Here's your fact check. This is part of a graphic that's making the rounds and is part of a telephone-game of misquotation over the last 150 years. So I just copy my boilerplate. Fuller details and links. u/SidesWithAngels

1. Tractate Soferim 15 comes close to saying "Even the best of the goyim should all be killed." The context is: "R. Simeon b. Yohai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war; crush the brain of the best of serpents." It's quite clear that the context changes the quote: in wartime it is understood that it is permitted to kill even the best among the enemies. But this is only one rabbi's proverb, not a halakhic majority ruling, not from the Talmud (though cited later in Tosafot on Avodah Zarah 26b) but from an early medieval addendum.

2. Yevamot 98a does not say "All children of the goyim are animals." Actual text: "They do not perform levirate marriage. Learn from this the Merciful One dispossesses his offspring, as it is written: 'Whose flesh is the flesh of donkeys, and whose semen is the semen of horses.'" Because God said the Egyptian seed in Ezek. 23:20 was metaphorically animal, even though a "child of God" in its humanity, it is concluded that (all) Gentile brothers are free from duties of levirate marriage applying to halakhically proven brothers. The Talmud goes no further than Ezekiel does with this thought.

3. Bava Metzia 114b does not say "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts" or "The goyim are not humans. They are beasts." Actual text: "The graves of Gentiles do not render impure, as it is stated: 'And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man.' You are called 'man', but Gentiles are not called 'man'." This refers to Ezek. 34:31, where Ezekiel uses the word "man" to refer only to the covenant people, demonstrating to the rabbis that in the passage about graves it is permissible to construe "man" the same limited way and not worry about the possibility of unmarked Gentile graves. This does not speak about humanity but is a use of a narrow definition for practicality. (In English we often use both "the man" and "the men" to mean various socially defined subsets taken from all humans and indicated by context; this is the same.)

4. Mishneh Torah, Kings and Wars 8 does not say "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl." It appears the source's alternate name, "Yad Chazakah, Kings, 8:2" became the incomprehensible "Gad. Shas. 2:2" (my own judgment). The text states the contrary: if the possibility occurs in wartime, separation and then marriage must ensue, per. Deut. 21:11: "A soldier may engage in sexual relations with a woman while she is still a Gentile if his natural inclination overcomes him. However, he may not engage in sexual relations with her and then, go on his way. Rather, he must bring her into his home."

5. Avodah Zarah 36b does not say "Goy girls are in a state of niddah from birth". It says "Rabbi Nahman bar Yitzhak says: They decreed upon their daughters, menstruating women from their cradle .... As it is written: Neither shall you make marriages with them." This is a decree that deems a state, not an actual biological state, and its purpose in context is to say that an unconverted girl is never marriageable (even arranged marriage), Deut. 7:3. Many Christians would never marry a non-Christian either.

6. Sanhedrin 54b-55a does not say "A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old." It says: "It is taught in accordance with of Rav: A male aged nine years and one day, ... liable." In context, this is in discussion about adult homosexuality rather than child abuse, as the two are distinguished: "Rav says: Does not deem the intercourse of one who is less than nine years old like one who is nine years old." The abuse of a boy over nine is treated as an adult case. The abuse of a child is not treated like the abuse of an adult, but is punishable as porneia under Gen. 2:24 permitting only adult intercourse.

7. Sanhedrin 58b comes close to saying "If a goy hits a Jew he must be killed." It says: "Rabbi Hanina says: A Gentile who struck a Jew is liable death, as it is stated, And he turned this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he struck the Egyptian." Since the context is Ex. 2:12, this refers to Moses's vengeance for the Egyptian "smiting" a Hebrew, meaning to injure willfully and often unto death. This accurately reflects the capital punishment laws of Ex. 21:12 and applies to all, as the same Talmud passage says, "Rava says: Is there any for which a Jew is not deemed liable, but a Gentile is deemed liable?" That is, all are alike.

8. Sanhedrin 57a does not say "If a Jew murders a goy there will be no death penalty." Actual quote: "And is a descendant of Noah executed for idol worship? But isn't it taught, 'With regard to idol worship, matters for which a Jewish court executes are prohibited to a descendant of Noah'? Yes, a prohibition, no death." This means idolatry by Jews, judged by Jews, is capital, but among sons of Noah idolatry ought to be prohibited even without a Jewish death penalty applying. That text is not speaking about murder, nor about a death penalty for murder, but for idolatry. But another quote is also close: "With regard to bloodshed, a Gentile Gentile, or a Gentile a Jew, liable; a Jew a Gentile, exempt. There, how should teach? Should he teach 'prohibited and permitted'? But isn't it taught 'A Gentile ... one may not raise and one may not lower'?" This means that since the earlier text (baraita) said "exempt" rather than "permitted", murder (which would "lower" Gentiles) is still not permitted to Jews. They are exempt from execution by the sword, the punishment under Noah, because they are instead executed by stoning under Moses. That context is 56a, "All death stated with regard to the descendants of Noah are by the sword alone .... A convert or a homeborn by stoning, but a Gentile by the sword." Since the immediate context is punishment of Gentiles, the punishment of Jews by stoning is stated separately from the paraphrased passage. Also not in Tosefta Avodah Zarah 5 or Sefer HaYirah 92. (Sefer Jirah Part 92 is one of many theoretically possible meanings of "Seph." or "Sefer Jp. 92:1".)

9. Tosafot on Yevamot 94b does not say "If you eat with a goy it is the same as eating with a dog" or anything like it, and it is not the Talmud but a medieval commentary on it anyway. Yevamot 94b also does not contain anything like this quote. I saw this also attributed to Yevamot 84b and its Tosafot. Here is a /pol/ thread where both cites appear, contradicting each other. However, I also found this cite [sic]: "'If you eat with a non-Jew it is the same as eating with a dog'. (Ereget Raschi Erod. 22 30)". This allows us to find the correct (medieval) source, Rashi on Exodus 22:30, which reads, "'Ye shall cast it to the dogs': You may give it to a heathen as well as to the dog." (In our Bibles it's Ex. 22:31.) Rashi means that torn-up meat may be sold to interested Gentiles just as well as it may be used to feed dogs. This is not about eating with Gentiles at all, nor is it Talmud.

10. Bava Metzia 24a does not say "If a Jew finds an object lost by a goy it does not have to be returned." An actual quote: "If we know about him that he alters only with regard to these three, we return to him, but if he alters with regard to other matters, we do not return to him." Meaning, return a lost item if the claimant, who says he recognizes it, is trustworthy enough that he does not alter his statements except for politeness, and not if there's evidence his claim may be opportunistic. Then 24a-b says: "When Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says 'Where there is a majority of Gentiles': But where there is a majority of Jews, not? Or perhaps, even where there is a majority of Jews, he also says? ..... Conclude from it that halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar even in a majority of Jews." Though it debates at length the idea that Jewish and Gentile milieux differ, the Talmud seems to conclude they don't, i.e., finders keepers applies to both, and the alleged quote only refers to a hypothetical rejected by the text.

11. Bava Kamma 113a does not say "Jews may use subterfuges to circumvent a goy." Actual text: "Rav Ashi said: With regard to a Gentile customs collector .... one approaches circuitously; the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiba says: One does not approach circuitously due to the sanctification of God's name." The two contradictory views are stated, then the ruling is given that Akiba is correct even if the Name is not in consideration due to Lev. 25:48 prohibiting robbing a Gentile, as quoted herein at "Sanhedrin 57a". So this paraphrase is almost accurate for the view of the minority of Rav Ashi and Rabbi Yishmael, but not for the view of the majority or for Jewish practice.)

12. Avodah Zarah 22a-b does not say "Goys prefer sex with cows." It says: "One may not keep an animal in the inns of Gentiles because they are suspected of bestiality .... The Master said: The animal of a Jew is more appealing to than their wives, as Rabbi Yohanan says: At the time when the snake came upon Eve, it infected her with contamination." This does not refer to a preference, but to the potential depth of the evil inclination affecting all humanity, as context confirms. It is an opinion from an earlier quoted rabbi (I don't know which) about possibility, not a statement about the behavior of all non-Jews; it's even said Jews share the risk of bestiality too but are excepted from suspecting themselves because of God's covenant. The mishna is that Gentiles as a whole are not automatically accorded the status of being scrupulous to prevent others from bestiality against lodged animals, and this is by common human sin nature. However, in line with the highly conflicted discussion here, many Jews freely waive this scruple and accord this status to Gentiles.

" Maybe Muslims came from them."

...half brothers...

It is a little known fact that Muhammad took a lot of teachings from the Tamlud and incorporated them into Islam.

"Can I get a legitimate fact check on this you antisemites?"

...hop on it Pepe...

https://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books/The%20Talmud.pdf

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/FullTalmud.pdf

u/#howl