Howard Zinn on Intelligence

From one of the greatest political scientists in American history. Zinn comments on the legacy of Robert McNamara, the deceased former Secretary of Defense under JFK and LBJ.

Well, assessing the legacy … It seems to me one things which we should be thinking about, is that McNamara represented all of those superficial qualities of brightness and intelligence and education that are so revered in our culture. This whole idea that you judge young kids today on the basis of what their test scores are, how smart they are, how much information they can digest, how much they can give back to you and remember. That’s what MacNamara was good at. He was bright and he was smart, but he had no moral intelligence. What strikes me as one of the many things we can learn from this McNamara experience is that we’ve got to stop revering these superficial qualities of brightness and smartness, and bring up a generation which thinks in moral terms, which has moral intelligence, and which asks questions not, “Do we win or do we lose?” Asks questions, " Is this right? Is it wrong?" And McNamara never asked that question. Even when he was leaving, even when he decided he had to leave the post of Secretary of Defense, even when he left, his leaving was not based on the fact that the war was wrong. His leaving was based on the fact, well, we weren’t going to win.

This comment is easily applicable to all generations of youth. Our society has a bad habit of putting an emphasis on the test scores kids get and not on less tangible characteristics, like moral uprightness, character, honesty, courage.

I have known my fair share of child geniuses - the ones with the super high SAT scores, the ones who get into the top med schools and law schools. Most of the time they're like human machines, with super dedication to school work, who engage in occasional charitable work, but who would never dedicate their life to a worthy cause. They are the products of their parents who groom them to become socially acceptable elites. These are the people who usually become the heirs of super rich elites who keep their mouths shut and go with the flow to avoid causing any trouble and jeopardizing their social rank/job prospects/marital prospects.

In contrast, I have known plenty of men and women who went to small schools and do amazing things with their lives and who live for helping and aiding others through their God given gifts and talents. These people are never patted on the back, they were never expected to amount to anything special.

Yes, there are people who go to the top schools, get super high SAT scores and turn out to be great leaders and activists. But the vast majority are trained to play it safe, keep quiet and engage in socially acceptable forms of activism... like speaking out about Darfur and not Gaza or Iraq or Afghanistan. It's easy to speak out about Darfur, our government has claimed there is genocide going on there. You have the state's support. Say all that you want. But as for the three others cases, speak out and risk losing your social status. Kids today, especially in higher social ranks, are encouraged by parents, teachers, and others to shut up and ignore the crimes of our own government, and instead focus on the evil of other nations.

Our parents and teachers and elders should be teaching our youth to speak out against our own government's crimes, first and foremost, because that's what we can change and alter most easily. It's like when people tell Muslims in America to fix the Saudi government's policies towards women and minorities. I don't live there so how am I going to change anything there???

But it's easy to take up tasks like that. It's also safe. Maybe you will lose your job if you start getting ancy about government policies domestically and internationally. Maybe your friends will shun you. Maybe your family will think your crazy.

But that's the sacrifice we all make when we decide to speak out for the truth and fight against oppression and tyrrany. You don't have to get a 1400 on your SAT or go to Yale law school to understand that.

Uncles, Aunties, and the Internet

I am sure if you are a Pakistani American and you know Pakistani uncles and aunties in your local community who use the internet and email that you have eventually received an email from them telling you about how Starbucks is funneling money to support the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian Territories (the IDF has a never ending supply of lattes), or how Apple was building a replica of the Kabah in downtown Manhattan (this chain letter apparently began in 2006 or so, and I receieved it again just a few months ago).

Us younger more sophisticated and savvy internet users know better than to believe everything we get in our inbox. We know that the emails we receive are full of crap sometimes. Soemtimes it's some dude in Nigeria or Ghana telling us that we were selected to inherit $758,434,334,547,494.98. Just send over your social security number and it's all good. Alas, the elders in our community are not so wise.

A respected uncle/relative told me the other day that Australia has banned jummah prayers.

I was like, "wha?" With one eyebrow raised.

Well, he told me that and told me something even crazier... the person leading the prayer at the mosque that night, someone I know, was in tears and recited prayers condemning Australia for banning jummah prayers. The people at the mosque that night, the uncle told me, were distraught at how a Western country could ban the Friday congregational prayers, fearing America might be next.

I was shocked, too. At how lacking in common sense these uncles were.

Frankly, I have seen this same issue occur in my local Muslim community before. That's the sad part. But what's worrisome is that our elders are vulnerable to chain emails. This is similar to what occurred in the Jewish community in South Florida with the "Barack Obama is a secret Muslim" chain letter that went out before last November's election. Many elder people in South Florida still believe that Obama is a secret Muslim.

Well, I grabbed a laptop and did a Google search of the claim. I typed in "Australia and jummah prayer."

What came up?

Nothing telling me that jummah prayer was banned in Australia. So I then went to Al-Jazeera because I figured if any news media web site would be discussing this, it would be the folks over at Al-Jazeera.

Nada. Nothing.

Of course Austalia had not banned jummah prayers! What the hell is wrong with these people!?!

I told the uncle that this was completely bogus and he should warn others that they should not be spreading such misinformation because one, it makes people sound crazy, and two, it's spreading a lie.

Anyone heard of that verse in the Qur'an telling believers to verify the truth of an accusation before they spread it to others?

The result was that some people in the community were spreading a rumor that Australia has banned jummah prayers. Apparently there is some jerkoff out there who has nothing better to do than write bogus emails trying to get Muslims to hate certain Western countries and corporations.

There's the one about Starbucks, Coca-Cola, the Netherlands, and now... Australia.

I checked Snopes.com, the information clearinghouse for chain emails, and they didn't even have this crazy chain email listed. Instead, they had an email alleging that Australia wanted to kick Muslims out entirely. I guess it's better to just have jummah banned, at least you can still live and work in the country.

The moral of the story: if you have parents or some other elder relative who uses the internet and uses email, warn them to use common sense. Because if they don't, and they tell others about these ridiculous stories, it makes our entire community seem like paranoid conspiracy mongers. I mean, we're already considered paranoid conspiracy mongers by many Westerners, so let's not exploit ourselves for the benefit of people who already don't like Muslims.

And if your parent or relative insists on spreading these chain emails, please report their account to their service provider and have them banned. I'm kidding. Sort of. But please, let's stop the retardation of our uncles and aunties by giving them good advice. It's an easy way of preventing the embarassment of community leaders who are clueless and believe that whatever they recieve in their inbox is as sound as Sahih Bukhari (there are no "daef" emails, I guess).

The internet is a great tool. But left in the hands of uncles and aunties, it can be a dangerous device if not used with caution and care. Let's all do our part and become filters for our parents and relatives. Lest the Australians suffer a worldwide Muslim protest for no reason.

Uyghurs and China

What's happening in China? I have found two articles (one from the Left and one from the Right) discussing the Uyghur protests in China. The grievances of the Uyghurs seems legitimate and deserves more attention, but since they are Muslims, it seems they may not get the attention they deserve from our press. They definitely won't get love from the far-Right, who can't possibly seem to fathom the idea that Muslims could ever be oppressed.

As to the fact that some Uyghurs were found in Afghanistan, but were subsequently released, demonstrates the problems with the war the U.S. is fighting. Many innocent people are getting rounded up with religious extremists. But while most of the Uyghurs are using protests to make change, some from their ethnic group are restorting to terrorism.

Chinese authorities also have alleged that the East Turkestan Islamic Movement has ties to al-Qaeda. Allegedly, Hasan Mahsum, the group’s founder and leader, was a protégé of Osama bin Laden, who offered his spiritual, logistical and financial support. Mashum denied these claims; however, in 2003, he was shot dead in an al-Qaeda training facility in Pakistan, indicating that perhaps this link was true. The Chinese government has also said that many of the group’s members have trained at al-Qaeda’s training camps, which were then based in Afghanistan.

The truth of such allegations remains difficult to determine, since many originate with China’s state-run media. But there is credible proof that the United States should have some concerns about the East Turkestan Islamic Movement. There is no doubt that many of its members were captured at al-Qaeda training bases after the invasion of Afghanistan. In addition, Kyrgyztan officials sent two East Turkestan Islamic Movement members back to China, claiming they were scouting out Western embassies in the city of Bishkek for a potential attack. U.S. forces also captured a group of Uighurs after the invasion of Afghanistan, ultimately releasing them to Albania, Bermuda and a tiny Pacific Island nation named Palau.

This is the problem with Muslims in the modern age. Muslims have many legitimate grievances, but these grievances become tainted by the actions of extremists. Palestine, Lebanon, Chechnya, and other places are all similar.

Violence is and must be a last resort. Terrorism is not Islamic. Islam does not condone the killing of innocent people (non-combatants). This is consistanty mentioned in the books of fiqh.

Defensive jihad justifications don't fly either because such a notion is for the people of the territory that is attacked. The fiqh books that mentioned defensive jihad radiating out to other Islamic lands was for a time and place that is so different from today that using such a foreign policy is inapplicable considering the foreign relations and treatises currently in place in the world. Jihadists want to fight, always, no matter what. Fighting is not the answer to achieve peace, except in nominal situations. People in the modern era have achieved their freedom and liberation through non-violent means. Muslims must adhere to such a philosophy if they want to adhere to their religion and if they want to achieve peace.

Peace prospects? Slim to none after Netanyahu's speech

Uri Avnery, the activist of activists in Israel for peace, has written a strait forward article on Benjamin Netanyahu's speech regarding a Palestinian state. Basically, Bibi is playing the same old Israeli game of saying Israel wants peace, but then making proposals they know the Palestinians and Arab states will not accept, such as a demilitarized state, no refugee negotiations, etc.

The point of the speech was to appease Obama, while making Israel seem like it was willing to work for a two-state settlement. Anyone who knows anything about Netanyahu, knows damn well Obama will probably have to point a gun to Bibi's head in order to ever get him to agree to a Palestinian state. The odds of Netanyahu and the current Israeli government ever agreeing to a historic agreement with the Palestinians are almost none in my opinion.

THE ENTIRE speech was addressed to one single person: Barack Obama. It was not designed to appeal to the Palestinians. It was quite clear that the Palestinians are only the passive object of a discussion between the President of the USA and the Prime Minister of Israel. Except in some tired old clichés, Netanyahu spoke about them, not to them.

He is ready, so he says, to conduct negotiations with the “Palestinian community”, and that, of course, “without preconditions”. Meaning: without Palestinian preconditions. On Netanyahu’s part, there are plenty of preconditions, every one of which is designed to make certain that no Palestinian, no Arab and indeed no Muslim will agree to enter negotiations.

Condition 1: The Arabs have to recognize Israel as “the nation-state of the Jewish people” (and not just “a Jewish state”, as many in the media erroneously reported.) As Hosny Mubarak has already answered: No Arab will accept this, because it would mean that 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel are cut off from the state, and because it would deny in advance the Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees - the main bargaining chip of the Arab side.

It should be remembered that when the United Nations resolved in 1947 to partition Palestine between a “Jewish state” and an “Arab state”, they did not mean to define the character of the states. They were just stating facts: there are two mutually hostile populations in the country, and therefore the country has to be divided between them. (Anyhow, 40% of the population of the “Jewish” state was to consist of Arabs.)

Condition 2: The Palestinian Authority must first of all establish its rule over the Gaza Strip. How? After all, the Israeli government prevents travel between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and no Palestinian force can pass from one to the other. And the solution of the problem by establishing a Palestinian unity government is also ruled out: Netanyahu flatly declared that there would be no negotiations with a Palestinian leadership that includes “terrorists who want to annihilate us” – his way of referring to Hamas.

Condition 3: The Palestinian state will be demilitarized. This is not a new idea. All peace plans that have been put forward up to now speak about security arrangements that would protect Israel from Palestinian attacks and Palestine from Israeli attacks. But that is not what Netanyahu has in mind: he did not speak about mutuality, but about domination. Israel would control the air space and the border crossings of the Palestinian state, turning it into a kind of giant Gaza Strip. Also, Netanyahu’s style was deliberately overbearing and humiliating: he obviously hopes that the word ‘demilitarized” would be enough to get the Palestinians to say “no”.

Condition 4: Undivided Jerusalem will remain under Israeli rule. This was not proposed as an opening gambit for negotiations but presented as a final decision. That by itself ensures that no Palestinian, nor any Arab or even any Muslim, could accept the proposal.

In the Oslo Agreement, Israel undertook to negotiate about the future of Jerusalem. It is an accepted legal rule that if one undertakes to negotiate, one accepts to do so bona fide, on the basis of give and take. Therefore, all peace plans provide that East Jerusalem - wholly or partly – will be returned to Arab rule.

Condition 5: Between Israel and the Palestinian state there will be “defensible borders”. These are code-words for extensive annexations by Israel. Their meaning: no return to the 1967 borders, not even with a swap of territory that would allow for some of the large settlements to be joined to Israel. In order to create “defensible borders”, a major part of the occupied Palestinian territories (which altogether make up just 22% of pre-1948 Palestine) will be absorbed into Israel.

Condition 6: The refugee problem will be solved “outside the territory of Israel”. Meaning: not a single refugee will be allowed to return. True, all realistic people agree that there can be no return of millions of refugees. According to the Arab peace initiative, the solution must be “mutually agreed” – which means that Israel has to agree to any solution. The assumption is that the two parties will agree on the return of a symbolic number. This is a highly charged and sensitive matter, which must be treated with prudence and the utmost sensitivity. Netanyahu does the opposite: his provocative statement, devoid of all empathy, is clearly designed to bring about an automatic refusal.

Condition 7: No settlement freeze. The “normal life” of the settlers will continue. Meaning: the building activity for the “natural increase” will go on. This illustrates the saying of Michael Tarazy, a legal advisor to the PLO: “We are negotiating about sharing a pizza, and in the meantime Israel is eating it.”

All this was in the speech. No less interesting is what was not in it. For example, the words: Road Map. Annapolis. Palestine. The Arab peace plan. Occupation. Palestinian Sovereignty. Opening of the Gaza Strip border crossings. Golan Heights. And, even more important: there was not a hint of respect for the enemy who must be turned into a friend, in the words of the ancient Jewish saying.

Read the rest.

Greenwald on Iran

The astute Glenn Greenwald points out the hypocrisy of the right wing leadership. Sometimes they want just want to kill everyone within the nation they despise without hesitation, and at other times those very people they would have succumb to nuclear annihilation are their newest friends and allies.

In addition, I will stay out of the Iran election issue. I don't know a thing about the issue and it seems most analysts are having a difficult time figuring out whether the election was rigged or not. I wouldn't be surprised if the election was rigged, but then again, what does it matter if it was? It's not like either of the candidates actually controls anything in Iran. They are simply a mouthpiece for the Ayatollah who is in total control of the Iranian nation.

However, I have been a bit surprised by the tone of some left-wingers like Keith Olbermann, who has seemed to join the chorus about "what should the United States do about Iran," as if this issue has something to do with us Americans. It has absolutely nothing to do with us. How absurd would we look at a television host who would ask "what should the Iranian Republic do about the United States election results?" This is more hubris and needs to be discarded if our nation is going to be seen as one respecting other nations and their affairs without seeming to meddle in their internal politics.

I'm going to leave the debate about whether Iran's election was "stolen" and the domestic implications within Iran to people who actually know what they're talking about (which is a very small subset of the class purporting to possess such knowledge). But there is one point I want to make about the vocal and dramatic expressions of solidarity with Iranians issuing from some quarters in the U.S.

Much of the same faction now claiming such concern for the welfare of The Iranian People are the same people who have long been advocating a military attack on Iran and the dropping of large numbers of bombs on their country -- actions which would result in the slaughter of many of those very same Iranian People. During the presidential campaign, John McCain infamously sang about Bomb, Bomb, Bomb-ing Iran. The Wall St. Journal published a war screed from Commentary's Norman Podhoretz entitled "The Case for Bombing Iran," and following that, Podhoretz said in an interview that he "hopes and prays" that the U.S. "bombs the Iranians." John Bolton and Joe Lieberman advocated the same bombing campaign, while Bill Kristol -- with typical prescience -- hopefully suggested that Bush might bomb Iran if Obama were elected. Rudy Giuliani actually said he would be open to a first-strike nuclear attack on Iran in order to stop their nuclear program.

Imagine how many of the people protesting this week would be dead if any of these bombing advocates had their way -- just as those who paraded around (and still parade around) under the banner of Liberating the Iraqi People caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of them, at least. Hopefully, one of the principal benefits of the turmoil in Iran is that it humanizes whoever the latest Enemy is. Advocating a so-called "attack on Iran" or "bombing Iran" in fact means slaughtering huge numbers of the very same people who are on the streets of Tehran inspiring so many -- obliterating their homes and workplaces, destroying their communities, shattering the infrastructure of their society and their lives. The same is true every time we start mulling the prospect of attacking and bombing another country as though it's some abstract decision in a video game.

Read the rest.

Frank Gaffney is off his rocker

Thought those "Obama is a secret Muslim" smears were over? Think again.

Daniel Luban, writing on Jim Lobe's Blog, comments on Frank Gaffney's moronic piece in the Washington Times. Also, as serious as Robert Spencer and other anti-Islam bloggers are about their jobs, how can they associate themselves with someone like Pam Geller? LGF's Charles Johnson already dismissed her as a crackpot, but I am seriously surprised David Horowitz has not sent a memo to Spencer advising him to stay the hell away from Geller.

Readers in need of entertainment should really check out Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney’s howler of an op-ed in the Washington Times today. While optimists may have thought that the “Obama is a secret Muslim” rumor would fade following the 2008 elections, Gaffney’s piece demonstrates that it is back with a vengeance in the wake of Obama’s Cairo speech.

Of course, Gaffney never explicitly endorses the “secret Muslim” thesis, but rather declares that the jury is still out: “This is not to say, necessarily, that Obama is a a Muslim…” Later, he speaks of “mounting evidence that the president not only identifies with Muslims, but may still be one himself.” (Obama may “still” be one because Gaffney takes it for granted that Obama was a Muslim during his childhood years in Indonesia.) In a rather hilarious attempt to grant a facade of seriousness to his conspiracy theories, Gaffney loftily declares that “[i]n the final analysis, it may be besides the point whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim.” And later: “Whether Mr. Obama actually is a Muslim or simply plays one in the presidency may, in the end, be irrelevant.” This appears to be the standard debater’s trick amongst right-wingers who fancy themselves Serious Thinkers (cf. The New Criterion’s Roger Kimball) designed to separate them from the outright lunacy of the likes of Pamela “Obama is the illegitimate child of Malcolm X” Geller. Although evidence may suggest that Obama is a secret Muslim, Gaffney and Kimball proclaim, we have no way of knowing for sure. After all, one wouldn’t want to say anything crazy.

The particulars of Gaffney’s argument are just as entertaining as the general thesis. For instance, he claims that Obama’s phrasing about the “Holy Koran” having been “revealed” marks him as a believing Muslim. But as my colleague Eli Clifton points out, none other than George W. Bush (whose Christianity, I assume, is not under suspicion) used identical formulations. Similarly, Gaffney takes Obama’s use of the phrase “peace be upon them” as proof that he is a Muslim, when the same phrase is also used (albeit less frequently) in the Jewish tradition. (And if gestures of respect toward Islam make Obama a secret Muslim, how can we be sure that he isn’t also a secret Jew?)

Perhaps the most remarkable sentence in Gaffney’s op-ed is this one: “The man now happy to have his Islamic-rooted middle name featured prominently has engaged in the most consequential bait-and-switch since Adolf Hitler duped Neville Chamberlain over Czechoslovakia at Munich.” Of course, it is an unwritten rule that every neoconservative foreign policy column must include at least one Neville Chamberlain reference, and Gaffney has always been more than willing to oblige. (Eli points out these 2002 op-eds, in which Gaffney compares Colin Powell to Chamberlain before concluding that the analogy “may be unfair to Prime Minister Chamberlain.”) But as Jeffrey Goldberg notes (credit where it’s due), Gaffney’s use of the Munich analogy here is novel in that it casts Obama as Hitler rather than Chamberlain. Moral equivalence, indeed.

While none of these arguments would be particularly surprising coming from fringe figures like Geller, I must admit that I was startled to see them coming from Gaffney, a pillar of the neoconservative foreign policy establishment with deep ties to the defense industry. It makes sense that Gaffney has recently been palling around with Geller — just one indication of the burgeoning alliance between neoconservative hawks and the far-right Islamophobic fringe.

UPDATE from Jim:
Of course, not only has Gaffney enjoyed the generosity of the defense industry, he has also received funding from casino king Irving Moskowitz, long-time backer of the most radical and aggressive elements in the Israeli settlement movement on the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Did Obama quote the Qur'an incorrectly? Part II

A friend of my blog, Ebad, pointed out to me in the comments section of my post below that the verse Obama quoted was probably Surah 33, verse 70, which reads: "O ye who believe! Fear Allah, and (always) say a word directed to the Right" (Yusuf Ali's translation).

This verse seems to be more in line with what Obama quoted, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth," than what Spencer cited as the verse Obama quoted, "O ye who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah, and be with the truthful."

The translations are all slightly different, but in either case, as I demonstrated below, it doesn't make much of a difference (because even the verse Spencer claims Obama cited has nothing to do with "jihad warfare") except to show that it was probably Spencer who quoted the Qur'an "out of context" and then blamed Obama for quoting a verse that had to do with "jihad warfare."

Spencer should find out which verse Obama quoted and if Obama did in fact cite to Surah 33, verse 70 as Ebad noted, then he should be very, very quick to offer an apology to the President.

But when has Mr. Spencer ever been willing to admit his guilt in anything?

Did Obama quote the Qur'an incorrectly?

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch is arguing that Obama quoted a verse of the Qur'an out of context. He says this:

He quoted one Qur'an verse in connection with speaking of our shared interests as human beings:

As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Ironically, the Qur'anic passage from which his quote comes actually is about fighting unbelievers, and doesn't remotely lead to thoughts of coming together with people with whom one has differences.

Obama quoted 9:119, which Pickthall renders this way: "O ye who believe! Be careful of your duty to Allah, and be with the truthful."

Spencer adds this:

Obama picked out of this one sentence that made it appear as if the Qur'an was simply counseling one to speak the truth, mindful of the divine presence. In reality, the passage is about the necessity to wage jihad warfare against unbelievers, and not to fail to perform this duty. He took a passage about warfare and division and passed it off as part of a call for us all to come together and sing kumbaya.

Not exactly. I think it would be more accurate to say Obama cited that verse in reference to him speaking his mind to the Muslim world. He then adds some words about coming together, but I do not think those words about coming together have anything to do with the verse he cited, as Spencer makes it seem.

In fact, the tafsir regarding this verse that Obama mentioned does not discuss "jihad warfare" at all, but is restricted to discussions about honesty and truthfulness. Now, the context where the verse is placed within that surah is definitely about warfare, but that particular verse is clearly about being truthful and being with truthful people. There is only one tafsir I could find that mentioned anything about warfare in regards to this verse and it is in the Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs:

(O ye who believe!) 'Abdullah Ibn Salam and his followers as well as all other believers (Be careful of your duty to Allah) obey Allah in that which He has commanded you, (and be with the Truthful) with Abu Bakr, 'Umar and their companions when they stay behind and when they participate in jihad.

Even here, the tafsir is simply telling believers to be with the truthful people in whatever they are doing, whether in peace or war. Probably because God likes truthful, sincere people. Abu Bakr and Umar are most definitely amongst the most truthful and sincere of the believers so it is obvious that the believers of that time should follow those two Companions.

Another example demonstrates further that this verse is not about "jihad warfare" but about truthfulness and being with those who are truthful. From Imam al-Suyuti:

(be with the truthful) It contains the command to be truthful in everything and in every situation. It is used as evidence by the one who says that it is not permitted to lie in any situation either overtly or indirectly. Ibn Abi Hatim transmitted that from Ibn Mas'ud. He said that the lie is not proper either in seriousness or in jest, and he recited this ayat. He said, "You will not find any allowance for lying." It is transmitted that al-Hasan said, "If you want to be with the truthful, then must have asceticism in this world." It is transmitted that Qatada said about this ayat, "Truthfulness is in the intention and truthfulness in the action and truthfulness in night and day and truthfulness in the secret and in public."

Hmm, seems like a lot of talk about truthfulness. No mention about how being truthful has anything to do with "jihad warfare." The verse seems to be reminding the believers to be fair in all of their dealings. This is probably why the Tafsir Jalalayn says this: "O you who believe, fear God, by refraining from [acts of] disobedience to Him, and be with those who are truthful, in [their] faith and covenants, by adhering to sincerity." Again, no mention about how this verse has anything to do with "jihad warfare."

Maybe I'm missing something the ever insightful Mr. Spencer can point out to me.