Review of “Unmasking the Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing: Towards a Critique of the Conflicting Historiographies in Somalia” by Mohamed Haji Ingiriis

Overview
Mohamed Haji Ingiriis critiques Lidwien Kapteijns’s Clan Cleansing in Somalia: The Ruinous Legacy of 1991 (2013), challenging her central thesis of “clan cleansing” during Somalia’s 1991 clan conflicts. Ingiriis argues that Kapteijns’s work is biased, mythico-historical, and risks reigniting violence by assigning collective guilt to specific clans (notably the Hawiye) without robust evidence. Drawing on personal experience in Mogadishu and cross-clan interviews, he emphasizes the dangers of one-sided narratives in fragile post-conflict societies.

Key Arguments and Strengths
• Methodological Critique:
• Ingiriis highlights Kapteijns’s reliance on interviews from Daarood-affiliated diaspora communities in the U.S., which lack triangulation with other clan perspectives. This selective sourcing skews the narrative, ignoring atrocities committed by the Siad Barre regime against Hawiye, Majeerteen, and Isaaq clans.
• Factual inaccuracies in Kapteijns’s work (e.g., references to mobile phones in 1991 Mogadishu, mislocated historical sites) undermine her credibility. Ingiriis effectively uses these examples to question her rigor.

• Contextualization:
• The paper situates the 1991 conflict within Somalia’s longer history of state-sponsored violence (e.g., the Isaaq genocide in 1988), arguing Kapteijns overlooks this broader trajectory. Ingiriis stresses that clan vendettas predate 1991 and were exacerbated by Siad Barre’s divisive policies.

• Ethical Concerns:
• Ingiriis warns that assigning blame to specific clans without evidence risks perpetuating cycles of retaliation. This ethical stance resonates in a context where historiography is deeply politicized.

Weaknesses and Limitations
• Potential Bias:
• Ingiriis’s critique, while rigorous, occasionally mirrors the partisanship he condemns. His focus on defending Hawiye narratives and dismissing Daarood grievances (e.g., downplaying the 1991 Mogadishu massacres) may reflect his own clan affiliations, raising questions about objectivity.

• Lack of Alternative Framework:
• The critique effectively dismantles Kapteijns’s thesis but offers limited constructive alternatives. A more balanced historiography, integrating multi-clan perspectives and archival evidence, would strengthen his argument.

• Engagement with Scholarship:
• While citing scholars like Menkhaus and Lewis, Ingiriis does not deeply engage with their analyses of clan dynamics or Kapteijns’s responses to prior critiques. This limits the paper’s contribution to broader academic debates.

Contribution to Somali Studies
Ingiriis’s work underscores the high stakes of historical narratives in Somalia, where clan identities shape politics and memory. By exposing flaws in Kapteijns’s methodology, he advocates for nuanced, evidence-based scholarship that avoids simplistic blame. However, his critique would benefit from addressing how scholars can navigate clan biases while reconstructing Somalia’s complex history.

Conclusion
Ingiriis delivers a compelling methodological and ethical rebuttal to Kapteijns, emphasizing the need for balanced historiography in conflict zones. While his critique risks partisanship, it valuably highlights the intersection of academia, memory, and politics in Somali Studies. Future work should be built on this by integrating diverse voices and archival sources to transcend clan-centric narratives.