‘An innovation created by idlers’: the spread of Mawlid celebrations in the

Mamlūk period - Yahya Nurgat

The Mawlid al-Nabī (Prophet’s Mawlid) spread widely in the Mamlūk period

because of a wide range of often interconnected factors. The first Mawlid was

celebrated under the Shi'ite Fāṭimid dynasty in 1123 as part of a calendar of

celebrations which included the birthdays of the Ahl al-Bayt (the Prophet’s

family) and the ruler. The celebration of the caliph’s mawlid alongside that of

the Prophet and his family gave the Fāṭimid ruler political and spiritual

legitimacy, as did the distribution of sweets and charity to the public. The ruler

would also lead visits to the shrines of prominent descendants of the Prophet.

By the late 1100s, celebrations of the Prophet’s birthday had become common

amongst Muslims in the Near East based on a theme of thanking God for the

blessings of the Prophet.1 It is unknown whether the Mawlid continued to be a

state celebration with the fall of the Fāṭimids or if it had simply gained sufficient

acceptance amongst the population to survive the return to Sunnī rule.2 In any

case, state celebrations of the Mawlid under the Mamlūks began in the rule of

Baybars, with celebrations held in an intricately decorated large tent costing

30,000 dinārs. The Sultan invited the caliph, the four chief qāḍís, the

muqaddam alf amīrs and the Qur'ān readers, and at the end of the prayers

and recitations sumptuous food was served.3 Under the Mamlūks, Fāṭimid style

state ceremonies continued, but celebrations became more domestic

occasions focusing on private devotional practice.4

The Mawlid al-Nabī spread widely in the Mamlūk period because it took on

important socio-cultural, political, and religious functions. For Muslim scholars in

the Mamlūk period, the reasons for popular celebration of the Mawlid could

only be to do with spirituality or entertainment. We see this in their fatwas,

sources which provide us with a unique insight into the dynamics of the Mawlid.

One such scholar is Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymiyya, who despite ruling that the

Mawlid al-Nabī was a reprehensible devotional innovation, recognised that

some people observed the Mawlid out of a desire to show their love for the

1 As summarised by Brown. See Brown, Jonathan A. C., Muhammad: a very short introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) pp.120-121 2 Katz, Marion, The birth of the Prophet Muhammad: devotional piety in Sunni Islam (London: Routledge, 2006) p.1 3 Schimmel, Annemarie, ‘Some glimpses of the Religious Life in Egypt during the Later Mamluk Period,’ Islamic Studies 4 (1965) p.371 4 Katz, Birth p.3

Prophet and thus deserved a reward for their good intentions.5 Thus, from Ibn

Taymiyya’s perspective, the Mawlid was a mode of pious expression for at least

some people, though this raises the question of what he felt motivated the rest.

He suggested that some observed the Mawlid out of a desire to imitate the

Christian celebration of Jesus’ birthday on Christmas. Yet Ibn Taymiyya also

acknowledged the emotional and psychological elements involved for those

who observed the Prophet’s Mawlid as an expression of piety; he urged that

they should not be admonished unless a substitute normative practice was

provided for them through which they could channel their piety. 6 Other

scholars were not so balanced in their approach; the Mālikī jurist Tāj al-Dīn al-

Fākihānī (d.1334) described the Mawlid as ‘an innovation created by idlers

and by the vain desires to which the gluttons abandon themselves.’ Ibn al-Ḥājj

(d.1336) focused on ‘the performance of singers accompanied by percussive

instruments… which they use for musical sessions.’7 For these scholars, the

celebration was not a pious expression but an opportunity to overturn the

social order and engage in normally prohibited actions. Others disagreed;

scholars such as the Damascene Shāfi'ī 'Abd al-Raḥmān Abū Shāma (d.1268),

Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī (1392) and Jalāl al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī also denounced practices

such as the taking of hashish and the playing of music accompanied by

dancing. However, they condoned or encouraged the Mawlid on the basis

that it was a form of reciprocation and thanks for God’s bestowal of the

Prophet, with Abū Shāma citing the pious works and alms-giving which took

place on the occasion.8 It was after the tenth century that the idea of giving

thanks shifted from simply obeying divine command to one of reciprocity,9 and

this certainly played a central role in the unprecedented popularity achieved

by the Mawlid. Psychologically, the idea of favours requiring reciprocation was

of great importance to the scholars as well as the masses.10 This spiritual force

propelled the Mawlid into an occasion observed at each level of society, with

the Prophet conceptualised as a gift and the Mawlid and its many features as

a form of thanks. The giving of money and reading of sīra texts was then

expected to continue the cycle of divine gifts and human reciprocity. 11

Overall, the reasons for the widespread appeal of the Mawlid went beyond

the scholar’s dichotomy of either spirituality or entertainment. However, both

5 Ukeles, Raquel, ‘The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and Spirituality in Light of 20th century Debates on Mawlid al-Nabi,’ in Yossef Rapoport & Shahab Ahmed (ed.), Ibn Taymiyya and his Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) p.320 6 Ibid. pp.324-325 7 Ibid. pp.328-330 8 Ibid. pp.328-330 9 Katz, Birth p.66 10 Ibid. pp.63-66 11 Ibid. p.67

factors did play a part, even if they did so in more complex ways than scholars

imagined or acknowledged.

The development of the Prophet’s Mawlid appears to bear some similarity to

the development in Christianity from the fourth century onwards of different

festivals commemorating individual events in the life of Jesus and of his mother

Mary. The difference was that this one occasion encompassed all the

momentous events in the life of Muḥammad. This was owing to some

uncertainty over dates, but its side-effect was to enhance this day, making it

more special. In this context, the formulation of the Mawlid was from one

aspect a profound spiritual development in the Islamic tradition, summarised

by Katz as a process in which Sunnī devotionalism transitioned from ‘sacred

points distributed in space to powerful moments distributed in time.’12 This

transition was already underway in the time of Ibn Jubayr (d. 1217); the

Prophet’s birthplace remained a sacred space but was opened for special

access on Mondays in the month of the Prophet’s birth. The word ‘mawlid’ itself

shifted from meaning ‘birthplace’ in the time of Ibn Jubayr to referring to the

time of birth by the Mamlūk period. This reflected the extension of the blessing

of the Prophet’s birth from a unique geographical location to a universally

recurring time, making it available to ordinary Muslims in all regions of the world

who would not otherwise be able to undertake the pilgrimage to the sacred

space itself.13 In addition to the spiritual opportunities offered by the Mawlid,

the occasion of the Prophet’s birth offered an alternative route to salvation.

The same theme can be detected across the Abrahamic tradition, in which all

religions share a conception of life as a process of unrepeatable actions. In this

respect, the Mawlid has similarities to the festival of Yom Kippur and the

sacrament of confession. The various Mawlid texts that were developed reveal

the connection between celebrating the Prophet’s birth and individual

salvation.14 The Mawlid thus gained widespread popularity as an additional

means of attaining closeness to God and as an alternative route to salvation,

especially for those whose dedication was lacking in the other months of the

year.

Since the Islamic calendar offered only two official and prophetically

sanctioned canonical festivals, the widespread thirst for supplementary

festivals also represented a popular desire for variety and diversion. This

development is better understood in the context of another occasion that

12 Ibid. p.166 13 Ibid. p.166 14 Ibid. pp.167-168

spread widely in the Mamlūk period; that of the saints’ mawlid. Modern

scholars generally accept that these mawlids, or saint days, first appeared in

Egypt in the early thirteenth century. 15 This corresponds with three other

developments in the first half of the thirteenth century; the emergence of

ziyārat al-qubūr (visiting graves) as an organised group activity occurring on

specified days, the mass followings which the Ṣūfī orders began attracting,16

and the veneration of living saints.17 The saint days seem to be an extension of

these three developments. After all, we know that living shaykhs were

venerated by ordinary people; the blind Cairene shaykh Abū Zakariyyā' Yaḥyā

al-Ṣanāfīrī was frequented by so many visitors that he retreated to a zāwiya

outside of Cairo. When he died, 50,000 people attended his funeral. Great

numbers would also flock to welcome Abū'l-Najā’ al-Fūwwī when he was

visiting Cairo.18 Thus, the veneration of deceased Ṣūfī shaykhs was seen as a

natural continuation of the veneration of living saints. This began with the

funeral of the shaykh, an event that was an opportunity to prove that the saint

continued to be venerated. Mass crowds attended the funerals and tried to

get near the coffins of numerous shaykhs in addition to al-Ṣanāfīrī, such as

Ḥusayn al-Jākī in 1337 and 'Umar al-Bābānī in 1463.19 The saint days also appear

to be an extension of organised tomb visitation; the difference was that these

mawlids were specially allocated, particular days on which important saints

would be commemorated by large, informal public gatherings. Whereas

ziyāra consisted of guided tours of cemeteries, the saint’s mawlids were more

festive observances held around the tomb of the saint in question. They could

sometimes span several days and nights each year and involved rhythmic

dancing, processions, dhikr, recitation of the Qur'ān, recounting stories of the

saint’s life, and a variety of additional public attractions and entertainment.20

Finally, the saint days spread widely because they were organised by the Ṣūfī

orders, whose membership levels were rising exponentially. However, whilst

these three developments definitely played a role in giving the saint days their

popularity, the saint days were also a distinct activity which combined the

commemoration of a saint with a great deal of entertainment. In addition to

the entertainment value of these mawlids, factors such as royal patronage

and Coptic and Ancient Egyptian antecedents also played a role in a making

the saint days an occasion with such wide appeal.

15 Taylor, Christopher S., ‘The Ziyāra,’ in Christopher S. Taylor, In the vicinity of the righteous: ziyara and the veneration of Muslim saints in late medieval Egypt (Leiden: Brill, 1998) p.65 16 Ibid. p.63 17 Shoshan, Boaz, Popular Culture in Medieval Cairo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) pp.10-11 18 Ibid. p.11 19 Ibid. p.21 20 Taylor 'Ziyāra' pp.64-65

The Prophet’s Mawlid and the saints’ mawlids were different in two important

ways; firstly, the Prophet’s Mawlid was established prior to the saint days, and

secondly, its observance was by no means limited to observance by Ṣūfīs but

rather it was a state festival financed by the government.21 Yet the saint days

managed to achieve a level of popularity which matched that of the

Prophet’s Mawlid.22 One reason for this was that even though these mawlids

were not a state occasion, they became part of the religion and culture of the

elite, and thus attained the same prestige as the Prophet’s mawlid. The

phenomenon of organised ziyāras, Ṣūfī orders, and veneration of saints meant

that Sufism in the Mamlūk period was no longer an abstract doctrine or the

preserve of mystics but an important part of the socio-religious structure and of

congregational life. The Ṣūfī orders especially influenced the Mamlūk ruling and

scholarly elite and received support from the Mamlūk authorities.23 From a

cultural perspective, whilst the saints’ mawlid began as a popular form, it

became enhanced in cultural value as the elite began to participate, as

opposed to the masses reacting to the initiative of rulers and the elite, as was

the case for other celebrations.24 For example, the mawlid at Ṭanṭā of Aḥmad

al-Badawī was the biggest important popular gathering celebrated by

dignitaries. In 1462, the wife of Sultan Khushqadām, Shukr Bāy, participated in

the festival with her entourage. Sultan Qāyit Bāy ordered the enlargement of

the tomb in 1483. Al-Nāsir participated in the night celebration of Shaykh Ismā'il

al-Inbābī. 25 The mawlid of Sayyida Nafīsa, hosted by the caliph in her

mausoleum, acquired much popularity and came to be called ‘the caliph’s

mawlid’.26 The fact that the saints’ mawlids were more local affairs makes it

remarkable that they attracted such high-level patronage. Unlike the

Prophet’s Mawlid, Sultans appeared to patronise such mawlids more from a

position of personal piety than political legitimacy. In any case, the end result

was that the saint days became a ‘common cultural domain’27 shared and

celebrated together by the common people and the elite.

21 Hallenberg, Helena, ‘The Sultan Who Loved Sufis: How Qaytbay Endowed a Shrine Complex in Dasūq,’ Mamlūk Studies Review 4 (2000) p.158 22 The mawlid of Aḥmad al-Badawī at Ṭanṭa was said by late Mamlūk observers to draw more people than even the Prophet’s Mawlid or more than the Ḥajj pilgrimage. See Shoshan Popular Culture p.17 23 Ibid. p.11 24 Ibid. p.76 25 Ibid. p.77 26 Ohtoshi, Tetsuya, ‘Tasawwuf as Reflected in the Ziyāra Books and the Cairo Cemeteries,’ in Richard McGregor and Adam Sabra (ed.), Le développement du soufisme en Égypte à l’époque mamlouke (Cairo: Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale, 2006) p.315 27 Shoshan Popular Culture p.78

Numerous chroniclers report that the saints’ mawlids were host to a range of

immoral and corrupt practices. Ibn Iyās reported every year that people of

Būlāq ‘surpassed all limits in noise and joy’ on the festival of Ismā'il al-Inbābī, a

pupil of al-Badawī. The celebrations took place on an island opposite Būlāq

under more than 500 tents.28 It was reported of a mawlid held there in 1389

that ‘innumerable women, children and corrupt people gathered, so on the

next morning, 150 empty wine jars were scattered in the field.’29 It was also

reported that many women attended and that there were sexual orgies.30

Shoshan agrees that the religious dimensions of some of the saint days were

questionable. 31 Perhaps the most popular mawlid, that of al-Badawī, was

ordered to be discontinued in 1447 because of the scandalous behaviour

involved, though it was alleged that the sultan was influenced in his decision

by followers of another Ṣūfī shaykh, Muḥammad al-Ghamrī. Al-Badawī’s

followers pressured for the ban to be lifted, which it was the following year.

Shaykh Muḥammad al-Shināwī (d.1525) later abolished some of the more

frenzied practices involved in al-Badawī’s mawlid and a procession with

musical instruments to the shaykh’s grave, organising dhikr sessions instead.32

Al-Sha'rānī reports that in the first half of the sixteenth century, mawlid

participants would occasionally tire of Qur'ānic recitation and someone might

cry out ‘Enough of the Qur'ān! Let us hear something enjoyable! Let us have

some singing and music!’ He also reports that shadow plays would form part

of the mawlid entertainment.33 Thus, there is no doubt that one of the reasons

the saints’ mawlids gained so much popularity was because of the escape

they provided from the rules and regulations of everyday life. Ṣūfī settings

appear to be a common denominator in the corruption of mawlid practices

in Mamlūk Egypt; immoral practices spread to the Mawlid al-Nabī, with Ṣūfī

shaykhs performing nocturnal celebrations of the occasion at their zāwiyas in

the presence of large crowds. On occasion, and not without criticism, wine

was consumed and women were present, which raises the question of how

much of the religious aspect remained. 34 As Shoshan reminds us,

entertainment and celebration in medieval Cairo was an escape from

economic hardship, political oppression and frequent death.35 For those who

28 Schimmel 'Glimpses' p.372 29 Ohtoshi, ‘Tasawwuf' p.315 30 Shoshan Popular Culture p.17 31 Ibid. p.17 32 Ibid. p.17 33 Ibid. pp.17-18 34 Shoshan, Boaz, ‘Mawlid,’ in Josef W. Meri (ed.), Medieval Islamic Civilization: An Encyclopedia (New York;

London: Routledge, 2006) pp.255-256 35 Shoshan Popular Culture p.6

wanted more festivals in which they could break rules and social conventions

surrounding alcohol, women and dancing, the saints’ mawlids and sometimes

even the Prophet’s Mawlid provided such an opportunity.

The Prophet’s Mawlid spread widely in the Mamlūk period because it

performed an important social and political function for rulers. The sultan would

invite guests and distribute largess, with the aim of concretising ties of

patronage and dramatising the benevolence of the ruler.36 The Prophet’s

Mawlid thus served to consolidate and legitimise power relationships. For

instance, Ibn al-Jazarī estimates the cost of the Mawlid al-Nabī festival held by

the Mamlūk Sultan al-Ẓāhir Barqūq in 1383 at around 10,000 mithqāls of gold,

with expenses including gifts bestowed on Qur'ān reciters and other

participants, robes of honour, food, drink, and incense.37 In addition, as part of

the great festivities and generosity the people of Cairo were accustomed to

under the Mamlūks, the Mamlūk army would give colourful parades with

equestrian exercises. The Egyptians were known to miss these displays when

the Ottomans took over and did not continue them.38 In the Mamlūk period,

the sultan’s spending on the Mawlid al-Nabī reflected a model of pious

expenditure similar to looking after pilgrims or ransoming prisoners of war.39 The

Prophet’s Mawlid also served an important social and political function for Ṣūfī

orders. In fact, Francisco Rodriguez-Manas has speculated that rulers were

inspired by Ṣūfī festivities.40 What we can be sure of is that the sometimes

competing Ṣūfī orders and Mamlūk rulers enhanced their legitimacy and

prestige through food and spending. In addition to grand banquets hosted by

sultans and prominent Ṣūfī shaykhs, the Mawlid al-Nabī would also occur in a

private home within a spiritual setting and with a simple meal.41 Here, the

Prophet’s Mawlid served an important social function for ordinary people too.

Fatwas both for and against the Mawlid point to its social aspects; the serving

of food and spending of money on participants was pivotal both to the

religious and social function of the celebration. Scholars such as Ibn al-

Ṭabbākh, who died in 1178-79 but was being cited by scholars as late as in

1536, emphasised the reward of private spending. 42 However, whereas

accepting an invite to a private Mawlid and giving a gift to the host could

36 Katz, Birth p.67 37 Ibid. p.67 38 Winter, Michael, ‘Attitudes toward the Ottomans in Egyptian historiography during Ottoman rule,’ in Hugh N. Kennedy (ed.), The Historiography of Islamic Egypt: (c.950 - 1800) (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2001) p.198 39 Katz, Birth pp.67-68 40 Ibid. p.101 41 Ibid. p.70 42 Ibid. p.68

cement social ties in the same way that giving gifts did in the Mamlūk period,

not participating or donating to the host was equally seen as negative. The

latter is what is cited by Ibn al-Ḥājj in his argument against the Mawlid, but

something which is also alluded to by other fatwas and accounts from the

Mamlūk period.43 For instance, Ibn Ṭawq describes attending the Prophet’s

Mawlid at the house of a local confectioner in 1482. After the recitation, sweet

and savoury dishes were served and a neighbour gifted a large gilded candle

to the confectioner.44 Thus, material gifts and spiritual gain both played a role

as the Mawlid al-Nabī became a popular means for solidifying social networks

in the Mamlūk period.

Macpherson argues that the saints’ mawlids spread so widely because they

were in many cases a continuation of feasts held hundreds or even thousands

of years before the advent of Islam. For instance, the mawlid of al-Badawī is

regarded by many Egyptologists as a revival of the Feast of Shoo, the God of

Sebennytus. In addition, the mawlid of Shaykh Ismā'īl did not follow the Islamic

calendar but was celebrated on or around the 10th of the Coptic month of

Bauna. On this date, ancient Egyptians watched for the mystic tear of Isis

believed to fall at that time and place into the river of Osiris.45 Macpherson

locates the source of the popularity of these celebrations firmly in ‘the hearts

of the people,’ which led the leaders to integrate them into the Christian and

Islamic traditions. Macpherson also argues that whilst the practice of saint days

was informed by Ancient Egyptian and Coptic customs, the mawlid of al-

Badawī was the catalyst and template for all other saints’ mawlids. 46 Al-

Badawī’s fame in life spread beyond Egypt to North Africa, Mecca and Iraq,

so in death, his tomb at Ṭanṭā was surrounded by pilgrims from all over the

Muslim world. The society and economy of Ṭanṭā was boosted by these

crowds, and there was a social and festive feel to the occasion as well as ‘the

air of sanctity.’47 Thus, it only seemed natural to arrange a similar meeting at

the same time the next year. This description suggests a spiritual and festive

feel to the saints’ mawlid, with the local economy especially benefiting from

the crowds. Mawlids personally visited by Macpherson in the first half of the

twentieth century appear to show great continuity with those in the Mamlūk

period. Many of them were also fairs, consisting of booths where fruit, toys and

sweets were sold and where visitors could enjoy camel and horse races and

43 Ibid. p.71 44 Ibid. p.72 45 Macpherson, Joseph W., The Moulids of Egypt. Egyptian Saints-Days, etc. [With plates.] (Cairo : N. M. Press, 1941) p.3 46 Ibid. p.30 47 Ibid. pp.30-31

sports.48 Thus, the popularity of the saints’ mawlid was contributed to by its

historical antecedents. The saints’ tomb also served as a locus for important

spiritual, social and economic benefits.

The development of the Prophet’s Mawlid and of the saint days remarkably

mirrors similar developments in Catholicism. The early Christians kept Sunday as

a day of Eucharistic worship and from at least the second century they

celebrated the great annual feast of Easter, with the latter based on phases

of the moon and thus falling at different times of the year. Christmas was

another important feast first mentioned in the fourth century. Local churches

would also commemorate their martyrs on the anniversary of their deaths. This

triple pattern of weekly holy day, annual moveable feasts, and annual fixed

feasts formed the basic framework of Christian worship. 49 From its earliest

period, Islam had a weekly holy day on Friday and two fixed canonical festivals

of 'Īd. The Mawlid al-Nabī was added in the twelfth century almost as an

additional canonical festival, celebrated as a state occasion and

commemorated by those at the highest echelons of government. In the first

half of the thirteenth century, or at the turn of Islam’s seventh century, the

saints’ mawlids made their way into Islam’s own ‘liturgical year’, giving a similar

pattern of weekly holy day, annual moveable feasts, and annual fixed feasts.

The French theologian William of Auxerre wrote in the early thirteenth century

that Christians celebrated the feasts of the saints because, as Bartlett

summarises, ‘the saints are intercessors and examples; in honouring them we

honour God; and we are, in some sense, in community with them.’50 These

factors can also be seen in the saints’ mawlids of the Mamlūk period, with

similar themes of intercession and veneration. However just like the mawlids,

Christian saints’ days also had their critics; it is clear from the writings and

actions of prominent Catholics such as Saint Augustine and Saint Vincent Ferrer

that saint’s days could be celebrated in ways less than devout or solemn.

Fourth century critics lamented that people went straight from the service

commemorating a martyr to the pub. Another critic in sixth-century Gaul

complained that some feast-day participants simply wanted to ‘damn

themselves and others by getting drunk, dancing, and singing disgraceful

songs.’51 This reminds us of the mawlids of al-Badawī and his pupil al-Inbābī,

both of which were known to attract scandalous behaviour. Augustine (354-

48 Ibid. p.35 49 Bartlett, Robert, 'Saints' Days,' in Robert Bartlett, Why Can the Dead Do Such Great Things?: Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation (Princeton University Press, 2013) p.113 50 Ibid. p.114 51 Ibid. p.136

430) criticised drunkenness and dancing at the shrines of martyrs, whilst Vincent

Ferrer (1350-1419) was known to insist that a thick rope separate male and

female listeners of his sermons. 52 The latter reflected suspicion of the

intermingling of the sexes even in a religious context. We find Mamlūk

chroniclers voicing similar suspicions. Gratian’s Decretum, the standard canon-

law collection published in 1353, decried the ‘immodest gambolling’ and

unseemly singing that ‘the common people’ engaged in on feast days.53

Bartlett concludes that ‘Saints days could be an excuse for a party.’54 The

same is true for their Muslim equivalents.

The Prophet’s Mawlid and saints' mawlid spread widely in the Mamlūk period

for a number of reasons. Many saw both occasions as important opportunities

to become closer to God and attain salvation, either by thanking Him for

bestowing the Prophet upon mankind or by invoking the intercession of a dead

saint. The former reflected new developments in scholarly and popular Islamic

belief centring on a reciprocal relationship with God and the latter reflected

the unprecedented popularity of the Ṣūfī orders and the veneration given to

living saints. The Prophet’s Mawlid may well have had a level of popularity prior

to the Mamlūk period. However, its popularity was cemented under the

Mamlūks as the occasion took on important social, cultural and political

functions. The Prophet’s Mawlid served to consolidate and legitimise power

relationships for the sultan, with even Ṣūfī orders enhancing their legitimacy

and prestige through food and spending. Ordinary people too solidified social

networks by hosting private celebrations. The saints' mawlids, despite being

more of a local, Ṣūfī occasion, reached similar levels of popularity to the state

occasion of the Mawlid al-Nabī as they became part of the religion and

culture of the elite. This helped them gain prestige and funding. The saints'

mawlids in many cases also provided an opportunity for a reversal of the social

order and a free-rein from society's rules and conventions. As Ibn Taymiyya

argued, the Prophet's Mawlid provided an opportunity for an extra day of

celebration for some people. A view from above and beyond medieval Cairo

and Damascus also gives us a valuable insight. Many of the saints’ mawlids

became popular because they were in many cases a continuation of feasts

held hundreds or thousands of years before the Mamlūk period. Once the

mawlid of al-Badawī began to be celebrated and the spiritual, social and

economic benefits were seen, other mawlids began to spread in the same

vein. The Prophet’s Mawlid and saints' days also bear remarkable similarity to

52 Ibid. p.136 53 Ibid. p.136 54 Ibid. p.136

similar developments in the Catholic liturgical calendar, allowing us to

compare how both traditions accommodated changes in religious belief and

popular demand. Both Muslim and Christian scholars distinguish between

spiritual believers and participants who saw the saints' days as an opportunity

for entertainment.

Bibliography

• Bartlett, Robert, 'Saints' Days,' in Robert Bartlett, Why Can the Dead Do Such Great

Things?: Saints and Worshippers from the Martyrs to the Reformation (Princeton

University Press, 2013) pp.113-136.

• Brown, Jonathan A. C., Muhammad: a very short introduction (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2011).

• Hallenberg, Helena, ‘The Sultan Who Loved Sufis: How Qaytbay Endowed a Shrine

Complex in Dasūq,’ Mamlūk Studies Review 4 (2000), pp.147-166.

• Kaptein, N. J. G., Muhammad's birthday festival : early history in the central Muslim

lands and development in the Muslim west until the 10th/16th century (Leiden: Brill,

1993)

• Karamustafa, Ahmet, God's unruly friends: dervish groups in the Islamic middle period

1200-1550 (Oxford: Oneworld, 2006)

• Katz, Marion, The birth of the Prophet Muhammad: devotional piety in Sunni Islam

(London: Routledge, 2006).

• Macpherson, Joseph W., The Moulids of Egypt. Egyptian Saints-Days, etc. [With

plates.] (Cairo : N. M. Press, 1941).

• Ohtoshi, Tetsuya, ‘Tasawwuf as Reflected in the Ziyāra Books and the Cairo

Cemeteries,’ in Richard McGregor and Adam Sabra (ed.), Le développement du

soufisme en Égypte à l’époque mamlouke (Cairo: Institut Français d'Archéologie

Orientale, 2006) pp.299-330.

• Schimmel, Annemarie, ‘Some glimpses of the Religious Life in Egypt during the Later

Mamlūk Period,’ Islamic Studies 4 (1965), pp.353-92.

• Shoshan, Boaz, Popular Culture in Medieval Cairo (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1993).

• Shoshan, Boaz, ‘Mawlid,’ in Josef W. Meri (ed.), Medieval Islamic Civilization: An

Encyclopedia (New York; London: Routledge, 2006) pp.255-256.

• Taylor, Christopher S., ‘The Ziyāra,’ in Christopher S. Taylor, In the vicinity of the

righteous: ziya ra and the veneration of Muslim saints in late medieval Egypt (Leiden:

Brill, 1998) pp.62-79.

• Ukeles, Raquel, ‘The Sensitive Puritan? Revisiting Ibn Taymiyya's Approach to Law and

Spirituality in Light of 20th century Debates on Mawlid al-Nabi,’ in Yossef Rapoport &

Shahab Ahmed (ed.), Ibn Taymiyya and his Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press,

2010) pp.319-337.

• Winter, Michael, ‘Attitudes toward the Ottomans in Egyptian historiography during

Ottoman rule,’ in Hugh N. Kennedy (ed.), The Historiography of Islamic Egypt: (c.950 -

1800) (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2001) pp.195-210.