Osomir
VIP Member
Sources to provide what? That you've been humiliated several times in this thread? Yeah, Shia ullama never ruled, and Princeton told you that!Actually that was Princeton.Let me know if you have any sources that support your stances, I have already provided several that support mine; including one from Khomeini himself.
You're fulla shiite!
Rassids
The Imams of Yemen and later the Kings of Yemen were religiouslyconsecratedleaders belonging to the Zaidiyyah branch of Shia Islam. They established a blend of religious and secular rule in parts of Yemen from 897. Their imamate endured under varying circumstances until the republican revolution in 1962. Zaidiyyah theology differed from Ismailis or Twelver Shi'ites by stressing the presence of an active and visible imam as leader. The imam was expected to be knowledgeable in religious sciences, and to prove himself a worthy headman of the community, even in battle if this was necessary. A claimant of the imamate would proclaim a "call" (da'wa), and there were not infrequently more than one claimant.[1] The historian Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) mentions the clan that usually provided the imams as the Banu Rassi or Rassids.[2] In the original Arab sources the term Rassids is otherwise hardly used; in Western literature it usually refers to the Imams of the medieval period, up to the 16th century. The Rassid branch that came to power with imam al-Mansur al-Qasim(r. 1597-1620) is known as Qasimids (Al al-Qasimi).
******Now, go hide in your private room. Ha ha ha
1.) The Zaidis are not part of 12er Shiism, Nor do they follow Jafari or usuli structures. If you need to go to a completely different branch of Islam in order to prove your point then You should probably think about readjusting your initial point.
2.) The Imamate in Yemen was, even in Yemen and among the Zaidis a historical aberration and a break from traditional Zaidi practices. That being said, it wasn't ruled by a council of ulama, it was ruled by a single individual who was an authoritarian leader.
Dresch, Paul 2000 A History of Modern Yemen.
Zaidiyyah - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
yes, I'm lazy, still making my coffee
From the Modern History of Yemen as referenced above:
"When the Turks again took Sanaa, in 1872, al-Mutawakkil Mushin moved north and sustained his claim as Imam (political leader) in accordance with the Zaydi school of Islamic law. Though it had once, in the seventeenth century, produced the Qasimi dynastic state or dawlah, Zaydism had usually been a tradition of the anti-state... nor did most Zaydi scholars accept dynastic succession."
Named for Zayd b. Ali, grandson of Husayn. They might be among the most moderate but they are shiite.
They are a completely different branch of Islam than is 12 Shiism. Different schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Also worth noting that:
1.) Even Zaidis are traditionally anti-state as I referenced above
2.) Even if you want to include them under some larger and generalized Shia label despite their jurisprudential differences and differing ulama, then I'd still point out that finding one example over the course of over a thousand years of history doesn't support the contention that Iranian style Shiism was the historical norm.
3.) Zaidis recognize several Imams (leaders) simultaneously, and they differ in their capacity to the 7 Imams that they revere theologically; and their states have been traditionally run autocratically by the "imam" not through the use of a council of ulama or through formal religious institutions.
Last edited:
