Disclaimer, I am in no way an Islamic scholar, but the following is my take on the questions you present. I hope this helps.
First, when reading any translation, be it of the Quran, The Count of Monte Cristo, or whatever, you need to keep in mind that any translation must necessarily be 1/3 transliteration to 2/3 interpretation. It isnt an exact meaning and is subject to the translators own views, mistakes and etc.
Text from your comment has been put into italics.
Surat 1 - Verse 7 says:
The way of those on whom you have bestowed your grace, not the way of those who earned your anger (such as the Jews), nor of those who went astray (such as the Christians).
Question: how did the Jews earn the anger of God, and how did the Christians go astray?
In this particular Verse, and in fact, in this Sura, there is no mention of Christians or Jews in the Arabic version. For some reason I am unaware of, the translator placed the text in parenthesis on his own.
Surat 2 - Verses 23 & 24 seem to preach lapidating non Muslims. Where did I misunderstood?
Well, lets look at an english translation of the verses. I went to the trouble of hunting down what I presume you are working from located at http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/quran/naeindex.htm which itself states that it is a "rough translation." This is not an endorsement of this particular translation, I'd just prefer to reference your sources.
At any rate, verse 23 says:
And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'ân) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a Sûrah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allâh, if you are truthful.
I see nothing concerning the "lapidating" of non-muslims. Lets move on to verse 24:
"But if you do it not, and you can never do it, then fear the Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers."
Again, I fail to see anything that suggests Muslims should stone non-Muslims.
Surat 2 - Verse 193 says:
And fight them until there is no more Fitnah and [all and every kind of] worship is for Allah [alone]. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun.
Does this advocate forced conversions?
Ok, First I suggest you read the 2-3 verses directly above this verse. As it stands you seem to be only reading this verse and taking it completely out of context. Second, and most importantly, I have to take issue with your outright mistranslation of the word "Fitnah". You claim it means " 1. Fitnah = disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah." yet it means no such thing. Please read the term as defined in this glossary: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/glossary/term.FITNAH.html. "Fitnah means civil strife, war, riots." I don't understand how you came to find your very incorrect translation of the word Fitnah.
Surat 2 - Verse 216 says:
Jihad is ordained for you [Muslims] though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.
Does this advocate religious war?
Jihad, whether you believe it means religious war or the more literal (and correct) translation of struggle, does not mean a war just for the sake of fighting with other religions. Jihad (in the context of a war) is mandatory when Muslims in your region are under attack or oppressed. You are then required to assist these people who share your faith. Many papers, op-eds, etc have been written about Jihad and I suggest you clarify your understanding of it. As it stands, I feel this verse advocates both forms of Jihad, but not the vague notion of "religious war" that you seem to think it means.
Surat 3 - Verse 28 says:
Let not the believers take the disbelievers as auliya (supporters, helpers, etc.) instead of the believers, and whoever does that will never be helped by Allah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them. And Allah warns you against [his punishment], and to Allah is the final return. This clearly advocates religious preference in employment. Isn't it wrong?
In this verse, it is important to understand Auliya are people who help by protecting, and are not in any sense of the word "employees". Basically this verse tells Muslims not to rely on non-Muslims for their protection and to instead make it a point to provide for your own protection. Does this mean Muslim states cannot have military allies? That I am not sure of. I feel that allies might be allowed but not at the expense of only relying on these allies for protection. For instance, a mutual protection pact would be OK, but don't disband your army because you think country X will always protect you.
Surat 4 - Verse 34 says:
Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made one of them to excel the other, and because they spend [to support them] from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient [to Allah and to their husbands], and guard in the husband's absence what Allah orders them to guard. I understand that Islam states women are inferior to men.
The word that in this translation has been translated to mean "excel" is used in the context of "excelling in strength". It just states that Males of this species are predisposed to be stronger than women. Do you take issue with that? Even if you do, you must agree that this does not endorse or state that women are inferior to men, except in the instance of strength. Here in the USA, only men are required to register for the selective service, I feel the same reasoning may have been used to justify both.
As such, this makes your comment about the UN moot.
[ Parent ]