Yemeni Shiite rebels overtake key tribal area, defeat dominant Sunni tribes

[al-Hasani]

The Houthis are Zaydi Shias and they make up 35-40% of Yemen's population. Zaydi Shia's are extremely close to Sunni Muslims especially Sunni Muslims of the Shafi'i fiqh which is the main Sunni fiqh in Yemen.

The Houthis only have a stronghold in the tiny Northwestern corner of Yemen and the mountains there so they will not succeed. This news is also very exaggerated. I have been following the news from Yemeni sources and the Yemeni army are in control now alongside the tribes. The main problem is that there are several main problems in Yemen right now.

The transition from the Ali Abdullah Saleh regime, political disputes, the North/South divide, the battle against Al-Qaede on the Arabian Peninsula and the Houthi's. Then there is the economic situation. A lot to see. But the army and central government are getting stronger and stronger and the parties are beginning to find political solutions best exemplified with the Yemeni parties agreeing with federalism which is a good thing and which does not equal separatism. Yemen is a big and quite diverse country so federalism is not a bad idea.

 

[Surenas]

^ Couple of notes.

1) Houthis are considered to be Shia because they accept the Ahl al-Bayt doctrine.
2) It doesn't really matter to what extent the Zaydis are religiously close to other Shia groups, or Sunni groups. They may be religiously close to Sunnis, but politically they aren't. They are politically more closer to Iran than to Saudi Arabia. This is by far the most important notion.

 

[al-Hasani]

^ Couple of notes.

1) Houthis are considered to be Shia because they accept the Ahl al-Bayt doctrine.
2) It doesn't really matter to what extent the Zaydis are religiously close to other Shia groups, or Sunni groups. They may be religiously close to Sunnis, but politically they aren't. They are politically more closer to Iran than to Saudi Arabia. This is by far the most important notion.

Actually no. They don't even believe in the 12 Shia Twelver Imam doctrine. From what I recall their only real emphasis is on Ali (ra) and his two sons (Hasan (ra) and Hussein (ra) ).
And they have no problem with the 4 rightly guided Caliphs that all Sunnis recognize (Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra), Uthman (ra) and Ali (ra) )

They are extremely close to Sunnis and there are no main problems between those two groups in Yemen. Many intermarriages as well. Yemen was always a tolerant country with among the biggest Jewish communities (still present although not many), Afro-Arabs, Turks, Indians, Horn of Africans and many others.

The Houthi-Iran connection is vastly overrated. But at the end of the day we are only talking about a small political/religious cult with a limited influence in a small corner of Yemen. They are not any spokesmen for the Zaydi community in Yemen. The conflict is actually more bound in territory, resources, tribes and historical disputes rather than just religion. But it has been fueled in that direction recently.

Earlier in Yemen the biggest divide was communism/liberalism and before that monarchy/republic.

Are you really studying Middle Eastern history? Are those classes in English or Dutch?

 

[Surenas]

Actually no. They don't even believe in the 12 Shia Twelver Imam doctrine. From what I recall their only real emphasis is on Ali (ra) and his two sons (Hasan (ra) and Hussein (ra) ).

Accepting the Ahl al-Bayt doctrine doesn't necessarily mean that they have to acknowledge all Imams the Ja'afari's acknowledge. It simply means that they believe that the rightful leader of the Islamic community should come from the household of Muhammad, from the marriage between Fatimah and Ali. They differ from the Twelvers about the amount of rightful imams after Ali, and the fact that the Zaydis believe that any descendent from Hussain and Hassan can fulfill this role.

And they have no problem with the 4 rightly guided Caliphs that all Sunnis recognize (Abu Bakr (ra), Umar (ra), Uthman (ra) and Ali (ra)

If I remember correctly, the Zaydis supported Ali's criticism against Uthman, because of his corrupt and decadent rule. But they do acknowledge the other caliphs though. But they do not accept the Abbasids and Ummayids AFAIK.

Are you really studying Middle Eastern history? Are those classes in English or Dutch?

No, I am studying Modern Middle East. History of the Middle East is just one course of the study. Other courses are Introduction into Islam, Persian/Turkish/Arab (you have to pick one) grammatical course, Linguistic history of the Middle East (Afro-Asiatic i.e. Semitic, Iranic and Turkic languages) and Area studies (orientalism, colonialism, etc).

The classes are in English. But the exams can be made in Dutch as well.

 

[KingMamba]

Never understood the Shias, vast majority of Ahlul Bayt are Sunnis yet they be like we support the Ahlul Bayt.

 

[Surenas]

Never understood the Shias, vast majority of Ahlul Bayt are Sunnis yet they be like we support the Ahlul Bayt.

Ahl al Bayt i.e. Ahl al-Kisa for the Shiites. They weren't Sunnis.

 

[KingMamba]

Ahl al Bayt i.e. Ahl al-Kisa for the Shiites. They weren't Sunnis.

You are saying the Ahl Kisa were Shias? No they were not heck even the first few Imams never referred to themselves as such. Jafar as Sadiq RA even taught Abu Hanifa Islamic law as he was a student of his. Jafar as Sadiq RA was even related to Abu Bakr and accepted his caliphate as legitimate as did Zaid bin Ali which is why the "rafida" rejected him.

 

[Surenas]

You are saying the Ahl Kisa were Shias? No they were not heck even the first few Imams never referred to themselves as such. Jafar as Sadiq RA even taught Abu Hanifa Islamic law as he was a student of his. Jafar as Sadiq RA was even related to Abu Bakr and accepted his caliphate as legitimate as did Zaid bin Ali which is why the "rafida" rejected him.

No, I didn't said that. I just said that they weren't Sunnis. The Shia identity only fully developed after the Battle of Karbala. Before that moment, the Shia movement was just a political movement. The religious identity came much later.

 

[al-Hasani]

Accepting the Ahl al-Bayt doctrine doesn't necessarily mean that they have to acknowledge all Imams the Ja'afari's acknowledge. It simply means that they believe that the rightful leader of the Islamic community should come from the household of Muhammad, from the marriage between Fatimah and Ali. They differ from the Twelvers about the amount of rightful imams after Ali, and the fact that the Zaydis believe that any descendent from Hussain and Hassan can fulfill this role.


If I remember correctly, the Zaydis supported Ali's criticism against Uthman, because of his corrupt and decadent rule. But they do acknowledge the other caliphs though. But they do not accept the Abbasids and Ummayids AFAIK.



No, I am studying Modern Middle East. History of the Middle East is just one course of the study. Other courses are Introduction into Islam, Persian/Turkish/Arab (you have to pick one) grammatical course, Linguistic history of the Middle East (Afro-Asiatic i.e. Semitic, Iranic and Turkic languages) and Area studies (orientalism, colonialism, etc).

The classes are in English. But the exams can be made in Dutch as well.

Sunni Muslims have no problem with the Ahl al-Bayt. In fact respecting the Ahl al-Bayt is something universally accepted by all Muslims. It is a fundamental thing of Islam to respect and honor the prodigy of Prophet Muhammad (saws). In household Islamic prayers even.

You have to remember that all of the 4 rightly guided Calips that Sunni Muslims universally agree with are related to Prophet Muhammad and the Banu Hashim either through common shared ancestry or through marriage. All belonged to the ancient Makkawi Quraysh tribe for instance who were a merchant tribe.

Zaydi's put special emphasis on Ali (ra) and his two sons (Hasan (ra) and Hussein (ra). They believe that the prodigy from those three persons are suitable to lead the Ummah if the prodigy has the right virtues. For instance they do not recognize the 12 Imams that the Ja'afari school of thought as you already wrote.

Actually the Zaydis are the oldest of all Shia sects and ironically the most close to Sunni Islam.

Law
In matters of Islamic jurisprudence, the Zaydis follow Zayd ibn ’Ali's teachings which are documented in his book Majmu’ al-Fiqh (Arabic: مجموع الفِقه‎). Zaydi fiqh is similar to the Hanafi and Shafi'i school of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence.[9] Abu Hanifa, a Sunni madhab founder, was favorable and even donated towards the Zaydi cause.[10]

Theology
In matters of theology, the Zaydis are close to the Mu'tazili school, though they are not Mu'tazilite. There are a few issues between both schools, most notably the Zaydi doctrine of the Imamate, which is rejected by the Mu'tazilites. Of the Shi'a, Zaydis are most similar to Sunnis[11] since Zaydism shares similar doctrines and jurisprudential opinions with Sunni scholars.[12]

Actually I read about the Zaydis long ago and don't recall much to be honest with you but if I research a little about them, especially the Arabic sources, I will return and explain more. In general though they are very close to Sunni Muslims of the Shafi'i fiqh. In fact on most instances closer to them than the remaining Shias. Hence there were never really sectarian conflicts among the people of Yemen.

The Houthi's are as representative for the Zaydis in Yemen as Al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula are for the Sunnis of Yemen. Both are quite frankly a cancer.

Sounds interesting. Then I guess that this forum is sometimes a field study for itself, LOL. Do you read the original works in Arabic/Persian/Turkic or just translated works. Have you done any field study? I mean visits to Turkey, Iran or the Arab world for instance? Sounds interesting anyway. Is it a hybrid between history and Islam with a emphasis on the Middle East for obvious reasons? Are some of the professors from the ME or are most just locals?

 

[xenon54 out]

No, I am studying Modern Middle East. History of the Middle East is just one course of the study. Other courses are Introduction into Islam, Persian/Turkish/Arab (you have to pick one) grammatical course, Linguistic history of the Middle East (Afro-Asiatic i.e. Semitic, Iranic and Turkic languages) and Area studies (orientalism, colonialism, etc).
The classes are in English. But the exams can be made in Dutch as well.

I believe your a smart guy but sometimes you have racist outbreaks which makes your comments look ridiculous.

Just my two cents, no offence.

 

[Full Moon]

Some of the Mullahs' money is better spent on reducing the price of chicken in Iran. They are instead spending it to reduce the value of our blood.

What a surprise.

 

[al-Hasani]

@Surenas

This little slideshow is actually quite accurate and gives a basic and nice overview. There are some google books that are useful as well but they are several hundred pages long so not for this forum.

Zaidiyyah | mohamad meftah - Academia.edu

It is mentioned that the Zaydi school is sometimes thought of as the "Fifth School of Sunni Islam" and the general closeness to Sunni Islam is also emphasized like practically in every other source.

Anyway that does not mean that the Zaydis are not a different entity altogether or that the Houthis' who I consider a political cult/terrorist group have not more political closeness to the current Iranian regime. They have that because the Iranian regime give them moral/political support and to a smaller extent military support but that is heavily exaggerated. KSA is an enemy for them and even more so an enemy that borders them and who they have been at war with.

Operation Scorched Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is quite a ancient and beautiful area of Yemen so it is a shame that it is suffering from conflicts and other problems.

Anyway there are no real sectarian conflict in Yemen. This is not Iraq. The conflict is bound in the issues I explained. Religion is only used to fuel that conflict.

 

[Doritos11]

Anyway there are no real sectarian conflict in Yemen. This is not Iraq. The conflict is bound in the issues I explained. Religion is only used to fuel that conflict.

There wasn’t here either aside from your garbage coming to us, the real secterian hatred starts in Saudi Arabia which hosts terrorists like Al Arour speaking about putting people in meat grinders.

 

[al-Hasani]

There wasn’t here either aside from your garbage coming to us, the real secterian hatred starts in Saudi Arabia which hosts terrorists like Al Arour speaking about putting people in meat grinders.

You don't know anything about Islamic history nor your own countries history. You have shown that time and time again. When Saddam Hussein ruled there was discrimination against Shias and massacres there. Nobody other than Iraqis were doing this. Arab-Kurdish conflict etc. List is very long. Sectarianism has a very long history in Iraq. More than in any other country in the ME. Even the split of Islam occurred in Iraq. Most of your sectarians are local. ISIS is founded in Iraq and led by Iraqis. So are all the other Shia terrorist groups. If there was no sectarianism they would not exist.

Anyway speaking about trash then 20.000 Iraqi Shia Arab terrorists are present in Syria. Quite a feat. And thousands of Iraqi Sunni Arabs on the other side.

You can in no way compare it with Yemen.

Anyway don't go off-topic in this thread. Not interested in your idiotic posts.

 

[Doritos11]

You don't know anything about Islamic history nor your own countries history. When Saddam Hussein ruled there was discrimination against Shias and massacres there. Nobody other than Iraqis were doing this. Sectarianism has a very long history in Iraq. More than in any other country. Even the split of Islam occurred in Iraq. Most of your sectarians are local.

Anyway speaking about trans then 20.000 Iraqi Shia Arab terrorists are present in Syria. Quite a feat.

Anyway don't go off-topic in this thread. Not interested in your idiotic posts.

Saddam didn’t discriminate on Shias in particular but on anyone that opposes his rule.