that were considered socially pure, with another point of view that recognizes such cultural forms as mixtures . . . it implies identifying and distinguishing not cultural sets dened as ‘popular’, but rather the specic ways in which such cultural sets are appropriated . . . What is ‘popular’ is neither culture created for the people, nor culture uprooted; it is a kind of relation with cultural objects.”85 Chartier’s model seems most promising for the analysis of phenomena such as Qurån recitation, ziyåra, and commitment to the shara. It calls for an effort to reveal the specic meaning that Muslims of different social categories attached to those practices, almost universally recognized as essential expressions of piety, neither ‘high’ nor ‘popular’. This, exactly, is the intent of this work.
85 Chartier, “Culture,” 233–36. The more ambitious questions posed by Aron Gurevich regarding transformation as a result of dissemination, and the mechanism through which the masses acquire and assimilate ideas (see Gurevich, Historical Anthropology, 18–19) are highly intriguing, but it very hard to answer them on the basis of our source material.