This paper analyzes the relationship between religion and women’s agency in late Ottoman Society by focusing on one of the most successful women’s magazines of the period, Han?mlara Mahsus Gazete (Ladies’ Own Gazette -LOG). Building upon the feminist literature on the relationship between religion and agency, it suggests that the limitations of what Saba Mahmood identified in her Politics of Piety (2005) as the “naturalization of liberal presuppositions in the scholarship on gender” become more apparent and more problematic in thinking about subjects who make claims for emancipation and religiosity simultaneously. Focusing on selected articles published in LOG, the paper argues that while the editors and contributors of this magazine depict religion as a site for Ottoman-Muslim women’s emancipation and progress, they neither appear to be pious subjects, nor to practice straightforward religious obedience. Rather, they approach religion and religiosity as one of the sites for socio-political critique, and as such, act as “non-pious believers.” Indeed, the source of these women’s ideas about their society and about their self-realization as women can be characterized as an eclectic mix of Islamic tradition, late-nineteenth century Ottoman social and political practices, as well as nineteenth-century European (and mainly French) feminisms. The first two sections of the paper historically and discursively contextualize LOG. While the first section briefly touches upon the historical specificity of late nineteenth-early twentieth century Ottoman society, the second section provides an overview of how the conventions of Islamic discourse and practice were gendered in this historical context. Then, the paper provides a close textual reading of the articles selected, first exploring the reading of Islam proposed by the writers and editors of LOG, and arguing that this reading illustrates how they promoted a critical religiosity, deploying religious knowledge as a resource for the betterment of women’s condition in society. Finally, the paper focuses on the issue of Ottoman-Muslim women’s public education, and argues that it is in LOG’s editors’ stance on this issue that we can find the most nuanced account of what “women’s emancipation” meant for LOG’s editors, writers, and readers.