So, I am not too surprised with the Times On-line piece trying to raise storm over some 13th century text that are taught at a Shi'ite religious school in London. The subject in question is najasa or impurity: what makes something impure according to Muhaqqiq al- Hilli, a 13th century Shi'ite scholar.

The text says, "The water leftover in the container after any type of animal has drunk from it is considered clean and pure apart from the left over of a dog, a pig, and a disbeliever." So, the Times reporter Sean O'Connell draws the conclusion that Muslim students are "being taught to despise unbelievers as filth," which becomes the news heading, sure to have draws much publicity before the elections in May.

What is, however, lost in the currently hyped message is the context under which such rules were recommended by a medieval scholar. Nor should we be oblivious of the fact that such rules don't necessarily get followed by every individual who follows the Shi'ite branch of Islam.

I doubt if al-Hilli's rulings of the 13th century have any appeal today other than that of mere academic curiosity. If one were to go back in history of the 13th century, one finds Muslims living in Iran and vast territories of land, now called the Middle East, enjoying a much higher standard of living compared to their Christian counterparts in Europe.

Amin Maalouf's highly scholarly work "The Crusades through Arab Eyes" provides historical sources to explain how the West appeared to people already resident in those lands. There we find from the chronicles that the Crusaders were truly leading a savage life. They were a rough, uncultured and filthy bunch with no sense of cleanliness.

When looked through the prism of the past, it is not difficult to understand the ruling of al-Hilli on matters of cleanliness. A more important point is to ponder about what would happen if we are to pull every single book that is conceived to be derogatory to some people. Will there be many books left on our shelves? Even Shakespeare's great works have signs of racism and bigotry.

The same is true in the writings of many great literary icons. But people study those books to understand the time and people of those centuries, and the mindset of the author. In the post-9/11 era, no religious book has been as much demonised as the Qur'an, thanks to cultural coolies and their patrons.

There is not a single copy of the Qur'an to be found in the Los Angeles public libraries, because it is considered offensive to Jews and Christians. My question is why don't these cultural bulldogs apply the same set of rules against their own books, the Bible, and the Talmud for scores of violent and demeaning passages? Is not the socalled anti-Semitism (actually anti- Jew-ism) a direct result of millenniaold teachings of the New Testament that portrays Jews as the bad guys who committed deicide (i.e., 'killed' Jesus)?

The fate of millions of Jews was sealed as the guilty ones and punishment came into vogue. The Gospel account in Matthew 27:24-25 reads: "When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children."

This passage, probably more than any other text in the Christian scriptures, fueled anti-Judaism. In the above account, Matthew records that a crowd of Jews said that they and their children were responsible for Jesus's crucifixion.

This inspired the church father Origen (circa 185-254 CE) to write: "Therefore the blood of Jesus came not only upon those who lived formerly but also upon all subsequent generations of Jews..."

Paul of Tarsus, the real founder of Christianity, similarly blamed Jews as can be seen from his statement: "...ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men." (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15)

The Christian church taught until recently that all Jews -- past, present and future -- are equally responsible for the death of Christ. Writing about the Jews, Justin, a second century (c.100-165 CE) Christian father, wrote, "The tribulations were justly imposed upon you, for you have murdered the Just One."

The 3rd century Christian theologians, including Hippolytus and Origen, elaborated on this theory of Jewish guilt. In what follows, let me provide some samples of hatred as preached in the religious books of the Jews and Christians.

The so-called New Testament (NT) compares the Gentiles to dogs. Speaking about the gentiles, Jesus is reported as saying: "It is not fair to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." [Matt. 15:26]

Similarly, Paul writes that the Gentiles worship demons (Satan) and that they are equivalent to darkness: Here below are some samples from the Jewish Bible against the Jews: "Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers." [Isaiah 1:4]

"Listen to the word of the Lord, O sons of Israel, for the Lord has a case against the inhabitants of the land, Because there is no faithfulness or kindness Or knowledge of God in the land. There is swearing, deception, murder, stealing, and adultery. They employ violence, so that bloodshed follows bloodshed." [Hosea 4:1-2]

Let's next look at what the founder of Protestant movement, Martin Luther -1483-1546 (not to be confused with Martin Luther King), wrote in 1543 (something that was used as a pretext by Adolf Hitler for implementing the earlier phase of his "final solution" against the Jews):

"What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames." (The Jews and their Lies).

Here below are some samples against the gentiles (non-Jews) from the Talmud (Jewish oral traditions):

"A Jew must not associate himself with gentiles because they are given to the shedding of blood." [Abhodah Zarah (22a)]

"An Israelite must not associate himself with the Akum [Christians] because they are given to the shedding of blood." [Iore Dea (153, 2)]

How about incitement for stealing other's land? (a rationale for annexation, colonisation and plunder) and associated violence (including demolition of homes and places of worship) We can find the supporting verses in the Bible: [Num. 33:52-55] and [Ezra 9:11-12].

How about instruction against religious minorities? The instruction against "witches?" The open call to abduct and abuse women when one is in war? The Bible instructs:

"Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves." [Num. 31:17-18]

"Suppose you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take captives, And you see a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her, you may take her. … If she ceases to please you send her away. You may not sell her or treat her as a slave, for you have humiliated her." [Deut. 21:10-14]

Lets not forget the encouragement against foreigners? Need I continue further? While the idea that such problematic verses have very limited appeal or relevance to a majority of practitioners or preachers of the Judeo-Christian faiths prevails in the western media, it cannot be dismissed completely that a significant segment of the fundamentalist preachers or their believers have often acted otherwise, and often quite publicly.

One need not be a rocket scientist to understand or explain the offensive graffiti or markings on the casing of the rockets and bombs that were used in the first stages of the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The evidence is easily available for all to see.

The seeming indifference of the Western media to such behavior, which most likely has biblical roots, is markedly different to its response when it comes to the behavior of extremely small groups among the peoples of the Islamic faith. The blanket condemnation that follows encompasses not only the entire Muslim world but also the Islamic faith.

It appears that the logic of the 3 P’s (place, period and people) while relevant to the religious texts and traditions of the two earlier faiths is inexplicably denied to the later Abrahamic faith, i.e., Islam.

Such selective reasoning is exemplary of the ancient phrase Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi [meaning what is allowed to Jupiter (the Roman "false" god) is not allowed to the cattle, i.e. the general public]! It is more than relevant to ask why such a double standard when it comes to Islam? What belies such an apparent knee-jerk reaction? Where does such idiosyncrasy lead us to other than breeding further hatred?