Zilka Spahić Šiljak is a professor of gender studies and the director of the TPO Foundation Sarajevo. Together with Jadranka Rebeka Anić, she is the founder of the FER school – a unique program and space for discussion and learning about egalitarian gender models based on scientific and religious arguments. In this conversation, Zilka will provide answers to numerous questions regarding the position of women, perspectives on Islam, and the role of society and institutions in advancing toward a better society.
Could you introduce yourself, how do you see yourself within feminism, and what were your beginnings in feminism? What was the main reason that motivated you to engage in it?
I might best start with the wartime period, when I first became aware of what it actually means to be a feminist, as this understanding is different for everyone. At that time, I was very young, about 22 years old, and I knew that many things were not right, that they didn’t function as they should. I was bothered by injustice and inequality, but I didn’t know how to articulate it properly or what to call it. Then, during the war, in 1993, I started working with Medica Mondiale, which came to Zenica to establish the first clinic for victims and survivors of wartime sexual violence.
While working in the psychosocial team, I encountered feminists from Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, and other countries. That’s when I learned something about feminism, but above all, I would say my feminism emerged from grassroots activism. My engagement with victims and survivors of gender-based violence, particularly wartime sexual violence, through both Medica and the Center for War Crimes Research, shaped my awareness. Encountering these women, collecting their testimonies, working with women who came to the center pregnant, talking with them, providing comfort, and trying to find answers from a religious perspective—those were some of my earliest steps toward feminist consciousness. It was a very difficult situation, but it provided an opportunity for both spiritual growth and the discovery of feminism’s potential, which, even then, aligned well with everything I believed in as a Muslim woman.
Your perspective on feminism is very interesting. How do you see the divisions within feminism that exist today? Why do we even need to divide ourselves if, in the end, we are fighting for the same rights? How do you interpret this?
That’s a good question because we tend to divide over everything, don’t we? So, we divide within feminism as well. However, in all of this, we need to consider the contexts in which we live and act. We also need to consider educational backgrounds and the political-ideological contexts in which we operate. Liberal feminism, for example, has its roots in the West, stemming from thinkers like John Stuart Mill, Harriet Taylor Mill, and other advocates, and it has seamlessly integrated into what the capitalist, market-oriented economy later required.
In this sense, feminist demands fit into existing socio-political systems. As a liberal feminist, for instance, you can advocate for equal civil and political rights for women and men, focusing on education, voting rights, the right to work, and so on, but without questioning the underlying political system within which you operate, without challenging capitalism. Radical feminism, however, in the 1960s raised significant questions, arguing that fundamental changes cannot occur without transforming the societal structures that perpetuate inequality—particularly gender-based inequality.
Radical feminists in the 1960s were very vocal, stating that patriarchy is the key cause of women’s oppression and exploitation. They argued that to eliminate any form of gender-based domination, exploitation, or exclusion, it is necessary to work on dismantling the patriarchal system and the socio-political structures in which it operates. However, this essentially means challenging the levers of power, which is very risky.
From another perspective, when we talk about our contexts here in the Balkans, in Yugoslavia, where socialist feminism—and in some communist countries, Marxist feminism—developed, it was a combination of Marxism and feminism. However, the focus was more on economic and social rights rather than civic and political rights. Today, when you listen to women who lived during that period, they say they were well-off because they were economically and socially secure, had free education and healthcare, opportunities to work and engage, and were not overly concerned with civic and political rights, even though they could have been politically active.
In socialism, a significant focus was placed on gender inequality in relation to class. The emphasis was on equality among all workers, comrades, and colleagues. Class was key, while liberal feminism doesn’t problematize this at all. However, in the 1990s, when changes came, we saw the collapse of these social and economic aspects, and liberal feminism emerged. We began to focus on civic and political rights, forgetting the economic and social ones. Without these four rights—civic, political, economic, and social—equality cannot be achieved. This is particularly crucial for women, as they bear the greatest burden of family and childcare responsibilities in their private lives.
Why does the Balkans seem to hate women, and is this hatred unique to the Balkans?
Misogyny is not a unique characteristic of the Balkans; unfortunately, it exists in all societies. The forms of misogyny can be explicit or implicit, and in more developed societies, the consequences of misogyny are strictly sanctioned today. The Balkans is often portrayed as a dark place, a semi-periphery of Europe, culturally othered and second-rate, a borderland between East and West, Islam and Christianity, socialism and capitalism, autocratic regimes and democracies, oppression and freedom. This positioning of the Balkans as a place of violence, backwardness, and lack of freedom has influenced how gender equality and the status of women are perceived in this region.
The Balkans has its contradictions and problems, but gender equality, for example, after World War II, was resolved in many aspects better than in Western Europe and America, where women still earn, on average, 20% less than men for the same jobs. The picture is far more complex and requires deeper analysis, especially considering the devastating wars and destruction that the Balkans experienced at the end of the 20th century. These wars left significant consequences on the mental health of people, which is often overlooked. Misogyny is an old issue and should always be examined at the intersection of gender stereotypes, sexism, and power dynamics in society. Misogyny is based on gender stereotypes and is specifically directed against women simply because they are women.
The problem becomes even greater when misogyny is internalized, and women perpetuate learned sexist behaviors toward other women, enabling the patriarchal system to persist without male presence. Generally, in patriarchal cultures, when women are oppressed by power structures and norms that promote and sustain gender inequality, they often continue to oppress other women. If we look at the media, especially social media in the Balkans, we see that misogyny is deeply embedded in people’s thinking, especially in the revictimization of women who have already suffered gender-based violence.
A good example is the case of Serbian actress Milena Radulović, which inspired the platform “I Didn’t Ask For It” in Bosnia and Herzegovina, allowing women to share their testimonies and experiences of violence. When this actress accused actor Miroslav Aleksić of rape, instead of receiving understanding and support, a media campaign was launched against her. Comments on social media, such as “If she hadn’t undressed, she wouldn’t have been assaulted,” reveal the extent of misogyny and how difficult it is for women to exist in public spaces, especially if they dare to speak about violence. The assumption is that any woman with a career, particularly in show business, will do whatever it takes to succeed, including using her sexuality to manipulate men.
In the Balkans, the stereotype still persists that such women are promiscuous by default, of loose morals, and that they provoke sexual assault by dressing provocatively and pursuing jobs still considered “men’s work.” This twisted way of thinking suggests that a “real man” won’t miss an opportunity for sex, even if it means abusing a position of power to control and silence victims. This results in victims being terrified, having no trust in society to support them or believe them, and remaining silent. It is horrifying that women are still blamed for what happens to them, as though they could have defended themselves or spoken up sooner. Whenever a woman speaks out, she faces judgment and moralizing instead of understanding.
The difference between the Balkans and more developed Western countries lies in how the consequences of misogyny are sanctioned. The conviction of Harvey Weinstein in America demonstrates this. Here, rapists are often given conditional or minimal sentences, fines, or are not prosecuted at all. This emboldens perpetrators to murder women, and sadly, we witness numerous femicides across the Balkans. Even after killing women, men are often granted mitigating circumstances, such as being a “good father” or “loving his wife,” which somehow legitimizes their decision over her life and death. There is much work to be done on these issues because we live in a culture that has normalized all forms of violence to the extent that we have become desensitized and fail to adequately prevent and condemn it. Violence is still considered a private issue for women rather than a serious social, health, and economic problem.
Not only is domestic violence considered a private issue, but we are also generally quite passive and turn a blind eye to other issues. For example, when we look at the political situation and dysfunctional institutions, how is it possible that the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina continue to endure this, and why hasn’t there been a revolution yet?
Bosnia and Herzegovina is indeed a dysfunctional state with a constitutional and legal framework that would not function in any European country. However, its citizens are exhausted by decades of ethno-nationalist politics that profit from divisions and hold people hostage. This is why young people in particular are leaving the country, as they realize that they cannot change anything. When they do protest, they are stigmatized and persecuted, lose their jobs, or, if they have private businesses, they struggle to survive due to high taxes and political pressures.
Furthermore, for citizens to stage revolutions, there must be a developed political culture with civic responsibility, which is lacking in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Problems are discussed in backrooms and cafes, but there is no readiness for civic protests because many protests have failed or been exploited for specific political goals. Citizens have been deceived, they lack trust in institutions, and they themselves often consciously or unconsciously support corruption.
In a country where crime and corruption are not sanctioned and where ruling political elites maintain the status quo for their own profit, it is difficult to expect impoverished, disillusioned, and politically immature citizens to bring about change in this ethno-nationally constructed democracy.
Instead of revolts and revolutions, people endure and choose to stay in their comfort zones because it’s easier that way—they won’t be ostracized, judged, or face consequences. Intellectuals also self-censor and give measured statements in public. There are very few socially engaged intellectuals who should be the leaders of change because, ultimately, everything depends on good ideas that can inspire people, give them hope, and provide purpose. I fear that in Bosnia and Herzegovina, people live in despair, lacking real guidance and ideas that could lift them out of the stagnant mire of ethno-nationalism. As a result, they refuse to engage in politics, leaving governance in the hands of incompetent and corrupt individuals who only care about their immediate interests.
Do you see any signs of radicalization in Bosnian society?
Radicalization exists in Bosnian society, as it does in others, but not in the way it has been portrayed, such as through claims of terrorist training camps. Security agencies have refuted such statements, which were deliberately aimed at portraying Bosnian Muslims as terrorists. The increasing number of women wearing hijabs or men growing beards is, for some in the West, an immediate sign of radicalization. It seems that, in the West, the only acceptable Muslim is one who does not practice their religion. I have often encountered comments, even from educated people, who approached me after lectures at universities saying they were glad to meet a “normal Muslim woman.” I would respond that I’m glad too, but I’d like them to describe what an “abnormal Muslim woman” looks like, after which they would apologize, realizing the stereotype they had confirmed with their comment. For them, a “normal Muslim woman” is obviously one who is white, does not wear a traditional hijab but perhaps a stylish turban, speaks English, and is a scientist. This deviates from the entrenched stereotype of the oppressed and uneducated Muslim woman.
What do you think about prayer groups in public squares in Croatia and counteractions in the context of freedom of religious, political, and other expressions?
All citizens should have the freedom to express their religious, political, and other beliefs. However, what these prayer groups are doing is an abuse of religion. No one prevents them from praying in churches or their homes, but occupying public spaces to advocate for spiritual authority in families in a democratic country is a misuse of religion and an infringement on the foundations of a secular society. Public spaces are shared, and no one has the right to impose their worldview, which in this case promotes gender hierarchies, the subordination of women to male authority, and traditional gender roles. If someone wants such a model, they should enforce it in their own home, not impose it on others by misusing public spaces.
Ultimately, prayer should be a matter of the heart and soul, establishing communication with God for personal peace and the peace of those around us, not a tool to intimidate others. I fear that this is not about faith and spirituality but politically motivated actions aimed at mobilizing and homogenizing people around a single worldview, with the intention of imposing it on the rest of society.
What is happening in Croatia reflects the anti-gender movement originating in America, whose waves have been spreading intensely through Europe over the past two decades, polarizing public opinion around gender issues. By naturalizing gender roles and emphasizing the distinct nature of men and women, this movement demands the preservation of a patriarchal system of values in which the man dominates as the “natural” leader and head of the family, while the woman is there to serve him and dedicate herself to the family, as this is her natural and God-given role.
Proponents of the anti-gender movement use pseudo-scientific research, especially outdated studies on the brain, to argue that men and women are not just physically different but that biology also affects their psychological, cognitive, and mental differences. Since most people don’t read or have a clear understanding of gender and sex, it is easy to manipulate with biased statements claiming that gender equality destroys families, communities, states, and the “natural” order of things.
Patriarchy is the most destructive force, justifying violence against women, children, and minorities by establishing power relations that remain unquestioned as “natural” or God-given male authority.
Neither the Bible nor the Quran describe male or female nature, nor designate men as authorities. Instead, humans—both women and men—accepted the responsibility to be stewards on Earth, to manage it responsibly rather than exploit others, animals, or nature greedily.
What we are witnessing today, and the way ethno-capitalism destroys people and nature through public pedagogies of cruelty and the disenfranchisement of individuals, is indicative of new forms of colonialism and enslavement. Through rampant commercialization, everything is rendered meaningless, and then women are blamed for all the world’s ills, as if the world would function properly if only they accepted traditional gender roles.
Unfortunately, people are lost and consumed by corporate capitalism, unable to see how structural forms of violence—especially against women and minorities—are obscured by the prioritization of preserving the traditional family. There is no critical reflection on the traditional family, in which violence was an integral part of life and where women had no choice but to endure abusive relationships. Today, at least to some extent, women have a choice and can refuse to endure it.
Why, in your view, do “normal” believers with reasonable views fail to oppose extremism?
The question of what defines “normal” believers is challenging, and I am afraid I don’t have a clear answer. Perhaps it is better to discuss moderate believers who practice their faith without imposing it on others. I believe most believers are not extremists but feel it is not their role to challenge others’ religious expressions. In the end, the question is also how to oppose extremism: Should people protest in the streets, as some do, or should they ignore it?
Public space is communal, and if it is allowed to be overtaken by those propagating a single ideology, it is likely that this ideology will become law in the future. It is crucial to oppose extremism through democratic means and ensure that a minority of extremists cannot speak on behalf of the majority. However, if the majority remains silent in public spaces, a vocal minority may dominate the discourse, potentially leading to the election of such individuals to positions of power, where they could enact laws that restrict or eliminate guaranteed rights and freedoms.
This seems to be what we are witnessing—for example, Poland has one of the strictest abortion laws in Europe, and in some U.S. states, abortion is almost entirely prohibited, except in certain exceptional cases.
Earlier, you mentioned working with survivors of sexual violence. We are only now seeing more discussion about rape as a war crime, even though it has been used as a method of war for centuries. Can you share more about your experience in this area?
Rape is a horrifying war crime and a tool used to defeat the enemy. Women’s bodies are treated as the property of families, men, communities, and nations, and as such, they serve ethno-nationalist goals. Women’s bodies can be symbols of national pride, representing the “mother of the nation,” savior, or moral paradigm, but they can also become symbols of national shame, rejected as reminders of the nation’s symbolic defeat.
The politics of the body are crucial to analyzing rape as a war crime, as men’s bodies are used as tools of war to impregnate women’s bodies, achieving societal defeat and the symbolic destruction of another ethnicity and nation. Crimes of desecration or humiliation, including rape, aim to instill shame and humiliation in the victims, whether women or men. Rape deeply affects not only the physical health of survivors but also their mental health and overall identity.
Through rape, power relations are demonstrated by forcibly impregnated women who are compelled to give birth and live with the trauma of the crime, compounded by rejection and stigma. Many survivors do not report rape because they cannot bear the stigma, labeling, and ostracization. This is particularly difficult for women who were forced to give birth to children and were told that their children would inherit the hatred of their fathers. These statements illustrate how power relations are passed down from father to son and how rape seeks to achieve domination over an entire people.
My work with women survivors of rape during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina was a profoundly painful experience from which I learned a great deal about trauma and how to support those who have endured the most heinous crimes. I began working at Medica Zenica, the first clinic for survivors of wartime rape, which was established with the help of feminists from Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. They were sensitive enough to include a religious perspective in the psychosocial team, which gave me, as a young person, the opportunity to both learn and help others. Of course, none of us were prepared to answer the deeply difficult questions posed by women survivors, such as: “Why me?” “Am I sinful?” “Is God punishing me for something I did?” “What will I do with the child I am about to give birth to?” and many others.
Naturally, there were no answers to these questions, and the only thing I could do was listen, be there for them, and assure them that it was not their fault and that God was not punishing them. In most cases, those who have experienced violence simply want to be heard, to know that someone is there for them, and to receive spiritual support if they need it. Faith was a significant mechanism for many women in coping with trauma, so it is essential that theologians are prepared to listen and offer help in such situations.
Do you think we are losing secular societies, along with the hard-won rights of women?
Sometimes it seems that way, that women’s hard-won rights are indeed being called into question. Everything that has happened since the 1990s supports this idea. After the first democratic elections, women were literally swept from the political scene in the newly formed states following the dissolution of Yugoslavia. I often emphasize the important fact that out of 24% of women in politics, only 2-4% remained, depending on the level of governance. I recall that in the Federation Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1996, there was only one woman, and it took us considerable time, quotas, and grassroots work to increase that percentage.
Moreover, if we look at how religion is being misused by the anti-gender movement in America, Western Europe, Croatia, and the rest of the Balkans, it becomes clear that the principles of the separation of church and state are being questioned. Hard-won civil and political rights, including reproductive rights, must not be challenged. Women are being denied access to contraception and abortion based on religious norms, which is unacceptable in a secular state. If someone considers abortion a sin within their religious worldview, they are free to adhere to that belief, but imposing their worldview on others in society is unacceptable. Ultimately, as citizens of a secular state, we all pay taxes, and it is crucial that state institutions serve everyone—those with religious views and those without.
As someone who has worked on the topic of feminism for a long time, do you think feminism today has the same foundations as it did in the past, or is it intentionally misrepresented in society today?
I believe that due to a lack of understanding and very poor knowledge of feminism—what it actually is, namely, a struggle against all forms of discrimination, oppression, exploitation, and exclusion—people misunderstand feminism, and there is an orchestrated effort to portray it as a major threat to humanity, traditional relationships, and the family. Perhaps that is the reason. In today’s battles, as seen through the anti-gender movement, there is a clear attempt to undermine the achievements feminism has made over the past 200 years and to revert things to their previous state.
If we consider what feminist demands were, for example, in the mid-19th century, when suffragists like Elizabeth Cady Stanton issued her “Declaration of Sentiments,” or women in other parts of Western Europe or women in the East organized their feminist movements and began fighting for their rights to education, work, and political participation. Today, we formally have most of these rights guaranteed by laws, international norms, and standards. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, hundreds of international conventions, declarations, resolutions, and other documents guaranteeing equal rights, gender equality, and gender mainstreaming have been adopted. Our countries have signed and accepted these as well.
However, the problem today is living feminism. It has lost its momentum in this overall consumerist race and struggle for survival, as well as in the ocean of information we are bombarded with daily. If this information is framed in a way that presents feminism or any other movement or idea in a pejorative manner, people no longer have the time to question or read serious texts to understand the background of these issues. Instead, they accept oversimplified explanations and thus develop negative attitudes toward feminism. This is why feminism today must fight battles we thought were already won. We are returning to issues we believed were resolved, such as reproductive rights.
How has religion helped or hindered the fight for women’s rights?
It depends on the context and the individuals involved, but for me, religion has been incredibly helpful, as it has been for many other women. However, we must also acknowledge the ambivalence of religion. It can be a driving force for progressive change, but it can also contribute to regressive tendencies in society, depending on who leads the churches and religious communities, what their policies are, and how they interpret religious heritage.
If they are conservative, politicized, and aligned with power structures, it will be challenging to gain their support for gender equality. However, there are also positive examples. For instance, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, we have seen churches and religious communities actively and vocally opposing gender-based violence, which is a positive step. Of course, there are still issues where churches and religious communities hold positions that conflict with feminist demands, especially regarding reproductive rights, and these require dialogue.
Not all individuals within churches and religious communities oppose equality, but it is a matter of understanding how this is perceived and how much influence these institutions should have on the legislation of secular states. In my view, they should have no influence because we are all citizens, regardless of our religious orientation or lack thereof, and we all pay taxes. We must have equal access to legal rights and services, even if they conflict with someone else’s worldview. Our personal beliefs should not be imposed through laws in secular states.
What would you say is the predominant type of feminism in the Balkans today? And why do we distance ourselves so much from radical feminism, when in so many cases it seems that the radical feminism of the late ’60s could help us change today’s power structures?
We distance ourselves from radical feminism mainly because it is often misunderstood and still perceived in a pejorative sense as a movement where women fight against men—ugly, mustachioed women who want to take power and destroy men. This stereotype suggests that radical feminists aim to destroy the family, the nation, the state, and so on. With such labels, it is no surprise that there is rejection and distancing from radical feminism. What I can recognize here in the Balkans is some form of a combination of feminisms.
What I advocate for is intersectional feminism. This means taking into account various aspects of life, the context, and recognizing women’s personal experiences, which depends on factors such as ethnic background, social and economic status, and, of course, disabilities, sexual orientation, and other factors. It is essential to include diverse voices, which is why intersectional feminism is so important—especially for women from minority groups to have their voices heard and their perspectives included.
We also have liberal feminism, which is most represented in the NGO sector because it is conditioned by donor funds, primarily from the West, and involves liberal feminists who continue to focus on civil and political rights, numbers, impacts, etc., while neglecting deeper layers of the issue.
To truly address the problem, it is necessary to take a multifaceted, intersectional approach, because being a woman in Norway, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, or Bulgaria is not the same. Of course, we also have radical feminists, specific feminist groups that are very vocal and clearly articulate their feminism through sharp critiques of patriarchal structures and strong demands for combating violence against women, femicide, and so on. I would say that in the Balkans, we have an interweaving of various feminist perspectives and approaches, but I believe that an intersectional approach would be the best. It allows for the inclusion of as many diverse voices as possible.
Can you tell us more about the image of Islam in the Western world, which is often reduced to the stereotype of all Muslims wearing explosive vests?
The image of Muslims in the world is unfortunately steeped in stereotypes and prejudice, with a historical foundation in interactions between Christians and Muslims that painted Muslims as terrorists, aggressors, barbarians, illiterate, and culturally backward. This has intensified particularly after 9/11. Anti-Muslim sentiments and propaganda can be observed in two ways: strategically and populistically. The strategic aspect became particularly visible in the late 1970s, during the Iranian Revolution, as the West came into conflict with Middle Eastern countries over oil, nuclear weapons production, and terrorism. Following colonialism, the West has continued to exploit the resources of Africa and Asia, leading to political resistance to Westernization and neo-colonialism.
Populist propaganda has emerged as a reaction to the increasing number of Muslim migrants in the West, manifesting in racism and resistance to religious norms, particularly the wearing of headscarves by Muslim women. Populist arguments are evident in bans on headscarves in schools and government institutions, which right-wing populist parties have skillfully exploited in their election campaigns.
Islam is often portrayed as a threat to Western secular values, with radicalized Muslim groups used as an excuse to marginalize all Muslims as problematic and incapable of reconciling their religion with secular democratic societies. While there are radical Muslim groups that interpret and apply sharia law literally, the majority of Muslims are not radical and are quite capable of reconciling their religion with democracy. The Quran does not specify a particular form of governance, but Muslim scholars have debated political systems acceptable within the framework of Quranic messages.
They particularly emphasize the values of justice, social cooperation, and mutual aid, advocating for non-autocratic, consultative governance and the institutionalization of compassion and mercy in societal interactions. This means that Muslims can live in and support systems of governance that promote these values. So far, democratic systems have shown that they uphold these principles, while autocratic and authoritarian systems, which unfortunately dominate in many Islamic countries, neglect key Islamic principles: justice framed by mercy and compassion.
This means that Muslims themselves bear some responsibility for the image of Islam in the West. While there is systematic propaganda resulting in Islamophobia, Muslims must not allow Islam to be hijacked by radical groups pursuing political interests. When we consider the harm caused by radical groups like ISIS, it is clear that they have harmed Muslims the most, encouraging murder and destruction within Muslim communities—a fact that is rarely discussed publicly.
The best remedy for combating stereotypes is education and dialogue. Without these, ordinary people consume news filled with prejudice that often promotes a monolithic and homogeneous image of Muslims.
When it comes to Islam and women, what are some common misconceptions? For example, about wearing the hijab and niqab? Do you think society is hypocritical in criticizing the hijab but not, say, certain hats?
Of course, there are double standards, and when it comes to Muslim women, no one asks what they want. Many secular feminists argue that the dress code of body covering cannot be a free choice for women. I partially understand that argument when it comes to societies where such choices are imposed by law or societal pressure, as is the case in some Islamic countries. However, Muslim women in the West, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, freely choose to wear the hijab, and their choice is not recognized as an expression of freedom—it is assumed they must have been coerced.
I want to emphasize that there is societal pressure both in the East and the West, and there is no complete freedom for women to decide how they dress. Naturally, the hijab, like other visible elements of practicing Islam, can be politicized and used in political battles for or against Westernization and modernization. It is important for Muslim women to have the freedom to wear or not wear the hijab and to decide whether it is the sole way to express the principles of modesty, which men and women are equally obligated to cultivate.
Every kind of pressure, imposition, and exclusion is problematic. Unfortunately, we have such cases in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina recently ruled that the exclusion of Emela Mujanović from the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina does not represent a violation of the Constitution. This means that a Muslim woman who chooses to wear the hijab of her own free will cannot work in certain state institutions, and this is not considered a violation of her constitutional and legal rights to freely practice her religion.
Much more dialogue and public awareness-raising will be needed on these and other issues, because religion is no longer merely a private matter—it is personal, which means that public spaces must find ways to accommodate various religious practices, including the wearing of hijab by Muslim women.
To conclude, I’d like us to talk about the FER school. I’d love to hear your impression of the progress made with the generations that have attended FER school. How do you envision the future of FER school?
After four years, I can say that I’m truly happy and satisfied that we’ve managed to attract a large number of participants—not just students from the region, such as Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and North Macedonia—but also teaching staff. And we took the best from the pandemic. When we didn’t know what to do during the pandemic, we launched this school, which has now grown into a university program at the University of Sarajevo. I hope it will remain such a program where discussions on certain issues and topics, which unfortunately have no place within churches and religious communities, can continue.
This school is an alternative—a safe space where one can academically discuss any issue that intersects with religion, gender, peacebuilding, gender-based violence, politics, or philosophy. This is particularly important in our region because religion is a significant factor in identity. It overlaps with our ethnic identities and is often misused and politicized, which is why it’s important to work on deconstructing this and saving religion from politics. We must not allow divine messages to be hijacked by certain groups, even within churches, that do not permit pluralism of thought and interpretation.
As for the future, it will depend on many factors, including all of us involved—on you, the younger generation, coming after us—how much you’ll want to maintain this type of education, how much you’ll see it as necessary, and whether we’ll reach a point where we believe certain topics have been resolved and no longer need to be discussed. I’m afraid we won’t reach that point for quite some time, but these issues will definitely need to be discussed in the coming years, solutions sought, and arguments made to ensure we’re not swept away by the anti-gender winds and clouds that have loomed heavily over this region.
On that note, what would your personal message be to women today?
You’ve caught me off guard with this question. But I would say what I always tell myself: if you believe in something, if you believe something is right, if you believe you wouldn’t want to be in a situation where someone discriminates against you, abuses you, profits from your resources, excludes you, or silences your voice—then engage and speak out loudly and clearly against injustice, exclusion, and exploitation. Demand equal rights—nothing more, nothing less—but equal rights and opportunities for all women and men, because that’s the only way we can build a society where we work together as partners.
The publication of this text was supported by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation – Southeast Europe with funding from the Federal Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Photo: private archive, pexels, klix.ba, zagreb.info, Faktiv, SIPA
