In 2011 the Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders was acquitted of group defamation pursuant to article 137c of the Penal Code. The court ruled that the qualification ‘concerning a group of people because of their religion’ had not been fulfilled because Wilders had spoken about the religion of Islam but not about people. This recent juridical shortcut has various foundational problems in semantics and jurisprudence. In view of the impact that defamation of religion can have via the modern media, violent disturbance of public order should be reintroduced as a ground of liability.

If one listens to what the authorities say about matters such as female circumcision and terrorism, Islam has nothing to do with it. These authorities are supported in this opinion by the work of many scientists. A cross section of the Dutch scientific literature on female circumcision and terrorism is discussed here. The upshot is that, regarding female circumcision, the literature is plagued with factual inaccuracies while the question of Islamic terrorism is dealt with in a one-sided and over-simplified way. The article concludes with an alternative research agenda that would help fill the gaps in our knowledge about the role of Islam in the behaviour of Islamic terrorists.

In this article I propose an alternative framework for analyzing the Salafi movement by focusing on the practices of meaning-making by and within different networks of the movement. I will show that many practices of the Salafi movement are not problematic for integration per se, but that they produce an alternative vision of the world and re-arrange the daily lives of its participants in such a way that it competes with the state’s vision of good citizenship with its (since 9/11) increasing emphasis on secular and sexual liberties.

Legislative changes with regard to tax exceptions for donations to civil society organisations have created a new fiscal regime (ANBI-regime). Central criterion within this new regime is whether the activities of an organisation are aimed at contributing to the general interest (algemeen belang). This regime poses serious questions for churches and their affiliated organisations as they are no longer de jure being considered as operating in the general interest. Furthermore, the legislator has not established a legal definition of ‘contributing to the general interest’. As a result a steady flow of jurisprudence has developed. In some judgements fiscal criteria seem to collide with the freedom of religion.

Civil servants wearing religious symbols, state subsidies for religious communities and several other questions concern the structural relationship between state and religion. In Germany and France, the Constitution sets forth the nature of this relationship. In the Netherlands, references are usually made only to freedom of religion and the principle of equality. This article analyzes whether specific norms may be formulated in order to solve the aforementioned questions in the Netherlands.

The opinions of the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission (CGB) in religious cases have been followed only partially by the courts. Thus from two judicial rulings on the shaking of hands by Muslims, an interesting difference in approach with the CGB becomes clear. Although it agrees with elements of the reasoning by the CGB, amongst others the Dutch Administrative High Court in contrast with the CGB puts uniformity above diversity with respect to this way of exchanging greetings. However, one can live with this difference in outcome, since in the past the CGB itself took the same approach of uniformity in the subject-matter. As it does today with respect to Christian registrars who refuse to conduct same-sex marriages.