Page 108 - Arabian Studies (V)

98 Arabian Studies V
Many Americans seem to have been susceptible to propaganda
prejudicial to the Sayyids. A Foreign Service officer19 displays this
bias markedly in speaking of a dole issued to some Sayyids by the
Imam on which they lived, averring of Sayyids in general that
‘seldom were they known to engage in gainful activity other than as
officials of the Imamate’. Quite on the contrary, numbers of
Sayyids in San‘a’ are engaged in business and even in the manual
crafts. In exploring this alleged ‘dole’ with informed Yemenis the
following statements emerged. In Yahya’s time a Daftar al-
Sadaqah, also called Dar al-Pashat, was set up in San‘a’ near al-
‘Urdl, the Barracks, which provided needy persons with two baps
(kidmah) of bread a day, and two riyals per month. It was main­
tained by the Bayt al-Mal, the Treasury. Many persons had
monthly stipends Ctnurattabat), Sayyids, Qadis, and others even if
not officials—in some cases at least these seem to have been
supporters of Imam Yahya before the departure of the Turks.
These came from the Bayt al-Mal or al-Khizanat al-‘Ammah. From
the time of Yahya the revenues, whether zakat, aid (musa'adat),
jizyah (poll-tax on non-Muslims) or other taxes had become mixed
together in the Bayt al-Mal, but no distinction was made in stipends
(ma€ashat) and gifts from it made by the Imam, between a Sayyid
or a member of any other class. M. Wenner’s20 assertion that a
worth while result of the 1962 coup was that ‘it eliminated most of
the influence and power of the Sayyid class, probably the largest
stumbling block to reform in the past’ is an unwarranted aspersion
on a class that produced numbers of able men, whether as adminis­
trators, scholars or others. These dicta reveal a fundamental lack of
understanding of Yemeni society.
Ahmad al-Shaml had commenced on a counterblast to Zubayri’s
tract but had abandoned work on it and, in Beirut in 1969,
permitted me to copy from his draft.
He points out that the Imamate is not ‘a sectarian factional
concept* (cf. para. 4 a infra) of the Zaydls but every Muslim saw it
was essential to choose the Imam so as to have a source of reference
(marja*) and reliance (amiri)—on this Shafi'Is, Zaydls and all other
schools concur, even if they differ as to persons and methods of
selection. He avers that Shafi‘Is believe in loyalty and absolute
obedience to the Imam more than the Zaydls. He is unaware of any
‘tenets, religious rites, and sectarian laws’ (para. 4b) the Imamate
imposes on the ShafiTs. He does not deny there have been indivi­
dual Imams who have ruled unjustly and acted wrongfully or
tyranically like (secular) monarchs, but this is no more the fault
of the Imamate as an institution than a criminal’s actions are the
fault of thtsharVah.

II

I
=