠርተው ከበሉ ከጠጡ በኋላ ስሜታቸውን በዐማርኛ ግጥም ሰውነታቸውን እያንቀጠቀጡ እያስጨበጨቡ የሚገልጹበት ነው። ማኅሌተ ገንቦ ከማኅሌቱም ሆነ ከሊቁ ቅዱስ ያሬድ ጋር ዝምድና የላቸውም እንደውም ቅጥሩም ላይ ደርሶ አያውቅም ነበር። ዛሬ ግን አባቶች በጽሞናና በረጋ መንፈስ በተመስጦና በረሃብ በጥም የሚያቀርቡትን ምስጋና እንደ ሰከረና ዛር እንዳለበት ሰው በመቅደሱ ውስጥ እየታየ ነው በማለት በቁጭት ይናገራል።

በምዕራፍ ዐሥራ ሦሰት፣ የቅዱሱ ገዳማትና ሕንጻ ቤተክርስቲያናትን ታሪካቸውን ያስነበበት ክፍል ነው። ወደ 28 የሚጠጉ ታቦታት ተሰይሞለት ይገኛል። በዚህ ክፍል እኔ በጣም ታሪኩ የወደድኩት የደብረ ይባቤቅዱስ ያሬድ የታሪክ ክፍል ነው። ይህን ደብር የተከሉት ወ/ሮ ደስታ ሞላ ናቸው። በሌላ ቦታ ተደራቢ ሁኖ የነበረው ታቦት ነው። በ1928 ዓ.ም ኢጣሊ ኢትዮጵያን ስትወር እሳቸው ስእለት ተስለው ነበር ። እንዲህ በማለት " ጠላት ከሃገር ወጥቶ በሰላም አየር የሃገሬ ሰንደቅ ዓላማ ሲውለበለብ ለማየት ካበቃኸኝ ልዋብ ላጊጥ ለእግሬ ጫማ ላድርግ አልልም። የቅዱስ ያሬድን ታቦትም ከደባልነት አውጥቼ በሕዝብ ወደሚታወቅበት ዐዲስ አበባ ወስጄ ቤተክርስቲያን አሣንጻለሁ" በማለት ቃል ይገባሉ። (ምድራዊ መልአክ ገጽ 530)። የእማማ ደስታ ስእለት ደርሶ ኢጣሊም ተባራ እርሳቸውም በ7800 ካሬ ሜትር ላይ መቃኞ አሠሩለት። ደብዳቤ እንዲህ ብለው ወደ ተጉለት ሰደዱ " እኔ ልጅ የሌለኝ መካን ስለሆንኩኝ ዐዲስ አበባ ያለኝን ሀብት ንብረቴን ርስቴንና ጉልቴን ለቅዱስ ያሬድ እሰጠዋለሁ በቦታዬ ላይም ቤተክርስቲያን እንዲሠራ አደርጋለሁ ሳትውል ሳታድር ታቦተ ሕጉን ይዘህ ዐዲሳባ እንድትመጣ" ብለው ላኩ። እነርሱም ( አቶ ገብረወልድ ፈለቀና አባ ገብረ ኢየሱስ ፈለቀ ) በሰኔ 28 1948 ዓ.ም ዐዲስ አበባ መጥተው መቃኞ ውስጥ አስገብተዋል። ነገር ግን የእማማ ደስታ ዘመዶች ውርሱን ስለተቃወሙ እንዲሁም የቅዱስ ዮሴፍ እና የቅዱስ ቂርቆስ ካህናት ወደ እኛ የሚመጣውን ምእመን ይቀንስብናል በማለት ሌላ አተካራ በማስነሣት ታቦቱ ወደ ወጨጫ ተሰደደ ለሁለት ዐመትም ቆየ ። ከዛን የቅዱስ ራጉኤል አስተዳዳሪ በመፍቀዳቸው ታቦቱ በምሥጢር ራጉኤል ገባ። ወ/ሮ ደስታ ለአቡነ ባስልዮስና ለግርማዊ ጃንሆይ ፈቃድ በመጠየቅ ታቦቱ እንዲገባ ቤተክርስቲያን መሥራት እንዲፈቀድልኝ በማለት ጠየቁ ። ታቦቱን መጋቢት 10 1952 ዓ.ም አስገብተው በማግስቱ ቅዳሴ ተቀደሰ።

በዚሁ እንደ ቀጠሉ ሐምሌ 11 1952 ዓ/ም ዕለት ከአገልግሎት በኋላ በፖሊስ ትዕዛዝ ድጋሚ ሌላ መጉላላት ተፈጠረባቸው (በዚህ ጊዜ ከቤተክህነትም የጃንሆይም ሆነ የአቡነ ባስልዮስ ፈቃድ ተጽፎ አልደረሰም ነበር )፣ ነገር ግን ይሄን መጉላላት የተመለከተው ፖሊስ እንዲህ ብሎ ተናገራቸው " ምነው እንደዚህ መሆኑ በቅዱስ ያሬድ በዜማው በማኅሌቱ እየተጠቀሙ ታቦቱን እንደዚህ ማጉላላታችሁ'' በማለት የታሠሩትን ካህናት አለዋስ ለቀቃቸው። ቀሪውን ታሪካዊ ሒደት ከመጽሐፉ አሟሉት ። የመጽሐፉ የመጨረሻው ምዕራፍ ስለ ሊቁ ቅዱስ ያሬድ፥ የተነገሩ ንግግሮችን የያዘ ነው። ከቅዱሳን ፓትርያሪኮች እስከ ብጹዐን አባቶች፣ ከጉባኤ መምህራን እስከ ታሪክ ተመራማሪዎች ድረስ በውብ አገላለጽ ገልጸውት እናነባለን። ጸሐፊው ዓለማየሁ ታደሰ ማጠቃልያ ሰጥቶ ጥናትና ምርምሩን ይቋጫል። በዚህ መጽሐፍ የልዩነት መሥመር የተሰመሩትን ሊቃውንት ፈትሸው ልዩነቱን እንዲያጠቡት አበክሮ አንሥቷል። እርሱም ልዩነቶቹን አስቀምጦ ብቻ አላለፈም የራሱን ምርምር ካደረገ በኋላ ዐቋሙን ገልጧል።

''በጸሎተ ያሬድ ካህን ጥዑመ ልሳን እንዚራሃ ለቤተክርስቲያን ተሣሃለነ እግዚኦ" አባ ጊዮርጊስ ዘጋስጫ።
አነሣሥቶ ያስጀመረህ ልዑል እግዚአብሔር ስሙ የተመሰገ ይሁን። ስለ ሊቁ ስለ ጻፍክልን እግዚአብሔር ያክብርልን። አመሰግናለሁ ።

Reviewer : ፍሬ እግዚእ ደስታ ሐጎስ

Evangelical Pioneers in Ethiopia: Origins of the Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus

Gustav Arén’s Evangelical Pioneers in Ethiopia: Origins of the Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus stands as a monumental contribution to the study of Ethiopian religious history and missionary Christianity in Africa. Published in 1978 jointly by the Swedish Evangelical Mission (EFS) in Stockholm and the Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus in Addis Ababa, the book originated as a doctoral dissertation submitted to Uppsala University. Yet it far surpasses the typical scope and depth of a standard history PhD thesis—nearly twice the length of many English-language equivalents—and displays a remarkable maturity of tone, analytical balance, and depth of insight. This is no dry academic exercise; it is the culmination of years of close personal and professional involvement by the author with the Mekane Yesus Church itself.

The work was commissioned by the Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus, with significant financial and institutional support from the Swedish Evangelical Mission. Arén openly acknowledges this context, noting that the book was “primarily written for readers in Ethiopia.” Far from diminishing its value, this origin has produced one of the finest and most definitive scholarly works available on any aspect of modern Ethiopian religious or historical studies. In the field of missionary scholarship focused on Ethiopia, Arén’s volume takes its place alongside F.P. Cotterell’s Born at Midnight (1973) as a standout example of rigorous, empathetic, and well-researched writing on the emergence and growth of indigenous Protestant churches. Many readers will find that Arén’s study surpasses Cotterell’s in both breadth and scholarly gravitas.

The book is organized with a clear and helpful introduction followed by four substantial parts. The introduction effectively sets the parameters of the study and provides a thoughtful review of the existing literature, situating Arén’s contribution within the broader historiography.

Part I explores the background to Swedish missionary efforts in Ethiopia between 1830 and 1868. This period overlaps significantly with the subject of Donald Crummey’s earlier book Priests and Politicians: Protestant and Catholic Missions in Orthodox Ethiopia 1830–1868. While Arén builds upon much of the same Protestant archival and published material, he brings fresh originality through his extensive use of the archives of the British and Foreign Bible Society in London. These sources enrich the narrative considerably and lend strong support to Arén’s central argument in this section: that Protestant missions of the period, contrary to more skeptical assessments, left a lasting and significant legacy—primarily through the strategic distribution and influence of scriptures in the region.

This argument gains even greater force in Part II, where Arén traces the emergence of Swedish missionary activity among a group of Ethiopian Orthodox clergy. These local priests and reformers had been inspired by “Protestant” and renewal-oriented ideals after encountering the Bibles and religious literature distributed by the earlier Protestant pioneers. Arén convincingly demonstrates how this indigenous reforming circle maintained influence across nearly the entire timeframe covered by the book. While some readers may not be entirely persuaded by every element of this thesis, the case is presented with impressive scholarly care, nuance, and documentation. A minor critique is that, given prior coverage of this background in other works, this section might have been condensed somewhat to maintain overall momentum.

The true heart of the book lies in Parts II, III, and IV, which together span more than 300 pages of vivid, warm, and engaging narrative. Here Arén masterfully recounts the story of missionary initiative intertwined with remarkable indigenous church growth—a history that deserves far wider recognition within African studies. The central protagonists are the Abyssinian (Amhara-Tigrean) and Oromo evangelical leaders who rose to guide a small but dynamic and resilient evangelical community. Arén’s account highlights several themes of broad interest to Africanists and church historians:The complex and often tense relationship with the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, which exemplified the profound challenges of indigenization within an ancient Christian tradition.
The pivotal and evolving role of Ethiopian and Oromo Christians themselves, including their shifting partnerships and occasional tensions with foreign missionaries.

The crucial importance of Bible translation work, particularly the monumental effort to render the Scriptures into the Oromo language.
Arén’s treatment of the Oromo Bible translation is especially compelling. He frames it within the extraordinary life and career of Onesimos Nesib, one of the most remarkable African Christian intellectuals and leaders of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The translation project itself ranks among the great intellectual and cultural achievements of the era. Arén’s portrait of Onesimos—and indeed of the many other figures who populate the book—is both judicious and deeply appreciative. While Onesimos towers above the rest, Arén gives respectful attention to a large cast of dedicated, if less celebrated, Ethiopian evangelists and leaders.

Evangelical Pioneers in Ethiopia is an outstanding work of African missionary and church history. Its scholarly standards are exemplary: it rests upon a comprehensive and discerning analysis of all relevant primary sources in multiple languages and archives, supported by a full and professional scholarly apparatus. At the same time, the book is infused with genuine warmth, affection, and pastoral concern for its subject matter. Missionaries receive due attention, but indigenous Ethiopian and Oromo Christians are rightfully given pride of place as the true architects of the Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus.

Arén demonstrates a keen sensitivity to both local Ethiopian dynamics and the wider international political context. As a result, the book will prove invaluable not only to specialists in mission studies and Ethiopian church history but also to general historians of modern Ethiopia. One can only hope that scholars across African studies more broadly will discover and draw upon its rich insights with equal enthusiasm.In sum, Gustav Arén has produced a landmark volume—thorough, balanced, deeply researched, and humanly engaging—that will remain a standard reference for decades to come. It is essential reading for anyone interested in the history of Christianity in Africa, indigenous religious movements, or modern Ethiopian society.

Reviewer : A permanent staff editor at Think Ethiopia

Defending the Ancient Faith: An Orthodox Response to the Knechtle Debate

By: Evangelos Nikitopoulos

Like most people, I first heard of Deacon Mihret Melaku in April of 2025, when a viral video of him confronting the Protestant influencers Cliffe and Stuart Knechtle at Harvard University circulated on the internet. Such was its reach at the time that even my bishop, a usually reserved and ascetic personality, the last person you would expect to be aware of online trends, referred to it in one of his sermons. My immediate impression was that Mihret made a very strong case for the traditional Christian understanding of the Eucharist and salvation, but more than that, his calm demeanor exemplified what true Christian apologetics should look like: he was not overly aggressive or polemical, nor did he seek to shame or “own” his opponents, as often happens in such forums; he simply stated the truth of the Church and let Scripture speak for itself. Beyond the logical arguments he provided, it was his peaceful manner that seemed to disarm his interlocutors the most, and it was evident from their uneasy and flippant responses that they had never interacted with someone coming from his particular Christian tradition.

It is said that our times are witnessing a religious revival. The years of the Covid pandemic, with its continual lockdowns and uncertainty, did much to destabilize society and existing institutions and relationships, but it also ignited—at least in some—a yearning to seek after abiding and unchanging truths. The fact that this particular clip gained so much traction is an indication that Mihret struck an authentic chord within our current zeitgeist. As such, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the Knechtle debate had served as a catalyst for him to produce a full-length book addressing in greater detail the differences between Protestantism and Orthodox Christianity.

The volume is not a quick read, spanning a total of 382 pages. The reader will have many occasions to pause and ponder its contents, look up cross-references in the Bible, and take notes. There are twelve chapters covering (1) the origin of the Christian scriptural canon, (2) the relation between Scripture and liturgy, (3) the Church as a normative interpretative authority, (4) the intercession of the saints, (5) the veneration of the saints, (6) the veneration of icons, (7) Mariology, (8) atonement, (9) salvation, (10) baptism, (11) the Eucharist, and (12) Apostolic succession. The themes are judiciously chosen, and there is a logic to the progression of the chapters (although it might have made more sense to have had Chapter 12 follow immediately upon Chapter 3).

Each chapter adheres more or less to the same format: the author begins by outlining the Protestant theological position on the topic at hand before explaining why it is erroneous, drawing on the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, the New Testament, the Apostolic Fathers, and even archaeology when relevant. Mihret’s arguments are, for the most part, not novel in themselves, but he often gives them an original spin. Typology forms the cornerstone of his apologetic, and the book of Revelation constitutes one of his favorite proof texts.

For instance, it was the first time I saw someone connect the 24 elders in Saint John’s apocalyptic vision (Rev 4:10; 5:8; 11:16) with the notion that the saints make up for the fallen “third” of the “number of the angels of God” (mentioned in Deuteronomy 32:8), which was traditionally interpreted as being 72 (72/3 = 24). Due to this correspondence, Mihret argues that Christian saints currently hold the same standing in relation to God as the fallen angels did before they trespassed, that is, a position of relative honor, reflecting the divine majesty as “gods” in their own right (Psalm 81/82:1). It is therefore entirely appropriate to ask for their intercession and show them respect. The fact that some of the bystanders at the Crucifixion who heard Christ crying out “Eli, Eli” immediately assumed that He was calling out to the Prophet Elijah (Matt 27:47; Mark 15:35-36) corroborates that Second Temple Jews believed that the saintly dead could be invoked and actively engage with the world of the living (cf. 2 Macc 15:13-16).

Mihret’s strength undoubtedly lies in exegeting Scripture (albeit some of his interpretations, particularly those of Leviticus 16:8 and Romans 3:22, are a bit too speculative for my taste). My favorite parts of the book were his explications of the “seat of Moses” (Matt 23:2) in Chapter 3—in which he convincingly demonstrates that Christ vested the interpretative authority of the Scriptures in His Apostles, in continuity with the authority of the Mosaic priesthood—and the theology of baptism in Chapter 10, in which he establishes on the basis of Old and New Testament passages (e.g. Ezekiel 47:8-12 and Matt 4:19) that early Christians believed baptism to be not merely symbolic, but generative of a real ontological change within the believer.

In my opinion, the book is worth reading for Chapter 7 alone, which covers the Virgin Mary. Basing himself on Scripture and in particular on Saint Jerome’s Against Helvidius, Mihret systematically dismantles the blasphemous belief that is sadly widespread among modern Evangelicals which holds that the Virgin Mary bore other children after Christ (something neither Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli believed). He also explains why it is entirely in keeping with the Bible—and actually necessary for any “Bible-believing Christian”—to honor her highly.

The author does not shy away even from citing early Jewish traditions recorded in the Talmud when it serves his argument, e.g. when it comes to proving the celibacy of the Prophet Moses. In the chapter on the Eucharist, he quotes several ancient anaphoras preserved in Ethiopic to highlight Old Testament antecedents to the blessed sacrament. The chapter on iconodulia is well-constructed. Nevertheless, in my humble experience debating this question, I do not think that pointing out Scriptural typologies and the existence of frescoes in the Roman catacombs is enough to convince a hardened iconoclast. The latter will always fall back upon saying that the early Christians had images, but they did not pray to them. Proving this is possible, but it requires a much more nuanced argumentation that goes beyond the scope of Mihret’s book. For a more specialized study on the topic, I would direct the interested reader to Michael Garten’s recent publication Early Icons: Christian Image Veneration Before 325 AD, which I think establishes a whole new paradigm for the field.

It was refreshing to see that the bibliography of Defending the Ancient Faith is a cut above what one usually gets in common works of apologetics. The numerous references to academic journals show that the author has availed himself of the full resources of Harvard’s library. Mihret also does a good job at avoiding straw-manning the Reformers, frequently quoting Luther or Calvin in their own words alongside contemporary Protestant theologians like R.C. Sproul. His short discussion on pages 326 and 327 regarding how the more radical Reformers denied the communicatio idiomatum (the sharing of properties between Christ’s divine and human natures), exposing a quasi-Nestorian bent, is excellent, and reflects the current scholarly understanding (see e.g., K.J. Drake’s 2021 monograph The Flesh of the Word: The extra Calvinisticum from Zwingli to Early Orthodoxy). This strikes, I believe, at the very heart of the problem with Protestant theology, which is its radical denial that matter can be sanctified.

If there is one aspect of the book that I found lacking, it would be the topic of the atonement. Mihret writes on page 100: “To ‘put on Christ’…in the Orthodox tradition…is not reduced to a legal or external substitution, as though Christ were righteous so that we could remain unrighteous. Christ became what we are not to replace us, but to transfigure us.” While it is true that Orthodoxy does not reduce the atonement to a mere legal transaction, this does not take away from the fact that Christ truly died in our place on the Cross. It is precisely for this reason that Christ cries out, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me!” (Matt 27:56; Mark 15:34). In saying these words, Christ was expressing the profound alienation which He experienced from God in His humanity, the alienation which is the lot of all sinners. By assuming this in our stead, He frees us from God’s just condemnation and makes our sanctification possible. Just like faith needs to be expressed by works, so can sanctification not occur without the atonement: both are indispensable and inseparable parts of God’s divine economy.

A similar one-sidedness can be detected in the author’s treatment of original sin. He writes on page 245: “The Orthodox understanding of original sin is based not on a transmission of guilt, but on the effects of sin on the cosmos.” Once again, the truth is that Orthodoxy believes in both. Sin most certainly does distort the cosmos, but the mystery of our faith teaches us that it is also transmitted genetically from our parents. This is why we baptize infants “for the remission of sins” as it says in the Creed (and not “for the remission of corruption”). What sins has an infant committed at its age? And while we do not believe that we are responsible for the personal sin of Adam (on this question, see Saint Augustine in Against Julian III.23), the Fathers frequently speak of how all of humanity was condemned “in Adam.”

For example, Saint Ambrose says: “In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of Paradise, in Adam I died. How should God restore me, unless He find Adam in me, so that just as I am subject to guilt (culpae obnoxium) and destined to death in him, so am I justified in Christ?” (On the Death of his Brother Satyrus, II.6). According to Saint Cyril, “the whole nature of man was condemned (ܡܬܚܝܒ) in the person of him who was first formed; but now it is wholly justified again in Christ” (Sermon 42 on Luke, preserved fully in a Syriac translation). On page 248, Mihret goes so far as to cite Theodore of Mopsuestia to argue that Orthodoxy rejects the notion of original sin. I concede here that his reading of Theodore is correct, but that is only because Theodore was a Pelagian, and not an Orthodox Father!

There is much in Chapters 8 and 9 that is otherwise sound; I bring up these specific points only as a friendly correction offered in the spirit of charity. I personally believe that the best way to win over people to the truth is not by emphasizing only one half of a rich theological tradition, but by presenting Orthodox doctrine in its fulness.

While we are on this subject, I should also mention that the author will often use the term “Orthodox” without qualification to refer to individuals of both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian persuasion. To the uninitiated reader, this might create the impression that all the “Orthodox” authors that are cited as such in the book are part of one and the same Church, but the reality is that the Ethiopian church of which Deacon Mihret is a member is not in communion with the Orthodox churches with which Westerners are most typically familiar (Greek, Russian, etc.). This should be clarified for the readership, as it accounts for the author’s use of certain peculiar theological expressions, such as “theanthropic nature” (p. 97) and “one composite nature of Emmanuel” (p. 281), which we would reject as theologically problematic (for the same reason, incidentally, that Deacon Mihret rejects the Protestant notion of “one energy” operating in man’s salvation: if there is but “one nature” in Christ, our human nature cannot be deified; it will either be replaced or absorbed by the divinity. Consequently, Christ must possess two natures and two natural wills in perfect harmony).

These failings notwithstanding, I would like to congratulate the Deacon on his accomplishment and I heartily encourage all Christians to buy this book. As far as I am aware, besides Fr. Josiah Trenham’s now-classic Rock and Sand, which has a slightly different focus, there are no other full-length books in English explaining the differences between Orthodox Christianity and Protestantism in the comprehensive way that Mihret does. Thus, Defending the Ancient Faith will both appeal to neophytes seeking instruction in their faith and will present more advanced readers with fertile material for reflection. As we are still in the Nativity season, let me conclude by saying: Christ is Born, let us glorify Him!

Aksum Review of Books (ARB) is a reader-supported literary review. Free subscribers help it grow by liking, commenting, and sharing with friends, strangers, and especially enemies. Paid subscribers help keep the lights on, for the price of a cup of coffee a month.

Editorial Note:

Unlike most people, I first heard of Mihret Melaku when he was about nine years old. Four years before he published his first book, an out-of-print exhortation on repentance, and he was already a prodigy then. At nine or ten I heard him recite, by heart, the Prayer of Faith (Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed) in Ge’ez, Amharic, and English. Evangelos Nikitopoulos, a Greek Orthodox publisher of patristics, writes a review of Dcn. Mihret’s second book Defending the Ancient Faith: an Orthodox Response to the Knechtle Debate below.

The Greek Orthodox and the Syriac Orthodox, though of different communions, are on the same New Calendar, and have thus already celebrated the twelve days of Christmas including Theophany (The Baptism of the Lord Jesus). Slavs, who commune with Greeks, and afroasiatics (habesha and copts), who commune with Syriac, are aligned on the Old Calendar, having celebrated Christmas eve on January 6th (an auspicious occasion), Christmas on January 7th, and preparing to celebrate Theophany on January 19th (Dr. MLK Jr. Day in America). Blessed feasts! Since we cannot commune together, yet, I am of the mind that online collaborations like these please the Lord of Spirits.

Keep me in your prayers to complete the audiobook.

"ኢትዮጵያዊነት አሰባሳቢ ማንነት በአንድ አገር ልጅነት"

የመጽሐፉ ሙሉ ርእስ "ኢትዮጵያዊነት አሰባሳቢ ማንነት በአንድ አገር ልጅነት" የሚል ሲሆን መጽሐፉ በ2009 የታተመ ነው።

ጥቂት ስለደራሲው

📍አቶ ዩሱፍ ( Yussuf Yassin ) የአፋር ቀይ ባሕር ዳርቻ መንደር በሆነችው ቲዖ እኤአ በ1948 ተወለዱ
📍በአዲስአበባ ኮተቤ የሁለተኛ ደረጃ ትምህርታቸውን አጠናቀቁ
📍በ1961 ዓም የአአዩ ተማሪዎች ማሕበር መሪ የነበረው ጥላሁን ግዛው በተገደለበት እንቅስቃሴ ሟቹ በሚመራው የማሕበሩ ስራ አስፈጻሚ ኮሚቴ አባልነታቸው ምክንያት በዩኒቨርስቲው ጀምረውት የነበረውን ሕግ ትምህርት እንዲያቋርጡ ተገደው በሶማሊያ በየመን በግብጽ አድርገው ወደ ጀርመን ፈለሱ።
📍ከዚያም በበርሊን ፍራይ ዩኒቨርስቲ የፖለቲካል ሳይንስ ትምህርታቸውን ለማጠናቀቅ በቅቷል።
📍ከ66ቱ ሕዝባዊ እንቅስቃሴ በኋላ በ1968 ዓም መጨረሻ ወደ አገራቸው ተመልሰው መጀመሪያ በሕዝብ ድርጅት ጊዚያዊ ጽሕፈት ቤት፣ በኋላም በኢትዮጵያ ብሔረሰቦች ጥናት ኢንስቲትዩት ለበርካታ አመታት ካገለገሉ በኋላ በደርግ መጨረሻ ዘመን ወደ ውጭ ጉዳይ ሚኒስቴር ተዛውረው በአገር ውስጥና በውጭ አገር በዲፕሎማሲ ሥራ አገልግለዋል።
📍አብዛኛው ኢትዮጵያዊ አንባቢ የሚያውቃቸው ግን ጦቢያ መጽሔት መጣጥፎቻቸውን ያቀርቡበት በነበረው ሐሰን ዑመር ዓብደላ በሚለው የብዕር ስማቸው ነው። በዚህ የብዕር ስማቸው ኢትዮጵያና ኤርትራ፣ ትግርኛ ተናጋሪዎች፣ ኦነግና ወያኔ፣ ኢሕአዴግ፣ ተቃዋሚዎች፣ የአረቡ አለም፣ አባይ፣ የብሔረሰብ ጥያቄ ወዘተ የመሳሰሉ አገራዊ ጉዳዮችን ዳስሰዋል። ይህ ስራቸው በ2011 ከጦብያ ዘመን ተሻጋሪ መጣጥፎች በሚል በመጽሐፍ መልክ ታትሞ ለንባብ በቅቷል።

ስለ መጽሐፉ

📍"ኢትዮጵያዊነት አሰባሳቢ ማንነት በአንድ አገር ልጅነት" በ2009 የታተመ መጽሐፍ ሲሆን በ437 ገፆች በ13 ምዕራፎች ተከፋፍሎ የቀረበ ዳጎስ ያለ መጽሐፍ ነው።
📍ምዕራፍ አንድ "ማንነት" በሚል ርእስ የቀረበ ሲሆን የአባሕርይ መጽሐፍ፣ የምስል ቀረጻ ምንጮቻችን፣ ምስል ቀረጻና የማንነት ልየታ ሂደት እና የማንነት መገለጫዎች የተዳሰሱበት ነው።
📍ምዕራፍ 2 "ማንነት የመለየት ሂደት" በሚል ርእስ እነሱና እኛ ተባብሎ ስለመቧደን፣ ስለ ማንነት ትርጉም፣ ብሔር፣ የብሔርተኝነትና መንግስት፣ የብሔርተኝነት ጽንሰሐሳቡና መዘዙ ወዘተ የቀረቡበት ነው።
📍ምዕራፍ ሶስት "በምን በምን እንኮራለን ምንንስ እንሰጋለን" በሚል ርእስ የኢትዮጵያውያን የኩራት እና የስጋት ማጠንጠኛዎች ምን ምን ናቸው ብሎ ይሞግተናል። ራሳችን እንድንፈትሽ ያደርገናል።
📍ምዕራፍ አራት ላይ "ለምን ወደ ኋላ ቀረን? ለምንስ ሌሎቹ ጥለውን ሄዱ" የሚል የቁጭት ጥያቄ ያነሳል። በዚህ ምዕራፍ የኋላቀርነታችን ምክንያት ምን ይሆን? ተቋም አለመገንባታችን ወደ ኋላ እንድንቀር እንዳደረገን ይነግራናል።
📍ምዕራፍ አምስት "ኢትዮጵያዊያን ሙስሊሞች፣ ከነጋሺ መስተንግዶ እስከ ዜግነት መብት ተጋድሎ" በሚል ርእስ ስለ ኢትዮጵያዊውን ሙስሊሞች ታሪክ ከነጃሺ ዘመን እስከ ኢሕአዴግ ዘመን ያስነበብናል። ታሪካዊ ዳራና ፍቺ ያጡ እንቆቅልሾች፣ የኢትዮጵያውያን ሙስሊሞች አዲሱ ማንነት፣ አንዱ ስለሌላው አለማወቅ አጣብቂኝና እምነቶቹን አገራዊ የማድረግ ጉዳይ፣ የኢትዮጵያውያን ሙስሊሞች መነቃቃትና የመብት ጥየቃ ትግል ካነሳ በኋላ መጨረሻ ላይ ከኢትዮጵያውያን ሙስሊሞች የመብት ጥየቃ ጋር ተያይዘው ያሉ ተግዳራቶች ይተነትናል።
📍ምዕራፍ ስድስት "ግዛተ አጼን ማስፋፋትና ማዕከላዊ መንግስትን ማደላደል" የሚል ሲሆን ኢትዮጵያ በረዥም ታሪኳ ተለዋዋጭ ቅርጾቿ፣ የአጼ ምንሊክን መስፋፋት ልዩ ባሕርያትና ኹነቶች፣ አዋሳኝ ቅኝ ገዢዎች ያሳደሩት ተጽዕኖና መዘዞቹ፣ የአጼ ምኒሊክ ዘመቻዎች በአሁኑ እና በወደፊቱ እኛነታችንን ያሳረፈው ጉልህ ተጽእኖ የሰፊው የተዳሰሰበት ነው።
📍ምዕራፍ ሰባት ላይ ደግሞ "የኦሮሞ ብሔርተኝነት፣ የማንነት ፖለቲካና ተፈታታኝ ተግዳሮቶቹ እናገኛለን።
📍ምዕራፍ ስምንት ነዋሪዎችና ዜጎች፣ ዜጎችና ኢዜግነት በሚሉ ርእሶች ያጠነጥናል።
📍ምዕራፍ ዘጠኝ "አሰባሳቢ ማንነት፣ በአንድ አገር ልጅነት፤ አገርና የአገር ልጅነት" የሚል ርእስ ያለው ሲሆን የመጽሐፍ ዋና thesis ነው። የመጽሐፉ ርእስም የተወሰደው ከዚህ ምዕራፍ ነው።
📍ምዕራፍ አስር "ወዴትነሽ ኢትዮጵያ" በሚል ርእስ መልካም እድሎችን የማሰመለጥ አባዜ የተጠናወተን ህዝቦች ነን ይላል ደራሲው። የኢሊቶች መካሰስ፣ አለመተማመንና መሸነጋገል፣ የብሔረሰብ ችግር ትናንትና ዛሬ አብዝሃነትን ስለ መቀበል ተዳሰውበታል።
📍ምዕራፍ አስራ አንድ ስለ አመለካከት ለውጥ (Paradigm shift) የሚመለከት ሲሆን ከማንነት ጋር ተያይዘው ስለሚስተዋሉ መራኮቶች እንዴት በሕግ ማእቀፍ መቋጨት እንዳለባቸው ያነሳል።ኀ
📍ምዕራፍ አስራ ሶስት አብዝሃነትን ማስተዳደር ለዜግነታዊ መንግስት መሠረት ስላለው ሚና ያወራል።
📍የመጨረሻው ምዕራፍ ያልተኳኳሉ እውነታዎች ለልሂቃን ይላል።

ባጠቃላይ

📍የዩሱፍ ያሲን ሥራ ብዙ ልፋት የጠየቀ በጥናት ውጤቶች የታጀበ ነው። ደራሲው በዚህ መጽሐፉ በማንነት ጥያቄ ዙሪያ ያሉትን ውስብስብ ክርክሮች... አያሌ የሚያሳስቡ፣ የሚያስጨንቁና ጥያቄዎችን አያነሰ ይሞግተናል...አገሪቷ ተጋርጠውባታል የሚላቸውን ዋና ዋና ተግዳሮቶች እና በእርሱ እይታ መፍትሄዎች ይሆናሉ ብሎ ያመነባቸውን በመተንተን በማንነት ጥያቄ ዙሪያ ለሚፋለሙ ወገኖች ምክሩን ለግሷል።

📍ደራሲው በዚህ መጽሐፉ ካነሳቸው በርካታ ቁምነገሮች ላካፍላችሁ እና ወደ ዳሳሹ ልውሰዳችሁ

ዩሱፍ "የኋላቀርነታችን ምክንያት ምን ይሆን" በሚል ርእስ ስር እንዲህ ይላል:-

"እኛ በረጅሙ ታሪካችን የፈላጭ ቆራጭ ገዥዎቻችን ኋይል ወይም ስልጣን መገደብ አልቻልንም። በዚሁ ምክንያት ተቋማት (ኢንስቱዩቲሽን) መመስረት አልቻልንም። ያቋቋምናቸው ቢሆን በፅኑ መሰረቶች ላይ ማደላደል አልተሳካልንም። ለእኔ ይህ አንዱ የኋላቀርነታችን ዋና ምክንያትና የእድገት ጋሬጣ ነው።"

ዩሱፍ "ለምን ወደ ኋላ ቀረን" የሚለውን ጥያቄ ከመመለሳችን በፊት እነዚህን ጥያቄዎች እራሳችንን እንድንጠይቅ ይጠይቀናል:-

➡ለምንድነው በእኛ ዘንድ አምባገነን መሪዎቻችን እንዳሻቸው ለመሆን የበቁት? ለምንስ ነው በሥልጣናቸው ላይ ገደብ መጣል ያልቻልነው?
➡በሌሎች አገራት የግለሰብ ስልጣንን መግራት ሲሳካላቸው እኛ ለምን ተሳነን? ለስልጣን ወሰንና ድንበር ማበጀቱ ለምን አስቸገረን፣ አልሆን አለን?
➡ትክሻችንን ፈላጭ ቆራጭነት መሸከም ሲችል ሌላው ሕዝብ ለምን ገደብ አበጀለት?
➡ሌሎች አገራት የመሳፍንቶቻቸውን ያልተገበ ስልጣን እንዴት ነው ዳር ድንበር ያበጁለት? እንዴት ነው ያጠሩት?
➡ለምንድነው እኛ ዘንድ አምባገነን መሪዎች እንዳሻው ለመሆን የበቁት?
➡ሌሎቹ ያንድ ግለሰብ ሥልጣን መግራት ሲሳካላቸው እኛን ለምን አላወቅንበትም?

ዩሱፍ በዚህ ፅሁፍ ላይ የኋላ ቀርነታችንን ጉዳይ በተነሳ ቁጥር ተደጋግመው የሚጠቀሱትን ምክንያቶች በማለት 6 ነጥቦችን ጠቅሷል:-

1) ያልተገደበ ፈላጭ ቆራጭ ሥልጣን መስተዳድር
2) ያላባሩ የእርስ በእርስ ጦርነቶች
3) ድንቁርና/መሃይምነት (የትምህርት እጦት)
4) የሩቅና የቅርብ ጠላቶች መሬታችንን መመኘትና እኛን መክብብ
5) የወግ አጥባቂዎች ለዘመናዊ ለውጥ ጋሬጣነት
6) የሥልተ ምርት ትብተባ

ዩሱፍ ከላይ የተጠቀሱትን ነጥቦች አንድባንድ ካብራራ በኋላ ለኋላ ቀርነታችን ዋና ተጠያቂ አድርጎ ያቀረበው ለሥልጣን ገደብ ማበጀትና ተቋማት መፍጠር አለመቻል ነው።

Reviewer : መሐመድአወል ሐጎስ