The question central to this article is whether ‘Islam’ and human rights are compatible and, if not, whether there might be room to come to a minimum standard of human rights that can be shared globally. This article will demonstrate that, from the perspective of Islamic orthodoxy, principles that are fundamental to human rights, like equality and freedom of religion, pose unsurmountable problems, and the adjustment of these principles is theologically nearly impossible. However, a growing number of Muslim intellectuals holds the opposite view, using new theological methods to argue that these Islamic principles and human rights are compatible. Although they are warmly welcomed by human rights lawyers and activists, their methods are not uncontroversial, and they are still very small in number.

In Europe, female circumcision has been considered a grave violation of human rights. However, many European countries fail to combat this illegal practice. This article answers the question why criminal law enforcement with regard to female circumcision seems to fail in various European states, with the exception of France. To answer this question, this article analyses various models of citizenship.

In 2008 the Party for the Animals in Dutch Parliament submitted a bill on the slaughter of animals without stunning. Initially this bill was formulated as a ban of slaughter without stunning. But then an amendment was included with the clause that this form of slaughter was allowed, provided it can be proven that animal welfare is not more affected than in regular slaughter. This would result in a de facto prohibition. Although the House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer) voted in favor of this bill, it was rejected by the Senate (Eerste Kamer), much to the relief of the Jewish and Muslim communities in the Netherlands. Jews and Muslims must meet with several rules according to their faith while slaughtering animals. One of these rules is that animals are killed without prior stunning. This contribution focuses on arguments regarding animal welfare against and religious arguments for slaughter without stunning.

In this contribution the author discusses the broad question whether religious commitment does – or does not – stimulate violent types of criminal behaviour. Based on a review of relevant literature (criminology and religious studies), it is first specified that religious commitment in many respects functions as a protective factor to prevent people from criminal behaviour. By contrast, many orthodox and fundamentalist groups consider defensive violence (self-defense) and punitive violence (retaliation) to be legitimate options. In the final section the author discusses some of the assumed relationships between crime, violence and muslim-radicalism in the Netherlands.