This Lethal Myth


I was nine, the first time someone accused me of being a ‘christ killer’.


It happened at school, and I had no idea who ‘christ’ was, but was fairly confident that whoever it was, I hadn’t murdered them…


Later that day, when I asked my mother about it, she paled. After all, it’s pretty tough having to explain to a young child that millions of Christians worldwide still hold you accountable for the death of a man who lived over 2000 years ago…


And it is this one myth about Jews which, above all others, has induced hatred and violence down through the ages. The weary, terrible old charge of ‘deicide’.


I can personally testify to the fact that *some* Christians still harbour hatred towards Jews because of this belief. I’ve received emails accusing me of being a ‘christ killer’ on several occasions. And in numerous online forums, I’ve responded to that same accusation.


Happily, two Popes and many contemporary Christian leaders and theologians have publicly acknowledged that the Jews had no hand in the death of Jesus. But that still leaves many Christians being taught that the Jews ‘killed god’.


Hardly going to induce warm fuzzy feelings towards Jews, is it…?


Joseph C. Hough, Jr., a Christian theologian, writing in the June 2002 issue of Bible Review, states:

“By the end of the second century, anti-Judaism and the Christ-killer myth had become prominent in the teachings of church leaders. The early church fathers perpetuated this with even greater vehemence than John did in his gospel.

By the fourth century, Augustine and John Chrysostom were among those who gave credence to the awful depiction of Jews as the enemies of G-d who crucified Christ. The power of the ‘Christ-killer’ myth created a cultural climate in which hatred and killing of Jews occurred with impunity. What emerged was a relentless and continuing persecution of Jews . . .”

Before we go on to consider the details of the ‘deicide’ charge against Jews, there are two vital points to note:


1 – Christian accounts of the trial were all written decades **after** the event. They are **not** eyewitness accounts.

2 – One of the main criticisms voiced by early Christianity of Judaism was that it was ‘legalistic’ and that the Jewish authorities were ‘obsessive’ about adhering to the Jewish religious laws. Yet at the same time, the Christian scriptures portray the Jews as *violating* those very same laws with regard to Jesus. So which was it?!



The Jews & Jesus


Contrary to what some of the Christian scriptures say, there was no particular enmity between Jesus and his fellow Jews. Why would there be?

Jesus taught basic Judaism. Sure, he sought to reform certain aspects of the faith, but that was nothing new. There already, at that time, existed several different sects within Judaism – all of whom bitterly disagreed with each other. The Pharisees and Sadducees didn’t find consensus on much, while the Essenes disagreed with both of them. And the Zealots disliked all of them.

Debate and disagreement between Jews was common then – as indeed it is now. In fact the debates between Jesus and the Pharisees can easily be seen as standard Jewish practice.

The only people who actually viewed Jesus as a threat were the Romans. Jesus apparently sauntered around claiming to be ‘the most powerful man in Rome’. He was one of many young Jewish preachers who posed a threat to Roman rule over the unhappy and ‘rebellious’ Jews.

Many Jewish men proclaimed themselves ‘maschiach’. Yet other than in the Christian Gospels, no one in the entire history of the Jews was ever accused of ‘blasphemy’ for declaring to be the Maschiach.





Judaism always outlawed this manner of killing. Although in theory there was a death penalty under Jewish law, it was stoning, and it was rarely if ever used. In fact it’s said that if one person in every seventy years was killed for violating the Jewish laws, this was ‘excessive’.

The Romans, on the other hand, had a real passion for crucifying anyone who irritated them. Some 250,000 Jews met their death in that way.

Is it not logical to suppose that Jesus was simply one of them…?

For anyone who can’t quite absorb how many Jews were crucified by the Romans, here are some figures that should leave you in no doubt.

Josephus, the historian during this era reports many incidents of crucifixion: Antiochus IV crucified Jews in Jerusalem who would not relinquish their faith (Ant., 12:256).

Two thousand rebels were crucified by Quintilius Varus (Ant., 17:295). Seven years later (about 52 C.E.) there was another wholesale crucifixion of zealots at the hand of Quadratus (Wars, 2:241)

Felix crucified not only zealots and rebels, but also citizens suspected of collaborating with them (Wars, 2:253).

Think about that – 500 Jews a day were crucified.

Florus had Jewish judges tortured and crucified before his eyes (Wars, 2:306–8). When Jerusalem was besieged, ***Titus ordered all Jewish prisoners of war to be crucified on the walls of the city and there were as many as 500 crucifixions a day ***(Wars, 5:449–51)

According to Frank K. Flinn, Ph.D., professor of religious studies at Washington University in St. Louis, the Jews had nothing to do with killing Jesus – the Romans are actually to blame:


“Had the Jewish authorities been directly involved, Jesus would have been stoned, as Stephen was in Acts 7. Only Roman authorities could authorize crucifixions and they often did so on a gruesome, massive scale.”

Jesus just happened to be one of the many, many Jews who were murdered in this way by the Romans.


Pontius Pilate


Some Christians argue that the Jews ‘pressured’ the Pilate into killing Jesus. This has to be the most absurd of all the arguments.

Pilate held his position for over a decade; he was brought in precisely because he had a reputation as a brutal and uncaring individual!

 He was eventually removed for excessive cruelty.

Pilate was the one signing the death orders for the thousands of Jews who were crucified. ***To suggest that he was simultaneously cowed by the same minority he was busy killing is devoid of all logic and common sense!***


The major Jewish historians of the period, Josephus and Philo, discuss Pilate at length. Philo, who was Pilate’s contemporary, wrote an appeal to the emperor Caligula that included a description of Pilate.

Philo wrote of “the briberies, the insults, the robberies, the outrages and wanton injustices, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the **endless and supremely grievous cruelty“** of Pilate’s rule.

To reiterate: Pilate was eventually dismissed from office because of complaints of his widespread and injudicious executions.

Yet according to the Christian scenario, the oppressed Jews, the ones *being* crucified left, right and centre, were somehow able to ‘make’ Pilate kill Jesus?

It’s truly absurd.


Jesus & The Romans


Jesus was one in a series of Jewish religious-political rebels bent on destroying the Roman empire and the status quo at Jerusalem in the name of the kingdom of G-d.


These Jewish messiah-figures described by the Jewish historian Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities (especially in Books 17, 18 and 20) often used religious symbols and traditions to gain a popular following and to begin an uprising. The Roman governors dealt with them swiftly and brutally.

I want to reiterate this key point: **Jesus was one of several messianic figures who were crucified by the Romans.**


Others included:

* Theudas: claimed to be a prophet and a would-be maschiach. He is mentioned in Josephus (Antiquities, 20:97).

In 44 C.E. he was crucified by the Romans.

* Judas of Galilee: led Jewish uprising against Rome, 6.C.E. Mentioned in Josephus (Wars, 2:118). He tried to liberate the Jews from Roman rule – his followers called him the Saviour, and the Messiah.

He was crucified by the Romans.

* Benjamin the Egyptian: Mentioned in Josephus (War 2.261263). He claimed to be the Maschiach, and he inspired rebellion against Rome.

He too was crucified by the Romans.

* Menachem: grandson of Judas the Galilean, 67.C.E. Outspoken, zealot, leader, claimed to be the Maschiach.

He was crucified by the Romans.


Whitewashing The Romans


Flinn, an expert on Catholicism, notes that our earliest accounts of the crucifixion, such as the Gospel of Mark written circa 60-70 C.E., make clear that it was Pilate who had Jesus crucified:

It was the Gospels written much later, such as those of Matthew and Luke, which reflect different interests and viewpoints, and each places more and more blame on the Jews.

Matthew puts the ultimate blame squarely on the shoulders of the Jewish authorities. In Luke, the ‘whitewash’ of the Romans becomes nearly complete.

By the Middle Ages, the epithet ‘Christ-killers’ became the verbal club to justify the ghettoization, persecution, and murder of Jews. We all know the end-term of this lamentable history.”

The Gospel of John, as most scholars maintain, stands by itself but one of the signs of its lateness in its present form (ca. 100-110 CE) is that John does not lay Jesus’ death so much on Pilate, or Pilate Jewish authorities, or even the Jewish authorities alone, but “Jews” as a whole (John 19:12).

The break with Judaism is nigh complete. The stereotype is set for the later, fateful charge that “the Jews killed Jesus”.



The Trial Of Jesus


Oh, where to begin…?


The contradictions within the New Testament itself on the ‘trial’ are numerous. And again, note that all the accounts were written decades *after* Jesus died. These are *NOT* eyewitness accounts!


The entire description of Jesus’ death is in fact odd – why would the Romans have allowed a convicted felon to be almost immediately removed from his cross and put in a tomb?


Crucifixion was chosen precisely to make a public point that the most cruel and humiliating form of punishment awaits those who oppose Rome’s will. Roman disposition on this point was perhaps best summed up by Quintilian (AD 35-95, Decl 274) when he wrote that:

“Whenever we crucify the guilty, the most crowded roads are chosen, where most people can see and be moved by this fear. For penalties relate not so much to retribution as to their exemplary effect.”


Reverend Kenny Nailimup has made the following points:

The real, the historical Pontius Pilate was arrogant and despotic. He hated the Jews and never delegated any authority to them.

However, in Christian mythology, he is portrayed as a concerned ruler who distanced himself from the accusations against Jesus and who was coerced into obeying the demands of the Jews. Pontius Pilate was singularly crass in his treatment of the Jews, offending them repeatedly. He was spiteful, unjust, greedy and indiscreet.

As soon as he was appointed, he carried Roman standards bearing the image of Caesar into Jerusalem, and possibly into the temple, knowing the Jews would have been incensed.

He strongly favored the Priestly Party of the Sadducees—disliked by the masses—and its leaders, the Annas family.

According to Christianity, every Passover, the Jews would ask Pilate to free any one criminal they chose. *This is of course a blatant lie.*

Jews never had a custom of freeing guilty criminals at Passover or any other time of the year.

According the myth, Pilate gave the Jews the choice of freeing Jesus the Christ or a murderer named Jesus Barabbas. The Jews are alleged to have enthusiastically chosen Jesus Barabbas.

This story is a vicious anti-Semitic lie, one of many such lies found in the New Testament (largely written by anti-Semites). What is particularly disgusting about this rubbish story is that it is apparently a distortion of an earlier story which claimed that the Jews demanded that Jesus Christ be set free!

The name “Barabbas” is simply the Greek form of the Aramaic “bar Abba” which means “son of the Father.” Thus “Jesus Barabbas” originally meant “Jesus the son of the Father” – *in other words, the usual Christian Jesus.*

When the earlier story claimed that the Jews wanted Jesus Barabbas to be set free it was referring to the usual Jesus.

Somebody distorted the story by claiming that Jesus Barabbas was a different person to Jesus Christ and this fooled the Roman and Greek Christians who did not know the meaning of the name “Barabbas.”

Luke tells us in chapter 26 that Jesus was taken in the middle of the night to the home of Caiaphas for questioning. There are several problems with this gospel account:

Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem was probably during the Feast of the Tabernacles, not Passover. (the palm leaves strewn in front of Jesus as he entered Jerusalem would not have been in bloom during Passover) The Sanhedrin would not have met during the eight-day festival for any reason.

The Elders of the Sanhedrin would no more strike or spit on an accused person, than would the Supreme Court of the U.S. hearing a case! Luke’s account is completely out-of-context and shows *remarkable ignorance* as to the machinations of Jewish Law.

If the gospel of John is to be the authority, this account disagrees with the synopticists since the High Priest Caiaphas interrogates Jesus alone and charges him with sedition, not blasphemy, as the synoptic Gospels allege.

Clearly, the pseudipigraphical author of John is not as ignorant of Jewish Law as are the synopticists because his account is in context with the findings thus far revealed. If Jesus were charged with sedition, then a gathering of the Sanhedrin would not be necessary; the affair would be preliminarily investigated by the High Priest before turning the matter over to the Roman authorities. Caiaphas would not wish to involve the Sanhedrin if Jesus really was seditious.

The authors of the world’s greatest fairy tale go to great lengths to defame the Jews and falsely accuse the Sanhedrin of condemning the fictional Jesus to death.

*This just proves their ignorance of all things Jewish*.

Let us look at the laws of a Jewish Sanhedrin which judged capital cases. The sources are Talmud tractate Sanhedrin and Miamonides Laws of Judges:

No capital cases were allowed to be tried outside the court chamber in the Temple, certainly not in a private home. Forty years before the destruction of the Temple the Sanhedrin was exiled from the chamber of hewn Stone and from that point on ceased ruling on capital cases as well as on monetary cases involving fines;

No capital cases were tried at night; nor on the festival; nor the eve of a festival, as the guilty party had to be put to death the following day and executions were not allowed on Sabbath or festivals.. Anyone arrested on the eve of Sabbath or a festival was held in custody till after the Sabbath or holiday and then tried.

No defendant could be convicted on his own testimony or confession No defendant could be convicted unless he was warned by two qualified witnesses and then within seconds of the warning he ignored the warning and committed that sin which he was warned not to commit.

Then we have the question of what sin was Jesus accused. Was he a blasphemer or was he a Maysit U Maydeeach ― one who persuades a Jew to worship idols? To be a blasphemer one must curse god using the ineffable name, which Jesus did not do. Thus one more flaw in the fairy tale.

We also must discuss the issue of a Jew who turns over another Jew to gentile authorities to be killed. One who does this is called a mosair ― an informer and is punished by death. So any Sanhedrin that turned a Jew over to the Romans was signing their own death warrant.

Last but not least one must know that Sanhedrin had only four prescribed methods of execution:





Crucifixion was not one of them! Regarding crucifixion, most historians agree that that the Romans tied their victims to the cross and did not use nails.

Once an accused was convicted, Sanhedrin then sent out messengers for 40 days to announce that so-and-so was convicted of such-and-such crime and sentenced to be executed. During that time witnesses who had proof of the accused’s innocence were allowed to come testify.

According to Jewish law, convicting someone of a capital crime requires a Sanhedrin of 23 judges. After hearing testimony from eye-witnesses, the judges vote. If at least thirteen of the judges vote “guilty” the defendant is executed.

There is a surprising exception to this; however if ALL the judges vote guilty, then the defendant is acquitted. Here is why:

There are two ways to look at everything. There is no situation in this world without some merit or positive side. If not one judge was able to see the good side and declare the defendant innocent, something is wrong. The positive side of the case must have been missing during the presentation of the evidence. Therefore, he is acquitted.

It is blatantly obvious that the Christian accounts of the ‘trial’ are inaccurate. Jewish trials did not occur in the dead of night, in a private home, with no witnesses. Nor did they ever take place during Passover!



Why Were The Jews Blamed For The Death Of Jesus, Then?


In a word: Politics.


 The Christian authors of the Gospels knew they would be living under Roman rule for quite some time. They could hardly demonise the Romans in their literature. Far easier and far safer to switch the blame onto the Jews.


This also meshed very nicely with the Christian notion that – having stated that Jesus was not their maschiach – the Jews were ‘guilty’ of ‘disappointing’ G-d. Killing ‘the son of god’ fit perfectly.


We must also remember that Pagans were quite often drawn to Judaism, and the early Christians saw the Jews as competition. It was politically convenient, for the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to thus malign the Jews and scapegoat them for the crucifixion of Jesus.


And never mind that the accusation went against all historical and theological *fact*!


Let’s leave the last word to Historian William Nicholls, who ends his detailed examination of the Christian scriptures with this statement and appeal to all Christians:

The time has come, and came long ago, for Christians to drop all accusations against the Jewish people in the death of Christ. … There can be no doubt that the Romans bear the responsibility for Jesus’ death, which they and not the Jews brought about.

If any person is to blame for Jesus’ death, it is Pontius Pilate, so implausibly represented in the Gospels as his defender. In any scholarly inquiry, many conclusions remain uncertain. This is not one of them. The Jews are innocent of Jesus’ death.

Latest Lunacy From UK: Ditch The Red Cross Symbol – It’s ‘Offensive’…

Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant is suggesting we find an alternative symbol for the Red Cross because of the logo’s supposed links to the Crusades.

MPs are debating the adoption of the ‘red crystal’ – a diamond-shaped badge – to avoid the religious connotations of the cross and crescent symbols currently used by the international body.

But critics said the new insignia was a sop to political correctness and warned that it may be the first step towards it replacing cross and crescent. Others fear that it may not be as widely recognised on the battlefield.

‘It is, in an effort not to be contentious, possibly too anodyne to serve its purpose,’ Tory MP John Hayes said.

Philip Davies, a Tory backbencher, said: ‘At face value to the layman it seems at best a solution looking for a problem and at worst another example of extreme political correctness.

‘There is also a risk of confusion with many different symbols, and that terrorists may exploit that to mask themselves when carrying out attacks,’ he added.

The founding Conference of the Red Cross Movement in 1863 adopted a red cross on a white background – the reverse of the Swiss flag – as the emblem of the voluntary medical personnel who assisted the wounded on the battlefield.

It was never intended to have any religious meaning and is thought to have been intended as a tribute to traditionally neutral Switzerland, which hosted the conference.

However, the symbol unintentionally raised suggestions that it was somehow linked to the Hospitallers, a military order which took part in the Crusades, the centuries long series of military campaigns waged by Christians from Europe.

Subsequently, a red crescent emblem was adopted in tandem.

Mr Bryant told the Commons: ‘The reference to the Crusades is… not lost to some people which, of course, anybody involved in the Red Cross would wholly deprecate.

The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement hope that the neutrality of the red crystal will help improve protection for casualties, military medical services and humanitarian workers.

It was chosen because it is devoid of religious and other partisan connotations.

Answering The Apologists For Islam

Those who seek to justify Islamic terrorism, often do so by stating that both Judaism and Christianity also have violent histories. Islam, they insist, is being ‘unfairly’ singled out, even though the other Abrahamic faiths are also inherently violent.

The two favourite and increasingly weary examples offered are the slaying by the Hebrews of the Canaanites (Judaism) and the bloody crimes of the Crusades (Christianity).

And this tactic by apologists for Islamic terrorism often works. It helps shore up the pervasive yet false premise that Islam is ‘just like other religions’.  Or, to put it another way: it is not Islam that causes Islamic terrorism, but rather human nature.

One of the best responses I’ve read to this apologist tactic, comes courtesy of writer and expert on radical Islam, Raymond Ibrahim. Here is what he says on the issue of whether Judaism and Christianity also promote violence in the same manner as Islam (emphasis is mine):

Such questions reveal a great deal of confusion between history and theology, between the temporal actions of men and the immutable words of G-d. The fundamental error being that Jewish andChristian history—which is violent—is being conflated with Islamic theologywhich commands violence.

Of course all religions have had their fair share of violence and intolerance towards the “other.” Whether this violence is ordained by G-d or whether warlike man merely wished it thus is the all-important question.

The Israelites’ violence is an interesting case in point. G-d clearly ordered the Hebrews to annihilate the Canaanites and surrounding peoples. Such violence is therefore an expression of G-d’s will, for good or ill. Regardless, all the historic violence committed by the Hebrews and recorded in the Tanakh is just that—history. It happened; G-d commanded it.

But it revolved around a specific time and place and was directed against a specific people. At no time did such violence go on to become standardized or codified into Jewish law (i.e. the Halakha).

This is where Islamic violence is unique. Though similar to the violence of the Tanakh —commanded by G-d and manifested in history—certain aspects of Islamic violence have become standardized in Islamic law (i.e. the Sharia) and apply at all times. Thus while the violence found in the Koran is in fact historical, its ultimate significance is theological. Consider the following Koranic verses:

Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the pagans wherever you find them—take them [captive], besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due [i.e. submit to Islam], then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful (9:5).

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger [i.e. Islamic law], nor acknowledge the religion of Truth [i.e. Islam], from the people of the book [i.e. Jews and Christians], until they pay tribute with willing submission, and feel themselves utterly subdued (9:29).

As with Tanakh  verses where G-d  commanded the Hebrews to attack and slay their neighbors, these Koranic verses also have a historical context. Allah (through Muhammad) first issued these commandments after the Arab tribes had finally unified under the banner of Islam and were preparing to invade their Christian and pagan neighbors.

But unlike the bellicose verses and anecdotes of the Tanakh  these so-called “sword-verses” subsequently became fundamental to Islam’s relationship to both the “people of the book” (i.e. Christians and Jews) and the “pagans” (i.e. Hindus, Buddhists, animists, etc).

In fact, based on the sword-verses (as well as countless other Koranic verses and oral traditions attributed to Muhammad), Islam’s scholars, sheikhs, muftis, imams, and qadis throughout the ages have all reached the consensus—binding on the entire Muslim community—that Islam is to be at perpetual war with the non-Muslim world, until the former subsumes the latter. (It is widely held that the sword-verses alone have abrogated some 200 of the Koran’s more tolerant verses.)

Famous Muslim scholar and “father of modern history” Ibn Khaldun articulates the dichotomy between jihad and defensive warfare thus:

In the Muslim community, the holy war [i.e. jihad] is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force...
The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... They are merely required to establish their religion among their own people.

That is why the Israeilites after Moses and Joshua remained unconcerned with royal authority [e.g. a “caliphate”]. Their only concern was to establish their religion [not spread it to the nations]…

But Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations (The Muqudimmah, vol. 1 pg. 473, emphasis added).

Even when juxtaposed to their Jewish and Christian counterparts, the Islamic sword-verses are distinctive for using language that transcends time and space, inciting believers to attack and slay non-believers today no less than yesterday.

G-d commanded the Hebrews to kill Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites—all specific peoples rooted to a specific time and place. At no time did G-d  give an open-ended command for the Hebrews, and by extension their descendants the Jews, to fight and kill gentiles.

On the other hand, though Islam’s original enemies were, like Judaism’s, historical (e.g. Christian Byzantines and pagan Persians), the Koran rarely singles them out by their proper names. Instead, Muslims were (and are) commanded to fight the people of the book—“until they pay tribute with willing submission and feel themselves utterly subdued” (9:29) and to “slay the pagans wherever you find them” (9:5).
The two conjunctions “until” and “wherever” demonstrate the perpetual nature of these commandments: there are still “people of the book” who have yet to be “utterly subdued” (especially in the Americas, Europe, and Israel) and “pagans” to be slain “wherever” one looks (especially Asia and sub-Saharan Africa).

Aside from the divine words of the Koran, Muhammad’s pattern of behavior—his “Sunna” or “example”—is an extremely important source of legislation in Islam. Muslims are exhorted to emulate Muhammad in all walks of life: “You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern [of conduct]” (33:21).

And Muhammad’s pattern of conduct vis-à-vis non-Muslims is quite explicit. Sarcastically arguing against the concept of “moderate” Islam, terrorist Osama bin Laden, who enjoys half the Arab-Islamic world’s support per a recent al-Jazeera poll, portrays the prophet’s Sunna thus:

“Moderation” is demonstrated by our prophet who did not remain more than three months in Medina without raiding or sending a raiding party into the lands of the infidels to beat down their strongholds and seize their possessions, their lives, and their women” (from The Al-Qaeda Reader).

In fact, based on both the Koran and Muhammad’s Sunna, pillaging and plundering infidels, enslaving their children, and placing their women in concubinage is well founded (e.g. 4:24, 4:92, 8:69, 24:33, 33:50, etc.).

While law-centric and legalistic, Judaism has no such equivalent to the Sunna; the words and deeds of the patriarchs, though recorded in the Tanakh  never went on to be part of Jewish law. Neither Abraham’s “white-lies,” nor Jacob’s perfidy, nor Moses’ short-fuse, nor David’s adultery, nor Solomon’s philandering ever went on to instruct Jews. They were merely understood to be historical actions perpetrated by fallible men who were often punished by G-d for their less than ideal behavior.

And regarding the Crusades, Raymond Ibrahim points out:
In fact, far from suggesting anything intrinsic to Christianity, the Crusades ironically help better explain Islam. For what the Crusades demonstrated once and for all is that irrespective of religious teachings—indeed, in the case of these so-called “Christian” Crusades, despite them—man is truly predisposed to violence and intolerance. But this begs the question: If this is how Christians behaved—who are commanded to love, bless, and do good to their enemies who hate, curse, and persecute them—how much more can be expected of Muslims who, while sharing the same violent tendencies, are further commanded by the Deity to attack, kill, and plunder non-believers?

Read more of Raymond Ibrahim’s excellent articles here

The Religion Of Peace Strikes Again – Christian Graves Desecrated

One thing you can say for sure about Islam: it’s an equal opportunity offender. It doesn’t just teach hatred of Jews, but also Hindus, Christians and in fact, all non Muslims or as Islam fondly refers to them: Infidels.

This week, its Christians’ turn to feel the wrath of the ‘Religion Of Peace’:

Israel National News, May 25:

Palestinian Authority Muslims went on a rampage Sunday and desecrated 70 Christian graves two weeks after the Pope praised efforts for a new Palestinian state and tried to appease Muslim anger over previous disputes between the two religions.

The vandals smashed gravestones and knocked metal and stone crosses off graves in the village of Jiffna, near Ramallah, home to approximately 900 Christians and 700 Muslims. Greek Orthodox Church official George Abdo told Reuters the head and hand of a statue of Madonna also was severed….

Sunday’s anti-Christian attack follows years of harassment from Muslims that has escalated a lengthy exodus of Christians from Judea, Samaria and Gaza. The areas enjoyed strong economies from 1967, when Israel took over administration of the areas following the Six-Day War, until 2000, when PA terrorists launched the Oslo War, also known as the Second Intifada.