**7. Work as Ability and Will**

Since the will to choose a nonviolent path to action without turning to coercion is essential for the theories of Sa " id, we have to turn to this book. Sa " id compares the spirit of God with the will of humans. Thus, he argues:

"This is to demonstrate that the body's spirit is its will; once the will is lost, then the body must die—it decomposes in the *same* way as the individual body decomposes and reverts to its constituent elements. When the community decomposes, its individuals, having lost the common will, will revert to their primitive interests: struggling to preserve their individual lives, not caring about the development of society. It will be an aggregate of individuals, each unto himself/herself. Indeed, the community comes into being at the time its individuals have wills that go beyond themselves as individuals and encompass the others—It is then that the society begins to exist as a body; and it is then that it is true of it to apply the Verse of the Qur'an: "To every people is a term appointed"; (10:49). It is when this happens that you imagine an *ummah* with a span of life, like an individual. The bond that brings a society together is a will that unites the individuals: one faith, one aim, one ideal . . . An ideal is the spirit of the society." (Sa " id 1984, p. 175)

Sa " id's idea of will includes the need to uphold a common will lived in a society inspired by the existence of a community that embodies a super-individual spirit. For Sa " id this community is the Muslim *ummah* as the ideal community. This ideal community Sa " id is talking about is, for him, the nonviolent society he envisions. This community is embedded in the Islamic worldview of Sa " id and may be illustrated by one example. Sa " id distinguishes between two groups:

"In Islamic tradition, we contrast two groups, the *faqihs* (scholars of Islamic legislation and rulings), and the Sufis. The latter identify themselves as the 'people of the will, or sincerity', and they designate the Sufi learner as the '*murid*, i.e., the searcher for the Truth'. To them, the illiterate, the most ignorant, can ascend to a supreme level of sincerity and will. I find this a very good application of our theoretical discussion of the will: it indicates that the will can rise to a very high level even in the illiterate and the children, both female and male, as may be attested by their willingness to offer their money and life." (Sa " id 1998, p. 283)

Hence, the will to change the personal life and society to a nonviolent one is open to every human willing to act accordingly. One author writing on Sa " id voices some criticism.

#### **8. Criticizing Sa id**"

Menghini wrote in his article on Sa " id that Sa " id's theory of Habil's path, his contextualization of nonviolence, and his exposition of the revolutionary potential of the Islamic idea of the one God (*tawhid*) as part of Sa " id's theology of nonviolence allow for a deep understanding of his ideas. Menghini, nevertheless, identifies some points to be criticized concerning his argumentation and practicability. Sa " id's selection of passages from the Qur'an and Hadith is not—according to Menghini—sufficiently explained and allegedly arbitrary. Menghini argues that there are other interpretations of these passages available (Menghini 2019, p. 56).

This kind of criticism is an example of a misunderstanding of the creative hermeneutical engagement with the Qur'anic revelation as a defective form of scholarly writing. The way of writing of an Islamic activist and believer is to be understood in internal terms as a coherent set of ideas aiming at establishing a theory of nonviolence based on the Islamic tradition. A criticism of the arbitrariness of the selection of Qur'anic and Hadith passages quote by Sa " id reveals a misunderstanding of the hermeneutical approach of Sa " id and is assuming a structure of the Qur'an and Hadith similar to a European novel of the nineteenth century. Furthermore, taking *one* book as representing all of the thoughts of one author reveals an underlying Orientalist worldview, assuming that the system of being Islamic of this author can be derived from just *one* source. Menghini is referring to the fundamentalist writer Abu A'la Mawdudi<sup>19</sup> as presenting another interpretation than Sa " id and ignoring the diversity of Islamic interpretations of sources.

This difference in interpretation demands that Sa " id provide a more structured explanation of the reasoning behind his interpretation of this passage. The same can be said about other passages he chose to include in his argument, especially those where alternative readings suggest that nonviolence may be more of a response to circumstances than conscious adherence to Habil's path. When the Prophet Muhammad, for example, invited Muslims to be patient and not use violence against polytheists in Mecca, the reason could be connected with the equilibrium of forces specific to that moment, more than with a conscious choice of nonviolence. The non-Muslims in Mecca were much stronger than the Muslims, and so the choice to not confront them with force could have been made by a strategic circumstantial justification.

The criticism goes on to assume that Sa " id should have to write a book based on academic definitions. Reading Sa " id, we have to bear in mind that these texts (and videos) of an Islamic activist are *not* academic texts on early Islamic history. The demands that these texts have to follow the rules of another field of intellectual production are absurd. The absurdity is multiplied by other demands for definitions and explanations:

"For instance, when explaining how the distinctive society will be created, Sa " id does not define what is meant by 'society'. Is this society simply Islamic, or should it be defined in terms of reach on a national or global scale?" (Menghini 2019, p. 57)

Although we might say that the critique of Menghini may be excused as a published by journal of undergraduate students, it reveals some methodological shortcomings detected in more elaborate scholarly works. Worse, it is one of the few articles analyzing a book of Sa " id available.20 Thus, this article may be regarded as a paradigmatic case. Nevertheless, Menghini continues:

"the relevance of Sa " id's work is clearly demonstrated in his innovative position on, and interpretation of, the principle of nonviolence. In constructing Habil's path as a new *madhhab* modeled on the lives of the prophets, Sa " id shows how nonviolence is a recurring theme throughout the history of Islam. As such, he makes a convincing argument that nonviolence is truly an "Islamic" principle. [ ...] Moreover, Sa " id's theorization of nonviolence as a methodology sets him apart from many other philosophers both inside and outside the Islamic world." (Menghini 2019, p. 57)

This leads us to look at the context of Islamic ideas of nonviolence. Despite the overwhelming literature on states, groups, and individuals promoting military Jihad as an Islamic duty, there is a sector of Islamic thought and activism promoting nonviolent activism. We may just mention the Pashtun activist and leader of the *Khudai Khidmatgaran* Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Easwaran 2002) or the Indian writer Wahiduddin Khan (Omar 2008a, 2008b). For our context, the Syrian writer and activist Afra Jalabi, who integrated the ideas of Jawdat Sa " id in her thought, is important (Jalabi 2018). She is the scion of a family of nonviolent activists.
