Bosniaks also debated Muslim women’s issues, including use of the face veil. One of the most renowned debates on the subject dates to 1928. It began when Mehmed Džemaludin Čaušević, the grand mufti of the Bosnian community and an important religious reformist, argued that the face veil was a product of historical tradition, not of religion per se, so it was possible to change veiling practices without violating Islam. Religious conservatives, who considered covering a woman’s face to be a religious duty, reacted harshly. But through a long and vigorous back-and-forth, Čaušević eventually earned the support of notable intellectuals and professionals, some of whom soon became the leaders of a self-defined progressive movement.
Again, this was a case of finding an Islamic justification for submitting to superior forces. The Austro-Hungarian rulers discouraged the veiling of women, and finding an “Islamic” justification for what would have to be accepted in any case was a way to avoid a clash between the non-Muslim rulers and the Muslim ruled, a clash that could only lead to the defeat and humiliation of the latter. Furthermore, Bosnia was right next door to Turkey, where by 1928 Ataturk had pushed through much of his grand plan for the secularization of Turkish society, including outlawing the wearing of the veil in the public square (such as universities and all government offices) and giving women the right to vote. This no doubt influenced the religious reformers in Bosnia.
After World War II, during Communist rule in Yugoslavia, the “emancipation” of Muslim women was enacted through authoritarian means. The face veil was perceived as backward—an obstacle to women’s much-needed participation in the socialist rebuilding of the newly formed country. The Women’s Antifascist Front, a state-sponsored organization, organized campaigns to unveil Muslim women in Yugoslavia from 1947 to 1950. At public unveiling ceremonies, women clambered onto stages and removed their zar—a black garment resembling today’s burka—en masse.
State-imposed unveiling ultimately culminated in a legal ban on face veils in 1950. The new law was presented to the public as the state’s response to Muslim women’s mass requests. Although some women did welcome the ban, many ended up more isolated as a result of it; they felt they had to stay home because they couldn’t go outside with their heads uncovered. Written and video testimonies confirm the difficulties they endured.
Concerned for the position of Muslim women in society, Bosnia’s highest official Islamic religious body supported the unveiling campaigns at the time. It made several statements in 1947 asserting that veiling one’s face and covering one’s hands up to the wrists was not required by religious code. Ibrahim Fejić, a mufti who then served as the leader of the Islamic Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, said Islam asks women to dress modestly, but that this does not require face veiling or isolation from the public. He added, “It is a sin in Islam to allow oneself what the religion forbids; it is as much a sin to forbid to oneself what the religion permits.”
Today, the history and practice of Bosnian Islam yield a number of noteworthy lessons for those seeking to cultivate a liberal Islam in Europe.
One is that an institutionalized, centralized form of Islam can be highly successful, as seen in the case of the Islamic Community. This probably can’t be replicated precisely in other European countries—the Bosnian organization of Islamic religious affairs is distinct in that it is independent of the state and incorporates elements of representative democracy for legislative and representative bodies—but it can still serve as a useful example to the rest of Europe.
The Muslims in Bosnia share a sect and an ethnicity, which allowed them to create a “centralized form of Islam.” The Muslims now all over Europe are identical neither in sect nor, even more important, in ethnicity. The vast variety, of Turks and Kurds, Pakistanis and Afghans, Arabs and Berbers, Iranians and Azerbaijanis, Somalis and Sudanese, black Africans and white converts, would make it difficult to gather them into one Islamic organization capable of representing all of them.
The Islamic Community cites the “requirements of time” (in the words of Bosnia’s top Islamic legal scholar) as one of the principles animating its religious interpretations: Islamic thought can and should offer Muslims answers on how to practice Islam here and now. The result is that “the institutions are given an element of flexibility, while maintaining Islam’s timelessness.” The same institution today asserts its credibility to “serve as a constructive partner for other Muslim communities and EU institutions.”
If some Bosniaks — the author doesn’t tell us how many — think that the texts and teachings of Islam must change with the times (yielding to the “requirements of time”) to be flexible, that is welcome news. But very few Muslims believe that. For them, the Qur’an’s text is uncreated and immutable. It cannot be changed.

mortimer says
Non-observant Bosnian Muslims do not represent Islam per se, but they are examples of LAXITY IN PRACTICE. Bosnian laxity in religion is Islam by personal taste … rather than Islam ‘by the book’ (i.e. conforming with the manual of Sharia law). It is ‘cafeteria’ Islam or Islam-à-la-carte.
Islam-à-la-carte is known to Islamic scholars as:
1. Kufrul-’Inaad: Disbelief out of stubborness. This applies to someone who knows the truth and admits to knowing the truth and admits to knowing it with his tongue, but refuses to accept it and refrains from making a declaration. Allaah subhanahu wa ta’ala says: Throw into Hell every stubborn disbeliever [Soorah Qaaf (50), Ayah 24]
3. Kufrul-Kibr: Disbelief out of arrogance and pride. The disbelief by the devils (Iblees) is an example of this type of Kufr.
4. Kufrul-Juhood: Disbelief out of rejection.This applies to someone who aknowledges the truth in his heart, but rejects it with his tongue. This types of kufr is applicable to those who calls themselves Muslims but who reject any necessary and accepted norms of Islam such as Salaat and Zakat. Allaah subhanahu wa ta’ala says: They denied them (OUR SIGNS) even though their hearts believed in them , out of spite and arrogance. [Soorah Naml (27), Ayah 14]
5. Kufrul-Nifaaq: Disbelief out of hypocrisy.This applies to someone who pretends to be a believer but conceals his disbelief. Such a person is called a MUNAFIQ or hypocrite. Allaah subhanahu wa ta’ala says: Verily the hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of Hell. You will find no one to help them. [Soorah An Nisaa (4), Ayah 145]
6. Kufrul-Istihaal: Disbelief out of trying to make HARAM into HALAL. This applies to someone who accepts as lawful (Halal) that which Allaah has made unlawful (Haram) like alcohol or adultery.Only Allaah subhanahu wa ta’ala has the prerogative to make things Halal and Haram and those who seek to interfere with His right are like rivals to Him and therefore fall outside the boundries of faith.
7. Kufrul-Kurh: Disbelief out of detesting any of Allaah’s subhanahu wa ta’ala commands. Allaah subhanahu wa ta’ala says: Perdition (destruction) has been consigned to those who disbelieve and He will render their actions void. This is because they are averse to that which Allaah has revealed so He has made their actions fruitless. [Soorah Muhammed (47), Ayah 8-9]
9. Kufrul-I’raadh: Disbelief due to avoidance. This applies to those who turn away and avoid the truth. Allaah subhanahu wa ta’ala says: And who is more unjust than he who is reminded of his Lord’s signs but then turns away from them. Then he forgets what he has sent forward (for the Day of Judgement) [Soorah Kahf (18), Ayah 57]
10. Kufrul-Istibdaal: Disbelief because of trying to substitute Allaah’s Laws. This could take the form of:
(a) Rejection of Allaah’s law (Sharee’ah) without denying it
(b) Denial of Allaah’s law and therefore rejecting it, or
(c) Substituting Allaah’s laws with man-made laws. Allaah subhanahu wa ta’ala says: Or have they partners with Allaah who have instituted for them a religion which Allaah has not allowed. [Soorah Shuraa(42), Ayah 8] Allaah subhanahu wa ta’ala says: Say not concerning that which your tongues put forth falsely (that) is lawful and this is forbidden so as to invent a lie against Allaah. Verily, those who invent a lie against Allaah will never prosper. [Soorah Nahl (16), Ayah 116]
(Source: adapted from ‘Tafseer ibn Katheer’)
CRUSADER says
Menu service.
Order up !
Michael Copeland says
Memo to Riada Akyol:
Islam is not defined by the vast majority of peaceful muslims.
Islam is defined by its source texts.
Walter Sieruk says
What question of “What is the definition of a ‘tolerant Islam ?’ ” A good way to define a “tolerant Islam” is actually a type of Islam that is a watered -down mild ,on-violent form of Islam which is not therefore completely based on the Quran.
Thus the idea and quest to attempt have a “reformation of Islam” trying to do so is a waste of time and effort. This is because “reforming Islam” is not actually possible, it’s an action of futility. For It should be noted that Islam can’t be changed from violent and deadly to non –violent and peaceful because the very core essence of Islam is that of violence and killing. As found in the Quran 9:121, 5:33, 9:5, 111, 47:4.
The very best that may be realistically hopped for would be a watered-down type of Islam is mild and non-violent.
This is in contrast to hard core Quran based Islam which is the violent and murderous Islam practice Muslim jihad terror organizations, as ISIS ,Al Qaeda , Hezbollah ,Hamas and so forth .
To put this in another way, the Bible informs its reader “What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot be numbered.” Ecclesiastes 1 :15. [N.K.J.N.] Therefore this verse may be understood when applying it to the idea of folly of “reforming Islam” As in, “What is crooked cannot be made straight in. “The violent nature can’t be straightened to be made non-violent” and “what is lacking cannot be numbered” may be understood as “Such a violent and hate-filled religion is lacking in love and compassion and thus can’t be numbered or counted as a truly peaceful religion.”
gravenimage says
Being a lax Muslim does not make Islam tolerant.
Mari Fordver says
Exactly but if the majority of them were like that, it would be better.
kuriakose says
Exactly. I believe too preislamic heritage of Bosniaks contribute somewhat to a milder version of islam.
black adder says
Τhe Albanians and the Bosnians will always carry the stigma of their conversion to Islam no matter what they say or do. They are the shame of Europe.
Gea says
Bonian Muslims are descendents of Bogumili9 (dear to god) christians who converted to Islam out of pressure by the Turks who occpied Bosnia for 400 years, just like Muslims in many other muslims invaded countries, these bosnian Muslims were recruited by teh Mufti of Jerusaloem tfor 2 SS Muslims divisions to fight on the eastern front for the Nazis. they were also recuirted by teh Fascist croatian government to be killers…they were putinto nice appartment in zagreb from which Jews were deported by the Ustashes (Coraitna fascists) to their death…
Tito Communism promted “brotherhood and unitry” and very few people went to any religious institution. Musloims in Boanis aeere secular and considered “a nationality”.During the bloody uncivil war frm 1992-1005, thee bosnian Muslims were victoms of Serbian fascism…Many became refugees in the West and were often radicalised in Western mosqujes…
strambotik says
Actually it’s true that Bosnian Muslims are more tolerant than Turks, say. According to an Austrian government report, in Austria Bosnians are the Muslims who integrate most easily and have fewest conflicts with the natives.