I was thinking the other day (always a dangerous thing) - and decided to post this following idea that I first had about 6 months ago. Please tell me what you think.
The essence of the idea is this - that the part of north africa that comprises modern day Morocco, Algeria, and Tunis has spawned a number of fundamentalist interpretations of religion. iirc the ethnicity of this area has been incredibly stable. Despite invasions from Rome, the Vandals, Arabs, and others.
The first fundamental interpretation that I know of is a Christian one. North Africa, and specifically Carthage boasted the greatest concentrations of Christians in the Western half of the Roman Empire until sometime in the mid 4th century. From North Africa come some of the greatest of the early theologians, for a time only rivalled by the Alexandrian thelogians. I speak of Tertullian, Cyprian, and of course Augustine - and there were other lesser known lights as well. Anyway, after the Great persecution of Diocletian the church in North Africa splits. The issue is over those who conceded to the persecutors and handed over books and so on. One side held that they could be forgiven by the ordinary process of confession. The other thought these 'traditors' had completely forsaken salvation, and to regain it would have to be re-baptised. Not only that but any sacrament carried out by these was itself tainted. They became known as the Donatists (after Donatus, one of the founders).
The Donatists evolved into a hardline fundamentalist group - and when the central state tried to suppress the schism through a variety of methods from persecution to persuasion, it proved surprisingly resistant. Augustine spent most of his clerical life dealing with this heresy - and his most famous work (City of God) was the result. Donatism was most prevalent in the highlands, and they were still present when Rome reconquered North Africa in the 6th century.
Now, from nearly the same area came the Fatamid Caliphate a few centuries later, after the Islamic conquest. The Fatamids were, of course, one of the most fundamental interpretations of Islam at that time. A while later again the Almoravids and Almohads also came from the same region - though not as close as the Fatimids were. Again both of these offered very fundamentalist interpretations of Islam for the time.
Today the history of fundamentalism and its links with North Africa continue.
Now, most places in the world usually receive a bout of fundamentalism at one time or other - England in the 17th century for example. But this recurring fundamentalism to one region is something fairly extra-ordinary, especially since it crosses religions. Unfortunately little is known for certain of the pre-Christian faiths, or I am unaware of any great knowledge.
I have a theory that it might have something to do with the ethnic and cultural heritage of the people concerned. This region, in terms of ethnicity, seems to have been remarkably stable despite the comings of Romans, Vandals, and Arabs, and while absorbing elements of these visitors they never seem to have become subsumed to within a larger whole.
There you have it. Not terribly well argued. I make no judgement here of the people concerned. Of all these groups the Donatists are the only ones I have really studied, and even there I am hampered by lack of sources in English. I belief most of the historical work here is in French, certainly for Antiquity. Anyway, comments? Might I be onto something or is this a load od BS.
The essence of the idea is this - that the part of north africa that comprises modern day Morocco, Algeria, and Tunis has spawned a number of fundamentalist interpretations of religion. iirc the ethnicity of this area has been incredibly stable. Despite invasions from Rome, the Vandals, Arabs, and others.
The first fundamental interpretation that I know of is a Christian one. North Africa, and specifically Carthage boasted the greatest concentrations of Christians in the Western half of the Roman Empire until sometime in the mid 4th century. From North Africa come some of the greatest of the early theologians, for a time only rivalled by the Alexandrian thelogians. I speak of Tertullian, Cyprian, and of course Augustine - and there were other lesser known lights as well. Anyway, after the Great persecution of Diocletian the church in North Africa splits. The issue is over those who conceded to the persecutors and handed over books and so on. One side held that they could be forgiven by the ordinary process of confession. The other thought these 'traditors' had completely forsaken salvation, and to regain it would have to be re-baptised. Not only that but any sacrament carried out by these was itself tainted. They became known as the Donatists (after Donatus, one of the founders).
The Donatists evolved into a hardline fundamentalist group - and when the central state tried to suppress the schism through a variety of methods from persecution to persuasion, it proved surprisingly resistant. Augustine spent most of his clerical life dealing with this heresy - and his most famous work (City of God) was the result. Donatism was most prevalent in the highlands, and they were still present when Rome reconquered North Africa in the 6th century.
Now, from nearly the same area came the Fatamid Caliphate a few centuries later, after the Islamic conquest. The Fatamids were, of course, one of the most fundamental interpretations of Islam at that time. A while later again the Almoravids and Almohads also came from the same region - though not as close as the Fatimids were. Again both of these offered very fundamentalist interpretations of Islam for the time.
Today the history of fundamentalism and its links with North Africa continue.
Now, most places in the world usually receive a bout of fundamentalism at one time or other - England in the 17th century for example. But this recurring fundamentalism to one region is something fairly extra-ordinary, especially since it crosses religions. Unfortunately little is known for certain of the pre-Christian faiths, or I am unaware of any great knowledge.
I have a theory that it might have something to do with the ethnic and cultural heritage of the people concerned. This region, in terms of ethnicity, seems to have been remarkably stable despite the comings of Romans, Vandals, and Arabs, and while absorbing elements of these visitors they never seem to have become subsumed to within a larger whole.
There you have it. Not terribly well argued. I make no judgement here of the people concerned. Of all these groups the Donatists are the only ones I have really studied, and even there I am hampered by lack of sources in English. I belief most of the historical work here is in French, certainly for Antiquity. Anyway, comments? Might I be onto something or is this a load od BS.
