Well I only have a cursory knowledge of the Koran, although from what I have read it does say that Jews and Christians are to be given protection by the law and allowed to practice their religion (as they are considered people of the book), so I'm curious whether unbelievers in the instances you cite refers to any non-muslim or simply not worshippers of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God.
They're allowed to practice their religion so long as they're "made to feel themselves oppressed" (Q 9: 29). This is a point long ignored. The "protection" extended to them lasts, according to a literal reading, only so long as they remain oppressed and suppressed - and there are plenty of both islamic jurists and conservative practitioners ready to take this up exactly at face value. Riots against religious minorities in Pakistan (as well as the ethnic cleansing of non-muslims there), Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Turkey and Iran probably stem from this inherent assumption of supremacy and its liturgical basis; I would suspect this is also the reason that prosetylization of non-muslim religions in dar-al-islam is illegal. I recall some Turks being arrested for it a month or so back; there are abundant other cases, of course.
I do know, however, that even though there may be nothing in the New Testament to condone acts of violence against unbelievers that hasn't stopped Christians (at various times) from acting as if there is.
True. They have no scriptural support for intolerance or violence, however, which in the interest of fairness is something. It can honestly be said that violence
by Christians is not condoned by their religious texts.
As for the Old Testament, there may be no injunctions to kill unbelievers but it certainly seems that God encourages violence towards the enemies of Israel. As for Jews murdering people for changing their religion, the Bible says the penalty for having another god before Jehovah is stoning. Now it may be that current interpretation suggests that's the wrong response but its in there in case anyone wants to resurrect it.
True, yet they would have to change recent Jewish religious law to kill anyone who left Judaism; the incidence of samesuch is quite low. Compare this to all four islamic legal schools (Hanafi included) that have, do, and probably will continue to mandate death for apostates (those leaving islam); Hanafi does allow a woman a couple of weeks to change her mind, I think. That or Hanbali. Can't remember. Oddly, this aspect of islamic religious law is normally met with either vigorous defense,
tu quoque or avoidance in debate.
So I would still say that you need to consider who is interpreting the text (in this case the Koran) and what social, political, etc. factors are affecting that interpretation. To look at any text without also considering the reader is a mistake if you wish to understand how that text is affecting that person.
This is generally true; yet apostacy, for instance, is illegal the length and breadth of dar-al-islam, and most viciously so in Saudi Arabia, which is also the most affluent state therein. I think that it is also a mistake to assume that social and political factors alone determine religious attitudes. Catholics, for instance, are almost uniformly against abortion, irrespective of their social and economic backgrounds.
So, does anyone know what verses of the Koran Muslims use to justify their violence? Anyone?
Sura 9. Especially Q 9: 5 and 9: 29. Pretty much gives the whole picture, and explains extant socioreligious tolerances (or, rather, their absence) in dar-al-islam, with the exception possibly of Lebanon.
