Fitna update

Here are some alternate translations of verses cited in the Fitna film (below):

[8:60] You shall prepare for them all the power you can muster, and all the equipment you can mobilize, that you may frighten the enemies of GOD, your enemies, as well as others who are not known to you; GOD knows them. Whatever you spend in the cause of GOD will be repaid to you generously, without the least injustice.

[47:4] If you encounter (in war) those who disbelieve, you may strike the necks. If you take them as captives you may set them free or ransom them, until the war ends. Had GOD willed, He could have granted you victory, without war. But He thus tests you by one another. As for those who get killed in the cause of GOD, He will never put their sacrifice to waste.

[4:89] They wish that you disbelieve as they have disbelieved, then you become equal. Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of GOD. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.

It seems that the main difference is the qualification that these things can be done in warring circumstances. I'm no Arabic scholar, so I wouldn't know how to get to the heart of these translations, but I thought it was only fair to post them. Regardless, my central concern remains: Within the context of a liberal democracy, that rests on the viability of open, reasonable exchange, antiquated texts simply don't do us a lot of good. I think Sam Harris said it well when he said that reference to such texts or beliefs is simply a conversation-stopper. When trying to come up with practical answers to contemporary problems, I don't see the benefit in simply pointing to a text, whether it be the Bible, the Quran, or the Constitution. I have similar problems with Supreme Court decisions that treat the Constitution and its amendments as if it was a sacred document that is without error.