Causevic

Dani, Sarajevo, Bosnia-Hercegovina, November 24 1997

Halid Causevic is a brilliant colocutor. It is hard to agree with a large number of his scientific and political theses (even absolutely impossible with some) but his methodology and elaboration of the claims is convincing and devoid of any hypocrisy. This liberal Bosnian intellectual, who likes to say for himself that he is only a journalist whose field of interest is mostly related to the sociology of religion and constitutional law, in the exclusive interview for Dani, the first one after several years of silence, talks about president Izetbegovic, SDA, Latic, reis Ceris, relationship between Islamic community and the ruling party... In the legal analysis of the current situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina, a son of distinguished reis Dzemaludin Causevic doesn't flinch from stating a politically and legally indefensible claim: the war in Bosnia-Hercegovina was a religious and civil war and not an aggression.

Mr. Causevic, in the past you were among the closest friends of Mr. Izetbegovic, but in the mean time your political views have dramatically diverged. Why?

It's very simple: I was and remain Izetbegovic's friend because of a simple reason that we were colleagues. We saw each other in meetings, but I could never accept his views. For example, he was an orthodox Muslim, actually a Muslim who goes beyond orthodoxy, while I have always viewed the whole thing fairly liberally. Because of that our friendship was pretty cool. We saw each other, talked, but we never touched upon those topics which would have been interesting for him, and that is Islamization of [Bosnian] Muslims. That was out of question because he knew that my views on that topic are extremely liberal. Especially after I read his Islamic Declaration, which is fundamentally unacceptable; even before the war I told him: Alija, what are you doing? With such actions we won't get anywhere in Europe. Simply, at some point, we'll be thrown out of the small piece of Europe where we live today. That's the point.

How did Izetbegovic react to those words?

He said: that is my view and I cannot change my opinion. That was years ago and I don't remember his exact words but that was the gist of what he said. Later, when I received his manuscript Islam between East and West for review from Gazi Husrev Bey's library, I almost fainted. Perhaps you already know about this: his attitude was that Islam must place its economic policy between capitalism and current socialist doctrine. I met him after that, next to the Car's bridge and said: Alija, do you understand that there is no doctrine in Islam? Which religion has its doctrine? Catholic church established its social catholicism and what happened to it? The economic doctrine follows its direction and it doesn't have respect for religion, nor a man, nothing and nobody. It has its direction and he (Izetbegovic, author's remark) believes that zakat, i.e. alms, should be interpolated between capitalism and socialism. Then, I told him: do you know what zakat is? According to Islam that is two percent of capital in circulation and gold reserves. In that case we would walk hungry, the state couldn't exist. Does Saudi Arabia use that system? Of course not, he responded, we would have to experiment. There are no experiments in economics. The economics has its strict rules and if you tell me that zakat is the economics of Islam, you should know that I would recommend against the publication of your book. And it wasn't published in Gazi Husrev Bey's library. During the war, it was published by "Svjetlost" and, to tell the truth, I didn't have money to buy it.

It seems Mr. Causevic, that we are witnessing some social processes which, in my opinion, are counterproductive. When I say that, I am referring to unproductive unity of nation and religion among Bosniaks. It seems that the symbiosis between the ruling party and the Islamic community is the result of that.

There are very few nations which were not in the past based on religion. That is certain. However, that connection breaks at some point. Here in Bosnia it is still unclear what Muslims are as a social group: are they a people, a nation or a religious community? What is a nation? It is the consciousness about existence in a certain territory. There is no such consciousness among Muslims in Bosnia. There is only the consciousness about religious affiliation. Therefore the Muslims still haven't evolved from a people into a nation. That is most important. Therefore, if among the Muslims there is no consciousness about belonging to a nation, there can be no nation.

Nationhood Requires More

Muslims in Bosnia-Hercegovina. They are still a sociological dilemma. Their genesis is absurd. Other nations had linear development: tribe- people- nation. On the other hand, Muslims developed from Illyrian proselytism to Islam, therefore, not from a tribe. After that they passed through the whole Ottoman period as a religious community of Bosniaks. Today we have a dilemma: are we a people or a religious community? As you know, people is a community of similar individuals with similar world view who hail from the collection of similar tribes. We are not that. Muslims have totally different history, unlike Serbs, Croats and everyone else. Croats hail from a group of tribes, Serbs as well, Macedonians also; we Muslims hail from a Bogumil religious community, we converted into an Islamic religious community and continued that life during 450 years of Ottoman administration. We continued like that during Austria-Hungary and all our political life gravitates around various "Muslim organizations". All our parties are Muslim. None of them is without the word Muslim in its name. If that is so, then we have to at first investigate from the sociological point of view whether Muslims are still in transition from a religious community or whether they have already become a people. They are definitively not a nation, because much more is needed for a nation. A nation requires consciousness about its territory, its people, its state and its status in certain region.

Does SDA as a ruling Bosniak party contribute to the fact that Bosniaks are still not a nation?

In that respect SDA is counterproductive. Because of a simple reason that SDA is a typical clerical party. As such it is not capable of wider activity. SDA above all failed to resolve the problem: what are the Muslims? SDA transformed them into Bosniaks which is an even greater mistake. Alija did that against the Constitution. The constitution didn't allow him to do it in the way he did in 1993. Also, what are Bosniaks? It is a regional term.

I cannot agree with you. What is then our national consciousness? What are we?

In our consciousness, we are Muslims.

But Muslims are not a nation.

That doesn't matter. No one is asking about that. We, Muslims, are still in a sort of a dilemma - are we transforming from a religious community into a nation, or are we still a religious community. That is the essence. See how closely the Islamic religious community and political parties collaborate. The president of the republic appoints reisul-ulema, they collaborate, hold rallies together etc. That's how it was during the old Yugoslavia. Spaho fully collaborated with the Islamic religious community. We still haven't cleared up whether Muslims are a people or a religious community. As I've already said, they are definitely not a nation.

Plain Political Blindness

Islam is the spiritual backbone of the Bosnian, i.e. Muslim people. Don't take me wrong, I am not a cleric. On the contrary, I am miles away from any sort of Islamism, but if one talks to the people, it is easy to see that Islam connects them. The war is the best example. Let me add that this was a religious civil war. Mosques and churches were demolished, priests of all faiths destroyed... The war followed exactly that path, which means that Bosnia-Hercegovina still hasn't matured to become a multi-religious, multi-national and multi-ethnic state as is frequently mentioned. We are still deeply divided. For example, in the Federation Bosnia-Hercegovina there are two states. Croatian HVO state and a Muslim state led supposedly by Alija.

Wait a moment Mr. Causevic! If you say that the war in Bosnia-Hercegovina was a civil and a religious conflict, that suits pro-Serb assertions; in other words, doesn't that counter the assertion that the war was the Serb aggression against Bosnia-Hercegovina as was even clearly defined by a UN resolution?

Let me tell you something. An aggression is something completely different from a religious and civil conflict. Don't forget the reason for this war: the declaration of Bosnian independence by two peoples, Croats and Muslims. It is the fact that Article 2 in the then Constitution of Bosnia-Hercegovina explicitly states: Bosnia-Hercegovina is a commonwealth of three peoples, Muslims, Serbs and Croats. A commonwealth cannot be dissolved by two of the nations, Croats and Muslims. Serbs accepted that as a cause for war. What is even worse (that is the greatest Alija's mistake): Bosnia-Hercegovina was full of Serb soldiers and he declared the independent Bosnia. Only a man without connection to the reality could have done something like that.

You believe that he should have accepted the historical agreement with Serbs which was initiated by Zulfikarpasic and Filipovic?

That was, more or less, an unrealistic political move. In my opinion, we should have accepted reality and continued our existence within the rump Yugoslavia, while Croats could have annexed western Hercegovina. We would remain within Yugoslavia until the definite break up some time in the future. However, this way, we paid dearly. Two hundred thousands of our best youth, 70 percents of cultural treasures destroyed... Was that worth the present Bosnia-Hercegovina, which we could have had both with Vance-Owen and Owen-Stoltenberg plans? Alija signed both of those plans in 1993 once he saw what he got us into with the war. Politics is the art of possible, not of desired. And we tried to follow our desires. We wanted to establish some sort of an independent Bosnia-Hercegovina but that is an absurdity. Croats could do that because they had Western support. Slovenians especially, nobody gave a damn about Macedonians. Having all that in mind, we should have waited for an appropriate moment and then, once we got support in Europe, seceded from Yugoslavia.

Therefore, you would have accepted that we remain slaves within the Serb empire?!

Above all, we would not have been slaves of any sort. Our advantage would be the connection via Sandzak corridor with Macedonia and Montenegro. That is not slavery; the talk about slavery is ordinary demagoguery. We would simply increase our population in Serbia and Yugoslavia and then, once we became a nation in the real sense of that word, we would secede from the so-called Yugoslavia. At that point there would not be any problems, but at the time when Mladic had a whole armada here and we only certain Vikic to fight a war against the Serbs, that was an ordinary political blindness!

Journalistic Primitivism

In my opinion, that Izetbegovic's action was a huge mistake (otherwise, I consider him to be an honest man and a friend). You know the old Talleyrand's wise words that a mistake is worse than a crime. And that is what Alija did. Why? He was surrounded by people without political experience. What can you expect from Behmen? Or a whole series of similar individuals? Among all them there was not a single person who could have said: Alija, wait a moment, let us see what we can achieve with the Serbs. In the end, take a look at Oslobodenje from December 21 1991 and you'll find a speech by the criminal Karadzic where he says: "Wouldn't it be better if we made a confederation of three states: Serbs, Croats and Muslims, than to have hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dead, hundreds and hundreds of destroyed houses". If you're interested, I can show you a photocopy. That was not a prophecy, they already had a plan. By the way, I am the only person in Bosnia-Hercegovina who doesn't watch TV, but that night, by chance, I was at my sister's place and saw that Alija sat like Rodin's thinker, alone. Croats representatives were standing on the other side (of course Croats had their own interests, I understand them) and he suddenly called for a vote and all the Serb representatives left the chamber. That was a death sentence to the Muslims. That's what I said to my sister; a few of my friends were also there. I said, this is a death sentence - December 21 1991.

You've just asserted that Izetbegovic lacks advisers with political vision. In that context, I must mention Demaludin Latic's article about Marko Vesovic...

That is typical journalistic primitivism. That is a typical barbarism with clerical origin; Latic is a typical cleric. He and everyone in his group.

How do you interpret the fact that after such a scathing and nationalist attack, SDA didn't find it appropriate to react to such a spiritual "descent" of its important activist?

I was not surprised about SDA, because the party shares Latic's views. Latic is their ideologist and I find that normal. But, I can't understand why these Bogomils who have converted to Islam, that is the former Communists who have converted to Islam, turned into Bosniaks and became presidents of the Association of Writers do not react but sit on the side and none of them is defending either side. They should have intervened. Latic would have been prosecuted anywhere in Europe for such an article.

Do such acts have elements of a crime?

They used to in the past, but do not any more. Consequently they allowed Latic to write as he pleases. I've read his article Really Like a Vlach : even our journalists during Aurstria-Hungary, during their verbal war with Serbs, didn't write stuff like that. These are not offenses, nor slanders, it is a de facto attack on a whole nation, not only Vesovic.

Tell me, what do you think about Young Muslims and their activities?

Young Muslims, that is de facto an infection which came from the East. It arrived roughly from Iran where they wanted to form a generation of young people who would spread Islamic propaganda. That found a certain response in Bosnia-Hercegovina, with corresponding consequences. Look at those ghosts walking around the city ! In 21st century, in the center of Sarajevo women walk in those long dresses with covered faces. That is typical Iranianism. We, who as members of a Muslim national community should walk in step with Europe, are instead turning against Europe. When in 1993 I was asked why foreigners hadn't intervened (Alija and Silajdzic were present) I said: wait until an appropriate amount of Muslim blood is spilled and then they will intervene. And that was printed as my lecture: "Anti-Islamic syndrome of the West against Muslims". That's what happened. Later, they came to congratulate me; they said, you had seen it a year and a half before.

Ajvatovica is Bogumil Holly Site

In general, Bosnian Islam doesn't exist. Islam is everywhere the same, as is Christianity. In Bosnian Islam there are a lot of traces of other religions. Here, Islam absorbed certain elements from Christianity, or even better, from Bogumils, from whom we took Ajvatovica and everything else.

You say that we accepted Ajvatovica from Bogumils?

Of course. That is a Bogumil religious site.

But that fact is totally ignored in today's political, traditional and theological interpretation?

Remember that every religion is totalitarian. It doesn't want anything that belongs to someone else. That's it, all religions are totalitarian, not only Islam. The fact that it absorbs elements from other religions, it couldn't have been any different.

Do you think that a believer is morally superior to a non-believer?

In my opinion, morality is outside religion. Morality is a part of an individual, his upbringing. If I was brought up to respect the moral principle "love your neighbors, no matter who they are" I don't need a religion for that. Therefore, conditionally, morality and religion do not have to intersect anywhere. Religion is not the only bearer of morality. Philosophy also sets moral standards. The same can be true for politics, if it is real politics, although that is rare today. We know that, because morality and politics often follow different paths.

I've read somewhere that only Bosnian Muslims have the institution of reisul-ulema. Is that true?

Reisul-ulema dates from Austria-Hungary. During the Ottomans we had a mufti who was subordinate to the caliph in Carigrad [Istanbul]. However, Austria was much smarter, it tried to protect its interests. It wanted to separate the Muslims from the caliph. Therefore, they established a separate religious community lead by reisul-ulema from 1881. Reisul-ulema means the head of ulema, the head of theologians. That how that was established and that institution continued until today.

As far as I know, you deny legitimacy to reis-effendi Ceric. Why?

Reis Ceric has without doubt very good qualifications and was educated both in the East and the West. But he, in my opinion, I don't how he allowed that to happen, allowed that Alija appoint him for a naibu-reis, that is an acting reis. Beforehand, Alija had appointed ten individuals in the Assembly of the Islamic Community. But it is the tradition among the Muslims that the Assembly must be elected. Alija appointed 10 of his men and they elected Ceric for naibu-reis. Only a few month later, naibu-reis summoned his five muftis and told them: it would be good if you proclaimed me a reisul-ulema. And that's how he became the reis.

You don't accept that the conditions at the time demanded certain irregular interventions?

Not at all. For example, during WWII we didn't have a reis. There was only naibu-reis, a very learned man Salih Safvet effendi Basic, a professor at the Theology faculty. He was naibu-reis until the arrival of the Partisans and even a few years after that. Then, the Partisans used their methods to form the Assembly of the Islamic Community which, like it or not, legitimately elected new reis Fejic. And that's how it went until our days, until Ceric's election. I am surprised that Alija could have made such a mistake. But, let me repeat that Ceric is a learned man.

(...)

In your opinion, what is the reason for the conflict between Rijaset and Ilmija?

Probably personal relations. That's worst among us. Both in the Islamic Community leadership and in politics. These people demonstrated that they cannot accept Ceric's hasty political views and that they want to assert separate identity as Muslims and continue to work as believers only. On the other hand, Ceric wants to sit in the first rows at the SDA party congress. That's trouble. He doesn't know that his photos are printed in papers. I have at least five articles of that sort. Please, Ajvatovica is the best example: Alija delivers a political speech, Ceric leads a prayer. I asked Alija: where was your brain, buddy? - I am his senior and can talk to him like that - how could you be so stupid? Ajvatovica is a religious event and you can go there as a believer, not to deliver political speeches. And Ceric could have [delivered a speech].

State of Serb Soldiers

Speaking openly against all existing trends in politics, Bosnia-Hercegovina doesn't any more legally exist as a state. It is a confederation of the Federation B-H and the Republic of Srpska. Only a little "legal feel" in the constitutional law is required to see that the Dayton Agreement cut Bosnia-Hercegovina in two. However, that is not a terrible thing. When I asked Alija's lawyers what sort of a state we were they replied: well, we'll see that during the evolution. That doesn't work. What are we now? Are we an empire, kingdom, or something third? If you say a confederation, then we are not a state. The confederation consists of two states which act together in some spheres. Take for example the Dayton Agreement, Article 2 or 3 (if I'm not mistaken): Bosnia-Hercegovina authorities are in charge of customs etc. All together six or seven spheres of activity. Everything else that is not listed in that article is under jurisdiction of the entities. Therefore, these are two states. That's the way it was in Austria-Hungary. There were four or five common spheres: emperor and king, ministry of foreign affairs, ministry of finance and a few others, and everything else was under Austrian or Hungarian jurisdiction. You know, Austria-Hungary was a classic example of a confederation.

Are you concerned that Bosnia-Hercegovina could, like the Austrian-Hungarian confederation, fail as a historical product?

Any state can disappear. Therefore, Bosnia-Hercegovina can survive or disappear as well. The Dayton Agreement divided us into two parts. In my opinion, that is a superior trick which has split Bosnia-Hercegovina in an elegant way and made its ruin in the future inevitable.

Why are you such a pessimist?

I am not a pessimist; I only try to be realistic about the current situation. If someone convinces me that Bosnia-Hercegovina, the Federation and the Republic of Srpska will stay together I will eat my words. What is the Republic of Srpska in relation to the Federation? The Federation which has, it is terrible to say, 10 cantons, that's unbelievable, on 23,000 square kilometers. A huge bureaucratic apparatus on one and the Republic of Srpska on the other side. I am not a pessimist; if someone can convince me that all of this will somehow merge in the future, I'll shake his hand and apologize.

What if Bosnia-Hercegovina is placed under a foreign protectorate?

In that case it is hard to predict how long it would last and what its goals would be. There is already a de facto protectorate, and a legal protectorate, if introduced, would be the best solution for all three peoples, although the Serbs would be unbelievably angry. Croats would be a bit less angry and we Muslims wouldn't be angry at all. In my opinion Bosnia-Hercegovina can only survive under some sort of de facto or legal protectorate. When was Bosnia-Hercegovina whole while left to itself? Never. The Ottomans held it in their hands, Austria-Hungary as well. As soon as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes arrived Bosnia-Hercegovina begun to break into regions and split into two parts in 1939. One part drifted towards Serbia and the other towards Croatia. Therefore, under the rule of its own people, Bosnia-Hercegovina must break up. That is inevitable. Socialism held Bosnia forcefully in its hands.

Doesn't the political existence of the medieval Bosnian state contradict you?

Medieval Bosnia was a united Bosnia. There were no Serbs nor Croats neither Catholics nor Orthodox. It was the land of good Bosniaks.

Do you think, as a lawyer, that Bosnia-Hercegovina can win its suit against Serbia at the International Justice Court in the Hague?

If they win that case then Europe and the whole world would jump into their own belly. First, it must be proven where the aggression is and what it is. An aggression is an attack of one state on another. Where is the other state here?

Well, now you're making me mad. Serbia attacked us!

Serbia attacked who?

Bosnia-Hercegovina

Bosnia-Hercegovina didn't exist at the time.

How come, when we were recognized by the United Nations on April 6 1992?

Recognition still doesn't mean that a state exists. It also has to exist in practice. Bosnia didn't exist in practice. There was only a state of Serb soldiers.

I do not agree with you. Legally, Bosnia-Hercegovina was in 1992 a state and that is objectively enough for the existence of an aggression.

Legally, Bosnia-Hercegovina could have been recognized by as many states as you please. NDH was recognized by more than 30 states. A state, in order to be a state, must have three basic elements: territory, people and government. Bosnia-Hercegovina had none of the three elements. The state authorities only had control of Sarajevo and a few more cities.

So, you claim there was no aggression on Bosnia-Hercegovina?

Of course. This was a religious and civil conflict provoked by Alija's imprudent actions. We had a chance to agree with Serbs and Croats and divide Bosnia into three parts so that it still remained whole in some way. As a confederation. What now? We paid with over 200,000 young lives, 70 percent of our cultural heritage was destroyed and what do we have in the end? A ruined Bosnia divided into two parts.

Islam was Everywhere

There is no real nationalism in our country. Religious nationalism de facto does not represent real nationalism but a reflection of religious feelings. Religious wars are the worst wars in the history of humanity. Such wars took place in Bosnia in the past. Please, could you have imagined that someone destroys our mosque and that we destroy someone's church? It is enough to see that and to know the character of the war. The goal was to destroy symbols of other religions.

It sounds as though you fully agree with Huntington and his theory about clash of civilizations?

Well, he is almost right, although I do not want to apply a general theory to Bosnia. Bosnia is specific in its historical development. It is a state with three religions and, if you will, three peoples which were kept together under the secret or open protectorate of external factors. Socialism was a protectorate over Bosnia.

You mean, a socialist protectorate?

Let it be socialist. But, let's say at that time you tried to destroy a church or a mosque. That was a crime, punishable by 10 years in jail.

Did Islam do better in Communism or now when SDA is in power?

It is difficult to make such a comparison. It is the fact that after 45 years of socialism Islam floated to the surface like Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. It is hard to destroy a religion. It is something superhuman. The most important thing is that today we witness a new wave of Islamization as in 1463. Then Bogumils, after the arrival of the Turks, en masse converted to Islam. Today we have the same situation: mass conversion of Communists to Islam.

Has the participation of Islam in public life been beneficial or not?

Islam wasn't hidden under Communism. It was everywhere. Among intellectuals, individuals etc. It existed as a tradition in even the most orthodox Communists. I know of such ministers, I have talked to them. When you talk to them, you can see their tradition lurking somewhere in the background, regardless whether he is a Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Muslim. Religious tradition cannot be destroyed, and today when all the restrictions are gone, suddenly all of that has come to the surface. Islam reappeared from those intellectuals who supported different ideology; they were joined by educated Islamic priests.

I have a feeling that the International Community, lately, in order to achieve reconciliation of peoples in Bosnia-Hercegovina, is increasingly promoting senseless and unjust theory about equal guilt. What do you think about that?

In my opinion, that theory will be rejected by Serbs, Croats and everyone else in Bosnia. I think that we should seek a different idea which will, if we want that, connect us.

Do you believe in the existence of such an idea?

I don't know. It is difficult to find it at this point. After blood was spilt in Bosnia, it is hard to say, let us live together again. That will take time and I think that the West is correctly approaching that problem: they are holding Bosnia under a protectorate and will continue to do so until a new generation which will have forgotten everything, is mature. That is the only way. Otherwise, such a tragedy cannot be forgotten.