In the capacity of architecture as an expression of values, which means that the way we build is a reflection of the way we live (Norman Foster, an English architect and designer), as an existential pursuit that can be only as great as the aspirations of its society (Lisa Rochon, a Canadian author and architectural adviser), as the most obvious flower of a society's culture (Alan Balfour, a Scottish architect), as a means to serve people and society first and foremost (Steven Ehrlich, an American architect), ¹Becky Quintal, 121 Definitions of Architecture, https://www.archdaily.com/773971/architecture-is-121-
definitions-of-architecture, accessed on April 26, 2024. and as the most difficult profession whose fundamental prerequisite, if architecture is intended to be practiced correctly, is piety (Koca Mimar Sinan, the chief imperial architect of the Ottoman Empire) – the architectural landscape of Bosnia, especially in Sarajevo, played a central role in the dynamic and frequently tragic events in the region.

Architecture was the mirror of society. It rose and flourished with the rise and flourishing of the latter, and, similarly, it waned and suffered with the waning and suffering of the latter. The aspirations and destinies of Islamic architecture and the city of Sarajevo were intertwined. The Islamic architecture of Sarajevo functioned as a symbolic representation of its identity and performance index, reflecting the city's essence and character.

Islamic architecture also functioned as a representation and miniature version of the city. The connection between the two was so significant that it is fair to claim that Sarajevo was defined by its architecture, specifically the Islamic architectural style that has persisted thanks to the city's endurance and the endurance of its remarkable civilizational outlook. The additional architectural styles from eras in Bosnia and its capital city when Islam and Muslims were not in a position of power have increased the intricacy of the narratives surrounding Islam, Muslims and their architectural legacy.

What is Islamic architecture?

Islamic architecture is a widely misunderstood subject. It also divides opinion like no other theme in the fields of Islamic culture and civilization. Both scholars and ordinary people question if Islamic architecture as an idea and demonstrable reality exists, and if yes what its most appropriate definition and its underlying characteristics are.

They likewise wonder if the recognizable built environment styles of Muslims worldwide and in history should be called “Islamic”, “Muslim”, “Islamicate”, or even something else, and whether there is any relationship between architecture, which is popularly regarded as a pure secular realm, and Islam as a total spiritual orientation and a religious consciousness as well as a style of living.

Islamic architecture is a style of architecture that embodies the core of the Islamic ‘aqidah (belief system or articles of faith) and the body of inclusive Islamic standards and behavioral moral values. Islamic architecture does so through its three main dimensions: as a philosophy, process, and a final outcome, and at the planes of the conceptualization, planning, designing, constructing, and the using of the built environment.

This is done partly latently and intuitively, as a result of people’s prior personification of the same Islamic beliefs, principles and values, which they then radiate and implement in the various fields of their individual and collective lives - including the realm of the built environment – and partly consciously through a series of premeditated and thought-out methods, steps and even procedural guidelines.

Islamic architecture is a framework of both human lives and the implementation of the Islamic message. This is so because Islam is a comprehensive way of life and the two are meant for each other: life needs Islam to be inspired, guided and properly lived thereby, while Islam needs life to be exteriorized, actualized and “seen” therein. It is thus often acknowledged that Islam is life and life, in turn, is Islam. Apart from framing and containing human lives and Islam, Islamic architecture, moreover, facilitates, nurtures and further promotes them.

Herein lies the significance and strength of the universe of Islamic architecture, as it has to cope with and cater to the needs of the vicissitudes of life and their dynamism as well as changeability. As a result, some of the most remarkable characteristics of Islamic architecture revolve around the notions of the profundity and inviolability of its meaning, purpose and wide-ranging functions, on the one hand, and the dynamism, fluidity and open-endedness of its physical and artistic considerations, on the other.

Indeed, Islamic architecture stands for the cultural and civilizational identity of Muslims. Yet, it is their own real-life identity. It is a microcosm of Muslims’ cultural and civilizational awareness and evolution. It is their soul. Ensuring its universal and timeless appeal, Islamic architecture represents the principle of unity in diversity: the unity of vision, purpose and values, and the diversity of methods, forms and styles. Needless to say that the more a style of architecture embodies the faith and tenets of Islam, the more Islamic it becomes. ²Spahic Omer, Tradition vs. Modernity in Islamic Architecture: The Case of Jeddah, (Kuala Lumpur: Dar Al
Wahi, 2022), pp. 55-89.

Unity in diversity

That said, the Ottoman architectural heritage in Sarajevo epitomized Islamic architectural aesthetics, emphasizing functionality and practicality over idealism. Despite the imperfections that exist to some extent in every human individual and collective endeavor, the Ottomans, undisputedly, were the latest torchbearers of Islamic civilization.

They made an effort to uphold Islamic principles and values as best as they could within the prevailing socio-political and economic circumstances, both at home and abroad. And for living Islam they needed an urbanistic, artefactual and configurational framework, so as to enfold, facilitate and promote the behavioral patterns of theirs. That framework was the Ottoman architectural philosophy as well as an ensemble of structural forms, creative solutions and aesthetics.

Just like every other Islamic architectural style before and during the Ottoman leadership, the Ottoman Islamic style, too, demonstrated a synergy between the values of Islam and the architectural vicissitudes relating to the components of geography, climate, culture, history, skills, economy and an array of design intricacies, which were fully dictated by the variabilities of time and space factors.

That is why architecture is sometimes described as a framework for life. It is also seen as an enterprise that encloses space and sustains life, with the harmony and peaceful coexistence between architecture and life being the main measure of architectural quality.

The Ottoman architecture was at once familiar and distinctive. It was familiar because it followed the religious teachings, the life ideals and fundamental cultural norms of Islam, which are identical in every Islam-dominated geographical region and social group, owing to the universality, cosmopolitanism and spiritual transcendence of the Islamic message which the Ottoman architecture strove to epitomize.

In this respect, the Ottoman architecture was no different from any other previous or contemporary Islamic architectural style. Common to all of them were the core elements of the Islamic architectural vocabulary, such as the ideas of calligraphy, geometric and floral designs, arabesque patterns, muqarnas, domes, minbars (pulpits), mihrabs (praying niches), pronounced portals into public buildings, the dearth of humanist aspects, functionality, fostering social contract, privacy, and respect for, together with appreciation of, the environment.

On the other hand, the Ottoman architecture was distinctive as it followed the principles of regional styles (regionalism), local traditions (vernacularism), cultural influences (culturalism) and historicity. There is no question that this was shaped by the foundational character of the Islamic architectural identity, which lays emphasis on the notion of unity in diversity. This means the unity of vision, philosophy, meaning and purpose, alongside the diversity of forms, expressions, artistries and creative solutions.

Due to this, some of the key qualities of the Ottoman architecture are as follows: dome-centric buildings with the single-domed and multi-domed types dominating, towering and slender minarets, elaborate decorations embracing intricate patterns, ground-level porticos, massive arches framing sets of windows, decorative introversion, community outreach, and institutionalism, which is often interpreted along the lines of creating grand and awe-inspiring spaces that showcased the Ottoman penchant for the imperial supremacy and majestic civilizational feats. All of these features are conspicuously present in the Ottoman architectural cityscape of Sarajevo.

As a small digression, there can be no denying that - intrinsically and in consequence – the concept and corporeal reality of Islamic architecture reveal a remarkable consistency in content and appearance, no matter when and where it was conceived and produced.

This unity does not prevent styles, materials and motifs from changing somewhat from one geographical region or historical period to another. Regardless of his race, color, language, or homeland, a Muslim experiences this architectural identity-qua-unity everywhere he goes.

Just as he finds in each land not identical, but similar Islamically-inspired responses to life’s political, economic and social challenges, he also finds not identical, but similar architectural and other aesthetic expressions of the Islamic spirit.

What is more, the power of the aesthetic values of Islam is such that, even without the conscious awareness and pursuance of those values, Muslim architects, artists, users and spectators alike have been guided to an architectural and artistic unity in Islam which is unmistakable. ³Lois Lamya’ al-Faruqi, Islam and Art, (Islamabad: National Hijra Council, 1985), p. 12.

The role of spirituality

At the heart of this Islamic architectural identity resides the idea of Islamic monotheism or tawhid (Almighty Allah’s Oneness) as a religious philosophy and experience whose quintessence is Allah as the Absolute Creator and Master of the universe, as normativeness, as the final end at which all finalistic nexuses aim and come to rest, and as the ultimate object of all innate hope, craving and desire. ⁴Isma’il Ragi al-Faruqi, Al Tawhid: Its Implications for Thought and Life, (Herndon: International Institute of
Islamic Thought, 1995), p. 2.

If Mimar Sinan's journey to greatness, becoming the chief architect of the Ottoman Empire at its peak, and later being recognized as a master, symbolized the Ottoman Empire's rise to greatness and mastery in geopolitics, his spiritual influence on architecture was also emblematic of a cumulative national ethos. Mimar Sinan's autobiographies, where he elaborated on his views of architecture and its connection to religion and life, are filled with references to this ethos.

Standout are his words that Almighty God is the only Creator who creates ex nihilo (from absolute nothingness) and is able to raise the seven heavenly spheres without columns, whereas man is weak and whatever he does – and builds - is conditional and doomed to annihilation; that Mimar Sinan’s greatest architectural achievements were auspiciously facilitated by God; that God’s favor was to him a guide; that the mosque is a meeting place of the lovers of purity, a joy-giving abode like Paradise (and that, by extension, the same people use the rest of the components of the Islamic built environment, functioning as the extensions of the domain and influence of the mosque institution in its role as the mother of other institutions); that in the field of architecture Mimar Sinan was nothing but a faithful servant, albeit with the wisdom of Luqman; and that he discharged his architectural assignments with faithfulness and justice, hoping only for prayers to be said in his name. ⁵Mimar Sinan, Sinan’s Autobiographies - Five Sixteenth-Century Texts, translated and edited by Howard Crane
and Esra Akin, (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 88-126.

Correcting misunderstandings

Because of this complex disposition of the Ottoman Islamic architecture, which reflects the broader Ottoman society, history, culture and civilization, it is often misunderstood by both Turks and outsiders. This leads to varying perceptions of Ottoman architecture, sometimes seen as excessively Islamic or excessively Turkish.

Additionally, it is sometimes viewed as highly original and creative, while paradoxically also being criticized as imitative or even plagiaristic. So much so that Herbert Adams Gibbons, for example, posited that the Byzantine effect was the singular force behind the initial phase of the Ottoman architectural evolution:

“The Byzantine influence was an indissoluble factor in the evolution of Ottoman architecture from the very beginning. The Seljuk, Arab and Persian influences entered in at a considerably later period.”⁶Herbert Adams Gibbons, The Foundation of The Ottoman Empire (1300-1403), (Oxford: The Clarendon Press,
1916), p. 276.

The advent of such a situation resulted in the rise of a body of literature that aims to expose falsehoods, rectify misunderstandings and establish truths about the Ottoman historical and civilizational heritage.

Two examples of such literature are the books “Osmanli History, 1289-1922, Based on Osmanli Sources” written by Mehmet Maksudoglu, and “Ottoman History, Misperceptions and Truths” written by Ahmed Akgunduz and Said Ozturk. It comes as no surprise that the first misconception corrected in the latter encyclopedic book is titled

“The claim that the Ottoman State is a copy of the Byzantine Empire and that the Byzantine imperial institutions influenced the Ottoman state institutions.”⁷Ahmed Akgunduz and Said Ozturk, Ottoman History, Misperceptions and Truths, (Rotterdam: IUR Press,
2011), p. 25.

Perhaps Godfrey Goodwin most accurately summarized the actual state of the Ottoman Islamic architecture when he asserted that, after all, it was influenced by the earlier Byzantine and Armenian traditions, but its builders were disciplined by religious symbolism so entangled with Eastern and Western ideas as well as forms.

It goes without saying that such architecture was derivative acknowledging no frontiers. It fed on the compost of other cultures in order to develop its own individual style. It was finally killed by nationalism, as it championed stimuli that were contrary to the ecumenical soul of the Ottoman architectural tradition.⁸Godfrey Goodwin, A History of Ottoman Architecture, (London: Thames and Hudson, 1997), p. 6.

A microcosm of the Ottoman Islamic architecture

Indeed, the realm of the Ottoman architecture is an intriguing field distinguished by its captivating features and contrasting perspectives. Its presence in Sarajevo denotes its microcosm. Even the influences of the legendary Mimar Sinan both directly in indirectly contributed to shaping its identity.

The Ottoman Islamic architecture in Sarajevo had several key features. These included influences from Islamic spiritual and ethical beliefs, a rich cultural heritage, the balance between form and function, the interaction of foreign and local elements, inclusive and unique aspects, and the significant role of decorative arts.

The architectural style in Sarajevo combined Islamic, Ottoman and local design principles, encompassing structural, functional and aesthetic dimensions. It can be most accurately described as a harmonious mix of unity and diversity: sharing a common vision, purpose and values, while embracing a variety of methods, forms and styles.

Just as with other Islamic architectural styles, the Ottoman Islamic style in Sarajevo struck a balance between utility and artistic creativity, as well as between worldly concerns and spiritual considerations. It embraced what was consistent across all Islamic regions and social groups due to the universal and cosmopolitan nature of the Islamic message. It aimed to embody the spiritual transcendence of Islam.

In this sense, the Ottoman Islamic architecture in Sarajevo was similar to other Islamic architectural styles, sharing core elements. On the other hand, it was distinctive as it followed as much as possible the principles of indigenous traditions and historicity. This even included the subject of several architectural deviations, which at first were Ottoman but were soon tinted with the nuances of local considerations.

Islamic architecture in Sarajevo is not oriental

Finally, classifying the Islamic architecture of Sarajevo, and Bosnia en bloc, as oriental, oriental-Islamic, or oriental-Ottoman, as many researchers and authors have done in the past and present, instead of referring to it as Bosnian Islamic, Bosnian, or Islamic, was inappropriate.

This misrepresentation may have been deliberate, aiming to associate Bosnia's Islamic architecture, its people, and their cultural and civilizational identity with the Orient, contrasting it with Europe, known as the Occident or the Western world.

This misclassification also implied that the Bosniaks themselves were considered part of the Orient. As Muslims practicing Islam, seen as an Eastern religion, they were viewed as outsiders in Bosnia, a European region.

Consequently, they were pressured to either forsake their socio-cultural and religious heritage to assimilate into Western (European) culture, or to go to the Orient and join their Eastern brethren and reconnect with the roots of their existential essence.

It goes without saying that it's easier to defend the use of the 'Islamic' label than to rationalize the label of “the Orient,” because, fundamentally, it doesn't make sense to confine Islam to a particular historical period or geographic zone. Additionally, Europe's religious history does not include indigenous religions; all contemporary religions in Europe have been introduced. That puts Islam on an equal footing with all other religions and ideologies on the continent.

Admittedly, not all who used the 'oriental' label for Sarajevo’s Islamic architecture had malicious intentions in mind. Nevertheless, knowing that Bosnia “stood at the crossroads of the worlds” – to quote one of the most prominent Bosnian writers, Mehmed 'Meša' Selimović (d. 1982)⁹Enes Karić, Essays on Behalf of Bosnia, (Sarajevo: El-Kalem, 1999), p. 9. – that “history had never made such a joke with anyone as it did with us (the Bosniaks),” and that “we had been torn away and disconnected and were not accepted…(and as such) we bear the brunt for everyone” - there was always an abundance of enemies, whether from within Bosnia or from nearby and faraway places, who were eager to exploit the double-edged nature of classing anything related to Bosnia and the Bosniaks as 'oriental'.

One corollary of these manipulative strategies is a Serb nationalist theory that categorizes the religions in Bosnia into two groups: 'indigenous' and 'imported'. It is clear that according to this extremist (Fascist) theory, Islam is considered an imported and foreign religion, and as long as the Bosniaks adhere to it, they are also seen as foreign.

The theory suggests that the Bosniaks must decide: either renounce their foreign identity or leave for where they are perceived to belong (the Orient). In other words, they must adapt or face consequences. Their oriental vacation on a Western European soil is over.