Moqbil Al-Wadei, founder of Al-Salafiah Movement in Yemen, left Al-Thawrah Hospital in Sana'a two weeks ago after undergoing treatment for ten days. He was suffering from some liver problems. Reports confirm that sheikh Moqbil was planning to leave for Saudi Arabia for treatment. Other reports indicate that he is planning to leave for Germany in the next few days.
After going out of the hospital, he delivered two consecutive lectures titled "Science and the Sunnites" in Al-Khair Mosque which were attended by about 4,000 people.
Moqbil Al-Wadei is now 70 years. He was born in Wadiah district located in the middle of Hashid, Sa'adah governorate. He acquired his primary education when he came in contact with the scholars of Al-Zaidiah here in Yemen. Then, he left for Saudi Arabia where he used to work and learn at the same time. He studied in the Islamic University, in the Fundamentals of Religion Department.
He stayed in Saudi Arabia for 15 years during which he acquired the Salafiah doctrine. It was also reported that he was specialized in Al-Hadith and Sunnah Science. Following the Juhaiman event in which Juhaiman, of a Saudi nationality, was accused of planning a coup d'Žtat against the Ruling family, Al-Wadei was accused of being a supporter and was sent to jail early in the 1980s. He was imprisoned for three months and then he was deported to Yemen where he established a foundation for propagating the fundamentals of his missionary work.
He gained in popularity and eventually had a good number of supporters all over Yemen. Salafiah supporters believe that political activities, plurality and elections should be banned. Sheikh Al-Wadei passed a Fatwa in 1993 in which he banned elections.
Salafiah Movement has no alliance with other organization as they do not believe in organizations. Their missionary work is focused on spreading an awareness about the legislative science in the community. They have no goal to constitute an Islamic government. They believe that the Islamic government does exist; what it lacks is science.
Sheikh Moqbil Al-Wadei is supervising the following Salafiah missionary work centers:
1) Damaj Center, Sa'adah governorate is under the direct supervision of sheikh Al-Wadei himself. There are between 3000 to 4,000 students studying at the center.
2) Ma'aber Center supervised by one of Al-Wadei students named Mohammed Al-Imam. There are between 1500-2000 students studying at the center.
3) Mareb Center is supervised by Abo Al-Hassan Al-Massri who settled down in Mareb. His students are between 200-300 each year.
4) Al-Hudeida center is supervised by Mohammed Abdulwahab Al-Osabi whose students are between 200-300 each year.
5) Al-Khair Mosque in Sana'a is supervised by Mohammed Al-Sua'ali. This center organizes lectures on Fridays for Salafiah Scholars which are usually well attended. There are about 200 students studying each year at the center.
6) Hubaish Center in Ibb is supervised by sheikh Abdulaziz Al-Burai. There are about 200 students studying at the center. There are some other branches of this center in Al-Baida, Hadramout and Haja.
Generally speaking, most of the supporters of Salafiah are from Aden governorate and Lahj.

Al-Salafiah and other Islamic Doctrines:
The Salafiah Movement has lots of disagreements with Islah party. This is pretty clear from the books published against Islah by sheikh Moqbil titled "Al-Muaned" and "Nassf Jame'at Al-Iman" meaning 'the destruction of Al-Iman University'. In this regard, he has also recorded some cassettes and delivered some lectures in mosques. The latest lecture on this issue was delivered in Sa'awan Mosque in Haddah and other lectures were given in Sa'adah and Aden.
The main differences between Islah and Salafiah pertains to democracy, elections and political plurality which are banned in Salafiah. The difference between societies such as Al-Hikmah Al-Yamaniah Society and Al-Ehssan Society, on the one hand, and Al-Salafiah, on the other, is that Al-Salafiah charges these societies of working within limited scope towards promoting partisan interests despite the fact that they have the same Sunah approach.
Al-Salafiah also criticizes the Islamic Jehad Movement by saying that it is not the proper time for Jehad. However, the Salafiah criticizes Al-Tabligh Group for the weak science and faith they have.
Some sources said that the main financial resources of Al-Salafiah are generated from some Saudi merchants and businessmen. They have some support from voluntary donors. Besides, they are officially supported by Holy Mosques Establishment, a charitable establishment based in the Saudi Arabia.
Many students come from different countries such as Britain, USA, Russia and India to study the principles of Al-Salafaiah. These students are sent to Yemen by the Salafiah scholars who live in these countries.
Some other students come to Yemen to be more closely acquainted with the Salafiah approach. Salafiah sheikhs who are responsible for Salafiah teaching centers say that these students suffer from some actions of the government due to their stay in Yemen. Some of these students have to stay for ten years so as to finish their studies. There are also some Europeans who left their countries and came to Yemen when they were converted to Islam. They came to Yemen to learn more from Moqbil Al-Wadei in his institute located in Sa'adah. The food, their and their families' accommodation and protection are all provided by Sheikh Moqbil's centers. Some of them have been living in Yemen for more than 15 years.
Hassan Al-Zaidia

Reactions and echoes on Jedda Borders Treaty between Yemen and Saudi Arabia are still reverberating inside political, parliamentary and social dignitaries. One of these personalities presenting his remarks about the treaty is Mr Tahir Ali Seif, Member of the Parliament in Yemen. Following are his remarks and comments.

Remarks on the Committee's Report
Of the 12-page report, 10 pages carried texts from the treaty and the remaining two pages were rather a comment, not really a technical analysis of the treaty's content and its economic and social implications. The commission did not even hold any comparison between the 1934 Taif Treaty and the new one.
The commission should have submitted its report to the Parliament in a way answering queries of its members as well as many historians, intellectuals, politicians. The main objective of that move is not to obtain the members, support for this treaty but rather to clarify its far reaching gains as well as its economic, social and political impact.
For instance, the Taif treaty was a stillborn Treaty and Saudi Arabia did not abide by it. One would wonder what will make Saudi Arabia committed to the Jeddah Treaty.
The second article of the treaty indicated "Identification of the villages situated on course of this part of the borderline as stipulated in Taif Treaty and its appendices including their tribal affiliation. In the event that any of the coordinates falls on the position or positions or villages of either party, the reference point for establishing the affiliation of this village, or these villages, will be its relationship to one of the two parties, and the course of the line will be amended according to that when the border marker is set."
In this regard, the commission ought to have asked the government on the number of villages on both sides on which this part of the treaty would apply, the extent of the area and the particular areas those villages are situated. Would this text, mentioned in the Taif Treaty, apply to the villages from "al-Thar" mountain ending at the geographical point of intersection between the line of latitude 19 north and the line of longitude 52 east?
Article 2 of the treaty adopted two basic principles for defining identity of the villages. The first is the tribal affiliation as stipulated in the Taif Treaty; but at that time (in 1934) construction of civilian settlement was not existent. The second principle is their relationship to one of the two parties. This looks like an issue of "self-determination" in order to provide a cover and ensure ownership of those new settlements which Saudi Arabia captured during the war. The inhabitant there were issued with Saudi Arabian citizenship despite their tribal affiliation.
The commission ought to have asked the government and itself too, why Parliament's approval is sought on a presumptive line whereas in real application this border line is subject to alterations.
The nature of negotiation with the Saudi side resembles that followed with the Sultanate of Oman. They had agreed on the borderline first and then tackled the issue related to the citizens residing on both sides of the borderline. The Yemeni and Omani sides agreed that inhabitants residing on either side should retain their nationalities and properties. That should not mean re-demarcation of borders or expulsion or compensation to those citizens subjected to expulsion or grant of the nationality of the country of their residence. What has been mentioned in the Jeddah Treaty is opposite to what has been agreed with Oman. With the KSA, the Yemeni side agreed on coordinates which were not final and subjected to alteration, that is to say, the borderline could be changed and that the area of such coordinates shall fall 20km inside Yemen's territories.
The government is supposed to have known well in advance through satellites whether these coordinates, or some of them, involve population settlements or not.
A clause should have been added stipulating that neither party should create any new residential area after the treaty was signed. Marking these coordinates may take a long time, may be more than ten years. Such being the case, any settlement could be in the form of tents, shepherds, water resources etc. Such an act is enough to witness further Yemeni territories going to the Saudi Arabian side. Here a very serious question crops up. Has the Parliament the right to authorize the government to carry out alterations on the border? I think, this is never constitutional. The treaty should be signed after a final agreement was reached with the other party and should be unconditional. Therefore, the authority bestowed to the government to effect changes, alterations on borders, after the Parliament's approval, is void.
The Yemeni side has abandoned Yemeni land in sea area only because a certain island may intercept navigation in the direction of a Saudi Arabian port in Jizzan area. Was there no better solution? Why the Yemeni side failed to give a pledge against any such obstruction or threat to navigation. By doing so the Yemeni side could have retained a land which, according to technicians' explanations in the Parliament, is rich with natural wealth.
Although the 1934 Taif Treaty was ineffective, and renewed only once, the Saudi Arabian side never gave any weight to it; yet the Yemeni government never protested even on one single occasion against the repeated Saudi Arabian violations and neither did it take the issue to the Arab League or the United Nations. Lands captured by Saudi Arabia after the signing of the Taif Treaty through deception have now, according to Jeddah Treaty, become legitimized as its land and we are reckoned the aggressors until the signing of this new treaty!!
The commission ought to have explained to the Parliament why the Taif Treaty specifically defined evacuation of military posts situated within the range of 5km on the demarcated borderline. This is because Jeddah Treaty has specified the area within 20km from "al-Thar" mountain to the borders of the Sultanate of Oman.
As such, the act of authorizing the government to finally sign the treaty is null and void. This is so in terms of Article 3, item 2:
"A specialized international company will undertake preparation of global company shall prepare detailed maps of the line of the land border between the two countries. These maps, when signed by representatives of the Republic of Yemen and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, will be depended upon as official maps demarcating the border between the two countries and will become an integral part of this treaty.''
This means that the treaty sanctioned by the Parliament is not final. The Parliament had no right to vote on a treaty which is not final and ambiguous. On the completion of demarcation of the borders only the Parliament shall have the right to ratify or reject these borders. We do not know by then how the situation would be in the parliament, would majority continue to be of the ruling Congress party or would it change into a minority.?
The first article of Appendix 4 provides:
a- " The pastoral area on both sides of the second part of the border line indicated in this treaty is limited to 20kms. 
b-"Shepherds from both countries may use the pastoral area and water resources on both sides of this part of borderline according to tribal traditions and prevailing customs for a distance not exceeding20kms. 
Article 5 of appendix 4 says:
" It is not permitted to either of the contracting parties to position armed forces at a distance of less than 20kms on either side of the second part of borderline indicated in this treaty, and the activity of any party is limited to movement of mobile security patrols with customary weapons."
Article 6 of Appendix states:
'' In the event of the discovery of shared natural wealth suitable for extraction and investment along the line of the border between the two countries, beginning precisely from the quay of Ra's al-Ma'uj Shami, Radif Qarad outlet, to the point of intersection of the line of longitude 19 east with the line of latitude 52 north, the two contracting parties will undertake the necessary negotiations between them for the joint exploitation of that wealth.''
There are some remarks and queries on this appendix. The pastoral area on both sides of the second part of the border line was limited to 20 kilometers, one should wonder why. The other question is why the area permitted for shepherds is of the same area where armed forces are not allowed to be positioned. Also there is no mention of building police stations. There is another question about why Article 4 of the Taif Treaty was not implemented. The said article stipulates evacuation of any military position of less that 5 kilometers from the borders instead of 20 kms.
If there are residential areas on both sides of the borders does this mean that building public services facilities and police stations, are not permitted according to Jeddah treaty?
Why joint exploitation in the sea areas were excluded from the treaty despite government's expectations that natural wealth does exist in them?
Finally, Jeddah Treaty represents violation of justice to Yemen. It never realizes any of the national aspirations. It never promotes relations with KSA to a partnership level. It does not hinder KSA from expansion as it did after Taif Treaty. It has plundered Yemen's right to the submerged area.
It has taken away thousands of kilometers of Yemen land rendering the area along the 20kms from "al-Thar" mountain to the borders with the Sultanate of Oman under indirect control of Saudi Arabia. We can no more invest in this land but with the KSA. We cannot build services facilities or residential areas or even a police post.

Sheikh Abdulmajid Zindani	Mohamed Al-Yadomi	Sheikh Omar Ahmad Saif