This website uses cookies to help us give you the best experience when you visit our website. By continuing to use this website, you consent to our use of these cookies.
How can the study of Zaydi jurisprudence help us understand the relationship between Imam Yaḥyā Ḥamīd al-Dīn (r. 1904-1948) and the Jews of Yemen? What sources are available for study? What further questions does the focus on dhimma law raise regarding Zaydi law and political thought?
This article introduces two Jewish accounts on the 1948 turmoil in Sanaa/Yemen to a non-Hebrew reading audience. Following the problematisation of both accounts – one by Salim Mansura (1916–2007), the other by Mordechai al-Zahiri (later Yitshari, 1930–) – as a historical source, it gives a chronological overview of the events they describe, and partly witnessed themselves. It covers their narratives on the assassination of Imam Yahya Hamid al-Din, the al-Wazir coup, the countercoup led by Imam Ahmad as well as the subsequent looting of Sanaa and its Jewish quarter. Based on the two accounts, the article analyses whether the looting had a strategic function in reconquering the city and reflects on the question as to whether the looting of the Jewish Quarter in particular was or was not intended by the authorities.
Abstract Many of the arguments for and against robust moral realism parallel arguments for and against theism. In this article, I consider one of the shared challenges: the explanatory challenge. The article begins with a presentation of Harman's formulation of the explanatory challenge as applied to moral realism and theism. I then examine two responses offered by robust moral realists to the explanatory challenge, one by Russ Shafer-Landau and another by David Enoch. Shafer-Landau argues that the moral realist can plausibly respond to the challenge in a way unavailable to theists. I argue that Shafer-Landau's response is implausible as it stands and that once revised, it will apply to theism just as well. I then argue that Enoch's response, to the extent that it is plausible, can be used to defend theism as well.
How can the study of Zaydi jurisprudence help us understand the relationship between Imam Yaḥyā Ḥamīd al-Dīn (r. 1904-1948) and the Jews of Yemen? What sources are available for study? What further questions does the focus on dhimma law raise regarding Zaydi law and political thought?
This article introduces two Jewish accounts on the 1948 turmoil in Sanaa/Yemen to a non-Hebrew reading audience. Following the problematisation of both accounts – one by Salim Mansura (1916–2007), the other by Mordechai al-Zahiri (later Yitshari, 1930–) – as a historical source, it gives a chronological overview of the events they describe, and partly witnessed themselves. It covers their narratives on the assassination of Imam Yahya Hamid al-Din, the al-Wazir coup, the countercoup led by Imam Ahmad as well as the subsequent looting of Sanaa and its Jewish quarter. Based on the two accounts, the article analyses whether the looting had a strategic function in reconquering the city and reflects on the question as to whether the looting of the Jewish Quarter in particular was or was not intended by the authorities.
Abstract Many of the arguments for and against robust moral realism parallel arguments for and against theism. In this article, I consider one of the shared challenges: the explanatory challenge. The article begins with a presentation of Harman's formulation of the explanatory challenge as applied to moral realism and theism. I then examine two responses offered by robust moral realists to the explanatory challenge, one by Russ Shafer-Landau and another by David Enoch. Shafer-Landau argues that the moral realist can plausibly respond to the challenge in a way unavailable to theists. I argue that Shafer-Landau's response is implausible as it stands and that once revised, it will apply to theism just as well. I then argue that Enoch's response, to the extent that it is plausible, can be used to defend theism as well.
