Sorry, reading the passages in context doesn't help the Koran.
The passages go from peaceful, when Mohammad had no political power, to violent as he gains more and more political power. This is painfully obvious when you read the Suras in chronological order. "A Simple Koran" available on Amazon does this. His biggest body count was when he had 800 people killed in one afternoon, according to MUSLIM sources. (Jesus, by contrast, never kills anyone or calls his followers to kill anyone.)
Of course you are also correct in that the Koran is largely incomprehensible without commentaries. Commentaries written HUNDREDS of years after Mohammad. Heck, even Mohammad's biography isn't written for over two centuries after his death.
What is actually funny is that while Christianity has weathered 300 years of textual and archaeological criticism stringer than ever, the secular history it records having been effectively verified by many who started out to discredit it, Islam is failing those same tests miserably. Much of the Koran, we now know, is copied and edited from 2nd and 3rd century Jewish and Christian apocrypha (non-cannon) writings. What is written of Jesus in the Koran is lifted from 3rd/4th gnostic writings. The story of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba is the most blatant example of copying, but there is plenty more.
Even if you ignore the copying, you have no early manuscripts that agree with the Koran today and Muslim tradition itself mentions that there were competing versions of the Koran until Uthman, who then ordered all competing copies destroyed except the version he had made. The earliest copies we have show significant editing and don't match todays text. The earliest manuscript, the Sana'a manuscript, the Yemenis government won't let anyone examine anymore. All we have is microfilms of it from the Germans who first examined it. So we have something delivered by a "prophet" who did no miracles except the "miracle" of the Koran itself... which was such a "miracle" it had many early variants that took political bludgeoning by a non-prophet to attempt to whittle down to one variant.
It gets worse when you go to archaeology. Turns out Mecca's history doesn't go back further than the 4th century AD. To add to that, Mecca doesn't match the geography of the Koran and the traditions. (Anyone see any Olive trees in Mecca?) The icing on the cake is that mosques for the first HUNDRED YEARS of Islam don't point towards Mecca, but Petra. Petra also matches the geography in the Koran and the traditions. If Muslim history has been so heavily edited that the story of Mecca and the location of the Kaaba isn't reliable, how much of the rest of the Koran and Islamic scriptures can we trust?
An Historical Critique of Islam's Beginnings
That video is just one of many that could be posted on the subject.
Contrast this with the Christian texts. Unlike the Koran, the documents that make up the bible are not considered the literal "Word of God". While Christians call it the "Word of God" for convenience, it is more accurately described as "The History of the Word of God". It is the message it contains that is important, not the fact that we have the exact wording of every document 100% correct. (Textual criticism has the New Testament down to 99.6% accuracy, with no variants affecting essential doctrines.)
Jesus, has FOUR biographies written about him within 70 years of his death, two by eyewitnesses and two from people who were in close association with eyewitnesses, on top of Jesus being mentioned by several non-Christian sources. The church was a persecuted organisation for nearly 300 years after its founding. It had no authority to wipe out competing variants en-mass until around the year 800 at the earliest. In modern days, what this means is that we have thousands of complete or partial texts from the times the church had no or extremely limited political power that were lost and then rediscovered in modern times. Any intentional editing would easily be caught, as it is in the Koran, but textual critics don't find that. They find the usual spelling errors, word substitution, word order changes and the like that you find in any document from that pre-printing press age.
When the documents of the New Testament were compiled together into one volume, after circulating as independent documents before that, no effort was made to edit or harmonize the accounts. Many apparent contradictions exist to the casual reader that are only resolved with a little research into the cultural context, historic context, and standards of writing of the day. While this makes it easy for critics to invent contradictions out of whole cloth, it's also a data goldmine for historians. Eyewitness testimony virtually always agrees on the major details while differing on the minor details. Example: When the Titanic sank in 1912, eyewitnesses disagreed over if the ship sank intact or broke in two before sinking. Historians don't look at that and conclude that the Titanic didn't sink.
The benefit of these minor details added off the cuff can be shown to be true or false.
When Jesus is stabbed with a spear after death, blood and water poured out. Why would water pour out of such a wound? Well today we know why. Jesus was going into hypovolemic shock from the beating he sustained before being crucified. This causes fluids, but not blood, to build up in the body around the heart and lungs. So when stabbed through the heart and lungs, a mixture of blood and what would appear to be water would spill from the wound. In the 1st century the only way you would know that is if you saw it happen. You would have no idea WHY it happened of course.
In the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, workers are offered a Denarius for a days labor in the Vineyard, which we now know through archaeology was a typical days wage in Pre-70AD Judea. No Google, how may people would know the days wage for for unskilled labor 700 miles from where you live now 40 years ago unless you actually lived there?
The book of Acts is fascinating to read from the perspective of a historian because it has so many details.
The Gospels are also great reads because of the sheer incompetence of the disciples before the resurrection. If YOU were making up a religion would YOU put in your scriptures YOU committing even half of the screw-ups that the disciples got themselves into? They completely fail to understand major teachings on many occasions. Jesus calls Peter Satan. The male followers of Jesus hide in fear while the women followers go to and discover the empty tomb. They then fail to understand the meaning until he appears before them and verbally slaps them about. You have passages where large numbers of followers LEAVE after Jesus makes a statement. You have Peter denying that he was associated with Jesus during the trial. (Yea, that makes a great recruitment story, Peter is the leader of the church, the first pope, and right there you have him cowering and running away and in general being a complete incompetent.) That's not a good story to make up, but if it's what really happened then it is good history.
300 years of textual and archaeological criticism has forged some of Christianities best intellectual weapons. A few decades of those same disciplines being applied to Islam are showing it to be built on a foundation of sand.