Criticism is the oxygen of journalism. Here at the Jewish Journal, we will criticize anything that we believe deserves criticism, including religion. We will criticize preachers who use Christianity to express hatred and bigotry toward gays as much as we will criticize religious Jews who use the Torah to humiliate women rabbis wearing prayer shawls at the Western Wall.
Personally, I've shown my revulsion at some of the stuff written in the Torah -- like the admonition to stone your son to death if he desecrates the Sabbath--and I've railed against missionary Christians who twist the Torah in order to convert Jews.
But I have to confess -- like most of the mainstream media in America, I've been very reluctant to criticize Islam.
Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Photo from REUTERS/FBI/Handout
When, several years ago, virtually every American paper refused to publish satirical cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, I should have criticized that response. I understood that fear and intimidation probably played a role, given the riots that followed their publication in a Danish paper.
But it's not as if the media has ever been afraid to publish cartoons that make fun of Jesus or Moses or Buddha -- so why should they single out Muhammad for special treatment?
If you ask me, I think it's time we stop walking on eggshells with Islam.
It's not healthy. This notion that any critique of Islam equates to Islamophobia is absurd and patronizing. It says to Muslims: "We criticize Judaism and Christianity because we think they can handle it, but we don't think you can." That's insulting to Islam and to Muslims.
Every religion needs a good dose of criticism. That's how they improve and become more human. That's how they shed their outdated and immoral layers, like slavery and oppression of women. Where would Judaism be today without the centuries of relentless self-reflection and self-criticism that goes on to this day?
How could it be wrong or Islamophobic to criticize a religious text that might justify the stoning to death of women or the killing of infidels?
After terror attacks that appear to have an Islamic connection, such as last week's Boston massacre, we often hear defensive talk about how Islam is a "religion of peace." To back this up, Muslim commentators like to quote a verse in the Koran (Surah 5, verse 32) that mentions the Talmudic idea that if you kill one human being, it is as if you have killed an entire world.
The problem, though, is that commentators usually fail to mention the verse that immediately follows, which is anything but peaceful: "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement."
Verse 32 works for me. Verse 33 turns my stomach.
The way I see it, the future of Islam and its reputation in the world will hinge on which verse will win out--verse 32 or verse 33.
So far, it looks like the wrong verse is winning. Since 9/11, close to 20,000 acts of terrorism have been recorded throughout the world under the name of Islam, many of those against Muslims themselves.
It's suicidal and counterproductive for the world to pretend that violence-prone religious texts like verse 33 do not exist, especially if those texts are used to instigate violence against "infidels" and other mischief-makers.
Religions shouldn't get an automatic pass at respect. They have to earn it.
