The Perils of Joy: Contesting Mulid Festivals in Contemporary Egypt

5. An “Other” of Modern Egypt

111 5 An “Other” of Modern Egypt The opposition to mulids is not just a response to the challenge they form to the worldview of modernism and Islamic reformism. Criticizing popular festivals as backward and un-Islamic is important for many Egyptians also because it helps them to define their own position within orthodox Islam and modern society. In the previous chapter, I asked what the issues and arguments involved in the opposition to mulids are, and in this chapter I turn my attention from the discursive to the more practical level and ask what is accomplished by this opposition. What kind of work does the critique, exclusion, and ridiculing of a spiritual and festive tradition do? What are the stakes involved in this contestation? To understand what this “otherness” of mulids contributes to a modernist vision of religion and society, I first turn to an historical analysis of the emergence of the debate and the classes, ideas, and social conflicts involved. Through this historical detour, I proceed to inquire about the role of critique as key means of social distinction and cultural hegemony. Even when arguments about mulids are often made seemingly in accordance with centuries old Islamic traditions of scholarship and debate, the debate and its significance are genuinely modern. It developed into its present form through a confrontation with Orientalist representations of Egypt and European concepts of progress and piety before and during the colonial period. This encounter significantly shaped the currently prevalent notions of religion, nationalism, and modernity and produced a specific way of creating social distinctions in which mulids and other communal religious traditions play an important role. But to comprehend the magnitude of the historical shifts involved, we need to begin in the Middle Ages, at the roots of the debate, in order to understand its origins and transformations. 112  The Perils of Joy Contested Traditions Mulids have been the subject of controversy ever since their emergence as a distinct festive form. The earliest known reference to the mulid of alSayyid al-Badawi mentions that it was prohibited (for only one year, as it turned out) in 1448 “because of the presence of sinful women.”1 This event was not an isolated one: the emergence of mulid al-nabi and mulids in honor of Muslim saints and the spread of organized mysticism and ecstatic rituals were accompanied by major controversy in the Muslim Middle East. Mulids have remained part of this historical controversy ever since. Between the twelfth and fifteenth centuries, a genre of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) specializing in the discussion of bida‘ (innovations) emerged. This genre, which first appeared among Maliki scholars in Andalusia but soon spread throughout the Islamic world, became part of a debate that developed in particular between the supporters and opponents of organized Sufism. The most prominent representative of this genre, although not its creator, was Ahmad ibn Taymiya (d. 1328), a highly controversial figure even in his lifetime.2 Part of a current within Islamic scholarship devoted to the purification of ritual and morality, he followed the footsteps of earlier scholars such as at-Turtushi (d. 1126), Ibn al-Jawzi (d. 1200), Abu Shama (d. 1268), al-Turkumani (fourteenth century) and Ibn al-Hagg al-‘Abdari (1336).3 The topics and arguments developed in kutub al-bida‘ (tractates against innovations) belong to a repertoire that became standard in the critique of ritual and that gained new dynamics following the revival of ibn Taymiya’s writings upon the rise of Islamic reform movements beginning in the eighteenth century. In their treatment of public festivals, grave visitation, music, morality, and ritual practice, the bida‘ tractates contained basic elements of the contemporary criticism of mulids and are referred to for that purpose today. They are characterized by an uncompromising demand for ritual purity and moral discipline, a clear and strong rejection of any syncretistic forms of piety, and a staunch opposition to overwhelming joy and laughter, extravagant culinary culture, liberal spending, and anything that has a taste of hedonism. In their insistence on clear and solid boundaries and a constrained and stern habitus,4 they clearly present a formative body of An “Other” of Modern Egypt  113 discourse whose aesthetic standards of piety and patterns of argumentation have significantly contributed to the discursive common sense of Islamic reformism. Yet this view did not present the “orthodox” view of Muslim scholars . On the contrary, ibn Taymiya faced massive opposition from...