NYT on Bosnian Islam

Islamic Revival Tests Bosnia’s Secular Cast – NYTimes.com

It seems that there are several issues at stake here.

1. In a republic where one can exercise religion more freely than one has been able to do so in almost two generations, what is the line between expressing religion and reactionary religion? Or, more critically, what is the relationship between the state and religion?

2. There is the the usual undercurrent that devout Muslims are dangerous Muslims. Bars are the signifiers of a truly open society. I think as a metric, it’s a bit bizarre, but it’s the lens of the NYT. It’s not only possible, but quite normal, to be devout and be non-threatening. I grew up in NY, went to college at Columbia and have never had a drink of alcohol. The only thing I’ve ever massacred is a couple of dinners, and it was always unintentional. I’m curious if the rise of devotion amongst the Orthodox Christians is a concern, since they killed tens of thousands of people during the civil war.

3. Religion defines people. Sometimes its hum that underlies everything, other times it is the yell that subsumes everything. There is bound to be some reactionary identification when people were slaughtered for their beliefs, whether they believed or not. How that reaction is managed and channeled is where the difficulty is.

4. The stench of the putrid body of Wahhabi ideology is present. Andras Riedlmayer, an expert on the war crimes against Bosnian heritage, has commented extensively as to how Wahhabis have come into Bosnia and offered money for the destruction of Bosnian culture and heritage, and are intent on wiping out their souls as well. I was a Muslim leaders conference and mentioned that while the US was late to the game in Bosnia, at least they showed up, while the Arab states ignored the plight of their “Muslim brethren.” There was an expected outcry, with the Saudis claiming that I don’t know what they did because they did things in secret like good Muslims. When has the Saudi state done anything in secret? This cleansing of the spirit of Muslims is not being done in secret. The movement of Afghan Arabs to Bosnia was not done in secret, it was to keep them from turning on the Saudi state. Flood the area with guns, killers, and blood money, then sweep in and complete the destruction. Of all the things the article addresses, this point is the one that needs more attention.

One thought on “NYT on Bosnian Islam

  1. It was not completely a civil war in Bosnia. Bosnia was invaded by Serbia and partly by Croatia. Afterwards, Bosnian Orthodox and Bosnian Catholics wanted to divide Bosnia among Serbia and Croatia in two parts. Bosnians/Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims) are supposed, some to be killed, some to be banished/deported and some that left, to be Christianized.
    Thanks to mighty God, Bosnia was not divided, not all Bosnians were killed, banished or Christianized. Now, “Serb Republic” (that commited genocide) must be abolished so that, all Bosnians (Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Orthodox and Atheists/Agnostics) can live together as they lived for many, many centuries before. Religion should stay private, ’cause it’s the right way. If someone wants to embrace Islam, he will come alone, there is no need to propagate anything regarding Islam. Bosnians never did that. Islam is Bosnia will and must stay seperate from state. Vahhabism and Selafism from Arab countries is ruining Bosnia’a democracy, multiculture and multireligion.

Comments are closed.