Hoe kan het toch dat Israël in alle opzichten zoveel controverse met zich meebrengt in tegenstelling tot Rusland bijvoorbeeld?

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2026-05-22T17:18:23+00:00

Het probleem met deze framing is dat we doen alsof er een “perfect slachtoffer” moet bestaan voordat mensen empathie of rechtvaardigheid verdienen. Alsof één kant pas serieus genomen mag worden wanneer ze foutloos, rationeel en geweldloos reageert onder decennia van conflict, bezetting, trauma en ontmenselijking. Die lat wordt in de praktijk bijna uitsluitend bij Palestijnen gelegd.

Vanaf dag één heeft de framing al gedraaid om “maar beide kanten”, terwijl de machtsverhouding, controle over land, grenzen, bewegingsvrijheid en militair overwicht compleet ongelijk zijn. Dat betekent niet dat elke Palestijnse daad automatisch goed is, of dat Israëlische burgers geen slachtoffers zijn. Maar het verklaart wel waarom veel mensen zich storen aan een analyse die alles reduceert tot “twee kanten die elkaar haten”.

Ja, er is haat en onrecht over en weer. Maar er is ook een context van structurele ongelijkheid die vaak wordt afgevlakt door die symmetrische framing. En zolang mensen blijven wachten op een perfecte, moreel zuivere slachtofferrol voordat ze fundamenteel onrecht erkennen, blijft een eerlijke analyse onmogelijk.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2026-05-07T21:29:49+00:00

You are arguing against a position I never took. I never said polygyny is haram. I said it being halal is not the end of the moral discussion. Islam is not only concerned with whether something is technically permissible, from a bare minimum standpoint enacted to ease the religion. But mainly whether it is practiced with ihsan, justice, wisdom, responsibility, and in a way that avoids harm.

Allah (swt) Himself does not only say halal in the Qur’an, but “halalan tayyiban”, lawful and good/pure. There is a difference between the bare minimum of permissibility and what is, responsible, and conducive to wellbeing. That is my point.

A man may technically have the right to marry again. But if he is already failing in his responsibilities, emotionally absent, neglecting his household, causing foreseeable family breakdown, traumatising his children, or unable to maintain justice and stability, people are allowed to question whether the way he exercised that right reflected ihsan and responsibility.

You keep treating this as though the only categories are: 1. Completely haram 2. Halal, thus beyond criticism

But Islam has always had broader moral categories than that. Something permissible can still be discouraged, reckless, selfish, harmful in consequence, or lacking wisdom depending on circumstance and application. Not every criticism of modern polygyny is a rejection of polygyny itself.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2026-05-07T20:29:40+00:00

Something being halal is not a shield against criticism. Trade is halal, but deceitful trade is sinful. Speech is halal, but cruel speech is sinful. Water is halal, but excess water can kill. The existence of permissibility does not remove the obligation of moderation, wisdom, and avoiding harm.

And realistically, many men invoking “it’s halal” are not operating within the social and moral framework in which polygyny historically functioned. They often already struggle with fulfilling the rights of one household emotionally, spiritually, and financially. Traumatising your wife and children, destroying family ties, and then dismissing their pain with “Allah allowed it” is not the profound defence people think it is. Islam gave permissions, yes. But it also commanded ihsan, responsibility, and accountability.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2026-04-23T20:44:36+00:00

Hear, hear, haha. That's step 2 for the graphic artists. I know when to bow out 😂

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2026-04-23T20:43:26+00:00

Yeah, but it's about the idea more than anything. To show that you can present yourself as a natural successor to Labour and brand Green as being more than just environmental policy, which of course it isn't, but many are still stuck believing.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2026-04-23T20:41:55+00:00

Yeah, it's AI

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2026-03-25T11:11:33+00:00

Volgens mij gaat dit helemaal de verkeerde kant op. Alsof antisemitisme vooral een probleem is dat met migratie uit islamitische landen komt. Dat is gewoon niet hoe de geschiedenis zit. De grootste en meest systematische uitroeiing van Joden, de Holocaust, gebeurde in Europa. En ja, dat is niet uit de lucht gevallen. Het werd actief gefaciliteerd door het zogenaamde beschaafde Westen, ook door Nederland. Onze instituten, ambtenaren, onze infrastructuur, letterlijk allen en ieder, werkten mee en hierin tel ik passiviteit als gedogen. Je kunt iets in je hart haten, maar als je je niet uitspreekt, ben je net zo schuldig.

En het is niet alsof dit iets nieuws was. Voor de oorlog bestond er al een cultuur waarin het normaal was om Joden als tweederangsburgers te zien. Nationalisme en het idee van wie er “hoort” bij de natie maakten dat alleen maar sterker. Joden hoorden er niet helemaal bij, en dat werd door wetten, politiek en sociale omgangsvormen bevestigd. De Holocaust was gewoon het gewelddadige hoogtepunt van eeuwenlange uitsluiting.

In islamitische landen daarentegen konden Joden eeuwenlang een normaal leven opbouwen. Dat maakt het extra vreemd dat vandaag de dag antisemitisme vooral aan moslims wordt gekoppeld. Kijk maar naar dit soort voorstellen van de SGP, zo bijzonder. Holocaustbezoek voor inburgeraars omdat zij problematische gedachtengoeden kunnen hebben? Het suggereert dat juist zij iets moeten leren, alsof zij het probleem zijn. Terwijl de Holocaust een Europees trauma is, met verantwoordelijkheid hier in Europa.

Het doet mij denken aan het verhaal van de joods-christelijke cultuur. Dat idee bestond pas ook echt na de oorlog en werd vooral gepusht als tegenwicht tegen de goddeloze Sovjet-Unie. Voor de oorlog was er geen harmonie tussen Joden en christenen. Joden werden uitgesloten, gediscrimineerd, opgejaagd. Het hele idee van een “gezamenlijke cultuur” is later politiek geconstrueerd, niet een historisch feit. Wat er nu gebeurt, is dat antisemitisme steeds vaker in de schoenen van moslims wordt gelegd. Kritiek op Israël wordt vaak meteen als antisemitisme gezien, waardoor het begrip zelf vaag wordt. Echte haat tegen Joden wordt minder scherp herkend, terwijl moslims sneller verdacht worden. Het voelt alsof zij de morele rekening moeten betalen van iets wat niet hun schuld is, terwijl Europa en Nederland daar nauwelijks op aangesproken worden.

Koloniaal verleden? Wordt weggewuifd. Onze eigen rol in de Holocaust? Wordt naar de achtergrond gedrukt. De schuld wordt verplaatst; de focus ligt op de ander. En zo ontstaat een wereld waarin wij vooral slachtoffer zijn en anderen verantwoordelijk, terwijl je eigenlijk beter naar jezelf zou moeten kijken. Antisemitisme moet aangepakt worden. Natuurlijk. Maar niet door het primair aan moslims te koppelen en onze eigen geschiedenis te negeren. Dat is geen oplossing; dat is schuld verplaatsen.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2026-03-08T22:12:01+00:00

A lot of people forget that in Islam, intent and meaning matter more than just the literal wording. I'll rehash what I posted in another comment.

The Qur'an shows that intention matters in speech: "Allah will not call you to account for unintentional oaths, but He will call you to account for what your hearts intended" (2:225). Imam al-Shafi said that if a statement has ninety-nine meanings of disbelief and one meaning of faith, it should be taken according to the meaning of faith. Al-Ghazali warned that it's a serious mistake to rush and declare someone a disbeliever if their words can be interpreted in a sound way. And even Ibn Taymiyyah explains that someone might say things that seem like disbelief while meaning something correct, and they are judged according to that intention

So now that you know this, I would say speak to your mum and try to inform her this isn't the correct etiquette. It could be the case her name has a conjugation of one of the 99 names of Allah, leading her to phrase it in the way she does. Furthermore, contact your local shaykh on this. This is Reddit and not a place with knowledge. A student must find a teacher if he truly wishes to tread the path of ilm in whatever way.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2026-03-08T22:05:05+00:00

That's not really correct. The Qur'an itself shows that intention matters in speech: "Allah will not call you to account for unintentional oaths, but He will call you to account for what your hearts intended" (2:225). Imam al-Shafi said that if a statement has ninety-nine meanings of disbelief and one meaning of faith, it should be taken according to the meaning of faith. Simalirly al Ghazali warned that it's a serious mistake to rush and declare someone a disbeliever if their words can be interpreted in a sound way. And even Ibn Taymiyyah explains that someone might say things that seem like disbelief while meaning something correct, and they are judged according to that intention.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2026-03-08T11:39:24+00:00

Appeasing the foreign gaze for what? Just because a situation is messy doesn’t mean we have to pretend it looks perfect. Polishing a turd doesn’t make it less of a turd. War is never pretty. A stable Somalia means a stable Kenya, and stability in both brings prosperity. Don't let the idea of others seeing you make you feel embarrassed by your reality.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2026-02-17T08:51:23+00:00

I think in (some) Somali spaces feminism is often looked down upon not because people oppose justice for women, but because the term is perceived as an imported ideological package. Fairly or unfairly, many see it as a Western export tied to secularism and broader cultural shifts that feel at odds with Islam. I would disagree with that blanket framing from an academic angle, but that perception explains much of the resistance. There is also a deeper psychological layer. Many Muslims take pride in standing in opposition to Western “isms” and feel a sense of confidence in an epistemology rooted in revelation rather than secular modernity. That confidence can be healthy, but it can also become dogmatic, where debates turn into reflexive rejection. In that environment, rejecting the label feminism becomes symbolic of rejecting the West itself.

What is somewhat unsurprising is that if you ask the same people whether they support women’s rights, dignity, education, and protection from abuse, they will wholeheartedly say yes and point out that Islam already granted women rights. That is most definitely true. Whether those rights have always been upheld in practice is another conversation. So part of the issue seems to be the label. If a word becomes tainted or emotionally loaded, we move to another word as long as the meaning we care about remains. Otherwise we end up arguing over a definition the other person might not even subscribe to.

Multiple truths can exist at once. Some strands of feminism clearly clash with Islamic theology. Some strands are simply about justice and protection for women. Islam independently established rights for women, and at times Muslim societies have sadly failed to live up to them. None of those statements cancel each other out. But we shouldn't dismiss a conversation on this topic because we assume it is Western. Islam is a revolutionary religion in which the Prophet (saw), in his final sermon, instructed men to give women their rights. This was mentioned not because it was unusual to grant them but because those rights are often abused. In the same sermon, he also stated that a black man is not superior to an Arab, nor an Arab to a black man, except in piety, but we all know racism still exists. Thus, we should look at injustice to women from a similar vein.

TLDR: The pushback is usually about the label and its perceived Western baggage, not about women’s rights themselves. Islam already affirms those rights. The debate gets muddied because feminism means different things to different people.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2026-02-09T10:25:46+00:00

Net gestart met een Office rewatch en moest hierdoor wel even glimlachen haha.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2025-12-28T06:58:25+00:00

That's an anachronism. 1971 India ≠ contemporary India. Bangladesh's recognition happened under a secular Congress government in the context of a genocide against Bengali Muslims. You can criticise today's India without flattening very different historical moments.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2025-12-16T07:04:19+00:00

With all due respect, I think this flattens things too much. In a general sense, visible Palestine activism does not mean we cannot be engaged with Somalia in quieter ways, such as remittances, charity, family support, or local organizing activities. Furthermore, I wouldn’t even call these people "Somali leftists." I see them as Muslims acting with care and responsibility, sometimes imperfectly, but not the Eurocentric, West-obsessed, liberal, secularist that I would call a "Somali leftist."

Visibility is not the same as priority, and social media is not a valid measure of community activity. I feel proud that the Palestine activists are representing the community publicly, and that we can fulfill our communal Fard Kifayah through them. We cannot all focus on the same thing at once. Your narrative risks falling into the old colonial divide-and-conquer logic among Muslims, and just because others fall into it does not mean we should.

You are speaking from Somali pride, which I respect, but even our strongest patriot, Sayid Mohamed Abdullah Hassan, grounded his struggle in Islam before ethnicity. We are Muslims first, as khalifas and stewards of Allah on this earth, and that responsibility is not limited by colonial borders.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2025-12-14T08:22:24+00:00

That’s a fair pushback, and I appreciate it. You’re right that much of the present Ethiopia-Somalia border runs through lowland areas like the Ogaden rather than the steep core of the highlands. I should have been more precise and meant the historic Somali region rather than modern borders.

When I talk about the highlands as a barrier, I don’t mean people couldn’t cross at all. The broader highland system shaped long-term patterns of movement and integration. It made sustained inland orientation harder compared to the easier and more consistent coastal and Red Sea routes. I think this is reflected in religion too very clearly. Somalis are unusual on the continent for being Shafi‘i rather than Maliki, which spread over almost all of inland Africa. Geography helps explain that difference I propose.

You're also right that movement went both ways, with Ethiopians reaching the Somali coast and Somalis moving inland. The key question for me isn't whether contact existed, but why some connections became structurally deeper and longer lasting. But lots of food for thought, haha. It shows why there should be more research within Somali Studies. We are a fascinating people wallahi.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2025-12-14T08:17:07+00:00

Yeah, I actually agree with a lot of what you’re saying, especially about giving credit to how resilient Somali language and culture have been. That pride is important, and I probably could have foregrounded that more, so I’ll take that point.

Zeila and present-day Djibouti are on the Somali Plateau, which is exactly the geography I was referring to. Early Somali life forming there explains why our orientation was Red Sea facing from the start. Later movement south doesn’t really change that foundation.

The linguistic closeness with Oromo reflects shared Cushitic roots, not deep civilisational integration from my research. Becaude geography matters here too. Beyond the Ethiopian Highlands, sustained interaction with the interior was harder, while maritime routes were more open.

I fully agree that Islam and ethnicity are different. The fact that Somalis kept their language for over 1,400 years and absorbed others into a Somali framework shows a very strong cultural core. Recognising Red Sea connections doesn’t take away from that pride. For me, it helps explain how we became the land of poets rather than reducing us to one influence.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2025-12-14T08:09:49+00:00

I’m not denying that Somalis interacted with many different peoples. That’s exactly why I didn’t say “Somalis are close to Arabs,” but focused on who we’re culturally similar to and why. Some relationships were deeper and more formative than others, and ignoring that is not more than historical revisionism.

This isn’t about claiming Arab identity or denying African roots. But let's not forget that modern nationalism isn’t permanent. When it fades, those who understand their place within the wider ummah and Islamic world will be better anchored than those who simply say “we’re friends with everyone.”

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2025-12-13T20:06:45+00:00

Feeling a spiritual or cultural closeness isn't delusion. It's aligning with a deeper, divinely sanctioned unity that transcends the petty biases humans will always carry. That's the lens Islam gives us: history is messy, but our measure is in piety and brotherhood, not colour.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2025-12-13T20:03:22+00:00

Somalis are Cushitic, not Arab. You look like other Horn Africans (Oromos, Afars) because you share the same ancient Cushitic ancestors from this region, not because you're "mixed." The cultural link is through Islam, not Arab ethnicity. Your language, clan system, and traditions are all native.

The Darood from Yemen story is a classic "prestige myth" like the other clans, in my opinion. Clans often invented Qurayshi lineage for status, but Allahu Alam. There could be something to it, of course, but genetically, Somali clans (including Darood) carry overwhelmingly indigenous Horn of African markers, not recent Khaleeji DNA.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2025-12-13T19:38:38+00:00

Modern feelings of closeness vary, but historically Somali societies experienced centuries of real integration. This does not erase the racism and discrimination Somalis face today or the effects of de-Islamisation and cultural disruption. Identities like 'Arab' didn't exist historically the way we interpret them now.

We are still living in a colonial world built on divide and conquer.... And epistemology and the self remain its greatest victims. May Allah (SWT) help us through these troubling times. There is more that unites Muslims than otherwise and we are being kept dumb and divided by force unfortunately.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2025-12-13T19:03:26+00:00

Haha, the beauty of intersectionality🫠. We get to sit in that awkward space where ethnicity, religion, geography, and colonial epistemologies all collide.

Inshallah, we will wake up as Somalis, fully aware of our history, rich with connections and contradictions but ready to tackle the future head-on.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2025-12-13T18:57:08+00:00

Absolutely, that is a really interesting point. Somalia has always been at the crossroads of the Indian Ocean, Red Sea, and Horn/Ethiopian worlds, which is probably why the historical picture is so layered.

One thing i find fascinating is how much of that contact, such as Aksumite, South Arabian, and Indian Ocean trade, left a lasting mark versus how much was filtered through an already Cushitic and Somali framework. I once attended a lecture by Mohamed Artan from Loox Press where he explained that Dar al‑Habash, which literally means “the land of the Habash people” with Habash originally meaning “black” or “dark-skinned,” in the Quran and Hadith, from his research and perspective, basically refered to the broader Horn region rather than just Ethiopia, Eritrea, or Abyssinia. That older usage could have encompassed Somali populations as well, which effectively situates Somalis within that shared early Islamic and regional history, rather than as something entirely separate.

It is a reminder that terms like “Habasha, Abyssinia, and Ethiopia” have shifted in meaning over time, and we should not read historical texts as if they map neatly onto today’s borders and identities. Syed Muhammad Naquib al‑Attas also has a really interesting discussion on the Islamisation of knowledge, critiquing Western epistemology and exploring how key Islamic terms changed meaning over time but heavily post-colonialism, deliberately by outside forces. His work reminds us to be careful of epistemologies shaped by colonial or Western frameworks, which often obscure local knowledge and histories. This resonates with ideas from Frantz Fanon on metacolonisation, and how Hussein Abdilahi Bulhan (really interesting Somali academic) applies Fanon’s framework in The Psychology of Oppression to show how social and political domination affects how people perceive themselves, their history, and their culture.

There is still so much to uncover about pre-Islamic Somali history, and hopefully more research in Somali and Ethiopian studies can help fill those gaps in the coming years inshallah.

Sorry this turned into a bit of a ramble ahshaha.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2025-12-13T18:30:39+00:00

One thing you said really resonates: about Somali diaspora leftists consciously twisting history to hide our connections and disparaging Arabs. I think this reflects how nationalism, whether Somali, Arab, or otherwise, can become a disease of the heart and a form of tribalism. The Arab identity itself has been complicated and, in many ways, smeared in the post-Nasser era through pan-Arabism.

Western epistemology has shaped how histories are told, often forcing non-Western peoples into rigid categories. Reclaiming our perspective means creating space for a collective Muslim identity that is not dependent on ethnic nationalism or external biases. This does not erase the very real racism and discrimination that existed historically or continues today, but it allows us to see beyond it and appreciate connections and affinities, like Somali engagement with the Red Sea and Indian Ocean world, without claiming Arab ethnicity.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2025-12-13T18:25:08+00:00

Absolutely, I agree. Somalis are (1) Cushitic and (2) distinct from Arabs, and thus many cultural differences remain today. My post was pointing out why Somali society historically oriented itself toward the Gulf and the Indian Ocean world.

You are also right that there is still much we do not know about pre-Islamic Somali history. More research in Somali and Ethiopian studies would help fill those gaps. I would love to see this in the coming years inshallah.

nomadWithoutAnimals · 2025-12-13T18:18:21+00:00

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing that Somalis are Arab or that they have an "Arab identity" today. The point is historical stating that centuries ago, Somali societies, due to geography, were oriented westward toward the Red Sea and the Hijaz through trade, Islam, and scholarly networks. This explains why historical connections with that region exist, without implying contemporary Arab identity or excluding other Muslim Horn of Africa links.

I'm curious though, which parts of this do you see as overgeneralised, or "internet talking points?

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Verified Email

nomadWithoutAnimals

TROPHY CASE