@jackelgull: Have you heard of the Study Quran? Any opinions on it?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/29/the-american-quran-pissing-off-the-saudis.html
I'd been thinking of looking for a good English translation with proper commentaries and contexts, and this one seems like it could fit the bill. If the Salafis and Wahabists don't like it, it's probably quite accurate.
Allow me to comment on this. Over the years, there have been a few attempts by moderate Muslims to address the barbarism found in the Quran and to try to lessen the bestiality of its violent verses. While such attempts are well-meaning, they come with several problems. Let us look at the example you gave, namely Quran 47:4 and the instruction of beheading found in the holy book.
The verse says:
Quran 47:4 said:
So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates.
Muhammed dictated this passage to his scribe before the battle of Badr in 624, in which he fought with his followers against the Quraysh, his own clan from Mecca, who attempted to put an end to Muhammed's constant raids and plunderings of Meccan caravans. As such, it should indeed seem possible to contextualise the passage. The problem is that, like most Quranic verses, the context is not mentioned in the text, and therefore the verse comes in the form of an open-ended instruction on how Muslims should treat their enemies. For Muslims the Quran is not a history book, but an instruction manual on how to live their lives, according to the example of Muhammed.
Furthermore, in the mainstream orthodox Islamic narrative, Muslims are in a state of permanent and ongoing war against the unbelievers. Following this narrative, the verse can be applied not only on the actual battlefield, it is admissible all the time.
To make things worse, after the battle of Badr Muhammed's cruelty became evident; he personally beheaded several prisoners of war, among them his own cousin, Nadr. This serves as another indication for Muslims that beheading is not confined to the battlefield, but can be applied even to helpless prisoners.
Finally, Quran 47:4 is not the only verse that orders beheadings. In Quran 8:12 we read,
Quran 8:12 said:
I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Like 47:4, this verse was also dictated by Muhammed before the battle of Badr. But unlike the previous verse it does not mention a battle, it refers to unbelievers in general. Islamists and jihadis find it painfully easy to justify acts of terror through such verses. Pointing out the historical context of this verse is irrelevant when Muhammed's life is regarded as the perfect role model and when his commands and actions are viewed as a guide on how to live one's life.
Now, reform in Islam is desperately needed. Despite the problems of trying to contextualise the barbarism found both in the example of Muhammed and in the Quran, there may be room for such attempts somewhere down the line. It is imaginable that contextualisation may prove useful for, say, adolescents who identify as Muslim who decide that they want to read the Quran and find out what it actually says. However, I am not all too hopeful about this prospect, since radicalisation rarely comes about by young Muslims reading the Quran in their home basement, but through a process of indoctrination and radicalisation by orthodox imams in mosqes and Quran schools. And such "teachers" use their own Qurans and relate to the mainstream orthodox interpretations of Islam.
If you personally are interested in understanding the Quran and nature of Islam, it seems to me that an interpretation that seeks to distort and alter the violence and barbarism found in the religion (however well-intentioned this approach may be) is not the way to go. Of the books I have read, I can recommend the most Ali Sina's Understanding Muhammad and Muslims. The Iranian author is an ex-Muslim and therefore possesses the necessary distance to comment on the religion in an objective fashion. By focusing on the character and the psychological nature of Muhammed (who, assuming you don't believe in the existence of Allah, is the author of the Quran), Sina explains in great clarity how Islam came to be what it is today.
