<論説>一七世紀の西アフリカにおける奴隷化の論理 : アフマド・バーバー『階梯』の分析 (特集 : 学びのネットワーク)

Abstract

一六一五年、西アフリカ・トンブクトゥの著名なイスラーム法学者、アフマド・バーバー(一六二七年歿)は、自らの許に寄せられた質問に対するファトワー(法学的見解)として、ムスリム社会の奴隷制に関する諸問題を扱ったアラビア語著作『輸入された黒人に関する規定の獲得に至る上昇の階梯』をまとめた。この著作においてアフマド・バーバーは、西アジアから北アフリカ、イベリア半島、サハラ沙漠西部、西アフリカに至る広域の先達の見解をその知的源泉としながら、個人の宗教的属性(ムスリムであるか否か)がその人物の帰属する地域や民族集団から導き出されるという議論を展開し、これによって、イスラーム法が奴隷化の可否の基準と定める宗教的属性を地域や民族集団に置き換える論理を提示した。

After completing his fifteen-year exile and returning from Marrakech to his native town, Timbuktu, Ahmad Bābā (d.1627) --one of the most influential and well-known Islamic jurisprudents in the history of West Africa-- composed in 1615 a text on issues related to slavery in Muslim society. This work was a fatwa answering questions addressed by a Maghribi Muslim, Sa'īd bn Ibrāhīm al-Jirārī, and entitled Mi'rāj al-su'ūd ilā nayl hukm mujallab al-sūd ("The Ladder of Ascent towards Grasping the ukm mujallabal-sūd ("The Ladder of Ascent towards Grasping the Law Concerning Transported Black People"). As is well known, Islamic law generally prohibits Muslims from enslaving other Muslims. In keeping with this principle, and quoting many views presented by preceding Muslim intellectual authorities across a vast area spreading from West Africa to West Asia, Ahmad Bābā discussed in Mi'rāj matters relating to slavery in Muslim society. For example, on the grounds of works written by distinguished Muslim scholars such as Ibn Khaldūn (d.1406) and 'Abd al-Rahmān al-Suyūtī (d.1505), he strongly argued that the only reason for servitude was unbelief. He also criticized discourses that attributed fundamental servitude to black people on the basis of the story of "the Curse of Ham." Moreover, quoting multiple views of preceding Muslim intellectuals from al-Andalus, Maghrib and the Sudan, he clarified his negative position against the trade in slaves whose religious affiliation (i.e. whether Muslims or not) was not verified. Despite these views, Ahmad Bābā presented in the same work a logic that the religious affiliation of a person could be decided by the region or ethnic group to which he/she belonged based on a fatwa issued by a Muslim scholar from Tabalbala, Makhlūf al-Balbālī (d.after 1533/4). That is, according to his argument, people belonging to regions or ethnic groups recognized as those in which the faith of Islam was broadly well established are judged to be collectively Muslims and are exempt from enslavement by other Muslims. Contrarily, people belonging to regions or ethnic groups recognized as those in which Islam was not well established are judged to be collectively unbelievers and become lawful targets of enslavement. Therefore, when buying people from these "non-Muslim regions" or "non-Muslim ethnic groups, " Muslims may avoid the trouble of examining a person's religious affiliation. It can be assumed that in cases where a great number of slaves were supplied to the market in a relatively short period of time as in the cases of war or slave hunting, Ahmad Bābā's logic that religious affiliation of an individual was unambiguously derived from his/her ethnic group or region could considerably decrease a slave trader's labor and other difficulties. To verify the slave's religious affiliation must have been fairly difficult in practice because it was essentially related to a captive's inner state of being and his/her continued behavior in everyday life. In this respect, we can say that this logic would facilitate the slave trade performed by Muslims. As is mentioned in previous studies, it is a noteworthy point in Mi'rāj that Ahmad Bābā sharply criticized racial slavery and controverted opinions that connected the "Black race" to fundamental "servitude." However, we should not overlook the fact that, in the same work, he presented the above-mentioned logic that connected "region" or "ethnic group" to "religious affiliation." With this logic, non-Muslims who may have lived in regions or among ethnic groups that he had identified as "Muslim regions" or "Muslim ethnic groups" could be branded as "Muslims, " and conversely, Muslims who may have lived in "non-Muslim regions" or among "non-Muslim ethnic groups" could be branded as "unbelievers"; and the latter could be categorized as enslavable people by Muslims even though they were in fact Muslims.