The African Epistemic Logic of Peacemaking: A Model for Reconciling the Sub-Saharan African Christians and Muslims

Introduction

Christian engagement with Islam in Africa is suffering. Today, voices from Africa are encouraging Muslims and Christians to resolve their conflicts by applying African peace mechanisms (Azumah, 2008; Oborji, 2006), instead of allowing their African peace heritage to be submerged by foreign traditions and modern institutions. Unless African Christians and Muslims employ values that are common to them, their unity would be hard to attain. Innumerable examples, theories, and stories exist of what Africans identify as their shared values and epistemology of peace, regardless of their faiths. These values are ingrained in their “Africanness.”

Concept of Epistemology

Generally, epistemology is described as “the philosophical study of certain questions about human knowledge and belief and thought and reasoning” (Stroud, 2011: 495). From that perspective, the African epistemology of peace begins with the question “what is true peace?” Real peace is when the neighbor is at peace. The epistemological question is how we know the neighbor is at peace. For Africans, such knowledge is acquired through experience.

This cognitive approach is the empiricist epistemology. Empiricism is what Elliott Sober describes as “a thesis about the importance that experience should have in shaping our beliefs about the world” (1993: 39). This statement is better illustrated in Amadou Bâ’s (2012) story about a simple quarrel of two insignificant animals (geckos). When the community trivialized their conflict, it escalated to a critical issue, resulting in loss of lives (of persons and animals). Many such stories are narrated to children so as to infuse in them the sense of ubuntu: “Your pain is My pain, My wealth is Your wealth, Your salvation is My salvation” (Nussbaum, 2003: 1), and similarly, “Your peace is My peace.” Hence, even in modern Africa, when the house of a neighbor catches fire, the neighbors are usually the first front-line helpers, not the professional firefighters. Africans act in solidarity knowing that tragedies do not happen only to others. Georges Ayache (1983) notes that Africans believe, when one’s neighbor’s properties catch fire, everyone is at risk. This notion guides Africans’ responsiveness to what is happening to neighboring communities. Evidently, the “Epistemological theories. . . cannot be answered by science alone” (Haack, 2009: 45). One must apply indigenous experiences to knowledge and actions, especially in matters of community peace.

African Ubuntu as African Common Heritage

Etymologically, the word ubuntu derives from Zulu, “umuntu, ngumuntu ngabantu. . .a person is a person through other people” (Nussbaum, 2003: 7). Ubuntu is a variant of unhu (Mawere and Marongwe, 2016: 287). To stress the character of ubuntu, some authors like Etta and Asukwo employ political terminologies to compare the African perception of humans to that of the West. According to these writers, ubuntu is the “African socialist humanism” (2019: 229), the direct opposite of the Western “capitalist spirit” (Etta and Asukwo, 2019). The former system places human beings at the center of creation; it underscores humanity’s dignity, nobility, mutuality, and kinship (ujamaa or family). The latter is characterized by a hunger to gain, dominate, and to promote individualism (Etta and Asukwo, 2019: 222, 229). Caracciolo and Mungai (2009: 18) prefer to emphasize the humility and the responsibility that govern the “togetherness” that ubuntu stands for. Noteworthy is the fact that humility is key in peace and reconciliation processes. The humbling spirit facilitates the admittance of one’s part in a conflict. Thus it leads to true confession, forgiveness, and transparency.

According to Murithi, ubuntu is simply an African culture that is deeply rooted in the unity of human beings, empathy, and the spirit of sharing and cooperating with the sole aim to solve common issues that face people in a given society (2006: 25). Drawing his thesis from the South African post-apartheid case, Murithi underscores the vital role that the ubuntu culture plays in reconciling the profoundly wounded South African societies.

Contemporary anthropologists are not actively arguing against this idea, except Arjaan Pellis et al. (2018) and Orvis (2001) who indicate that Africa, especially Kenya, is still dominated by tribal and ethnic wars, despite people’s rootedness in ubuntu. These authors implicitly argue that the ubuntu that promotes Keating’s (2013) “I Am because We Are” is jeopardized. These conflicts in Kenya are not unique to this territory; there are numerous regions on the African soil where inter-ethnic conflicts have gained ground. Boku Tache and Gufu Oba (2009) are perplexed that not long ago, in Ethiopia where culture is entrenched in medemer (unity), and members of different communities coexist, violence prevails as relatives go into war against each other. Tache and Oba were, however, quick to clarify what in their view causes these conflicts in this region of Africa where mutuality is key and ubuntu is practiced. Citing Lake and Rothchild (1998), Tache and Oba “attribute inter-ethnic conflict to insecurity and ‘collective fears of the future’” (1998: 409). They further clarify that these conflicts in Africa are either created by others, thus immutable, or as a manipulatory tool by politicians in order to achieve their egoistic interests; or the conflicts are real social phenomena that take source from historical and sociopolitical relations (Tache and Oba, 1998).

In my opinion, the Western failures to solve African conflicts begin with the misinterpretation of the actual causes of the conflicts in Africa. When conflicts erupt in a region of Africa, the first thing that comes to Western minds is poverty (economic), or ethnic differences, and in recent years, religion. It is more complicated than that. African conflicts can be a variety of causal factors as David Smock (2008: 3) reports.

The West usually goes, or is invited by African governments, like law enforcement agents who can fix all issues facing Africans. Consequently, a number of Africans would relate to these Western “powers” with mistrust and contempt. The inferiority–superiority complex has extended to religions and cultures. The West spread the Christian faith in Africa as the superior religion which is supported by the cultural superiority and domination of the West. A number of Christians believe that Christianity came to Africa as a system of power to dominate the primitives and inferiors (Bosch, 1991: 297, 298). In fact, “God’s kingdom became increasingly aligned with the culture and civilization of the West” (Bosch, 1991: 277, 297, 298). Africans suspect that Christian missionaries’ activities helped and may still be helping the Euro-American colonialism to mutilate African cultures and to loot African heritage (Sanneh, 2009: 4). Africans still blame the West, even the Church for the hardship and most conflicts they are in today. For example, when the Western economic systems create high interest rates for the abundant loans of the Majority World, they grapple with the reimbursement; this in turn jeopardizes the stability of innocent individuals in Africa (Corbett and Fikkert, 2012: 84).Thus, the religious, economic, and cultural supremacy approach of the West must be revised if the West truly desires to help Africans establish peace in their region. Further, the African church must make frantic efforts to detach itself from this Western supremacy complex. Christianity must be totally indigenized if Christian-Muslim dialogue is to succeed. As long as the African Church displays Western traits, interfaith and intercultural negotiations will fail.

Furthermore, attempting to make peace in Africa using political and military means is not a productive strategy. Most Africans believe that conflicts or crises are spiritual, thus caused by either Satan (evil spirits) or God. Jehu Hanciles explains that religion is linked to “the prevalent understanding in Africa of evil as a pervasive immanent force-reflective of the African belief in a densely populated spiritual universe” (Hanciles, 2008: 360). In this context, military ammunitions and political discourses, often proposed by the West, would not help.

In Uganda, Joseph Kony uses spirituality to manipulate people, and during the Zimbabwean war of liberation, Joshua Nkomo equally used manipulatory spirituality (Sturges, 2011: 77). Abubakar Shekau, a Boko Haram leader, believed he was mandated by Allah (God) to fight the infidels, even though his struggle was largely motivated by politics (Aworo-Okoroh, 2016). Thus, Kony’s resistance, Nkomo’s movement, and Shekau’s wars were believed to have a divine mandate and support. Sturges observes, “Conflicts in Africa, whether they have been colonial wars of liberation, civil wars, and other post-colonial conflicts, they have often, maybe always, shared this spiritual dimension”(2011: 77). An effective peacemaking strategy in this context should not be solely rational, but also spiritual.

I witnessed a scenario in a country in Africa. A Westerner (white) and his African colleague were appointed as mediators by their church to reconcile two Africans. This African introduced the conversation with some jokes and proverbs. The Westerner got frustrated, and exclaimed “let us go into serious matters.” The Africans felt insulted, so the reconciliation effort failed. Barbara Nussbaum (2003) shares her own experience thus,

Matanga, a colleague, and I disagreed about an issue and after discussing it for an hour or two, I said, ‘Matanga, can’t we agree to disagree?’ He said, ‘No, sisi (sister) Barbs, we have to sit and talk until we agree.’ I have never forgotten this conversation since it illustrates a value base that stresses cooperation, the desire for reconciliation and communication in the interests not only of harmony but a shared understanding. (2003: 5)

In these scenarios, two worlds and methods came to the fore. On the one hand, the Western approach is time-conscious, systematic, and rational. Western methods and culture neglects preliminary steps in peacemaking or reconciliation. Everything is budgeted, planned, and carried out within a given time frame. Peacemaking and reconciliation experts rely heavily on conferencing, chart signing, or classical wars (Pezard and Shurkin, 2015). Additionally, Western methods promote toleration as a means of doing dialogue. On the other hand, the African method takes seriously preliminary rituals including greetings, jokes, and humor. All these are key in the African reconciliation agenda and process. Availability is paramount in resolving conflicts. Africans see peacemaking as lifetime engagement. Hence, they take their time, because the focus is on human beings. The West has accused Africans of being event-oriented, a word that is far from being a compliment. For Westerners, what matters is time and economics.

In Western culture, jokes and humor usually denote entertainment or amusement. Yet, humor can be “a glue that holds groups together and helps people feel included” (Marra and Holmes, 2007: 154). Effectively, “Understanding an in-joke, for example, demonstrates the existence of common ground” (Marra and Holmes, 2007). It was exactly the method employed by the colleague of the white person referred to in the first scenario. It cannot be overemphasized that joking relationships aid in the process of establishing trust interculturally and crossculturally (Diallo, 2006: 183). Neglecting this vital aspect of the African culture would lead to explosion of hatred and permanent resentment.

Besides, indigenous approaches consider “conflict transformation in that they seek to address the conflicts in ways that heal relationships and restore harmony to the group. In contrast, Western conflict resolution methods prioritize reaching an agreement between individual parties over mending relationships that have been damaged by the conflict” (Walker, 2004: 528). In Africa, all factors involved in a conflict are explored and all parties involved are considered for deep and lasting results. Perhaps this prompts Walker to state: “in collectivist culture the primary purpose of resolving conflict is to bring harmony to the group. Thus, conflict is viewed holistically, not analytically or broken into parts” (2004: 530).

Africans believe that a linear and analytical approach to conflicts does not allow people to unearth the actual roots of differences. Usually in Africa, “Many aspects of culture are ‘hidden’, operating at the subconscious level” (Walker, 2004: 529). It is therefore important to associate all parties of the community in seeking solutions to their problems. Sadly, the people who are most concerned are usually ignored. UN (United Nations) Assemblies have become a platform for intellectuals, experts, diplomats, or politicians of both the West and the African regions concerned. At the 61st UN General Assembly, the participants promised to “engage constructively and positively with all parties in efforts aimed at securing for this Declaration the widest possible consensus” (Davide, 2007: 10). I doubt if the local people were fully represented in the endorsement of this Declaration.

The African ubuntu promotes human dignity and nobility, and it encourages equality, reciprocal respect, and mutual sharing. Africans believe that a person is connected to self and to the community; the members of the community are interconnected (Nussbaum, 2003). All these values put together, if used appropriately, would facilitate a peacemaking process or reconciliation between Muslims and Christians. Sadly, in most cases, the principal mediators in the African conflicts employ the individualistic political system to solve issues facing a communalistic society where Islam and Christianity are at odds.

Ubuntu has helped Africa to survive plagues and disasters that are continually befalling it. Without ubuntu, most African communities would be crushed. The idea of mutuality finds its expression in the sharing of pains and delights. The mutuality aims at developing or harmonizing and stabilizing the community (without religious discrimination), and not an individual. Here is an example.

Typical of ubuntu is a tradition called ukusisa. A family in a rural village would “lend” a cow and a bull to a newly married couple and wait until an offspring was produced before taking back the original cow and bull. The offspring would stay with the couple, leaving them both with their own “seed capital” and their dignity (Nussbaum, 2003: 3). A similar custom called habbanaye (Bocquené et al., 2002: 290) is also common among the Fulbe in West Africa, though with a slight difference. A cow can be loaned to any underprivileged person regardless of religious tendency (who has never owned cows, or who lost his or her cows in a plague). Heifers can equally be exchanged with bulls to increase productivity. This “traditional practice of loaning a cow” (Bocquené et al., 2002: 290, 295) or a “peace cow” has united families, clans, and sub-clans, regardless of religion. In ukusisa (Nussbaum, 2003: 3) and the habbanaye (Bocquené et al., 2002: 290, 295) ubuntu-peace finds its meaning. Ukusisa and habbanaye are never obligatory expressions of compassion.

At this juncture, it is worth exploring how the African ubuntu finds corresponding values in the pulaaku code of conduct of the Fulbe people and medemer of Ethiopia.

The Ethnographic Understanding of Pulaaku as a Code of Conduct

Fulbe are nomadic peoples who have influenced West Africa in various ways (Eckert, 2016: 3; Tonah, 2005: viii). Invariably, Fulbe are in majority Muslims, yet, they practice pulaaku (Eckert, 2016: 3, 4; Gausset, 1998: 93; Tonah, 2005: 130) which is described as cultural norms, or “organizational values, principles, procedures, rules and regulations” (Yusuph et al., 2016: 79). When Moussa Bongoyok studies the Fulbe of Cameroun, he ascertains that the heart of Fulbe culture is pulaaku which he defines as a code of behavior. Bongoyok underscores the fact that pulaaku, as a code, is the magnet around which revolve all the other elements of Fulbe life (Bongoyok, 2006: 111, 112). According to Richard Bauman, a code of behavior or conduct facilitates social interactions, given that it defines the roles and acts of members of a given community (1984: 32). Dignity and honor seem, thus, to be key in pulaaku.

In pulaaku, both dignity and honor are intertwined and are expressed in one’s worth, which Dillon (1995: 22) calls the heart of self-respect. A person with dignity respects himself or herself and others; in contrast, the person without a sense of dignity is vulgar, rude, hot-tempered, disrespectful to others, and lacks self-discipline. He or she is unconscious of his or her own worth (Dillon, 1995). A person with dignity reaps the community’s esteem, respect, affection, compassion, and admiration without which one cannot contribute meaningfully to peacemaking in the community.

Semteende, a major component of pulaaku, leads Fulbe to refrain from involving themselves in shameful or embarrassing acts. Dorothée Guilhem explains that yaage [Semteende] (shame or shyness) is an emotional stance that regulates people’s practices (conversation and bodily behavior) in interpersonal relations (2013: 91). Shame as an emotional bearing regulates Fulbe’s interactions, especially within a homogenous community. Yet, contrary to Paul Burkwall’s (1987: 44, 45) findings, Fulbe’s shame goes beyond an internal transaction. Respect and reserve are as well encouraged toward non-Fulbe; it is the heterogeneous dimension. Essentially, from childhood, Fulbe receive an education in the way of pulaaku (laawol Fulfulde) which enables them to distinguish the improper conduct from the appropriate one vis-à-vis others (Ljungqvist, 2002). An initiated pullo is expected to display responsible actions that build the community. Therefore, pulaaku is an internal process where every conscious member of the community needs not to be reminded about how to make wise choices.

Hakkillo, another central feature of pulaaku, is described as the ideas of care, forethought, thoughtfulness, hospitality, intelligence, wisdom, good sense, or a sense of discernment in handling difficult situations relating to both cattle and human beings (Breedveld and De Bruijn, 1996; Burkwall, 1987; Mogensen, 2000). Hakkillo is needed for creating and sustaining community peace.

While Pulaaku highlights dignity and honor, its core constituents are humility and human equality. Fulbe do not claim that, with pulaaku, they are nobler than other ethnic groups. In fact, there are several other African ethnic groups that have a similar code of behavior. For example, the Baatonu people of Northern Benin would prefer death to shame [for the sake of peace] (Hegeman, 2000: 1). A proud and shame culture does not rhyme with arrogance, far from it. People from such cultures like pulaaku consider the other with respect and dignity, and hope that similar treatment will be given to them. In case they are not honored or respected as expected, they apply hakkillo (wisdom). Again, wisdom refers to self-discipline which aims at cultivating peaceful coexistence. A Fulbe proverb states, to a tawi yimɓe ɗiɗo na jooɗodi jam haa ɓooyi, anndu no gooto nder maɓɓe laatini hoore muuɗum paataaɗo. It means if two people are living in harmony, one of them might have chosen to humble himself or herself. Life together requires that someone exercises more patience. Fulbe believe that any noble goal (especially of peace) cannot be attained without some sacrificial efforts by someone. In that regard, I opine that Jesus is the fulfilment of pulaaku. To fulfil the aspect of munyal, Jesus exercised patience, fortitude, and self-discipline in difficulties, especially when he was flogged, mocked, beaten, and crucified. He retained his dignity and forgave his enemies (Matthew 26: 62, 63). His noble goal was to redeem human beings.

Besides munyal, Jesus possessed hakkillo (Burkwall, 1987: 47). He devoted his time to his friends and even for all who hated him. He cared for everyone, including the lowly: lame people, blind people, lepers, widows, the bereaved, orphans, and the hungry (Matthew 8: 17). Jesus laid down his life for his friends (John 15: 13). In my view, that is the culmination of pulaaku. A typical pullo (singular of Fulbe) would prefer to die rather than see his or her friend or relative be destroyed. Pulaaku prompts Fulbe to risk all for the preservation of human dignity, though occasionally, other Fulbe overzealously practice pulaaku and jeopardize the peace they are fighting to preserve. Undoubtedly, this has always been the tendency of human nature.

Additionally, semteende was part of Jesus’ nature. To reduce oneself to a lowly position demands humility. Humility has always been the most difficult exercise for humankind. Yet, Jesus did that for the purpose of redeeming all people. He “humbled himself by becoming obedient to death - even death on a cross” (Philippians 2: 8, NIV). Although the majority of Fulbe are Muslims and disagree with what Christians believe of Jesus, they admire and respect Jesus for his virtues (Rabenoro, 1979: 257) which are similar to the values pulaaku portrays.

From the preceding, it is evident that pulaaku is Fulbe’s cultural heritage which cannot be neglected in studying Fulbe people, and, most importantly, in seeking to reconcile African Christians and Muslims in West Africa. A corresponding cultural value has been examined in Eastern Africa.

The Ethiopian Medemer

Recently, Philip Esler (2019), unearthed organic Ethiopian peacemaking concepts which complement ubuntu and pulaaku. In the era where Ethiopian Christians and Muslims are grappling to stay united, Esler underscores the need to return to these values ingrained in the African culture. He observes that the Ethiopian national unity depends on the reconciliation of Christians. Their unity can embrace the religious others, especially Islam, which is a rapidly growing religion.

To achieve national stability and religiously mutual understanding in Ethiopia, Esler (2019) proposes the concepts of Ethiopiawinet, the essence of being Ethiopian, and medemer (the moral obligation for inclusiveness and embrace), which are Ethiopian epistemic peacemaking notions (2019: 242, 253, 256). The volume suggests that the Ethiopiawinet can be a uniting force, a common ground, or a common in-group identity under which Ethiopians, regardless of their faiths, can coexist in harmony (Esler, 2019: 243). Ethiopiawinet includes, among other values, endurance, pride, morality or ethics, community, faith, patriotism and religion, and reservation (Esler, 2019: 253). Essentially, Esler’s work promotes Christian ecumenism and interfaith negotiations that are embedded in the Ethiopiawinet, the medemer, and the jamaa (family) (Esler, 2019: 247). Though the author regrets that the “Theological consistency is sacrificed on the altar of social pragmatism” (Esler, 2019: 253), he believes that no sacrifice is excessive in peacemaking efforts. Christianity cannot be threatened when the body of Christ embraces societal norms, such as moderation, solidarity, respect, and fairness (Esler, 2019: 253). God takes peacemaking seriously; accordingly, he promises to adopt peacemakers (Heffelfinger, 2018; Matthew 5: 9).

Ethiopiawinet, medemer, and jamaa discourage toleration and promote mutual acceptance. The spirit of embrace goes beyond a surface level and facilitates negotiations. By contrast, “Toleration” supposes that one has the capability to “interfere with someone’s behavior yet chooses not to” (Esler, 2019: 253), while mahebar (association) (Esler, 2019: 188) may be similar to the Western idea of Association. Toleration and association as non-African theories are devoid of any sense of jamaa (family) for which Esler (2019) prescribes and advocates. Toleration, as a Western theory, begs for freedom of all kinds (Leiter, 2013: 5–25). Actually, “Religious toleration has long been the paradigm of the liberal ideal of toleration of group differences” (Leiter, 2013: 5). The troubling aspect of this concept concerns the forbearance that is obligatory.

Furthermore, misnaming concepts of peace can be counterproductive and prejudicial toward reaching peace in Africa. For example, the concept of “tolerance” or “toleration” is controversial and should be addressed in an effort to achieve peace and reconciliation in Africa. To my knowledge, no African language uses the theory of “tolerance” in peace efforts. In place of tolerance, Fulbe prefer to employ munyal (self-discipline, endurance, and patience) and hakkillo (wisdom); Hausa use hakuri for self-discipline, endurance, and patience (Barkow, 1974); and Yoruba and Baatonu (ethnic groups in West Africa) employ suuru (self-discipline, endurance, and patience) (Hegeman, 2000; Owomoyela, 2005). These are indigenous notions that would resonate with Africans.

Preston King rightly defines tolerance “as a problem of human relations. . .[which] means to endure, suffer or put up with a person, activity, idea, or organization of which or whom one does not really approve” (1971: 172). Thus, tolerance suggests a state of powerlessness, subjugation or bondage, and suppression. It is an invitation to surrender to something or someone that one dislikes. It is nothing but faking peace. Such an approach to peace and reconciliation is antithetical to the voluntary sacrificial relation that ubuntu, pulaaku, and medemer propose. Hereof, ubuntu cannot be an “obligatory interrelatedness” as Caracciolo and Mungai (2009: 19) suggest. A notion of humanism cannot be founded on a forced mutual relation. In a number of peacemaking attempts that the West has proposed to Africans, tolerance has been the key theory. Perhaps like Caracciolo and Mungai (2009), Westerners co. African community cannot tolerate terrorists, oppressors, or criminals under the cover of peace. While the concepts denote humanism, they oppose forceful coexistence. Rather, they seek to help members of the community to be productive.

Ubuntu and pulaaku discourage toleration which most people in Africa understand as a hypocritical demeanor, thus non-recommended for interpersonal relation (Forst, 2013: 20).

Toleration, as a Western imagination which Heffelfinger names “peacefaking” (peace-faking) (2018: 25), contrasts with the biblical forbearance that is anchored in “Humility, gentleness, and patience” (Heffelfinger, 2018: 45). “Peace-faking,” according to Sande Ken (2004: 22), denotes an escape response to conflicts through either suicide, flight, or denial. The methods that Heffelfinger and Sande employ to interpret peace are Western, and thus do not apply to African epistemology of peacemaking. Ubuntu, pulaaku, and medemer do not recommend conflict avoidance through suicide, flight, and denial.

While ubuntu, pulaaku, and medemer convey nearly the same idea of embrace, hospitality, and reciprocal respect, each of these concepts has its own peculiarity. This distinctiveness makes the three concepts complementary. Ubuntu has a broader dimension that includes African socialism and fraternalism. The communal value of ubuntu extends beyond an ethnic group, a tribe, or a race. It enfolds all humanity and stretches out a hand of fellowship with a humbling spirit of togetherness (Caracciolo and Mungai, 2009: 18) and solidarity (Etta, 2019: 238). Above all, ubuntu stresses that “a person is a person through other people, that selfhood is achieved by what we do for others” (Barbara Nussbaum, 2003: 7). This is the notion of “humble togetherness” (Nussbaum, 2003: 11). Kipré carries the argument further to include what he describes as the acceptance and the respect of the other in his or her difference and in his or her freedom (2003: 133). Apparently, pulaaku and medemer do not include such a broad scope.

Pulaaku portrays an ethnic dimension. The concept is exclusively rooted in the Fulbe’s culture (Breedveld and De Bruijn, 1996; Dupiré, 1970). The three main components of pulaaku, namely munyal (self-discipline), hakkillo (wisdom), and semteende (reserve, humility) are primarily expressed within the Fulbe community. It is not as global as ubuntu, and it lacks the nationalistic drive of medemer.

Medemer has a nationalistic or patriotic scope (Esler, 2019). Accordingly, it is connected to the Ethiopiawinet, the Ethiopian national identity, synergy, and interdependence (Esler, 2019; Feyissa, 2019; Manickam, 2020). Medemer lacks the ethical values that are featured in pulaaku. While pulaaku and medemer lack the global inclusiveness of ubuntu, they enable people to practice peace at local levels and with immediate neighbors, because global peace begins at the local level.

The notions of wisdom and reserve that pulaaku suggests for social harmony are not quite obvious in ubuntu and medemer. This makes pulaaku essential in the ongoing discussion. While the values that medemer proposes are acquired, Fulbe claim that pulaaku is an intrinsic value with which they are born (Bocquené et al., 2002; Bongoyok, 2006), although this claim is questionable.

In recapitulation, ubuntu suggests a global and holistic inclusiveness of humanity, while pulaaku contributes to the behavioral dimension of social relation; medemer emphasizes identity and interdependency, but rejects tolerance in the peace process. Although ubuntu, pulaaku, and medemer complement each other in this quest for peaceful coexistence, it is worth exploring the red thread that runs through them.

Ubuntu, Pulaaku, and Medemer Expressed in African Metaphors

The African social fabric is ingrained in the “I Am because We Are” (Keating, 2013), which contrasts with the non-African concept of “We are because I am” (Taiwo, 2014: 33). The former reveals the communal, rich, collectivist African heritage (Mbiti, 1991: 2–10), while the latter stands for an individualistic system. The African collectivist perspective does not abate the value of an individual in the society as Paul Spicker (2013: 23) argues; rather, each individual in the society is the product of the community. It is through the community that the value of an individual is appreciated.

Since time immemorial, Africans, regardless of their beliefs, have placed human beings at the center of the universe, hence the existence of the concepts of ubuntu, pulaaku, and medemer. Africans possess an accumulation of stories which perfectly illustrate these cultural dynamics, using anthropomorphic animals such as the one narrated in the following paragraphs. In Africa, creative approaches to peacemaking are negotiated by means of metaphors. Especially, proverbs and stories can be aligned with the “peace” route and the “humane” route, given that they are a reservoir of African wisdom. The verbal arts constitute authentic artistic expression and individual creativity (Finnegan, 1992). First, allow me to begin with a story; then I will proceed with a proverb.

I recall a popular African story that was told about the lion that took initiative to invite all animals of the jungle for a critical consultation. The animals had to find a lasting solution to survive a severe drought and a famine which were fatally attacking them. The invitation was passed around. Given that all the animals were confronted with the same monster (drought), no one was forced or compelled to join the fellowship, each came consentingly. The story indicates that the lion had created a luminal space for mutuality. It was a sincere invitation from the lion to all animals in order to seek a solution to critical issues facing them all. Although the jungle does not exist to bend to any animal’s will, the lion was portrayed here as a mother (tenderly caring) and a father (boldly shielding) all animals. These qualities are stipulated and promoted in ubuntu, pulaaku, and medemer.

At this juncture, let me turn to this Fulbe proverb: “To a dooli barooga e baalu waalugo nokkuure woore, baalu won kebataa doyngol.” [If you force a lion and a lamb to lie together, it is the lamb that will be sleepless.]

Reduced to its simplest definition, a Fulbe proverb is distilled wisdom of Fulbe oral culture which plays an essential function in the socialization of Fulbe children, and which equally enriches the communication between adults. Fulbe proverbs, in general, provide outsiders an invaluable window into the traditional worldview of the Fulbe people group.

Proverbs depict Fulbe linguistic registers, and are full of animal imagery, because animal proverbs are such intriguing metaphors as they distinctly make irony and satire of these animals (Mieder, 2014: 366), thus, passing powerful messages to people. I am not going into this binary genre of a story and proverb or metaphor that Mieder’s (2014: 367) model develops. I am strategically employing certain short Fulbe stories to buttress the proverb of the lion and lamb which depicts the current Muslim-Christian relation in Africa. I am purposely borrowing Mieder’s model which proposes that one selects a proverb that everyone in the society can relate to easily (2014: 373). Understandably, proverbs should not be detached from their cultural milieu; rather, they are to be employed and interpreted within specific contexts (Mieder, 2014: 363). I suggest that culture be explored in Fulbe proverbs as well. Thus, as I discuss the proverb of the lion and the lamb, I will consider the perspectives of Fulbe proverbs in culture, and Fulbe culture in proverbs. In some cases, the idea will be conveyed implicitly.

Fulbe proverbs in culture should be understood in terms of how they are employed in the specific customs of Fulbe, such as Fulbe language (Fulfulde). A proverb that uses the Fulfulde registers, even if such a proverb exists in other cultures, would sound differently, and may have different implications for other communities. It is yet another method of analyzing proverbs that Mieder (2014) favors. The meaning that interlocutors attach to concepts greatly matters, especially in the dynamics of communication geared toward uniting races and parties that are unlike-minded. Proverbs, in particular, help create a space where members of an African community, regardless of their faith, connect with each other at a deeper level. It, therefore, makes sense to present it here as an illustrative process.

Fulbe proverbs equally display Fulbe culture and belief systems. The proverb, to a dooli barooga e baalu wondugo nokkure woore, baalu woni hebataa doyngol, pinpoints how Fulbe culture is sensitive to vulnerable people in the community. When a member of a community hurts, everyone seeks a viable solution. This supposes that if a lamb is sleepless, the lion should also be affected in some way.

In Fulbe mental image, the lion is perceived as the most powerful beast whose mere presence in an ecosystemic environment can be a threat to a feeble animal like a lamb. As in other African tribal metaphors, Fulbe proverbs are linked to a territory, a region, a clan, a lineage, an extended family, as well as to a nuclear family. An adult’s communication serves as a child’s education. Children take cognition of three principal aspects of oral education, namely, yi’ugo (to see), haalude (to speak), and wadugo or yembitugo (to do or imitate). Hence, Fulbe proverbs are verbal arts that are performative (Briggs, 1988: 130). In a Fulbe proverb, all stakeholders in children’s education are present. These include the grandparents, the legitimate parents, uncles, aunts, other elders, and the entire community. Each party is ascribed a role. Fulbe proverbs are usually connected with stories because most stories are developed around some specific proverbs (Aasland, 2009: 2).

Ubuntu, pulaaku, and medemer can be related to the aforementioned proverb, “If you force a lion to co-exist with a lamb, it is the lamb that will be sleepless.” The major idea behind ubuntu, pulaaku, and medemer is a voluntary and wholehearted interaction. Dooli (force) in the proverb denotes coercion which is opposed to the core characteristics of the three notions. Amadou Bâ (1992) narrated a story that supports my argument. Abougui Mansou was the name of the character who acquired magical powers so that everyone in his village was afraid of him. With his mysterious insights he could elevate or curse a person or a family. Everyone supported him passively (Bâ, 1992: 40). The Western commandant who was in charge of that region during the colonialist era failed to break the inequality; instead, he employed Mansou’s powers to establish his hegemony. The commandant asked everyone to tolerate the man’s vices. The indigenous African community would help Mansou to change his conduct, lest they reduce his powers by isolating him. That is “umuntu, ngumuntu ngabantu. . .a person is a person through other people” (Barbara Nussbaum, 2003: 7). In Africa, social isolation is next to death. The community would join synergy to transform individuals rather than tolerating them.

Furthermore, ubuntu’s values “seek to honor the dignity of each person and are concerned with the development and maintenance of mutually affirming and enhancing relationships” (Nussbaum, 2003: 1). “Mutually affirming” refers to free-will interaction which leads to a durable peace. Pulaaku underlines self-discipline and wisdom in interpersonal relations. In pulaaku, people are encouraged to coexist with forbearance, reciprocal forgiveness. These underlining values of pulaaku are anchored in diversity. Where mutual forgiveness applies, one assumes that two or more parties agree to share a space, and they consent (without compulsion) to forgive (not to tolerate) each other. In this Fulbe metaphor, the lion and the lamb are expected to deliberately choose to coexist.

In traditional Africa, the animal world is a central feature of stories, parables, and proverbs. This interconnectedness and anthropomorphic dynamics make the African form of expression peculiar, and a bit different from the interpretation of proverbs in other cultures.

In the African cosmologic imagination, the lion and the lamb can truly coexist. The proverb under our scrutiny is a genre of metaphor that is purposely employed toward re-kindling hope to the hopeless and the oppressed (Wessels, 2014: 703). Evidently, proverbs are a platform for community and individual creativity. This proverb can equally be approached from either kinship or kingship perspective as discussed below.

Kinship [Kindom]-Kingship [Kingdom] Dichotomy in the Proverb of Lion and Lamb

The idea of kinship is rooted in African culture which denotes relationships by birth or naturalization (Harney, 1993: 17). Africans take affinity seriously. Thus, John Azumah (2008) is disappointed that despite deep-rooted African kinship, religious and ethnic conflicts still persist. Undoubtedly, African Christians and Muslims share much in common. They are kindred, people of the same history and heritage; unfortunately, they harbor resentment vis-à-vis others. This cannot be without ill effects (2008). Azumah underscores the central role of kinship evangelization in Africa. Reaching out to Muslims through the dynamic of kinship is what Francis Oborji (2006) describes as a contagious form of spreading Christianity. Sadly, these materials fail to explicate the essential components of kinship that allow such positive “contamination.” Wherefore, I subscribe to Dan Shaw’s (1974) submissions which address the social structure from a kinship perspective. Shaw believes that “kin terms serve to identify individuals who are variously related to each other” (1974: 12). He indicates that in a kinship mechanism, personal interactions are paramount; in that manner, the key insight came from his perception of kinship as involving role expectations (Shaw, 1974). In his study of the people of Papua New Guinea, Shaw argues that environment contact and culture contact are unavoidable factors that weigh on social interactions; yet, his work falls short by omitting the “deep intimacy” suggested by Richard Antoun (2001: 166), which has to do with how kinship affects human relations at the deeper level.

Furthermore, Shaw explains how cultural contact results in culture change, either radically or otherwise (1974: 14, 15). Hereof, the lion and lamb proverb may be begging for role switching. Both animals could belong to each other, enrich each other, and embrace each other. Moreover, kinship involves sharing space where genuine communion takes place, and peace is sustained. I am, therefore, perplexed with Bronislaw Malinowski’s (1941) theory which emphasizes that face-to-face encounter or relationship is most likely to trigger conflicts. His theory is contrary to Evelyne Reisacher’s (2016) work which underlines the relevance of face-to-face encounters in a process of peacemaking, especially across different faiths. From the face-to-face paradigm, both the “lion” and the “lamb” could create luminal spaces of multiple physical interactions. In order for this to happen, each of them would need to step out of his or her comfort zone, and overcome an inferiority or superiority complex.

The proverb of the “lion and lamb” advocates for “kinship” relation rather than “kingship.” Given that my focus is on reciprocal respect between Christians and Muslims, I have chosen not to emphasize [political] “kingship.” From that perspective, I am cautious not to highlight Jesus’ “kingship.” In a context of religious conflicts such as it exists in Africa, a supremacy discourse would not serve the purpose of peacemaking. Ethiopian Christians grasp the sense of peace and unity as they avoid naming Jesus, the Negusa Negast (the [King] of kings) (Esler, 2019: 251). Esler warns that polemic around the theology of Christology would not help mitigate or end conflicts with Muslims. The “lion and lamb” metaphor suggests a direct reflection toward the “kinship” of Jesus rather than his “kingship.”

Bobbie Kalman and Greg Nickles (1998: 1) describe “kingdom” as power, classification, ecosystem competition, and domination. Moreso, in a kingdom, points out Gillian Freeley-Harrick (1985: 302), human beings can be equated with nature, and the privileged class can destroy lives in order to prosper. Understandably, the African metaphor of “lion and lamb” advocates for kinship relationships. This metaphor proposes that the inescapable encounters between cultures and faith systems compel members of the African societies to belong to each other in a context of “kindom” rather than of political “kingdom.” It is what ubuntu, pulaaku, and medemer incarnate.

Interpretation of the Lion and Lamb Proverb in Light of Christian Peacemaking Efforts

I cannot resist my Christian bias as I treat this important peacemaking topic which has, at its core, the Bible. Accordingly, I will take a close look at the Fulbe proverb of “lion and lamb” from a Christological perspective, though I will shun a discourse around Jesus’ kingship, as I mentioned earlier.

The deeper I delve into this proverb, the more I dream of a “lionlambist” (my coining) society for Africa, a society similar to the one described by the prophet Isaiah: “Wolves will live with lambs. Leopards will lie down with goats. Calves and lions will eat together. And little children will lead them around” (Isaiah 11: 6, NIV). This sounds utopic, or perhaps, I am harboring the delusive hope that a “lionlambist” community will one day exist. For this to happen, the lion may have to espouse the spirit of the lamb, and outgrow its “lion-ness” (arrogance); and the lamb should overcome its inferiority complex. I am not alluding to a “lionlambeast” (my coining) association discussed by Reinhold Niebuhr (2001), the society where the brutal behaviors of human beings are evident, the collective power is unimaginable leading to permanent social conflicts. Niebuhr’s (2001) “society” is much too far the opposite of what ubuntu, pulaaku, and medemer stand for. Nonetheless, conflict theorists such as Lewis Coser (1957), Max Gluckman (2012), and Barrett (2009) perceive social conflicts as normal, or positive, a means for social equilibrium. Barret points out that “conflict is inherent of face-to-face relationships. . .the smaller the cooperating group, the greater the degree of aggression” (2009: 98). Barret, though, recognizes that issues that divide people in a given society are nothing but egoistic interests, and not those values that they have in common (2009: 101). These observations are pertinent; nonetheless, I contend that conflict should be orchestrated in order to reach stability in a society. Undoubtedly, God’s primary intent for human beings is that they live in harmony and mutual support. From my standpoint, the aforementioned “lionlambeast” community could only be a logical product of the Antichrist’s agenda described in Revelation 13:18. Antichrist emphasizes the brutal, coarse, and cruel animal nature of human beings.

I still dream of an authentic African “kindom” (not the political kingdom) which is free from human vices and divisive interests. It is a “kindom” and kingdom whose author is God himself. This can be summarized in this promise:

And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ‘Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. . . There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.’ (Rev. 21: 3, NIV)

The central thrust of this deliberation is to draw attention to African cultural heritage which must be considered in Muslim-Christian peacemaking. The ubuntu, pulaaku, and medemer provide an avenue for interfaith negotiations. These are yet to be adequately employed in peacemaking in Africa. Using religion or Western diplomacy as a method to resolve religious conflicts does not yield satisfactory results. Understandably, for most Africans, religion is on an equal footing with culture, perhaps even less significant. Although John Mbiti (1991) has always argued that religion, for Africans, is central. Africans first breathe their culture before they consider religions. In Oborji’s words, “faith can only exist when it is translated into a culture” (2006: 17). Thus, it is legitimate to conclude, “without the African traditional religious past it is impossible to construct an African Christian identity” (Walls, 1978: 12) of peace and witness.

This paper, therefore, proposes that African Christians and Muslims return to their primal culture of ubuntu, pulaaku, and medemer and espouse the perspective of “kinship” rather than “kingship.” A kinship society is a holistic community group in which the social institutions are firmly integrated and interrelated and the power dynamics are evenly distributed, resulting in the sustainment of the society (Filbeck, 1985). The only pushback I have with Filbeck’s assertion is that he has omitted the weakness of such seemingly well-integrated African societies. I am more inclined to discuss a heterogeneous society in which unity in diversity is emphasized and celebrated. African inclusive social practices are deeply embedded in values of social justice, equity, relationship building, and mutual understanding. In such a context, argues Carolyn Riehl, transformations take place, inclusion is key, and diversity is meaningful (2000: 56). Apparently, the African primal culture has preceded Islam and Christianity, which today provide moral and spiritual guidance to the majority of Africans. The organic African peace culture should not therefore be obscured.

The red thread that runs across the culture of African Christians and Muslims is their rootedness in ubuntu. That constitutes a uniting force that makes them human beings, and a family, regardless of their ethnic affiliation or faith. If the Church desires to participate with God (Missio Dei) to reconcile the African Christians and Muslims, it must subscribe to what Jonathan Tan describes as the holistic method of orthodoxy (uniting the mind), orthopraxis (uniting the body), and orthopathos (uniting the spirit) (2014: 208). The current and future generations of African Christians and Muslims must be led to appreciate and promote “I am because We are” (a family-oriented mind) (Miller, 2013: 1), lest they slip over to the other view (We are because I am), a fast proliferating individualistic modern tendency. There is still much to unearth in the African culture that would serve in peacemaking between Christians and Muslims in Africa.

Conclusively, the peacemaking mechanisms that the West proposes for reconciling the African Christians and Muslims seem to be irrelevant to the context. This work challenged the discourses of some Western peace scholars. Obviously, African unity precedes Africans’ encounter with the Abrahamic faiths (especially Christianity and Islam); thus, Africans should not give up their peace cultural heritage as a symbol of universal cohesion.

The paper further argued that the epistemology of peace which the West often proposes for reconciling African Christians and Muslims is unsuitable. The Western understanding of the community contrasts with that of Africans in that its places an individual at the center of every plan, while the African community hinges around the notion of “I Am Because We Are” (not the opposite) (Miller, 2013; Tutu, 1999). Where the West proposes association, meetings, conferences, lectures, chart signing, toleration, and armed forces as the means to stabilizing the society, Africans apply ubuntu, pulaaku, or medemer.

Furthermore, a story and Fulbe proverbs were discussed. It was demonstrated how metaphors are cultural tools that are equally capable of connecting Africans to life and family. It was noted that all across Africa, the notion of ubuntu is trendy and it is expressed variously, like in the case of pulaaku of the Fulbe and medemer of the Ethiopians. These concepts are all connected to the notion of family, kinship, unity, and peace which are the shared cultural values among both African Christians and Muslims. Yet, these cultural resources are still underestimated by most classical peacemaking institutions, interculturalists, and interfaith experts.