By, Spahic Omer
Shortly after they had made their home in the Balkans in the 6th century, the South Slavs, who were pagans, became the target of the Christian proselytization efforts. The evangelization works were gradual and were carried out in waves till approximately the 12th century. The process could be roughly broken down into two phases: one prior to the East-West Schism of 1054 and the other subsequent to it. Admittedly, the latter was more eventful, more dramatic and more divisive, effectively splitting the Balkans into two camps: the supporters and followers of Eastern Orthodoxy in Constantinople and Roman Catholicism in Rome (Greek East and Latin West). This later facilitated the spread of the Latin and Cyrillic scripts, with the majority of Orthodox Slavs adopting Cyrillic and the majority of Catholic Slavs adopting the Latin.
As a result, the Serbs became Orthodox and the Croats Catholic Christians. The Bosniaks, on the other hand, stood out as a unique case. Adopting – or helping in the advancement of – a peculiar style of Christianity, they remained neither here nor there. They were in a state of limbo. Though they insisted that they were true Christians – describing themselves as “krstjani” (christened ones), “good Bosniaks”, or simply “good people” – the Bosniaks were continuously labeled as heretics both by the masters of the Greek East and Latin West axis and their Croat and Serb proxies in the Balkan region.
The secret motives behind playing the labeling game
As heretics in the eyes of the Christian two-pronged “orthodoxy”, the Bosniaks were given several pejorative names, namely “Bogomili” (or “Bogumili”, Bogomils, which means, sarcastically, those dear to God), “Babuni” (perhaps superstitious ones, or followers of an ungodly idea), “Patareni” (deviants or fools), and the members of the Bosnian (heretical) Church. The last one, perhaps, was the mildest one, in that, as Christians, the Bosniaks were indeed united as a community, a body, or an organization of believers. Such was not a slur, just stating the obvious.
At any rate, it appears as though the “Bogomili” tag was the intended affront and that the names of “Babuni” and “Patareni” were its synonyms. The three were used interchangeably, which may also suggest that the Bosnian heresy fluctuated in practice and intensity, taking on varying interpretations and being construed differently across different historical periods and locations. That is why the Bosniaks are sometimes called “Bogomili” and sometimes “Babuni” and “Patareni”, and at other times the whole system is dubbed simply the heresy of the Bosnian Church. Thus, inferring for instance that the Bosniaks were neither Bogomili, nor Babuni, nor Patareni purely because the three classifications were not used widely and consistently, is not appropriate. As said before, those were synonyms that complemented each other, and were used interchangeably, especially by the antagonists of Bosnia.
For that reason does the term “Babuni” in “The Code of Stephan Dušan: Tsar and Autocrat of the Serbs and Greeks” mean the Bogomilism of Bosnia as a form of heresy. The expression “the word of Babuni” has been translated as “heretical utterance.” Hence, in Article 85 of the said Code of Stephan Dušan, titled “Of Heretical (Babuni) Utterance”, which reads: “whoso utters heretical words, if he be noble let him pay one hundred perpers; and if he be not noble, let him pay twelve perpers and be flogged with sticks”, there is a comment by the translator, Malcolm Burr, that the meaning of “babunska reč” (the word or utterance of Babuni) was for many years a puzzle. However, “it is now known that Babuni is another name for Bogomiles; it occurs in the so-called Krmčija of the time of Saint Sava, where we find the heading ‘On Masaljani, who are now called Bogomili-Babuni.’ In an old manuscript of Sveta Trojica near Plevlje, dating from between 1285 and 1291, there is an anathema against zli eretici prokleti babunie, ‘evil heretics accursed Babuni.’ Micklosich suggests that the name of the Babuna Pass came from some settlement of Bogomiles in that wild district.”
Moreover, in Article 10 of the same Code, titled “Of Heretics”, it is said: “And if any heretic be found living among Christians, let him be branded on the face and driven forth; and whoso shall harbor him, he too shall be branded.” Regarding this, the translator, Malcolm Burr, made an interesting comment. He said that “this clause must have applied principally to the Bogomiles, the most numerous heretical sect in the Balkans. They were Manichaeans of Paulician descent, and were particularly numerous in Bosnia, where they were an organized community.”
The above comment offers further insight into the range of names and meanings linked to the Bosnian heresy. Bogomilism was likewise occasionally associated with Manichaeism and Paulicianism, which was for obvious reasons. The former was a dualistic cosmology of the 3rd century portraying the intrinsic clashes between a virtuous realm of light and a malevolent realm of darkness, a fundamental belief at the heart of Bogomilism. The latter was a medieval (7th century) Christian sect whose members referred to themselves as good Christians, which is similar to the codes of “good Bosniaks” and “good people”, which the Bosniaks took great pride in identifying themselves with. It follows that, by extension, the Bosniaks considered themselves to be good Christians as well. Towards this end, certainly, is a book in German by Eugen Roll titled “Ketzer Zwischen Orient und Okzident: Patarener, Paulikianer, Bogomilen” (Heretics between Orient and Occident: Patarens, Paulicians, Bogomils).
When they spoke about Stefan Nemanja, the founder of the Nemanja dynasty which ruled Serbia from 1169 till 1372, Voyeslav Yanich and C. Patrick Hankey highlighted that a sign of his devotion to the holy Orthodox Church was his unparalleled zeal to “destroy utterly all heresies which arose among the people through the work of false teachers.” The authors were prompt in noting that the most significant heresy was Bogomilism in Bosnia. They were “very dangerous to the state in those days. When the Turks took Bosnia in 1463 they became Musulmans.” Stefan Nemanja’s fight against the “formidable heresy” of Bogomilism contributed to his canonization as a saint. Needless to say that the authors also insinuated that with the incorporation of members of the Bogomilism sect into Islam, the mother of all religious heresies and existential evils, and of all perils for the entirety of Christendom, was created.
The above names for the Bosnian “heresy” and for the Bosniaks as its adherents were so widespread that even classical Bosnian authors did not hesitate to use them. Some examples are Salih Sidki Muvekkit-Hadžihuseinović, a pioneering figure in Bosnian history in the 19th century, and Mehmed Handžić, a prominent Bosnian theologian and politician in the first half of the 20th century. Both of them accepted that prior to the arrival of the Ottomans, after which the Bosniaks began converting to Islam in large numbers, the Bosniaks were Bogomili (Bogomils), which to the two authors was synonymous with the Patareni label. Salih Sidki Muvekkit-Hadžihuseinović discussed the matter in his seminal history of Bosnia, wherein he dwelled on the emergence of Bogomilism and the identity as well as teachings of the Bogomili. Mehmed Handžić, on the other hand, did a similar thing in his treatise titled “Islamizacija Bosne i Hercegovine” (Islamization of Bosnia and Hercegovina) in which he explored the origins of the Bosnian Muslims.
The Bosniaks as “good Christians”, “good Bosniaks” and “good people”
It stands to reason that the derogatory tags for the Bosniaks before the Ottomans and the process of Islamization likely continued although that unique period of Bosnia and its people, with its distinct characteristics, ceased to exist. Whereas the Bosniaks were preoccupied with their new socio-religious identity and eagerly awaited forging an exciting future. Focusing excessively on the past rooted in misguidance was of secondary importance. Other priorities took precedence and needed to be addressed.
It was the opponents of the Bosniaks that were infuriated by the latter’s both old and new distinctiveness, and it was them and their actions that kept distorting historical narratives to weaken the Bosniaks’ case and exaggerate their own. The goal was to portray the Bosniaks as traitors and foreigners in their own country to the greatest extent possible. Without doubt, the fact that the Ottomans were poor historiographers exacerbated the situation, as confirmed by Mehmed Handžić (d. 1944) and Safvet-beg Bašagić (d. 1934), the father of Bosnian renaissance at the beginning of the 20th century. Investigating and documenting the early history of Bosnia proved challenging due to the lack of preserved information or the prevalence of misinformation.
The truth is that the Bosniaks were originally, or were supposed to be, Christians. According to some, they were closer to Roman Catholicism, as espoused by the Croats, and to others, Eastern Orthodoxy, as espoused by the Serbs. It is because of these potential affiliations and their far-reaching nationalist ramifications that the early religious background of the Bosniaks was obscured and kept hidden. The Bosnian version of Christianity was unique. It contained important elements of both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox models, and of several heretical schools of thought, such as Bogomilism, Manichaeism, Paulicianism and others. The presence of components of diverse forms of paganism should not be excluded either. According to Gorčin Dizdar, the Bosnian Church was “related to other medieval dualist movements such as the Paulicians of eastern Anatolia, the Bogomils of Bulgaria and the Patarens/Cathars of Western Europe.”
This eccentric blend of Bosnia’s “Christian” beliefs and practices was regarded as heretical both by Rome and Constantinople. It was unacceptable, which led to Bosnia and its people becoming the subject of religiously motivated and politically influenced attempts at conversion, and in some cases, persecution. Due to the fact that the Bosniaks were considered heretics and actively practiced their heretical beliefs, it was necessary to give them an appropriate designation. Finding a single term that could encompass all aspects of the heresies proved to be an impossible task. Consequently, a range of terms were created and circulated, although most were only partially accurate and none were fully inclusive by themselves. This in turn caused a proliferation of labels that for the Bosniaks people used liberally, depending on their spiritual and socio-political inclinations. In the eyes of many, though, the entire convolution denoted just a heretical Church of Bosnia.
Yet, the Bosniaks saw themselves as true Christians. They were “good Christians”, which rendered them “good Bosniaks” and generally “good people.” It seems that the followers of the Bosnian Church were bent on transcending mundane and physical considerations as well as symbols. Thiers was a monastic or ascetic way of life in which renouncing worldly pursuits for the sake of full devotion to spiritual work, was the utmost priority. Substance took precedence over display, much like how the world of spirit overshadowed the world of matter. For that reason was the Bosnian Church occasionally called a monastic Church or a monastic religious organization. However, the ascetic and puritanical nature of the Bosnian Church was more liberal and open-minded than it is normally expected from similar religious groups. Though the Bosniaks should have been to a considerable degree opposed to the wealth and secular power of the established Churches, and, at face value, should have forsaken earthly material goods, “the Bosnian Church in its heyday enjoyed considerable power, and its dignitaries were used to sign charters and carry out diplomatic missions.”
Within this framework one can try to understand why certain beliefs and practices of the Bosnian Church were misunderstood, blown out of proportion and deemed heretical. Whereas they might simply have been the acts of neglect and inefficiency, and the results of dissimilar world outlooks and so, interpretations. Treating those either as part of an elaborate dualistic cosmology or as outright deviations is not only morally unacceptable but also spiritually unjustifiable. Equally unsuitable would be to perceive the Bosnian Church as a monolithic, or homogenous, and overly simplified concept as well as concrete phenomenon.
Arising from such an approach were the misunderstood, exaggerated and even incorrect views that posited that the Bosnian Church subscribed exclusively to “a Manichaean ‘dualist’ theology, according to which Satan had a power almost equal to that of God; the visible world was Satan’s creation, and men could free themselves from the taint of the material world only by following an ascetic way of life, renouncing meat, wine and sexual intercourse.” This “identification of matter with Satan’s realm had some far-reaching theological implications: Christ’s incarnation had to be regarded as a kind of illusion, and his physical death on the Cross could not have happened; various ceremonies involving material substances, such as baptism with water, had to be rejected, and the Cross itself became a hated symbol of false belief. Also rejected were the use of church buildings, and indeed the entire organizational structure of the traditional Church, especially its wealthy monasteries.”
Once it was established that the Bosniaks strayed from conventional-cum-orthodox Christian practices, the notion of Bosnia being heretical started to take hold. It was yet turning into an international affair. So much so that in 1203, the Pope in Rome, Innocent III, expressed concern over the deviations in Bosnia and, prompted by a series of complaints, many of which were politically driven, he sought to look into the matter. He aimed to check the accuracy of the complaints and evaluate the degree to which the Bosniaks followed Catholicism instead of heresy, as claimed by Ban Kulin (d. 1204), one of the most notable medieval Bosnian rulers, who used to profess himself to be a good and faithful Catholic.
The Bilino Polje conference and its abjuration
The result was the meeting of Bosnian ecclesiastics at Bilino Polje in April 1203, at which they signed a declaration promising to reform their behavior. The meeting was attended by a legate of the Pope. The Bosniaks “undertook to acknowledge the full supremacy of Rome, accept Catholic priests in their monasteries, restore altars and crosses to places of worship, adopt the confessional and penance, follow the Roman calendar of feasts and fasts, receive communion at least seven times a year, keep the sexes apart in monasteries, and give no shelter to heretics. They also promised not to arrogate to themselves alone the name of ‘christianus’, but to refer to themselves as fraters, ‘brothers’, instead.”
Historians are virtually unanimous in their agreement on the authenticity of the account mentioned above. The account demonstrates that the Bosnian Christians were different, associating themselves with neither of the branches or sects of Christianity, but with Christianity itself. They were Christians (“christianus” or “krstjani”), first and foremost, the followers of a religion rather than any of its derivatives.
That the Bosniaks were able to establish common ground with the legate or ambassador of the Pope, and that the outcomes of the meeting in no way implied a disavowal of heresies, shows that the Bosnian Church was different yet accommodating and compatible, and that the Bosnian clergy were ready to listen and even yield to the pressure, albeit without renouncing the unique Bosnian character of their Church in favor of absolute Catholicism and the national-identity-related nuances that such a prospect entailed. What was discussed and recorded during the meeting pertained to rituals, ceremonies and customs, not to pure theological issues. It dealt with practical application, not with articles of faith or worldview (weltanschauung). The Pope’s envoy to the meeting with the Bosniaks, John Casamaris, stated afterwards in a letter to the Pope that he was discussing merely “the actions of some Patarens in Bosnia.”
Admittedly, the meeting at Bilino Polje (today’s Zenica city) was as much a religious as political gathering. Its agendas cut across the tinges of the two domains. The fact that no spectacular outcomes the said conference has produced indicates that it was convened partly as a result of the growing differences inside the fold of the Bosnian Church, which had a bearing on the trajectory of the evolution of the Bosnian national consciousness, and partly as a result of the equivalently growing accusations against Bosnia and its overall religio-national development programs. Towards this end are the first two and the last items in the Bilino Polje abjuration document: “We (Bosnian Christians) will not follow heretical depravity. We renounce the schism, for which we are accused, and promise to remain faithful to the orders and instructions of the Holy Church. When our Magister dies, from now on forever, the priors with a council of Brothers, fearing God, will chose an elder who will be confirmed by a Roman pontiff. And if the Roman church will want to add or modify anything, we will faithfully accept and adhere.”
Ultimately, the meeting ended up benefiting all parties involved. The Catholic Church was satisfied that the Bosnian Church was not as heretical as claimed and that it promised to remain “under control”. The Bosnian Church, on the other hand, was exonerated in many ways, enabling it to remain true to itself and to function in accordance with its core values. Its mixture of monasticism, good work and operational (administrative-qua-spiritual) autonomy from Rome, remained the distinctive nature of the Bosnian Church. Thus, to Noel Malcolm, one of the meanings of the word “krstjani” was “monks”. The word might have been affiliated mostly with the monks of the Bosnian Church. The same author believes that the Bosnian Church was probably isolated from Catholic jurisdiction from as early as the 1230s; “and as it gradually asserted its autonomy, it must sooner or later have reached a point where it was in de facto schism with Rome.” During that period and later, the split with Rome likely took on various political and doctrinal dimensions, which may not have been as fundamental as some would like to suggest. They might have shared similarities with the subjects that were addressed in the prior Bilino Polje conference.
It is also noteworthy that the Bilino Polje conference was not, and could not be, fully representational of the religious state of Bosnia. It is not possible to definitively assert that there were no extra heretical or otherwise elements in the country. But the meeting made it abundantly clear that Bosnia was anything but conventional, predictable and easily controllable. John Fine surely had this verity in mind when he said that “there is no evidence that the leaders of any heretical movement were present at Bilino Polje. This all suggests that Casamaris’ personal investigation had turned up no hard-core heretics. This, of course, only means that the legate did not find them. It does not mean that such her etics were not to be found somewhere in Bosnia. After all, Bosnia was a large region with rugged mountains and poor communications. To cross the country was then a trip of at least ten days. However, had Casamaris heard about the existence of heresy anywhere in Bosnia, it is inconceivable that he would not have at least suggested prolonging his mission or sending further missions. But he did not.”
Parenthetically, in addition to the Bosnian Church, Catholicism was also notably present in Bosnia. Some Catholic orders even came – and settled – with the intention of battling and eradicating the supposed “heresies of the Bosnian Church.” The Catholic Church’s footprint in Bosnia was in line with the prevalence and impact of the Bosnian heresies. The success and zeal of the latter directly impacted the existence and operation of the former, leaving less room for it. However, in much of Bosnia, excluding Hercegovina, there was very little Orthodox presence before the Ottoman arrival. “Indeed, an Orthodox population was introduced to large parts of Bosnia as a direct result of Ottoman policy.”***
(Dr. Spahic Omer is Associate Professor in the Department of History and Civilisation, AbdulHamid AbuSulayman Kulliyyah of Islamic Revealed Knowledge and Human Sciences, IIUM.)
- Youth Health in Jeopardy: How Sungai Kim Kim Pollution affects Schools and Children - November 17, 2024
- IIUM and DBKL Join Forces for Community-Centered Survey at Taman Tasik Titiwangsa - November 17, 2024
- Seminar empowers future engineers to confront workplace harassment - November 17, 2024