Geert Jan Segers does not understand Islamic criticism – Job


Reading time 5 minutes

4326 opinions


Imagine a speed camera sends Muslim Muhammad a fine. Is this speed camera involved in criticism of Islam?

When Twitter commented Geert Wilders, writer Emine Ugur criticized the fallacy of Dominic van der Hyde, NOS’s chief political editor. Van der Heide tweeted: “Gert Wilders has played a role in our democracy for over 18 years. Whether you like his opinion or not, he represents many Dutch voters.” It is a fallacy because it has nothing to do with the number of followers of a politician. The European Court of Human Rights believes that the more influence a person has, the less hatred he can sow.

Geert Jan Segers responded in an opinion piece in Nederlands Dagblad that criticism of Islam is different from Muslim hatred or racism. It follows that Seagers believes that Wilders is critical of Islam, not sowing hatred. Take, for example, some of Wilders’ mediocre statements: “The Muslim community … lacks the foundation of trust necessary to grant constitutional rights and freedoms just as much as other groups in the Netherlands that have shaped and supported this system and its rules of play.” Is this criticism of Islam? What is this criticism: “The demographic evolution should be such that there is little chance that two more people will do it [moslims] Come to the cabinet?”

But Seagers himself gave an example of what is called legitimate criticism of Islam: a family in Egypt wanted to kill their son because he had converted to Christianity. Is this criticism of Islam? number. Segers is a fan of the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism, and I will use two examples from this definition to show that Segers engages in Islamophobia, not criticism, here.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition provides these two examples of anti-Semitism:

  • Accusing the Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined crimes committed by a single Jewish individual or group.
  • Holding the Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel.

Here we see Seagers holding all Muslims responsible for what that Egyptian family is doing. Seagers then cites Iran and Pakistan as examples of countries that punish converts. So Seagers believes that all Muslims are responsible for what these countries are doing. After all, he is not saying that he is criticizing that family or those countries, but rather that he is criticizing Islam.

NB. I agree with Seagers that everyone can transform, believe or not. And if a mutant’s family wanted to kill him, one might criticize, and even punish, that family. One may criticize and even impose sanctions on countries that persecute people because of their beliefs.

Segers must be a speed camera

Imagine a speed camera sends Muslim Muhammad a fine. Is this speed camera involved in criticism of Islam? number. The speed cam doesn’t care if Muhammad was speeding because God commanded him to, or because he read his Facebook. The speed camera does not care whether the citizen is a Muslim, Jew, Christian, atheist or otherwise. A speed camera penalizes the behavior, not convicts the offender.

Do not circulate the speed camera. The speed camera does not say that this is the fault of Islam, and the speed camera does not send a fine to all Muslims if Muhammad breaks the rules of the game. It would also be ridiculous for all Muslims to be fined because the speed camera assumes that all Muslims break the speed limit.

Two related fallacies

Here we see the two fallacies of Segers (and other critics of Islam): hasty generalization and the fallacy of division. The hasty generalization is known to the reader. The fallacy of division says that the whole has the same characteristics as the part: if a part of the Muslims is wrong, then all the Muslims are wrong.

Imagine if someone called themselves a critic of Christianity and yelled that Southern Baptist priests were sexually abusive. Would Segers say this is a critique of Christianity? number. The behavior of individual Christians somewhere in the world says nothing about what Segers does or believes.

Pluralism is like a black box

Behaviorism used to be in psychology. Behaviors treat humans as a black box. Behaviorists studied only external behavior and were unaware of the internal mechanisms. We also have to do the same with the code of conduct in the world. Our world is becoming more and more diverse and we are in touch with other visions and nations of the world; And we have to solve global problems together. So we need a common set of rules of conduct.

We must justify these codes of conduct on the basis of shared values, not on the basis of our own philosophy of life. For example, dealing with Iran and Pakistan on the basis of universal human rights. But our criticism of these countries must be treated as black boxes: we criticize their external behaviour, not their internal philosophy.

Take, for example, how the United Nations criticizes female genital mutilation. The United Nations publishes statistics on countries in which girls are circumcised and holds those governments accountable for their behaviour. The United Nations does not know why these countries are doing this. Some turn internally to traditions, others to Christianity or Islam, but this makes no difference for the UN.

So far I have reviewed a number of statements made by the so-called critics of Islam and immigration, many of which have turned out to be incorrect. See some examples here. Criticism should be a rational argument, with real premises and valid argumentation steps. Imagine if someone lied that you were stealing money. This is not a criticism. Or imagine someone saying, “The grass is green, so you’re a thief.” This is not criticism either, because it is a fallacy.

Secondly, criticism is intended to correct errors, not to cause undue benefits to anyone, nor undue harm to Muslims. This is why Wilders’ comments are not critical. He does not correct Muslim individuals for their wrong behavior, nor does he want two Muslims in the government. He wants Muslims to have fewer rights.

This is why Muslims are angry, not only with Wilders, but also because ordinary people, such as Dominic van der Heide and Geert Jan Seger, with their fallacies, are causing unjustified harm to Muslims.

Leave a Comment