Search results

Geen debat is al zo lang en intensief in Nederland gevoerd als het islamdebat. Of het ooit nog tot een uitkomst leidt waarmee alle partijen kunnen leven, is de vraag. Tenminste als de betrokkenen met elkaar in gesprek blijven, want steeds meer spelers trekken zich terug in hun eigen bubbel. In 'Wordt het nog wat met het islamdebat?' blikken 15 prominente deelnemers vanuit hun eigen perspectief terug op die vraag. Wat heeft het debat sinds 9/11 en de moord op Fortuyn en Van Gogh opgeleverd voor hun achterban en voor Nederland als samenleving? Bijdragen en interviews van en met: Frits Bolkestein, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Youssef Azghari, Oussama Cherribi, Gert Jan Geling, Halim el Madkouri, Walter Palm, Afshin Ellian, Boris van der Ham, Carel Brendel, Han Entzinger, Ewoud Butter, Ewout Klei, Jan Jaap de Ruiter en Joram van Klaveren

Recently, scholars have propagated a 'claim-based' approach towards the study of women's substantive representation. In this article, we challenge the relativism of such a 'claim-based' approach and explore the relevance of the concept of 'responsiveness' as a democratic criterion. We do so, more specifically, through a study of Muslim women's substantive representation in the Flemish headscarf debate. We identify claims to speak for Muslim women formulated by (1) political parties and (2) Muslim women and (minority) women's associations and examine the congruence between their respective claims. The important incongruence found between the claims formulated by right-wing and liberal parties and those of Muslim women/women's associations provides empirical backing to the acclaimed relevance of a relational evaluation of women's substantive representation. We conclude that the criterion of responsiveness is invaluable because it allows us to evaluate if actors' claims to speak for women account for women's capacity to speak for themselves. Adapted from the source document.

Following some general observations on the growing secularization of Western societies & after producing statistical data documenting the percentages of Muslim populations in Belgium & the Netherlands, three major issues are addressed from a Belgian perspective: (1) Islam bashing in the context of the recognition of freedom of religions & worldviews in a modern democratic society, (2) policies & attitudes toward visible religious symbols worn in public places; the banning of the hijab (the headscarf worn by Muslim females) in Antwerp public schools, & (3) the degree of separation between state & religion in Belgium. It is argued that the Islamic religion should not be associated with violence, terrorism, or oppression of women; Islam should be integrated on equal rights with other religions into the Belgian society, while emancipative & liberal movements within it should be actively supported. The banning of head scarves for Muslim teachers & students in Flanders is assessed from the broader perspective of similar policies, either implemented or planned, in France, Germany, & other European countries. Articles from the Belgian constitution are quoted to illustrate that the separation between state & religion in this country is incomplete; although the government adopts a neutral stance toward all worldviews, the state recognizes six official religions whose practice is partially supported with tax-payer's money & their clergy receive state pension; the favoring of the Catholic Church in this arrangement is pointed out. It is concluded on a general note that despite the secularization of the society, religious issues figure prominently in the public sphere. Z. Dubiel

The present article discusses the differences between the Islam debate in the Netherlands and its European neighboring countries and whether the Dutch perception of Muslims, Islam and themes related to fundamentalism and terrorism differ from those in other countries. The article explains that the decrease in tolerance as experienced over the last years is only partly similar with developments in other West-European societies and structures the discussion around 4 subjects: essentialist monists (rejecting the presence of Islam and Muslims in Western societies); evolutionary monists (rejecting the integration of the Muslim culture in a western society, but not the Muslims); essentialist pluralists (multicultural aspirations, rejecting western superiority and welcoming Islam and Muslims without far stretching adaptation by the cultures involved); and evolutionary pluralists (integration of the autochthonous and foreign culture). The article concludes by stating the Dutch multiculturalism will remain through a rapid cultural modernization of the country on the one hand, and an only partly assumed World War II trauma on the other. O. van Zijl