'The Pauls of North and West Africa?': A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 3, Issue 1, February 2015 ‘THE PAULS OF NORTH AND WEST AFRICA?’: A RE-READING OF THE ROLE PLAYED BY THE BERBER IN THE ISLAMISATION OF IFRIQIYA, MAGHREB AND THE WESTERN SUDAN IN THE LIGHT OF THE PAULINE MISSIOLOGY DR. DUBE EDMORE* *Lecturer, Dept. of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Mashava Campus, Great Zimbabwe University, Zimbabwe ABSTRACT The study sought to explore the possible phenomenological compatibility between the Pauline and Berber missiological cycles. Using the phenomenological tenets developed by Edmund Husserl, and especially articulated by J. B. Kristensen, the paper found the missiological styles replete with similarities. Zealotry/Kharijism and jihadism (scholarly, military and spiritual strife) were clearly the lubricants of the two missions. The fundamental sources of the oiling concepts were Semitic and Berber traditionalism. Both Paul, the Jewish scholar-cleric, and the Berber Almoravids and ineslemen/zwaya took the same route through forced conversion to the most reliable sources of mission. Their kharijite jihadism allowed no obstacle to stay them off their call and divine commissioning. In that regard they swam through the tide of resistance and persecution unperturbed. To this end the Berbers are indeed ‘the Pauls of North and West Africa’ in relation to their like contribution to the said regions. KEYWORDS: Berber, Itinerant Scholars, Jihad, Kharijism, Pauline Missiology, Zealotry INTRODUCTION The paper proposes the Semitic egalitarian Kharijism as one of the docking factors between the Pauline and the Berber missiological cycles. Of interest are the natures of acceptance of the mission and the subsequent styles of propagation. The general tendency has been to view the propagations of the two Asian religions (Christianity and Islam) not only separately, but as diametrically opposed with a perpetual oil-water relationship. This research demystifies the study by demonstrating that the approaches utilized by the two were phenomenologically compatible. Hypothesis There has been an unfathomable drive by both Muslims and Christians to create divisive polemics by ignoring available confidence building measures in the areas of nature and implantation methodology of the two Abrahamic religions. 297 www.jiarm.com JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 3, Issue 1, February 2015 Research Methodology The Phenomenological Approach The efficacy of this approach lies in its concern with that which manifests itself (Allen, 1987, p. 273). The method embraces comparative aspects through its classification of different types of phenomena, though it eludes any precise definition, which Chitando (1998, p. 101) attributes to the various orientations of its adherents, who include historians of religion. It is Edmund Husserl who ties it down to basics by maintaining that it deals with descriptive accuracy, by employing epoche which refers to the bracketing out of pre-conceived ideas (Cox, 1996, p.19). All commitments accumulated a priori must be overcome in order to allow the phenomenon to speak for itself. Bettis (1969, p.1) concurs by asserting that epoche eliminates “abstract a priori standards of academic disciplines.” Thus J. B. Kristensen (cited by Bettis, 1969, p.49) insists that “there is no religious reality other than the faith of the believers” and therefore at the end of any research the researcher must always acknowledge that, “the believers were completely right.” This baffles Chitando (1998, p.109) due to shear ignorance of some believers, whose usual explanations are, “Things have always been so.” The principle of epoche is greatly aided by “performing empathetic interpolation” (Cox, 1992, p.38). This entails putting oneself in the believer’s place and describing the phenomena from within. The researcher walks a mile in the shoes of the believer, which according to Cox (1996, 19f) has the problem of conversion. Fear of conversion often causes the faint hearted to rely on memorized conclusions. The performance of eidetic vision (Sharpe, 1986, p.224) follows this stage of empathetic interpolation. Eidetic vision comes from eidos meaning ‘form,’ ‘idea,’ or ‘essence.’ According to Husserl, this vision accounts for the observer’s ability to deduce the real essence of the phenomena independent of preconceptions, or popular declarations. Accordingly, one’s conclusion must always be based on the phenomena and the believers’ understanding of it. This commitment to objectivity is handy in this study of two rival religions. The Pauline Framework: Activities before conversion Before his conversion Paul (then Saul) was zealous for the Jewish Law and was an unstoppable luminary in that regard. He had an excessive tendency towards the Jewish purity code, which was maintained through great purges leveled against any pluralist innuendoes by anyone of the Abraham-Isaac descent and his accomplices (c.f. Elijah, I Kings 1819, 39f; Jehu 298 www.jiarm.com JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 3, Issue 1, February 2015 & Rechabites, 2 Kings 1015ff). He had received one of the best Pharisaic rabbinic instructions under the reputable Gamaliel. As any Pharisee he had zeal for the Law of Moses and the traditions of the elders, both literary and oral. Of particular importance were the Pharisaic extra-legal beliefs in resurrection and angels (Campbell, p.156); features also peculiar to Christianity. These beliefs set them in a collision course with the aristocratic Sadducees who held the civil and spiritual reigns of the Jewish nation (J.J. Coutts, p.20). Despite their lean representational numbers in relation to the Sadducees, the Pharisees held their own in ‘the government of national unity’ (Sanhedrin) in which they were a junior partner to the Sadducees. Gamaliel, Paul’s mentor, prevailed in the Sanhedrin case against Peter and John, in which the majority opinion was for drawing the blood of the two apostles who resisted any form of restraint in calling upon the name of Jesus as Christ (Acts 533ff). Such a rabbinic tenacity and intellectual acumen were the legacy that Paul inherited and utilized to the full. When we meet him first, his chauvinistic patriotism exudes itself in his commandeering position in the jambanja (lynching) in which Stephen is stoned to death. Luke the evangelist and Paul’s intimate friend writes: “Then they cast him (Stephen) out of the city and stoned him; and the witnesses laid their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul” (Acts 758 RSV). Casting him “out of the city” for stoning was in line with the prescribed practice (Numbers 1535f). But “their violent reaction suggests a lynching rather than a juridical verdict, sentence or execution” which was supposed to be carried out by the “witnesses” (Lampe, 1962, p.896). The laying of the clothes at the feet of Saul defined his leading role in the deed, meaning that he stood-by, giving an authoritative supervision to the event, while the actors approved his position by reposting their regalia at his “feet.” Richard J. Dillon (1968, p.742) notes the “supernumerary presence of Paul,” while G. W. H. Lampe (1962, p.896) concedes that “Saul was apparently present as a prominent onlooker.” His complicity and seething anger are succinctly captured in the statement: “And Saul was consenting to his death. And on that day a great persecution arose against the church in Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the region of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles…But Saul was ravaging the church, and entering house after house, he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison” (Acts 81 RSV). Even if we buy Dillon’s (1968, p.742) argument that it is not credit-worthy that the Stephen- Saul nexus was pre-Lucan but rather a literary construction meant to place the Gentile mission hero at the preamble of the mission’s outward movement from Jerusalem, Paul’s own 299 www.jiarm.com JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.625, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 3, Issue 1, February 2015 testimony to the persecution (I Cor 15.9, Gal 1.13f, 23, Phil 3.6) lends credence to the same story. This of course does not escape Dillon’s (1968, p.744) notice. Paul’s anger does not easily dissipate for we hear in the opening verse of chapter nine that “Saul, still breathing threats and murder…went to the High Priest and asked for letters (summons)” (RSV) to repatriate the escapees to Damascus by force. Scholars like Dillon (1968, p.744) who doubt the efficacy of the High Priest’s Diasporan authority do little to alter Paul’s difficult character. This intransigency is only destroyed in a personal hierophant at the precincts of Damascus, in which Paul is not persuaded but compelled to repent. The strength of the force is noticed in the consequences: he is struck by light, falls down, is blinded and helplessly accepts assistance of those he had led to take him into the city. There in the city he experienced divine mercy at the hands of Ananias, the ‘faith healer.’ On regaining his sight, he finds his position refracted through 180o making him ironically what he had been fighting. The experience takes away nothing from his former vibrant self, except switching his old friends for enemies and his erstwhile enemies for friends. Sardonic readers may detect treachery in his character: requesting certification from the High Priest enabling him to cross the ‘battle line’ in order to elope with the enemy and become there ever after his most prudent guide. The Damascus Jews were not amused by his action and naturally plotted to hand him the highest prize due to a Jew who reneged on his puritanical duties; death. It is not farfetched to say that his Pharisaic background helped him appreciate the vision and the audition of the risen Christ.