comment: >
  
  It's more like "the 25th meaning of the word "friend" means "wali"."
  That's the reality of this translation and why I said it's very misleading. Just because you'd rather have the Quran be as evil as possible doesn't mean that someone telling the truth is being apologetic.
  I mean in my whole content I only stated that the translation is misleading and then pointed out a more accurate translation for the word, which included an explanation. And even this translation I provided would still mean that the verse is obviously discriminatory against Jews and Christians, though in a different meaning than the first translation provided here.
  The fact that people downvote someone pointing out that a translation is misleading and posting a Source which goes into much detail about the verse just shows how Islamophobic reddit is. It's like people can't accept Quran not being as evil as they want it to be.
context: This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 72%. (I'm a bot)
  
  
  A European Parliament has recently adopted a resolution "Strongly condemning" the Palestinian Authority for incitement to violence and antisemitism in its school textbooks.
  Items number 28 and 29 address the Palestinian education curriculum, stating that EU-funded teaching must align with "UNESCO standards of peace, tolerance, co-existence and non-violence." The EU also states that it "Strongly condemns the hate speech, violence and antisemitism that continue to be found on Palestinian Authority education curricula."
  Marcus Sheff, CEO of the pro-Israel organization Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education, said: "Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are in lockstep on the teaching of antisemitism, and incitement to violence in Palestinian schools."
  
  
  Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Palestinian^#1 European^#2 textbooks^#3 resolution^#4 Authority^#5 >
  
  We tear down your houses and you must shut up about it otherwise you’re antisemitic bigots. >
  
  They were violently anti-semitic before that happened
  The reality is that both sides have done awful things and, if given a free hand, will continue to do horrible things. We shouldn't be funding either of them. Violence will cease when both Israelis and Palestinians love their own children more than they hate each other >
  
  It is not the Palestinians whom force the Israelis out of their homes and tear it down to build new ones. >
  
  It's EXACTLY what Jordan did in 1949. They ethnically cleansed the Jews from the parts they conquered and settled Arabs in their homes. Israel got the territory back only in 67 when Jordan tried another land grab (and to get rid of all the Jews). >
  
  And Iraq and other muslim countries.... >
  
  This isn't unique to palestine. Other Arab and African nations teach similar things even holocaust denial is in some textbooks it is crazy and absurd. >
  
  Yea, but the western world shouldn’t be funding it >
  
  Yes. One of the craziest videos I've ever seen was of some American LGBTQ kids soliciting donations for Palestinians on their college campus.
  They do that despite the fact that if they themselves will try to live in those Palestinian cities, they'll be stoned to death or thrown from a roof top.
  Absolute insanity. >
  
  I strongly dislike the current wave of hypocrisy and ignorance surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict.
  But this isn't THAT hypocritical. Being LGBTQ is something that has been demonised in many places for long periods of human history... to say a nation or group of people deserve what's coming to them because they aren't on the bleeding edge of progressivism (or even far from it) - would be like contemning an infant before he's had the chance to grow up. 
  We can acknowledge intolerance and hate as being bad, while also supporting the basic right for Palestinians to EXIST without oppression (with the many varied types of people living there; young, old, indoctrinated, questioning, gay, straight, etc). >
  
  I support your notion in principle, but not at the expense of Israeli lives.
  Also talking of growing up, this is how they do it in Palestinian society just so you understand a bit better what sort of population Israel is dealing with here. >
  
  Yes being propagandised or brainwashed does not make them any more 'worthy' of oppression.
  I'm not one of those people that thinks Israel can just let Palestine exist autonomously without massive security measures (including interventions to quell terrorism) but all this is massively besides the point...
  My point is an abstract one: It is NOT necessarily hypocritical for one group of people (LGTBQ) to support another (Palestinians) even if they are regressive and hateful to the former. It is just a nuanced view to take - saying these hateful opinions are not intractable or universal within a population, so the population deserves not to be interfered with more than necessary. >
  
  It may be a nuanced view, but also a little contradictory, and I think deceptive.
  an LGBTQ organization, should advocate for LGBTQ rights/issues/concerns. If an LGBTQ individual wishes to support Palestine, they can join American Friends of Hamas for Palestinian Rights.   
  Would it be OK for the same LGBTQ group to support a Christian denomination that believes LGBTQ individuals deserve the death penalty? Or someone running for re-election that wants to limit LGBTQ rights? Or any other cause/individual that doesn't help progress the LGBTQ agenda? >
  
  An organisation shouldn't support a government that promotes hate, no.
  But an organisation can provide support and advocacy against violence towards a group of people; i.e. Palestinians (even if they did elect that government). >
  
  yes, an organization can. But it doesn't make sense for an organization to support another cause that is opposed to its own. 
  How would pro-palestinians LGBTQ members feel if the LGBTQ advocacy group supported an Israeli governement that wanted to change the law to require the death penalty for being gay? >
  
  My comment:
  
  But an organisation can provide support and advocacy against violence towards a group of people; i.e. Palestinians 
  
  Yours:
  
  But it doesn't make sense for an organization to support "another" cause that is opposed to its own.
  
  "Another"... what? Organisation? I'm talking about the group of PEOPLE: Palestinians.
  Do you not see the distinction between supporting a group of PEOPLE trying to SURVIVE (even if they hold regressive views) 'vs' supporting the GOVERNMENT of Palestine (a major roadblock to any kind of peace).
  To put it in a more crystal format. Do you not raise a finger to help a famine in Africa because the government is corrupt and the people there are likely very homophobic? No... you can make a distinction that they aren't as 'progressed' and that one day you hope the PEOPLE will progress socially... but in the mean-time their survival and security is worth fighting for.
  Just as animal rights activists try to save creatures that would tear them apart and eat them if they could... they recognise that in the right circumstances they will be safe/benign. In the case of dangerous animals (in a habitat away from humans)... in the case of regressive humans, given 50-60 years of Societal/Economic progressive and outside pressure and advocacy for change. They still deserve to exist in the interim. >
  
  Why are we surprised the Hamas is crazy when you only need to read a few sentences from their website to understand it >
  
  They have a website? >
  
  And a very powerful propaganda machine on social media. >
  
  Hamas propaganda is admittedly the most effective propaganda in the world. They’ve literally convinced people who define themselves by their progressive values to align with views that are diametrically opposite of theirs, by introducing some superficial distance between themselves and their goals, so people think “oh I don’t support Hamas, I just support the same objectives as them” without thinking to hard about what those objectives are outside of “Israel bad.” >
  
  I haven't seen a progressive support Hamas or their objectives given their objectives are genocide among others. 
  Supporting Palestine doesn't mean supporting Hamas. Criticizing the Israeli military doesn't mean supporting Hamas. >
  
  How meaningful is your criticism of Israel if you aren't prepared to criticise Hamas too?
  Why are you an Israeli shill for qualifying the Israeli military's crimes by referencing Palestinian attacks, but not a Hamas shill for qualifying Palestinian terrorism by referencing Israeli oppression?
  The only path to peace between Israel and Palestine is if they both stop trying to kill each other. Supporting Palestine shouldn't mean condoning their worst actions, but all too often it does. >
  
  I am prepared to criticize Hamas. But they are a terrorist group and not a democracy. My criticism won't change anything for them. It can change things in Israel. >
  
  Like.... convince Israel to let Hamas bomb them with missiles and suicide bombs....? Not sure how you can expect Israel to change if Hamas doesn't first, unless you're just advocating for Israel allowing its citizens to be slaughtered. Because that's what'd happen.
  It's a bad situation on both sides but surely people can understand Israel can't let their citizens be murdered - no modern nation can. Palestinians wanted to be their own state with their own government, not Israelis citizens. They're not under Israeli control. So yeah, the border between "states" is super tight, because Palestinian terrorists keep murdering innocent people. The solution isn't as easy as people seem to think. >
  
  You do understand there isn't a binary option of stop Hamas and let Hamas bomb them right? The illegal settlements in the West Bank doesn't stop bombings  in Gaza. 
  And yes they are under Israeli control. They keep a tight leash on the Palestinians' ability to move in the west bank. >
  
  The west bank and Gaza are politically completely independent from each other. Your careless conflation of one with the other shows just how little you understand or care of the conflict. >
  
  getting my popcorn ready for the comments on this one. >
  
  Say that without crying. >
  
  There’s no greater taboo in the Middle East than a certain book written by Ahmad al-Buni. >
  
  This has been threatened for years but at the moment Europe and the UN are currently funding Palestinian education teaching extreme hate through their media and education system. >
  
  That's not infuriating at all. /F >
  
  Oh really? Country that states their goal as "pushing Israel into the sea" has propaganda in school textbooks, really?!?! >
  
  google “israel apartheid” or ethnic cleansing >
  
  I live in Israel, come visit us and together we will try to find "Israel apartheid" irl >
  
  Very misleading translation.
  About the word Wali translated in your example as friend:
  
  Wali, in the Arabic language, has a wide set of meanings, none of which are used to simply mean “buddy, pal or acquaintance”, the way that we would use the term “friend” in modern times to denote our casual relationships with colleagues at work, peers at school or neighbors.  In an everyday reading of the Qu’ran, after reading this question initially, I came across the word wali and its various derivatives multiple times; sometimes it meant “guardian”, other times, “discharger of affairs or executor”, or “protector and ally”, and even “inheritor”.  “Friendship” can be included in this, but walaa’ is a type of intimate and extremely loyal bond that is not used for everyday friendships in Arabic.  Allah calls Himself a wali of the believers and also calls Himself by its derivative, al-Maula, which roughly means “the Patron”.  It gives a sense of one party standing protectively over the other, or fully backing and sponsoring them.
  ...
  It is clear then, that the term wali should be translated as “protecting allies” in this specific case... Source
  
  You can look at the article for more information as it's specific about this verse and goes into more details. >
  
  Yeah, actually the 25th meaning of the word is "take them as friends", "they are your best friends". Apologetics are really funny people.