Fighting Crime in Mogadishu

Mogadishu may no longer be the most dangerous city in the world, but crimes are still committed there.  Someone has to prosecute the offenders.

Hassan Abdinur Abdirahman, a young Somali prosecutor, is in his early thirties.  Abdirahman is a tall, quiet man, who is one of nine all-male lawyers employed by the office of the Attorney General in Mogadishu. They are assisted by five staff members.

“I know that the number of prosecutors is too small for a city of over one million people,” says Abdirahman sheepishly. “We need more prosecutors.”

Indeed, Mogadishu needs more police officers, more social workers, and, of course, more prosecutors to stem its rampant crimes. However, the types of crimes committed in the city are odd given the city’s reputation as a place where no one would spend a vacation. 

“My office prosecutes mostly two major crimes: rape and property crimes,” asserts Abdirahman. In May alone, according to Abdirahman, approximately 86 rape cases were prosecuted.

The rise of rape crimes in Mogadishu has to do with the thousands of Somalis who fled to the city last year due to severe droughts. The city raised tents in the bushes to house and feed the refugees. Many international relief agencies came to Mogadishu to help. According to Abdirahman, many refugee women became vulnerable and defenseless due to the location of these camps.

“Women have become targets of well-armed men, who prey on them,” says Abdirahman. Unfortunately, some of these offenders are members of the Somali army.

The large number of the refugees in the capital is confounding, maintains Abdirahman. “In reality, there are many Mogadishu residents who claim to be refugees in order to get help,” says Abdirahman. “There are some who even own three or four houses who still masquerade as indigent.” The Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are aware of the problem but cannot do much about it. To the prosecutors, the camps have become a fertile ground for men to commit rape against women.

“Recently, we had a sad case that our office prosecuted,” adds Abdirahman. “A 10-year old girl was gang-raped by six men.” Many of the offenders commit rape crimes while they are high on Khat, a mild stimulant drug prevalent in East Africa.

Abdirahman and his office have noticed a spike in the rate of property crimes. After the radical group, Al-Shabab, was forced out of the city several months ago, the city experienced relative peace.  Normalcy returned to the city, and business began to boom. With the relative peace, however, came an influx of many Somalis in the diaspora returning home and reclaiming their properties. When the civil war started in Somalia in 1991, thousands of people left their homes and settled in many parts of the world. Their return, in many instances, has opened old wounds.

“Some of the dwellers of these properties do not want to turn them back to their legitimate owners,” states Abdirahman. They want monies ranging from $20,000 to $30,000. The dwellers sometimes bring their own ‘documents’ that they claim establish their rightful ownership of the very properties that they are living in.

“We had a case of one man who said he owned the house he was living just because he had lost six children during the civil war,” notes Abdirahman.

The most well-known case involves Adan Buulle, a member of the Somali parliament, who was killed while reclaiming his home. Buulle was asked to pay money to get his property back but declined.

Abdirahman explains that land disputes are the most contentious because they involve politics. Some of the dwellers call members of the armed forces to defend them or to intervene on their behalf. Moreover, judges are reluctant to enforce judgments even if the cases go to trial. “Judges are fearful due to the immense political pressure on them,” states Abdirahman. One judge survived being shot eight times.

Most often, according to Abdirahman, people resolve their disputes quietly. Only when conflicting documents and deeds are presented does the government get involved. “Falsification” is the main charge, says Abdirahman.

Those who are charged with, or convicted of, a crime are housed in the Central Prison commonly known as “Kaalshiro.” This old Italian-built detention center houses about 900 inmates. As of May 27, according to Abdirahman, 68 prisoners there had not yet been sentenced. Last year, Hassan Mohamoud “Hassan Jaamici,” a Somali imam, attorney, and part time law professor in Minneapolis, visited and found the condition of the prison deplorable.

“Cooking utensils were old and unhealthy,” said Mohamoud who raised funds for purchasing new cookware. Mohamoud also met with prison officials, inmates, and the prosecutors like Abdirahman.

“There are still issues of people who are in detention without charges ever being brought against them,” said Mohamoud. “Many do not even get the proper legal representation that they deserve.”

Technically, a detainee cannot be detained for more than 24 hours without being charged. There are exceptions.  The Mayor of Mogadishu, for instance, can request a detainee be held indefinitely until his case is further investigated by the authorities. There are, of course, no legal grounds for such detentions. In most such cases, the people have been accused of being terrorists or spies for Al-Shabab.

Abdirahman is grateful that Mogadishu is becoming more peaceful and stable. “This means more safety for the city’s residents and less crimes for people like me to prosecute,” he says with a smile.

The Istanbul Conference of the Somali Civil Society

In late 1986, I invited my graduate advisor at the University of California/San Diego, Dr. David Laitin, and his family to dinner in my home. Professor Laitin was no stranger to Somalia and its culture. He had written one book, Politics, Language, and Thought: The Somali Experience (1977) and co-written another with Professor Said Samatar of Rutgers University, Somalia: Nation in Search of a State. He was surprised that my wife at the time was an American Muslim. “I didn’t know that your wife was Muslim,” he said. “Oh yes, she is,” I replied. “But she is still an American.” My last statement, innocuous as it seemed, apparently grabbed his full attention. Professor Laitin, now at Stanford University, had spent a great deal of time studying, teaching, and writing about culture, in general, and political culture, in particular; he saw my remark as revealing. It was only a year earlier that Professor Laitin had spent several months in Nigeria as a fellow, and then that same year, he had published his book, Hegemony and Culture: Politics and Religious Change among the Yoruba. After several minutes of rumination, Professor Laitin said that people may change their religion but they are unlikely to forsake their culture. Although this statement seemed pessimistic, it also rang true. However, quite recently, we have seen that while people may not forsake their culture, they may be willing to adapt that culture to accommodate emerging social trends.

In the last week of May, about 300 Somalis convened in Istanbul to discuss conditions in Somalia. The participants were traditional Elders, religious figures, women, intellectuals, youth, and members of the Somali diaspora. After 21 years of civil war, it was obvious that significant issues remained: justice versus injustice, wealth versus poverty, land delineation versus land-grabbing, power sharing based on a 4.5 formula versus equality in the political landscape. The participants asked themselves whether Somalia was ready to determine its future, and, hence, construct a viable government. Was Dr. Said Sh. Samatar right when he told Radio Wardheer, that Somalis would not be able to manage a modern and sustained government because they are, culturally, camel herders? He exclaimed, “Ma geel-jira ayaa dawlad dhisi kara?” he exclaimed. (Can a camel-herder form a government?)

I had the opportunity to attend the Istanbul Somali Civil Society meeting. It was the first Somali conference I have ever attended. I was skeptical that something positive would come out of the gathering because of the futility of the past 18 conferences on reconciliation. However, my reservations about the Istanbul gathering were quelled when I read a partial list of the participants, which contained an array of Somali intellectuals (both men and women), community activists, and religious scholars. As the conference started, I was even more impressed with the attendees. I will not discuss the decisions of the Somali Civil Society meeting, but instead mention three of my personal observations of the gathering.

Are these our traditional leaders?
As with any Somali gathering, the conference started with a bang!

After Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu opened the conference with welcoming remarks, a traditional Somali leader stood and profusely thanked the Turkish government for its aid to Somalia, and for sponsoring the Istanbul2 Conference. Then came the shocking request, the one only Jerry McGuire could deliver with gusto: “Show me the money.” The man asked the Turkish government to provide material support to the Elder chieftains because they were undertaking a major task in selecting the National Constituent Assembly and the country’s parliament. “The traditional leaders want salaries,” requested the speaker. The audience was shocked by the crude way the traditional leader made his request. They thought the Elder had taken leave of his senses. What amazed me was how the majority of the Elders reacted. After the Turkish Foreign Minister left, the man who spoke was reprimanded and told that he had embarrassed all Somalis by his uncouth behavior.

Adding more spice to the gathering, on the third day of the conference, an Elder felt offended when Asha-Kin Duale, a member of the Committee of the Experts of the Constitution, made a Freudian slip. Asha was listing the six stakeholders of the Somali Roadmap, like Shaikh Sharif (the president) and Abdiweli Ali (prime minister), but in naming Sharif Hassan (speaker of the parliament), she said “Sharif ‘Sakiin’ (Sharif the blade), a common derogatory nickname for the speaker. It all happened at lightning speed, and immediately, all hell broke loose. Asha-Kin, who seemed flustered by the situation, apologized, but one Elder rejected her sincere apology. The sensitivity level, of course, among some traditional Elders was acute. What intrigued me was how many participants of the conference went out of their way to peacefully and collectively diffuse the situation. They implored the Elder and his colleagues, who had walked out of the gathering in protest, to return to the session which had come to a screeching halt in a single moment. It was mainly other traditional Elders, from different clans, who initiated the peace-making. Not too long ago, some of these clan Elders might have been willing to use a daggers with each other.

I must admit that the traditional leaders who attended the conference left a lot to be desired. Many were handpicked by politicians. At times, it seemed, the whole place was crawling with imposters. One traditional Elder told an academic from his clan that he was asked to select both men and women for the Constituent Assembly. “Son, I can choose men,” said the Elder, as though he was making a therapeutic confession, “but I do not know how to select women.” It was a travesty that such a homogenous group, with limited education and experience, would have the authority to select the very people who would ratify the country’s draft Constitution and, on the top of that, handpick the members of the country’s next parliament. This is too much authority for such a group to wield. Even former Prime Minister Abdirizak Haji Hussein, in a speech, chastised the Elders for being a tool of sinister politicians.

However, given the nature of the Elders’ backgrounds, I prefer them to a bunch of warlords wielding AK-47s and selling the country to the highest bidder. The benefit of the Istanbul conference was subtle; it is hoped that the effort will be effective in the future. For example, the Elders were exposed to informal training that involved political speeches, and they had the chance to participate in discussions about the best ways for Somalia to raise itself from the ashes and slither out of its mess. They heard former politicians, such as Prime Minister Hussein, hectoring them about their role as agents of change. They heard Somali intellectuals debating various issues such as governance, reconciliation, and fairness in representation. They participated in smaller discussion groups that were overseen by intellectuals and activists. In other words, the Elders’ attendance at the Istanbul gathering represented an enduring opportunity for awareness and re-education. I do not believe that traditional leaders have previously had an opportunity to rub shoulders with former Somali politicians, generals, intellectuals, women, journalists, and youth like they did in Turkey. If there is one thing that the Istanbul gathering did for the Elders, it was that it succeeded in creating some awareness in them of the gravity of the tasks ahead. The result is similar to what defense lawyers’ call planting doubt in jurors’ minds. In this case, the Elders came to Turkey with rigid views that the Somali diaspora was there to grab power. However, by the end of the conference, a meeting of all members had agreed that Somalia needed all its sectors to rebuild. The Elders realized, hopefully, that doing business as usual would not be effective.

At one point, a top Somali politician came to the hotel where members of the Civil Society were meeting and staying only to be turned back by Turkish officials. He kept inquiring about what the Elders were up to. He complained to the Turks that some of his ‘political opponents’ were attending the conference to masquerade their true intentions. “How can these figures be members of the Somali Civil Society?” he asked. What was irking this politician was the gnawing fear--real or perceived-- that he might lose his grip on his support among the Elders. Another top leader of the Somali government frankly told one of the organizers that the gathering was nothing but an act of war against the government.

It was odd that both the al-Shabab terrorists and some high-level members of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) were opposed to the Civil Society gathering in Istanbul. The former publicly condemned the conference whereas the latter publicly supported the meeting but, secretly tried to undermine the proceedings. Members of the TFG were upset with the way the Civil Society was selected, which in fairness was questionable. However, the government officials also had axes to grind, not to mention their fear that the Roadmap would be trampled . It did not happen.

Women as Leaders

The marginalization of women in Somalia has been the black spot on our culture. Somali women, as a group, have suffered more than any other group in the civil war. Somali men have always been the leaders and fomenters of warfare. What was unique about the Istanbul gathering was the prominent role played by women. They were integral in decision-making and lecturing, and were on the forefront in group discussions. Not only were women heard and seen, they were all over the conference. The Elders, especially, were mystified when they saw women like Dr. Cawo Abdi, Dr. Maryan Qassin, Dr. Ladan Affi, and Dr. Sadia Ali Aden, just to mention a few, being actively involved in the conference. In the discussion group that I attended, which addressed security and justice, several women, including Professor Affi and Fadumo Awow, were not only vocal but in fact led the discussion. In essence, the women took the measure of the Somali men

A Gaggle of Intellectual

As mentioned earlier, the assembly of such a diverse and talented pool of intellectuals in the Somali Civil Society meeting in Istanbul was staggering. I have never witnessed such a unique gathering. There were Somali professors who teach in Kuwait, Qatar, Somalia, Kenya, Canada, Finland, and the US. Moreover, there were former cabinet ministers, generals, ambassadors, bureaucrats, engineers, journalists, imams with advanced degrees, and lawyers, among other professionals. The conference gave me hope that Somalia will have a deep reservoir of talent pool in almost in every imaginable field when the country becomes peaceful and stable. The challenge, of course, is how the future Somali government will tap into this talent pool. Somalis, as Dr. Said Samatar has said may have known blundering camels and lived a life bereft of government, but this time around, they will have advanced degrees in information technology, or engineering, or nursing, or management.

In a telling anecdote, a group of us that included General Ahmed Jama (former head of the Somali police), Professor Yusuf Ahmed Nur, and several traditional Elders were sitting in the hotel lobby early in the morning while we discussed the situation in our country. Suddenly, a white man, somewhat Turkish-looking, came and sat with us. The man listened to our conversation and nodded his head in approval. I was wondering what “this Turk” was doing among us. Then, to our amazement, the man started talking in flawless Somali! General Jama told the man that until he spoke, Jama had thought that the man was a Turk. It turned out that the man had been born in Martini Hospital in Mogadishu to a Somali father from the north and a Russian mother who taught at the Polytechnic Institute in the Somali capital. Alexander, that is his name, is an architect who lives in London. He had come to the conference on his own, looking for job opportunities in the reconstruction of Mogadishu.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge the Turkish government for its generosity and commitment in bringing peace to Somalia. I also acknowledge the organizing committee of the Somali Civil Society gathering in Istanbul, led by Dr. Afyare Abdi Elmi, for making sure that the conference ran smoothly. The committee listened to new ideas, accepted criticism especially in the process of selecting the Civil Society, and effectively managed to control participants’ periodic outbursts of anger. I think this says that eventually we camel herders can identify and achieve our common goals.



The Anatomy of a Husband

A Somali woman here in the US—with whom I have been acquainted for more than 10 years—has recently told me that her husband of 8 years is into something. She has grown suspicious of him because he has started taking annual trips to East Africa, something he did not do before. I happen to be a close friend of a man who is a confidante of her husband.


“Can you check that for me?” she asked.

My first reaction was one of bafflement. When I told her that I wouldn’t do it because I thought the whole request was, not only unethical but, rather bizarre, she began to recite a litany of complaints about her husband.

“He is in this marriage because he loves the good life that I have provided for him,” she said.

Her husband, on the surface, is a gentle, kind, loyal, hard-working, and highly educated man who is close and kind to her family. She is active in her community, and the husband is the one who is perfectly content to be in the background. If there is anything unusual about this couple’s relationship--barring the unknown—it is the glaring disparity in their income. The wife is a doctor who makes four times what the husband, a social worker, does. However, he has been gainfully employed since I met him more than a decade ago.

In a surprising show of decorum, the doctor has ruled out divorce. Even so, one can tell that she seems to be in what psychologists call a “semi-happy marriage”: a union with low conflict, and, in many cases –but not necessarily this one-- low satisfaction. Her husband was, indeed, aware of his wife’s concerns and dismissed her claims as pure speculation. To her, her husband had changed. He must have known that he had become someone his wife felt she hardly knew. However, the fact that he started going to Somalia once a year to visit his ‘family’ must have had a baleful impact on their marriage. His trips must have been the major issue vexing her. She had no proof of a ‘secret’ marriage, but she might have suspected something was amiss. Some East African men in North America do go home only to end up secretly marrying a young woman. Many are in midlife crisis and are, of course, trying to prove their virility and relevance. The young women are likely never to set foot in North America. I felt sympathetic to the woman’s problem, but I also felt helpless. The problem seemed to be more about the husband being suspected of engaging in illicit activity than the fact that he did not measure up. His income, when they met almost nine years ago, was not the deciding factor for their marriage. This is the same issue that has engulfed many Somali women in the West who have been losing ground to young women in Africa; a topic that has been debated in the community ad nauseam.

In 2008, and after 12 years of marriage, Christie Brinkley, the former supermodel who once dominated American magazine covers, blasted her fourth husband; architect Peter Cook, for turning into a monster.

“The man who I was living with, I just didn’t know who he was,” vented Brinkley. Cook was the same man his wife had once extolled as being a great father to their children, but the 47-year old developed a habit of spending $3,600 per month on internet porn, and also became involved with an 18-year old high school senior. Brinkley, 54, was flummoxed. The couple’s bitter divorce and the tawdry details that emerged about their private life became fodder for the tabloids. How could Cook be married to the very woman, many people thought, possessed all the qualities that could tantalize and fire the male imagination and still seek solace in the arms of an 18--year old girl? Brinkley, after all, was the same woman her former second husband, the famous entertainer Billy Joel, once gave the moniker “Uptown Girl.” Their story was that Brinkley, the glitzy, dazzling, beautiful, rich, and sexy woman fell unexpectedly for Joel, the antithesis of the exciting, the attractive, and the knight in shining armor. Their union, in the early 1980s raised some eyebrows.

Cook had an excuse for having an affair, and he put full blame on his wife for not giving him the attention he craved. “I wanted a little acknowledgment, a little attention, a little thank you every now and then for my efforts, for the amount of time I took to care for her and my family, for the wealth I was building,” he told ABC News’ Barbara Walters. Cook not only was a jerk but he had exhibited behavior that prompted a court psychiatrist to refer to him as; “an insatiable narcissist.”

Choosing a husband and avoiding dubious characters such as Peter Cook, is becoming more complicated than ever before. It is like what that wise-cracking, simpleton Forrest Gump would have called it, “a box of chocolates: You never know what you will get.” But there is a debate out there on the best criteria for selecting a husband.

In one of her memorable columns, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, once wrote, “The Ideal Husband,” (7/6/2008) in which she talked to 79-year old Father Pat Connor to dispense “mostly common advice” on how to choose a husband and avoid getting involved with the kind of man “who would maul your happiness.” Here is a summary:

1. Do not marry any man who has no friends. You do not know what kind of man this antisocial character is. Friends enable the woman to figure out what kind of people the man hangs with and the level of his social skills.

2. Does the man handle money well? Money management is crucial because most of divorces occur due to financial problems. Is the man thrifty? Is he stingy? Is he on “his 10th credit card?” Does he play fast and loose with money? To interject an anecdote here, I knew a Somali woman in the Midwest and her fiancé. The couple decided to end their relationship abruptly. Ironically, the man simplified the reason for the break-up by unfairly calling the woman, “arrogant.” The woman’s version was a lot closer to the truth. As a nurse assistant, she had two jobs, was raising her children without help from their father, and owned her own house in a trendy part of the city. “He is a financial liability,” she said with an admission of muffled anguish. “This man has bad credit.” What she did not tell me was how she had managed to inquire about his credit worthiness and hence gotten hold of his social security number. However, it was clear that she did not want to soil her impeccable credit by marrying a man whom she felt was financially irresponsible.

3. Avoid any man whose life you can run. If a man does not have an opinion and kowtows to you over everything, then there is a problem. Connor characterized such men as doormats. “It is good to have a doormat in the home,” he said, “but not if it is your husband.”

4. Stay away from any man who is excessively attached to his mother. “When he makes a decision, he doesn’t consult you, he consults his mother.” Connor even gives an example about a man who brought his mother on his honeymoon. It is, apparently, an issue of loyalty: Is your wife an integral part of your life and decision-making, or she is a marginal figure?

5. Does the man have a sense of humor? Connor’s own mother was once asked how she had gotten along with the three men in her life: her husband, Connor, and his brother. Her answer was terse and evocative. “You simply operate on the assumption that no man matures after the age of 11,” she replied.

6. Beware of the silent type. “More marriages are killed by silence than by violence.”

7. Steer away from the problem character. A man with issues such as drugs, violence, thievery, deception, or lying, to mention just a few, is someone you will not be able to change after marriage. “People are the same after marriage as before, only more so,” observed Connor.

8. Carefully examine his family because you will “learn a lot about him and his attitude to women.”

9. Does the man possess the basic qualities of being a good human being? Does he forgive? Praise? Be courteous? Or he is the type that is given to outbursts, is rude, secretive, a control-freak, demeaning, and jealous of you?

Connor, who made the rounds in New York city high schools, talking to young people about the issues mentioned above, has said that he usually gets murmurs of resignation: “but you have eliminated everyone,” the young people complain. “Life is unfair,” is his normal reply.

                                                    ***

Marrying Mr. Good Enough

Lori Gottlieb is an American journalist/writer who in 2008 caused a media furor when she wrote an article in the Atlantic titled, “Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough.” In February 2010, she expanded the theme of the article and turned it into a book with the same title.

Lori found herself aged 40 and single. She began reevaluating her life and questioned whether she was being too picky when it came to choosing a mate. She had known men before whom she had readily dismissed as ‘not good enough’ to be marriage material. Her book is a plea for single women to loosen up their high—if not unrealistic—expectations of finding the right husband. There are many good men out there, Gottlieb argued, but women are not making the right choices. In other words, there is neither Mr. Perfect nor Prince Charming coming to rescue these women. If you ask single women who are 30 and beyond-- of what they would want in life, it is not having a big apartment, a slim body, or a great career but simply having a husband, and “by extension, a child.” Gottlieb’s advice was simple: Settle. “Don’t worry about passion or intense connection,” advised Gottlieb. To her, romance is overrated. The idea that a passionate romance can make one happier isn’t realistic. Marriage, to Gottlieb, is different. “But marrying Mr. Good Enough might be an equally viable option, especially if you are looking for a stable, reliable life companion.” Simply put, what “makes a good marriage isn’t necessarily what makes for a good romantic relationship. Once you are married, it is not about whom you want to go on vacation with; it is about whom you want to run a household with.” For the faint-hearted, marriage, according to Gottlieb, “isn’t a passion-fest; it is more like a partnership, formed to run a very small, mundane, and often boring nonprofit business.”

Gottlieb would hear her married friends constantly complain about their husbands. They would tell her how lucky she was to be single. However, in reality, none of these women would trade places with Gottlieb. All preferred to stay connected with their mates rather than be alone. Gottlieb would tell these friends, “If you are so unhappy, and I am so lucky, leave your husband. In fact, send him over here!” None has volunteered to do so.

Gottlieb’s prescription was not to compromise on fundamental values that one shares with a man, but to see the bigger picture and not dwell on little things. You may not like your future mate’s annoying—but harmless-- habits but your goal, asserted Gottlieb, is to “have the infrastructure in place to have a family.” Women, says Gottlieb, who have higher expectations end up becoming more disappointed in the long haul as time passes by them. One of Gottlieb’s friends expressed realistic views of what she expects of a mate:

“I would say even if he is not the love of your life, make sure he is someone

you respect intellectually, who makes you laugh, appreciates you…I bet there are plenty of these men in the older, overweight, and bald category (which they all eventually become anyway).”

Arranged Marriage!

In a world where the divorce rate hovers on 40% to 50%, there must be other venues for obtaining a mate. The predominant perception, mainly in the West but also in many parts of the world, is that one falls in love with someone and then marriage ensues. What about the other way around; get married and then fall in love? To many, that is sacrilegious! How can you marry someone when you are not initially in love? That is anachronistic, right? Reva Seth, the British-born Indian writer would shoot back and say, ‘Spare me your sanctimonious sermons! But imagine millions and millions of people in the world do exactly that by marrying someone that they do not necessarily love, with the result of very low rates of divorce. Countries like India, parts of China, many Arab countries, and even parts of Somalia still practice some form of arranged marriage. Reva Seth., in her book, First Comes Marriage: Modern Relationship Advice from the Wisdom of Arranged Marriages (2008), challenged many women in the West to give an unsentimental look at the idea of marriage before love. Seth, incidentally, does not encourage women to accept arranged marriages without consent. At the risk of oversimplification, she equates choosing a husband to purchasing a house. “When you are buying a house, you draw up a list of ‘must haves,” says Seth. “So why shouldn’t it be the same for marriage, which is probably the most important decision you will ever make in your life.”

Seth advocated that couples have shared cultural values and common goals in life before they embark on marriage. Friendship and being a good partner form the backbone for a lasting and happy marriage. Women, according to Seth, have every right to choose their husbands, but their decision should not be based on the wrong criteria. These women in the West are looking for a “life-saver rather than a life partner,” admonished Seth. According to Seth, there is no such thing as “the One. “There are several men out there who could be potential life- partners and much has to do with timing, meeting the right person at a time when both of you are ready to settle down.”

Interestingly, surveys have shown that many women do not necessarily choose the husband who suits them the best but rather the husband who looks the best. One recent survey showed that 44 percent of 300 women surveyed said that they would marry their husbands a second time. That is a shocking number given that more than half of the women would not. Seth holds a low opinion of romance as the basis for a good marriage. She simply dismisses romantic love as nothing but an infatuation and sheer lust with temporary satisfaction. She argues that this does not make a good marriage. The person you love may not necessarily be suitable for you in the long run. Seth has news for the world; find the man that is suitable for you and then fall in love after you are married. Your man doesn’t have to be your friend (that is why women have girlfriends anyway) and he doesn’t have to be good at dancing. There are bigger issues at stake in selecting a husband than checking what his hobbies are. Marriage is too serious an institution to be based on love and attraction.

Seth’s book was based on research of 300 Asian women in Europe and North America whose marriages were arranged. She was aware of the fact that arranged marriages are generally reduced to cultural stereotypes. However, interestingly, she generally found the women happier, and more focused on the vagaries of their family life. The divorce rate among these women is staggeringly low; between 5 and 7%.

                                                      ***
The Islamic Angle

The reasons for selecting a mate among Muslims are as varied as their diversity. But there is one criterion that the Islamic theology, perhaps, emphasizes more than anything else: It is “Deen.” The concept “Deen” as basis for choosing a mate is interesting. It does not necessarily mean the narrow definition of “religion,” or “faith.” It also does not only connote offering rituals or dressing in a certain way. “Deen”, in the Islamic tradition, broadly means “Xusnul-Khuluq” (a good character). The Emir Omar ibn al Khattab, once reprimanded a man who flattered another man because he had seen him in the mosque. Omar asked the flatterer if he had dealt with the man on money issues, lived with him, or if the two had ever traveled together? When the flatterer said he did not, Omar told him that he simply did not know the man enough to vouch for him.

The late Egyptian scholar, prolific writer, and activist Shaikh Mohammad al-Ghazali al-Saqqa (1917-1996), in his seminal book, The Muslim Character, gave a synopsis of the main traits of a good character: It is piety, sincerity, mercy, gentleness, kindness, lovingness, compassion, generosity, honesty, fairness, empathy, chivalry, truthfulness, forgiveness, patience, tolerance, and trust.

                                                   ***
Finally, the late American columnist and humorist, Erma Bombeck, once gave her take on the subject of choosing a mate. “People shop for a bathing suit with more care than they do a husband or wife,” she wrote. “The rules are the same. Look for something you will feel comfortable wearing. Allow for room to grow.”