First, the admonition to repent is given to the reader in the second person, demonstrating that the Koran is speaking directly to the believers -- it is not addressed to those who would not be reading it in the first place. In essence, this passage contains no commands for the non-believers, which would be fruitless anyway. Those who interpret this passage to mean they must convert non-believers by forcing them to repent through any mean -- even violence -- are making an argument similar to those Christians who hold up the Bible as "proof" of God's existence. It is circular logic; the argument depends upon its result to remain "true." There is a more direct and less philosophically rigorous way to disprove the idea that this passage advocates violence on the part of Muslims against any non-believers. The second sentence tells the followers of Islam to "give glad tidings of painful chastisement," not to bring about this painful chastisement themselves. It is Allah's right -- and no one else's -- to bring about retribution when it is due, and in whatever form He sees fit. As the earlier part of the passage asserts, Allah will not be frustrated. The non-believers cannot actually bring any harm to the corporeal world or the divine beliefs of Islam; this would be contrary to Allah's will any by definition impossible. As such, there is no rational reason for violence to be visited upon them.

Of course, it is somewhat disingenuous to suggest that such a simplistic interpretation of this passage -- either the one detailed immediately above or prior to that and attributed to jihadists. As with any text, multiple interpretations and shades of meaning are always possible. These passages, like the word jihd, have been interpreted in many different ways over the millennia or so of Islam's existence, and few of these interpretations are as black-and-white as...

We are pacifist preachers like the mendicants and religious divines" (Jihad in Islam, 2). This is a somewhat disingenuous statement for the cleric to make; it ignores the Moorish invasion of Spain, which though arguably provoked did not necessitate the level of response that it achieved. Still, his words assert that even in the middle of strife against the Muslim people, many clerics and scholars still do not advocate violence as an acceptable response. The concept of jihad is interpreted by this scholar as a means to assert the Muslim religion in the face of opposition, and even to convert others who do not believe, but not to do so through violence or any other form of physical coercion (Jihad in Islam, 8). This is the basic concept of jihad and Islam (according to this singular interpretation), and violence would be completely antithetical to bringing others into the fold.
It is clear that the concept of jihad is still a controversial one today. Yet an examination of the Koran, by laypersons and Muslims scholars/clerics alike, reveals that the idea of violence is antithetical to basic Muslim precepts. Jihad should be viewed as an internal struggle, and perhaps a struggle to assert religion in a world that doesn't agree. But this struggle should never turn violent, as it destroys the precepts of the religion it puports to protect.