Showing posts with label JESUS CHRIST. Show all posts
Showing posts with label JESUS CHRIST. Show all posts

Wednesday, 28 December 2022

DR. ALI ATAIE ISLAM & CHRIST - MISISLAMISM. Fear, Inc.The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America


MUHAMMAD IS THE CLOSEST BROTHER OF JESUS CHRIST -  AND HE BEST, THE MOST TRUSTWORTHY, THE MOST FORGIVING, THE MOST GENEROUS, THE MOST TOLERANT AND LOVING HUMAN BEING AND FIGHTER I HAVE EVER READ ABOUT IN MY ENTIRE LIFE, HATED BY ALMOST THE ENTIRE WORLD.  HE GAVE HUMANITY AND THE WORLDS THE MOST PERFECT WAY OF LIFE - ISLAM!!!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHt5q9o82WA

DR. ALI ATAIE 2014

How Islam Views the Person of Jesus Christ (peace be upon him)

81.7K subscribers

Dr. Ali Ataie speaks about Jesus Christ as a central figure in the New Testament of the Bible, but he is also valued in Islam, and holds importance in the Qur'an. Dr. Ataie speaks about core theological issues found in the Gospel of John that clash with Qur’anic teachings about the person of Prophet Jesus (‘alayhi al-salam). Jesus (peace be upon him) is acknowledged in both Christianity and Islam and is inseparable from the core beliefs of each religion. Yet despite so many similarities and common grounds, there are several differences about Jesus that are distinct to both Islam and Christianity. 

 - More Dr. Ali Ataie: http://mcceastbay.org/ali-ataie 

This talk was delivered at Islamic Center of Inland Empire on February 28, 2014. 

Subscribe to their channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/icieonline This video was delivered at the Muslim Community Center - East Bay in Pleasanton, California. About Ustadh Dr. Ali Ataie Ali Ataie is a perennial student and researcher who has been involved in interfaith activities for over two decades. He holds a Masters in biblical studies with a focus on New Testament and biblical languages. He also holds a PhD in cultural and historical studies in religion from the Graduate Theological Union. His doctoral work focused on Muslim hermeneutics of Biblical texts, especially the Gospel of John. He lives in San Ramon, CA with his wife Roya and three daughters. More MCC East Bay: Events & Activities: http://www.mcceastbay.org/newsletter 

Website: http://www.mcceastbay.org 

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/MCCPleasanton 

nstagram: https://www.instagram.com/mcceastbay

THE CLOSEST BROTHER OF JESUS CHRIST - MUHAMMAD THE BEST, THE MOST TRUSTWORTHY, THE MOST FORGIVING, THE MOST GENEROUS HUMAN BEING AND FIGHTER I HAVE EVER READ ABOUT IN MY ENTIRE LIFE, HATED BY ALMOST THE ENTIRE WORLD TO WHOM HE GAVE THE MOST PERFECT WAY OF LIFE - ISLAM!!! DR. ALI ATAIE IS THE FIRST I EVER HEARD IN 77 YEARS SAYING SUCH PEARLS ABOUT THE PROPHET OF ISLAM! 
 BAFS  
MISISLAMISM. Fear, Inc.The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America
Report

Fear, Inc. The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America

A look at the Islamophobia network that profoundly misrepresents Islam and American Muslims in the United States.

 (U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, after attack)
(U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, after attack)

Download this report (pdf)

Read the report in your web browser (Scribd)

Download individual chapters of the report (pdf):

Video: Ask the Expert: Faiz Shakir on the Group Behind Islamophobia

On July 22, a man planted a bomb in an Oslo government building that killed eight people. A few hours after the explosion, he shot and killed 68 people, mostly teenagers, at a Labor Party youth camp on Norway’s Utoya Island.

By midday, pundits were speculating as to who had perpetrated the greatest massacre in Norwegian history since World War II. Numerous mainstream media outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Atlantic, speculated about an Al Qaeda connection and a “jihadist” motivation behind the attacks. But by the next morning it was clear that the attacker was a 32-year-old, white, blond-haired and blue-eyed Norwegian named Anders Breivik. He was not a Muslim, but rather a self-described Christian conservative.

According to his attorney, Breivik claimed responsibility for his self-described “gruesome but necessary” actions. On July 26, Breivik told the court that violence was “necessary” to save Europe from Marxism and “Muslimization.” In his 1,500-page manifesto, which meticulously details his attack methods and aims to inspire others to extremist violence, Breivik vows “brutal and breathtaking operations which will result in casualties” to fight the alleged “ongoing Islamic Colonization of Europe.”

Breivik’s manifesto contains numerous footnotes and in-text citations to American bloggers and pundits, quoting them as experts on Islam’s “war against the West.” This small group of anti-Muslim organizations and individuals in our nation is obscure to most Americans but wields great influence in shaping the national and international political debate. Their names are heralded within communities that are actively organizing against Islam and targeting Muslims in the United States.

Breivik, for example, cited Robert Spencer, one of the anti-Muslim misinformation scholars we profile in this report, and his blog, Jihad Watch, 162 times in his manifesto. Spencer’s website, which “tracks the attempts of radical Islam to subvert Western culture,” boasts another member of this Islamophobia network in America, David Horowitz, on his Freedom Center website. Pamela Geller, Spencer’s frequent collaborator, and her blog, Atlas Shrugs, was mentioned 12 times.

Geller and Spencer co-founded the organization Stop Islamization of America, a group whose actions and rhetoric the Anti-Defamation League concluded “promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam. The group seeks to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy “American values.” Based on Breivik’s sheer number of citations and references to the writings of these individuals, it is clear that he read and relied on the hateful, anti-Muslim ideology of a number of men and women detailed in this report&a select handful of scholars and activists who work together to create and promote misinformation about Muslims.

While these bloggers and pundits were not responsible for Breivik’s deadly attacks, their writings on Islam and multiculturalism appear to have helped create a world view, held by this lone Norwegian gunman, that sees Islam as at war with the West and the West needing to be defended. According to former CIA officer and terrorism consultant Marc Sageman, just as religious extremism “is the infrastructure from which Al Qaeda emerged,” the writings of these anti-Muslim misinformation experts are “the infrastructure from which Breivik emerged.” Sageman adds that their rhetoric “is not cost-free.”

These pundits and bloggers, however, are not the only members of the Islamophobia infrastructure. Breivik’s manifesto also cites think tanks, such as the Center for Security Policy, the Middle East Forum, and the Investigative Project on Terrorism—three other organizations we profile in this report. Together, this core group of deeply intertwined individuals and organizations manufacture and exaggerate threats of “creeping Sharia,” Islamic domination of the West, and purported obligatory calls to violence against all non-Muslims by the Quran.

This network of hate is not a new presence in the United States. Indeed, its ability to organize, coordinate, and disseminate its ideology through grassroots organizations increased dramatically over the past 10 years. Furthermore, its ability to influence politicians’ talking points and wedge issues for the upcoming 2012 elections has mainstreamed what was once considered fringe, extremist rhetoric.

And it all starts with the money flowing from a select group of foundations. A small group of foundations and wealthy donors are the lifeblood of the Islamophobia network in America, providing critical funding to a clutch of right-wing think tanks that peddle hate and fear of Muslims and Islam—in the form of books, reports, websites, blogs, and carefully crafted talking points that anti-Islam grassroots organizations and some right-wing religious groups use as propaganda for their constituency.

Some of these foundations and wealthy donors also provide direct funding to anti-Islam grassroots groups. According to our extensive analysis, here are the top seven contributors to promoting Islamophobia in our country:

  • Donors Capital Fund
  • Richard Mellon Scaife foundations
  • Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
  • Newton D. & Rochelle F. Becker foundations and charitable trust
  • Russell Berrie Foundation
  • Anchorage Charitable Fund and William Rosenwald Family Fund
  • Fairbrook Foundation

Altogether, these seven charitable groups provided $42.6 million to Islamophobia think tanks between 2001 and 2009—funding that supports the scholars and experts that are the subject of our next chapter as well as some of the grassroots groups that are the subject of Chapter 3 of our report.

And what does this money fund? Well, here’s one of many cases in point: Last July, former Speaker of the House of Representatives Newt Gingrich warned a conservative audience at the American Enterprise Institute that the Islamic practice of Sharia was “a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.” Gingrich went on to claim that “Sharia in its natural form has principles and punishments totally abhorrent to the Western world.”

Sharia, or Muslim religious code, includes practices such as charitable giving, prayer, and honoring one’s parents—precepts virtually identical to those of Christianity and Judaism. But Gingrich and other conservatives promote alarmist notions about a nearly 1,500-year-old religion for a variety of sinister political, financial, and ideological motives. In his remarks that day, Gingrich mimicked the language of conservative analyst Andrew McCarthy, who co-wrote a report calling Sharia “the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time.” Such similarities in language are no accident. Look no further than the organization that released McCarthy’s anti-Sharia report: the aforementioned Center for Security Policy, which is a central hub of the anti-Muslim network and an active promoter of anti- Sharia messaging and anti-Muslim rhetoric.

In fact, CSP is a key source for right-wing politicians, pundits, and grassroots organizations, providing them with a steady stream of reports mischaracterizing Islam and warnings about the dangers of Islam and American Muslims. Operating under the leadership of Frank Gaffney, the organization is funded by a small number of foundations and donors with a deep understanding of how to influence U.S. politics by promoting highly alarming threats to our national security. CSP is joined by other anti-Muslim organizations in this lucrative business, such as Stop Islamization of America and the Society of Americans for National Existence. Many of the leaders of these organizations are well-schooled in the art of getting attention in the press, particularly Fox News, The Wall Street Journal editorial pages, The Washington Times, and a variety of right-wing websites and radio outlets.

Misinformation experts such as Gaffney consult and work with such right-wing grassroots organizations as ACT! for America and the Eagle Forum, as well as religious right groups such as the Faith and Freedom Coalition and American Family Association, to spread their message. Speaking at their conferences, writing on their websites, and appearing on their radio shows, these experts rail against Islam and cast suspicion on American Muslims. Much of their propaganda gets churned into fundraising appeals by grassroots and religious right groups. The money they raise then enters the political process and helps fund ads supporting politicians who echo alarmist warnings and sponsor anti-Muslim attacks.

These efforts recall some of the darkest episodes in American history, in which religious, ethnic, and racial minorities were discriminated against and persecuted. From Catholics, Mormons, Japanese Americans, European immigrants, Jews, and African Americans, the story of America is one of struggle to achieve in practice our founding ideals. Unfortunately, American Muslims and Islam are the latest chapter in a long American struggle against scapegoating based on religion, race, or creed.

Due in part to the relentless efforts of this small group of individuals and organizations, Islam is now the most negatively viewed religion in America. Only 37 percent of Americans have a favorable opinion of Islam: the lowest favorability rating since 2001, according to a 2010 ABC News/Washington Post poll. According to a 2010 Time magazine poll, 28 percent of voters do not believe Muslims should be eligible to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and nearly one-third of the country thinks followers of Islam should be barred from running for president.

The terrorist attacks on 9/11 alone did not drive Americans’ perceptions of Muslims and Islam. President George W. Bush reflected the general opinion of the American public at the time when he went to great lengths to make clear that Islam and Muslims are not the enemy. Speaking to a roundtable of Arab and Muslim American leaders at the Afghanistan embassy in 2002, for example, President Bush said, “All Americans must recognize that the face of terror is not the true faith—face of Islam. Islam is a faith that brings comfort to a billion people around the world. It’s a faith that has made brothers and sisters of every race. It’s a faith based upon love, not hate.”

Unfortunately, President Bush’s words were soon eclipsed by an organized escalation of hateful statements about Muslims and Islam from the members of the Islamophobia network profiled in this report. This is as sad as it is dangerous. It is enormously important to understand that alienating the Muslim American community not only threatens our fundamental promise of religious freedom, it also hurts our efforts to combat terrorism. Since 9/11, the Muslim American community has helped security and law enforcement officials prevent more than 40 percent of Al Qaeda terrorist plots threatening America. The largest single source of initial information to authorities about the few Muslim American plots has come from the Muslim American community.

Around the world, there are people killing people in the name of Islam, with which most Muslims disagree. Indeed, in most cases of radicalized neighbors, family members, or friends, the Muslim American community is as baffled, disturbed, and surprised by their appearance as the general public. Treating Muslim American citizens and neighbors as part of the problem, rather than part of the solution, is not only offensive to America’s core values, it is utterly ineffective in combating terrorism and violent extremism.

The White House recently released the national strategy for combating violent extremism, “Empowering Local Partners to Prevent Violent Extremism in the United States.” One of the top focal points of the effort is to “counter al-Qa’ida’s propaganda that the United States is somehow at war with Islam.” Yet orchestrated efforts by the individuals and organizations detailed in this report make it easy for al-Qa’ida to assert that America hates Muslims and that Muslims around the world are persecuted for the simple crime of being Muslims and practicing their religion.

Sadly, the current isolation of American Muslims echoes past witch hunts in our history—from the divisive McCarthyite purges of the 1950s to the sometimes violent anti-immigrant campaigns in the 19th and 20th centuries. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has compared the fear-mongering of Muslims with anti-Catholic sentiment of the past. In response to the fabricated “Ground Zero mosque” controversy in New York last summer, Mayor Bloomberg said:

In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter’s on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center. … We would betray our values and play into our enemies’ hands if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else.

This report shines a light on the Islamophobia network of so-called experts, academics, institutions, grassroots organizations, media outlets, and donors who manufacture, produce, distribute, and mainstream an irrational fear of Islam and Muslims. Let us learn the proper lesson from the past, and rise above fear-mongering to public awareness, acceptance, and respect for our fellow Americans. In doing so, let us prevent hatred from infecting and endangering our country again.

In the pages that follow, we profile the small number of funders, organizations, and individuals who have contributed to the discourse on Islamophobia in this country. We begin with the money trail in Chapter 1—our analysis of the funding streams that support anti-Muslim activities. Chapter 2 identifies the intellectual nexus of the Islamophobia network. Chapter 3 highlights the key grassroots players and organizations that help spread the messages of hate. Chapter 4 aggregates the key media amplifiers of Islamophobia. And Chapter 5 brings attention to the elected officials who frequently support the causes of anti- Muslim organizing.

Before we begin, a word about the term “Islamophobia.” We don’t use this term lightly. We define it as an exaggerated fear, hatred, and hostility toward Islam and Muslims that is perpetuated by negative stereotypes resulting in bias, discrimination, and the marginalization and exclusion of Muslims from America’s social, political, and civic life.

It is our view that in order to safeguard our national security and uphold America’s core values, we must return to a fact-based civil discourse regarding the challenges we face as a nation and world. This discourse must be frank and honest, but also consistent with American values of religious liberty, equal justice under the law, and respect for pluralism. A first step toward the goal of honest, civil discourse is to expose—and marginalize—the influence of the individuals and groups who make up the Islamophobia network in America by actively working to divide Americans against one another through misinformation.

Wajahat Ali is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and a researcher for the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Eli Clifton is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and a national security reporter for the Center for American Progress Action Fund and ThinkProgress.org. Matthew Duss is a Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress and Director of the Center’s Middle East Progress. Lee Fang is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and an investigative researcher/blogger for the Center for American Progress Action Fund and ThinkProgress.org. Scott Keyes is a researcher at the Center for American Progress and an investigative researcher for ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Faiz Shakir is a Vice President at the Center for American Progress and serves as Editor-in-Chief of ThinkProgress.org.

Download this report (pdf)

Read the report in your web browser (Scribd)

Download individual chapters of the report (pdf):

Video: Ask the Expert: Faiz Shakir on the Group Behind Islamophobia

The positions of American Progress, and our policy experts, are independent, and the findings and conclusions presented are those of American Progress alone. A full list of supporters is available here. American Progress would like to acknowledge the many generous supporters who make our work possible.

Authors

Matthew Duss

Policy Analyst

Scott Keyes

Senior Reporter, ThinkProgress War Room

You Might Also Like

The Center for American Progress is an independent nonpartisan policy institute that is dedicated to improving the lives of all Americans through bold, progressive ideas, as well as strong leadership and concerted action. Our aim is not just to change the conversation, but to change the country.


Sunday, 6 August 2017

FOR BLASPHEMY JESUS THE SON OF MARY SHOULD HAVE BEEN STONED TO DEATH BY ISRAEL


JESUS THE SON OF THE FATHER (BAR ABBAS) WAS SENTENCED TO DEATH BY THE ROMANS FOR REBELLION!
FOR BLASPHEMY JESUS THE SON OF MARY SHOULD HAVE BEEN STONED TO DEATH BY ISRAEL, BUT NOT CRUCIFIED BY THE ROMANS! 
SOUNDS A LOT BETTER! 

El Problema Judío explicado para Dummies - Evalion [Sub ESP]

Alerta Judiada Int. 2

Published on 22 Jun 2016
Evalion explica el problema judío para novatos y escépticos. No es una cuestión moral, se trata de mantener la seguridad de los Estados. El pueblo judío históricamente siempre ha actuado como una quinta columna, organizándose para promover e imponer intereses judíos en países ajenos y explotando en último lugar a la población huésped mediante la usura, que hoy tiene su máxima expresión en el sistema económico global basado en la deuda, ideado por el judío Harry Dexter White en la conferencia de Bretton Woods de 1944, cuando la derrota de Adolf Hitler era segura. Lemas como "todos somos iguales" fueron introducidos por la Judería organizada para obtener los mismos derechos que los autóctonos y así poder infiltrarse en las altas esferas de poder.

El pueblo judío no se ha integrado en más de 2000 años de historia ni lo hará. El problema judío no es religioso, ni cultural, es genético.

El vídeo podéis descargarlo a través de mega https://mega.nz/#!HJFzmK6J!OeC4iVl7Lz...

Descarga y comparte

express_logo


EVERYTHING you know about Jesus' death is wrong – He wasn't even crucified

JESUS wasn't crucified and Pontius Pilate wasn't even in Judea – Ten incredible reasons why the Bible has it wrong about the central moment of the Christian faith.

Easter crucifixion in the Philippines GETTY
Ten incredible reasons why the Bible has it wrong about the crucifixion of Jesus
New book Crucifixion’s a Doddle by Julian Doyle, uses ancient texts, religious artworks and the Bible itself to refute some of the most common-held beliefs about the death of Jesus.
Doyle's research questions the popular image of the immense wooden cross when there were so few trees in Judea. He points out that the Romans executed criminals by impaling them, while Jewish law preferred stoning them. And why were there no images of the cross for almost four centuries after Jesus' death?
After the attempt to crucify the Monty Python team for their film Life of Brian it became clear to Doyle, the film’s editor, that something was seriously wrong with everything we think we know and he began to investigate.
He tells Express Online his ten reasons why the Bible is wrong.
Crucifixion of Christ, Church of Santa SabinaGETTY
The very first image of the Crucifixion of Christ on a wooden side-door of a church in Rome
 
1. The image of Jesus on the cross has been invented by commissioned artists.
After realising something was wrong I checked back to see the earliest images of Jesus being crucified but there are none. Okay, we have seen millions of such paintings but there are none for hundreds of years after his death. It is not until the fourth century that scenes of the Crucifixion of Jesus began to appear. And this is the first one.
Yes, this is it, the very first image of the Crucifixion of Christ, which appears on a small panel on a wooden side-door of the Church of Santa Sabina in Rome, which was consecrated in AD 440, almost exactly 400 years after the event.
In this first attempt the crucified figures do not appear to be attached to crosses, although there are nails in the hands. But no church before this date even had a crucifixion image. So around AD 430 the image we know was invented. Invented because not only is there no image of Jesus on the cross but there is no image of anyone on a cross. 

2. You cannot carry the size of tree Jesus is shown crucified on. 
You can see we made small crosses for the actors to carry as only an Olympic athlete could carry the trees usually depicted. But the actors still struggled with these.
Executioner NC
The executioner is removing nails from a previous victim to make the cross available for the next
 
3.  The Post is set in the ground as a permanent fixture.
See in the picture the executioner is up a ladder, which is leaning on the cross. The cross has to be set deep in the ground to stay up.  What happens to the cross after Jesus is taken down? Is it thrown away so the next victim can use his own cross? Or dug up and taken back for the next victim to carry back up? No: as in the picture, it is a permanent.

4. The primary purpose of crucifixion is not to kill a criminal.
See in the picture where the executioner is removing nails from a previous victim to make the cross available for the next. When I asked Terry Gilliam why he did something so subversive, he just said it was probably his morbid senses. But clearly it was also just so logical. 
Why does this totally undermine the story in the Bible? Because, surely the purpose of Crucifixion is to put the body on show, as a deterrent, as long as possible. Upright like a banner, struggling with pain, degraded and dehumanized, till it rotted. 



Now just consider Joseph of Arimathea’s visit to Pilate when he is told he can retrieve the body as long as he is already dead.
Are they joking? They make a cross for a man, he carries it to Golgotha, they nail him up, and after a few hours he drops dead and Pilate says: "Okay, you can take him down now."
What an absurd amount of effort and time, not to mention a ridiculous use of a valuable tree, to kill a man.

5.  Jesus could not have died in just 4 hours.
In the film, Eric Idle’s statement as Mr. Cheeky, the guy crucified next to Brian is revealing. Eric is suggesting that death does not come that quickly? In the Bible Jesus is raised on the cross at either 9 or 12 o’clock and is dead by 3pm. 
Monty Phyton crucifixion sceneMONTY PHYTON
 
The most subversive scene in Life of Brian undermines the Bible story
ERIC: "Not so bad once you’re up. You being rescued then?"
BRIAN: "It’s a bit late for that now, isn’t it?"
ERIC: "Oh, no. We’ve got a couple of days up here. Plenty of time. Lots of people get rescued. Yeah. My brother usually rescues me, if he can keep off the tail for more than twenty minutes. Randy little bugger. Up and down like the Assyrian Empire."

Every Easter in the Philippines, they perform a Passion play culminating with the actual nailing up of at least three penitents on to crosses. Ruben Enage, age fifty-three, has been crucified twenty-seven times. He began his yearly rite after surviving a fall from a three-story building. The wounds can take two weeks to heal. 
So the likelihood of someone dying in such a short period of time seems impossible. To cover this criticism one Gospel, John, tries to suggest Jesus was speared in the side to prove he was dead. Problem is it says: ‘and immediately blood and water came out.’
Which means the heart is pumping so he is evidently not dead.
7. Jesus was not crucified.
The most subversive scene in Life of Brian is the first one we actually shot, which in context totally undermines the Bible story. 
HIGH PRIEST JOHN: You have been found guilty by the elders of uttering the name of our Lord and so as a blasphemer you are to be stoned to death. 
MATTHIAS: Look, I’d had a lovely supper and all I said to my wife was, ‘That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah’. 
HIGH PRIEST JOHN: Blasphemy! He’s said it again.
The scene is based on Jewish Law as expressed in the Bible: "Then the Lord spoke to Moses, “The one who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be taken outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head; then let all the congregation stone him." (Leviticus 24:14) 
To help you understand the significance let me quote you another event in the Bible. 
Acts of the Apostles has this story:  "Stephen, was performing great wonders and signs... The elders dragged him away and brought him before the Council." When Stephen makes a long speech: "They cried out with a loud voice, and covered their ears and rushed at him. When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him." (Acts 7) 




Now look at Jesus' trial before the same Sanhedrin: "Jesus said, “You shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power.” Tearing his clothes, the high priest said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard the blasphemy?” And they all condemned him to be deserving of death." (Mark 14:61) 

Jesus' crime is also clearly blasphemy, so why do the Sanhedrin take Jesus to Pilate? Blasphemy has nothing to do with the Romans. The crime is punishable, as shown in Life of Brian by stoning, which is clearly decided by the Jews themselves. Crucifixion/staking is the Roman punishment for rebellion. 
And let me quote from Jewish law about stoning: "If a man guilty of a capital offence is put to death and his body hung on a tree, you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God’s curse"’ (Deuteronomy 21:22)
So after stoning the body is hung on a tree and then taken down and buried before sunset.

8. Pilate could not have crucified Jesus because the Roman governor left Judea years before Jesus' death.
Jesus’ two year mission begins after the death of John the Baptist. But look how Josephus describes John’s life and death. Firstly he describes the death of King Philip in AD 34. Then he tells us that to marry Philip’s wife, Herod divorced his first wife, who was the daughter of King Aretas of Petra.
Easter crucifixion in the PhilippinesGETTY
Every Easter in the Philippines, they perform a Passion play culminating with the crucifixion
 
But King Aretas’ daughter went home crying to her father, who raised an army and attacked Israel. Herod sent his army into battle but they were completely wiped out.
‘Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God as a just punishment of what Herod had done against John, who was called the Baptist. For Herod had killed this good man…’(Joseph ‘Antiq’)

If John had been killed eight years before the destruction of Herod’s army, surely nobody would link the two events? The destruction of the army in AD 36 must have been no more than six months to a year after the Baptist’s death, for them to be linked, which places his death in AD 35. If Jesus’ two year mission began then he would still be alive in AD 38. Pilate left Judea in AD 36.

9. Gol Goatha is not ‘the place of the skull’ as translated in all the Gospels.
The Aramaic name Gol Goatha, means ‘mount of execution’, The 'place of the skull’ is Gulgalta. Why insist on a mistranslation? The site is probably Goatha mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah (31:39) where he describes it towards the east, outside the city wall.
The Church of the Holy Sepulcher is claimed by Constantine’s mother to be on the crucifixion site, but this is clearly a mistake and the mistranslation is to conceal this.
Crucifixion’s a Doddle by Julian DoyleJULIAN DOYLE
Crucifixion’s a Doddle by Julian Doyle
 
10. Where did the trees come from in the first place?
While making the film, we imported trees because they are scarce in Tunisia, as they are in Jerusalem. And look what the Bible says when King Solomon wrote to King Hiram: 
"I intend to build a temple for the Name of the Lord. So give orders that cedars of Lebanon be cut for me and I will pay you for your men whatever wages you set. You know that we have no one so skilled in felling timber as the Sidonians." (1 Kings 5–6) 
Solomon obviously doesn’t trust Israeli carpenters. 
Hiram sent word back: 
“My men will haul cedar and juniper logs down from Lebanon to the Mediterranean, and float them as rafts..., and Solomon gave Hiram twenty thousand cors of wheat, and twenty thousand baths of pressed olive oil. Solomon continued to do this for Hiram year after year.’   (1 Kings 5). 
Trees are, clearly, a scarce and valuable commodity, so why use them just to kill criminals?

The full evidence for all these 10 statements and many more can be found in the book Crucifixion’s a Doddle by Julian Doyle (Clink Street Publishing: £11.99) out now.