As a Slavic-speaking religious and ethnic “Other” living just a stone’s throw from the symbolic heart of the continent, the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina have long occupied a liminal space in the European imagination. To a significant degree, the wider representations and perceptions of this population can be traced to the reports of Central European—and especially Habsburg—diplomats, scholars, journalists, tourists, and other observers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This volume assembles contributions from historians, anthropologists, political scientists, and literary scholars to examine the political, social, and discursive dimensions of Bosnian Muslims’ encounters with the West since the nineteenth century.

As a Slavic-speaking religious and ethnic “Other” living just a stone’s throw from the symbolic heart of the continent, the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina have long occupied a liminal space in the European imagination. To a significant degree, the wider representations and perceptions of this population can be traced to the reports of Central European—and especially Habsburg—diplomats, scholars, journalists, tourists, and other observers in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This volume assembles contributions from historians, anthropologists, political scientists, and literary scholars to examine the political, social, and discursive dimensions of Bosnian Muslims’ encounters with the West since the nineteenth century.

As Edin Hajdarpasic shows, formative contestations over Bosnia and the surrounding region began well the assassination that triggered World War I, emerging with the rise of new nineteenth-century forces—Serbian and Croatian nationalisms, and Ottoman, Habsburg, Muslim, and Yugoslav political movements—that claimed this province as their own. Whose Bosnia? reveals the political pressures and moral arguments that made Bosnia a prime target of escalating nationalist activity. Hajdarpasic provides new insight into central themes of modern politics, illuminating core subjects like "the people," state-building, and national suffering. Whose Bosnia? proposes a new figure in the history of nationalism: the (br)other, a character signifying the potential of being "brother" and "Other," containing the fantasy of complete assimilation and insurmountable difference. By bringing this figure into focus, Whose Bosnia? shows nationalism to be a dynamic and open-ended force, one that eludes a clear sense of historical closure.

Based on substantial fieldwork and thorough knowledge of written sources, Xavier Bougarel offers an innovative analysis of the post-Ottoman and post-Communist history of Bosnian Muslims. Islam and Nationhood in Bosnia-Herzegovina explores little-known aspects of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, unravels the paradoxes of Bosniak national identity, and retraces the transformations of Bosnian Islam from the end of the Ottoman period to today. It offers fresh perspectives on the wars and post-war periods of the Yugoslav space, the forming of national identities and the strength of imperial legacies in Eastern Europe, and Islam's presence in Europe. The question of how Islam is tied to national identity still divides Bosnian Muslims. Islam and Nationhood in Bosnia-Herzegovina places the history of ties between Islam and politics in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the larger global context of Bosnian Muslims relations both with the umma (the global Muslim community) and Europe from the late 19th century to the present and is a vital contribution to research on Islam in the West.

In “The Turk” in the Czech Imagination (1870s-1923), Jitka Malečková describes Czechs’ views of the Turks in the last half century of the existence of the Ottoman Empire and how they were influenced by ideas and trends in other countries, including the European fascination with the Orient, images of “the Turk,” contemporary scholarship, and racial theories. The Czechs were not free from colonial ambitions either, as their attitude to Bosnia-Herzegovina demonstrates, but their viewpoint was different from that found in imperial states and among the peoples who had experienced Ottoman rule. The book convincingly shows that the Czechs mainly viewed the Turks through the lenses of nationalism and Pan-Slavism – in solidarity with the Slavs fighting against Ottoman rule.

The book discusses how division affect the fabric of cities, and people’s sense of identity and agency, and are reflected in physical features, architecture, and urban planning. The question of divided cities represents a complex and multistranded urban Ecology—at once both social and spatial; it cannot be limited to a single science or discipline, such as social or spatial fields. This suggests integrated and cross- disciplinary understandings, as well as integrated or parallel approaches and solutions. Urban ecologies of division manifest in multiple forms. One of their most palpable expressions is conflict, with parallels around the world, and often with correlations in the spatial fabric. Violence in such contexts is often a surface expression of deeper socio-economic or ideological differences. Whether as a result of intervention by authority or by dissent between groups, a divided city inevitably becomes a place of conflict in various forms and intensity, eroding the joy of living and sense of collective belonging to the detriment of all. In effect, it erodes the collective advantage of being part of a more unified society. A city exists in collections of social structures which mutually form a society. A divided city implies divided social structures and, in consequence, a divided society. The papers compiled in this book present many case studies of divided cities, discussing the different causes of divisions and their effects on societies. Some of the causes can be linked to conflicts, wars, colonialism, or legislative political systems. In response to the serious challenges resulting from these divisions, the book aims to provide opportunities for new approaches and possibilities for new interventions and solutions, making it significant to urban planners, architects, and policymakers.

A new interpretation of the Sarajevo assassination and the origins of World War I that places focus on the Balkans and the prewar period. The story has so often been told: Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the throne of the Habsburg Empire, was shot dead on June 28, 1914, in the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo. Thirty days later, the Archduke's uncle, Emperor Franz Joseph, declared war on the Kingdom of Serbia, producing the chain reaction of European powers entering the First World War. In Misfire, Paul Miller-Melamed narrates the history of the Sarajevo assassination and the origins of World War I from the perspective of the Balkans. Rather than focusing on the bang of assassin Gavrilo Princip's gun or reinforcing the mythology that has arisen around this act, Miller-Melamed embeds the incident in the longer-term conditions of the Balkans that gave rise to the political murder. He thus illuminates the centrality of the Bosnian Crisis and the Balkan Wars of the early twentieth century to European power politics, while explaining how Serbs, Bosnians, and Habsburg leaders negotiated their positions in an increasingly dangerous geopolitical environment. Despite the absence of evidence tying official Serbia to the assassination conspiracy, Miller-Melamed shows how it spiraled into a diplomatic crisis that European statesmen proved unable to resolve peacefully. Contrasting the vast disproportionality between a single deadly act and an act of war that would leave ten million dead, Misfire contends that the real causes for the world war lie in "civilized" Europe rather than the endlessly discussed political murder.