Are Bosniaks allowed to criticize their own villains?

In recent days, a group of Bosniak intellectuals have been highlighting Bosniak identity as an essential need for Bosnian Muslims, accusing anyone who does not align with their own patriotism of treason.
The " ударнички тим" (crack team) includes the former reis-ul-ulema of the Islamic Community in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mustafa Cerić, and Ferid Muhić, a philosophy professor at the University of Skopje.

If one reads Cerić and Muhić's opinions unilaterally, one gets the impression that Bosniak identity is currently most threatened by AVNOJ principles, although, historically speaking, it was precisely multicultural Bosnia and Herzegovina as such that guaranteed the survival of Muslims in BiH for years.

The situation became serious when academician Esad Duraković published the text "Bosniak Identity and/or Bosniakness," proving that being a bit more Bosnian does not diminish the ethnic affiliation of Bosnian Muslims, but rather offers additional benefits, specifically, "these identities do not exclude each other but rather build upon each other in complementarity: ethnic, state/national, religious, traditional, racial, gender, etc."

Following this text, published on the website of the Patria News Agency, Cerić accused academician Duraković that "if he is not nationally aware, he should not obscure the national consciousness of others," while Professor Muhić, in the dramatic text "To Bosniaks, while they are of sound mind," accuses Professors Duraković, Senad Lavić, and writer Abdulah Sidran of attempting to erase "the spirituality and ethnic identity of Bosniaks," even though the texts of the criticized authors do not demand any such thing at any point.

There is no doubt that pluralism of opinion is not only allowed but also desirable - especially when it comes to determining the future direction of an entire people, just as it is journalistically natural to constantly re-examine the correctness, sincerity, and even mental maturity of those who appear in the public space and thus shape public opinion.

Cerić and Muhić offer a direction of behavior for Bosniaks in the current time and specific space, and warn of external dangers, while, for example, they have not offered Bosniaks any stance to take after the news that the head of the Intelligence-Security Agency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Osman Mehmedagić - a close friend of the Izetbegović family since the time of President Alija Izetbegović - has a forged university diploma.
Or, for instance, they have not offered a solution to the fact that the wife of SDA president Bakir Izetbegović has brutally discredited an entire group of Sarajevo doctors who enjoy international prestige.
Or, what do I know, neither Cerić nor Muhić react to the fact that almost 30 years after the war, Sarajevo has not built roads to Tuzla and Krajina, even though these are areas managed primarily by Bosniak intellect.

It would be appropriate, principled, and professionally expected for Cerić, as the former religious leader of Bosniaks, to explain how he reconciled the Quranic verse that "Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change themselves" with the fact that Bosniaks do not change those who represent them in power, even when their falsified education is revealed?
Or, it would be appropriate, principled, and professionally expected for Professor Muhić to explain how he reconciled introspection – the human need to observe one's own psychological processes – with the fact that the Bosniak elite does not react at all to diploma forgers within their own ranks?

Because, if we accept the fact that Bosniaks are indeed threatened by nationalisms from the east and west, it would be useful to hear what expectations for the future of Bosniaks are if their security relies on Mehmedagić, if their economy is built on Kemal Čaušević's taxes, if they adopt the Zukić and Sarajlić model for employment, and if they leave healthcare to the arrogance of Sebija Izetbegović?