Hellrider As my analysis shows, if one actually quotes entire passages in context, it's clear there is no Universal condemnation of Jews in the Quaran.
Abaddon: That`s ok, to a certain extent I agree with Robdar and Sad Emo. I should have mentioned in my post that the other accepted interpretation of the passage is that of the "unbelievers". It`s just that exactly who these unbelievers are, is a matter of some disagreement among the Islamic scholars...This british "college" has obviously taken the very conservative view, and attributing the "pigs and apes"-quote to jews in general. This is no so uncommon, this view is an accepted interpretation among many of the imams, and from what I remember, this is discussed thoroughly in the Hadith. The question among the theologians of Islam, is whether this passage refers to:
1) People who just won`t believe in God
2) People who are christians or jews, but are "secularised" and modern, and separate between religion and "daily life", which is something Islam traditionally is very much against. Ask any moslem, and he will say that Islam is not just a religion, it is a "way of life", it is something that affects every aspect of day-to-day-life, much in the same way as orthodox judaism.
3) Jews and christians in general, for having been on the "right path", but have failed to accept the logical conclusion to their religious history, which is Islam. The old Testament, the patriarchs, Abraham, the prophet Jesus, were all just leading up to, and preparing the way for Mohammed and the Quran, the full revelation of Gods wisdom and plans.
It`s not just as simple as your analysis, because a religion is not just the religions holy texts, it is the religions history, the current and previous practices within the religion, the current (and previous) interpretations and commentaries of the religious texts. Traditionally, the nr.3 -interpretation I outlined above, has been a common interpretation of the passages in question, and that was my point. The "jews are pigs and apes"-view (based partially on these passages) is certainly a part of the history of Islam.
Robdar:
Anyway,;it is my opinion ;that if you are going to literally interpret the Quran, then you must literally interpret the Bible And if you do, I don't see how the above is any worse than some of the stuff I've read in the Bible Seems rather mild to meI agree that this is no worse than the Bible, especially the OT. In comparison to certain passages in the OT, yes, it is mild. But I don`t really agree in comparing the way to interpret the Quran with the way to interpret the Bible. The thing is, all "interpretation" of the Quran is done very cautiously, because the view on the Quran is that it is a work of revelation! It is not just "inspired" (what does "inspired" mean anyway, btw...), it is, according to the legend, given to mankind, literally whispered into the ear of Mohammad by an angel. The legend also says that the Quran has always existed in the heavens, and that the Quran that was given to Mohammad is just a copy of the (immaterial or material, here it is unclear) Quran that has always existed in the heavens. Needless to say, this leaves very little room for interpretation, and no room for reinterpretation. Of course, the Quran is and always was interpreted (tons of commentaries), but in my opinion, always in a very conservative and true-to-the-text-manner. My point is: It isn`t possible to compare the Bible and the Quran in matters of "literal interpretation". The Quran is the word of God, word for word, spoken directly from the mouth of Allah, via an angel (or Allah himself, the Quran gives at least three different versions of this), into the ear of Mohammad. I think personally that it is things like this that are some of the mayor obstacles to a secularisation of Islam.