𝐀𝐥-𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐚𝐛: 𝐂𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦𝐬, 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭

𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

𝐂𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧: How can the claim to “defend Islam” be reconciled with the fact that Somalia’s Muslim population bears the greatest share of fear, displacement, coercion and destruction caused by the conflict?

According to this central question, the Horn Investigative Files assess that Al-Shabaab’s claim to defend Islam conflicts with the observable consequences of its conduct.

The organisation presents itself as a religious resistance movement. However, its attacks, coercive controls, forced revenue collection and prolonged armed campaign primarily affect Somali Muslims.

This assessment does not judge Islam or individual religious belief. It examines how an armed organisation uses religious language to legitimise violence, recruit supporters, suppress opposition and pursue political power.

Al-Shabaab is an al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorist organisation subject to a dedicated United Nations sanctions regime. Its religious messaging should therefore be assessed against its conduct, its impact on civilians and the consistency of the principles it claims to follow.

𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬

• Somali civilians carry the greatest social, economic and security burden associated with Al-Shabaab’s campaign. • The organisation condemns foreign personnel supporting the Somali government while accepting foreign fighters into its own ranks. • A foreign national, an authorised peace-support soldier, a military contractor and a mercenary are not legally equivalent categories. • Criticising foreign military involvement does not require supporting Al-Shabaab. • Rejecting Al-Shabaab does not require approving every action taken by the Somali government or international forces. • Religious claims cannot replace evidence, legal accountability or protection of civilians.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧-𝐟𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

Al-Shabaab frequently presents the conflict as a struggle between Somalis and foreign forces. That explanation becomes inconsistent when the organisation accepts foreigners who fight on its behalf.

The relevant distinction is therefore not simply between “Somali” and "foreign". A credible assessment must examine consent, legal authority, operational conduct, command structures, civilian protection and accountability.

The African Union Support and Stabilisation Mission in Somalia operates under an international mandate and with host-state consent. This does not make every action by every member of the mission lawful or immune from investigation. It does, however, distinguish authorised personnel from foreign fighters who independently join a designated terrorist organisation.

𝐐𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐀𝐥-𝐒𝐡𝐚𝐛𝐚𝐚𝐛’𝐬 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐰𝐞𝐫

1. Who authorised the organisation to speak exclusively in the name of Islam when many Somali Muslims reject its violence and coercion? 2. If protecting Muslims is the objective, why is success not measured by civilian safety, children’s education, economic activity and family dignity? 3. Why are independent religious scholars who reject the organisation’s interpretation confronted with intimidation instead of evidence and open debate? 4. If foreign involvement is inherently illegitimate, why does the organisation accept foreign fighters into its own ranks? 5. How frequently can civilian harm be described as accidental before repeated harm must be recognised as an operational pattern? 6. Who gains authority, revenue and coercive control from a prolonged conflict—and who loses security, property and opportunity? 7. Why does the organisation reject elections, peaceful dissent, independent justice and religious pluralism? 8. If international forces withdrew, would coercion and forced revenue collection end, or would the organisation’s political project continue? 9. Why are young recruits presented with narratives of heroism while the consequences for their families and futures receive less attention? 10. What protections exist for a Somali Muslim who peacefully rejects Al-Shabaab?

𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐲

A credible security assessment cannot excuse misconduct committed by governments or international forces. Allegations of unlawful conduct or civilian harm involving any party should be independently investigated. Somali authorities and international partners must remain accountable, protect civilians, strengthen justice and operate transparently. Misconduct by one party, however, does not erase the responsibility of another. It cannot legitimise attacks on civilians, intimidation, coercive taxation or suppression of peaceful opposition.

𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

HIFILES assesses that Al-Shabaab uses religious claims to legitimise an armed political project. Its claim to defend Islam is undermined by the harm its operations impose on Somali society, its acceptance of foreign fighters and its reliance on coercion.

A sustainable response cannot depend on military operations alone. Somalia also requires accountable government, functioning justice, protection from corruption, reliable public services and credible opportunities for young people.

Somali citizens should not be forced to choose between rejecting Al-Shabaab and demanding accountability from their government. These positions are compatible and mutually reinforcing.

𝐇𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

Religious claims must be tested against conduct and consequences.

An organisation that harms the community it claims to defend cannot establish legitimacy through repetition of a slogan.

𝐌𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬

This publication is an open-source security assessment. It is not a religious ruling or judicial decision.

The assessment draws on official United Nations and African Union material concerning Al-Shabaab’s designation, sanctions, regional operations, foreign fighters and the mandate of international missions in Somalia.

Readers should distinguish between documented facts, institutional assessments and HIFILES analytical judgements.

𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐝: 𝟑 𝐀𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔 𝐂𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐫𝐲: 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐞𝐫: 𝐇𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐈𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬 (𝐇𝐈𝐅𝐈𝐋𝐄𝐒)