My faith is a massive question mark, I just really don't like people coming at any religion without some knowledge to back up the anecdotal stuff the put out, or the context-lacking links, really.
The issue with 4:89 is that it's read differently if you take the ayats before and after it, as well, btw. It's a common deal. Have a look at 4:88-4:91, it's not so much preaching violence. That one's common, so I know it off head.
I'm not as familiar with the second, so I'd have to research if there's more to it in terms of its surrounding and further ayats. Context wise, though, it was revealed in a time of war.
Still, you're right in that it can be interpreted that way. Any verse can be when taken as a one off, in any religion. That's just how it goes with everything. That's why we have scholars, though, and I'm more inclined to read them from the school of thought my family follows, naturally. I'm not gonna reject the possibility of their being interpreted wrongly. I think history is important, though, in reading these, else people just assume the worst of it. Who's at fault in those cases, though, that historical context is being ignored?
