This article analyzes a Finnish criminal court process concerning a spattering
of blood on a mosque. Initially ruled as a religious insult, the charge was
eventually dropped on the grounds that the Islamic community in question did not
have the proper legal personality. The article utilizes a non-normative
discursive perspective to analyze the construction of ‘sacredness’ and the
category of ‘religion’ in the legal process. First, it is argued that several
officials were influenced by the prevailing discourses on religion and blood, as
well as the meaning of ‘sacred,’ to the point where they contradicted the
prevalent legalistic discourse. Second, the legalistic discourse observed in the
final ruling demonstrates how the prohibition of religious insult is part of the
Finnish association-oriented model for managing a society perceived as
religiously diverse.