Turmoil in Al-Islah, Somalia's Muslim Brotherhood

Four years ago, in an interview for Ikhwanweb, the official website of the international Muslim Brotherhood, Ali Bashe Omar, chairman of al-Islah, assured members of the Brotherhood across the globe that there were no problems bedeviling the Somali branch. “The movement is not suffering any internal problems,” Omar emphatically said. “In fact, it is in its strongest stages in terms of fairness, commitment, and sacrifice.”

For the last few days, however, al-Islah has been anything but a harmonious organization.

Sheikh Mohamed Ahmed Nur “Garyare,” a co-founding father of the group, announced that the movement had frozen the membership of three of its top leaders: Chairman Ali Bashe Omar, Dr. Ali Sheikh Ahmed (current president of Mogadishu University and former chair and co- founding member of al-Islah) and Mustafa Abdullah Ali, head of the southern division of the organization. The accusations leveled by Garyare and his supporters against the three leaders ranged from the mundane--poor leadership, sowing discord among members-- to the more serious charges of misappropriation of funds and treason. Dr. Ali Sheik was specifically accused of cavorting with unnamed foreign entity, in the name of fighting “terror.” In an interview with the BBC, Garyare made it clear that he was, for all practical purposes, the new leader of the Islamic movement. The cleric, who lives in Toronto, Canada, was dismissed by a recent declaration of the deposed leaders as an individual who speaks for none but himself. The current discord in al-Islah resembles the one that occurred in the Somali parliament several months ago when the speaker was deposed and a new leadership was installed, which led to the unending question of who is actually in charge of the Somali legislature. The drama continues.

For students of Somali politics, the question is: What led the turmoil in al-Islah to occur now? The international Muslim Brotherhood is having the best era in its 84 years of existence—thanks to the Arab Spring. The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt won both the parliamentary and presidential elections, the Al-Nahda is currently in charge of Tunisia, and Syria’s Brothers are in the forefront in the existential fight against Bashar Assad. Morocco’s branch of the MB is also in control of the government. The only exception has been Libya where a pro-Western secular leader, Mahmoud Jibril, won the recent elections to lead that country. But then again, Libya was able to buck the trend, if one is to believe the Washington Post’s conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer, because it is “less a country than an oil well with a long beach and myriad tribes.”

Al-Islah, the internationally-recognized MB outfit, can best be described as a small organization with an elitist bent. Many of the rank- and- file members are educated and have no commonality with the average Guled or Maryam. Whereas the Egyptian MB shares the same elitist quality with its brethren in Somalia, it was nevertheless able to articulate its political and social agendas with the Egyptian masses. Al-Islah, on the other hand, has generally steered of being part of Somalia’s political process because it lacked vision, grass-roots support among the masses, and a willingness to cooperate with other--and in some cases bigger-- Islamic movements in the country. For the last two decades, al-Islah has distinguished itself by telling the international community that it is not Salafi, and hence militant. The leadership has failed to define its movement other than reciting that it is not Al-Ittihad al-Islami (AIAI) or al-Shabab. The movement’s former vice chair, and now presidential candidate, Abdurrahman M. Abdullahi “Baadiyow” had articulated, in his various writings that the state of militancy in Somalia is due to the presence of Salafis in the country. The Sufi orders and the Muslim Brotherhood, argued Baadiyow, are peaceful and tolerant, whereas the Salafis are “confrontational.” Therefore, “the root of the Islamic conflict lies with the ideology of Salafism as practiced in Somalia.” However, Baadiyow’s moderate beliefs have not endeared him to the very audience he has attempted to reassure in the West. According to several independent sources of al-Islah—one a top-ranking figure— who spoke to this writer, Baadiyow is not allowed to fly to the United States.  It is not clear why Washington did that as Baadiyow, in his writings, speeches, and interviews, has never advocated violence.

 There are two camps in al-Islah: One group emphasizes the development of Islamic identity for the individual and the society based on Islamic ideals, whereas the other camp has shown a Machiavellian approach to attaining political power. Sheikh Garyare and many members of the organization want the group to return to its roots and ideals, and not be corrupted by the pursuit of power. Dr. Ali and Baadiyow (who oddly escaped the wrath of Garyare) believe that the MB should have a political party in order to gain power, because political power brings about change faster, and is more effective (a lesson al-Islah learned from Tajamuc, better known as Ala Sheikh). Not long ago, a prominent member of the group had circulated a bizarre and unethical idea to buy votes from the council of traditional elders, $5,000 a piece, in order to win parliamentary seats. Baadiyow, in fairness, has publicly called for clean and fair elections, but demands that he disclose who is funding his candidacy have fallen into deaf ears.

The root cause of the discord among al-Islah was the proposal to form a political party. The proposal was, of course, led by Baadiyow and Dr. Ali, and was rejected by Garyare and his supporters, mainly because they felt disempowered by the ‘politico’ wing of the group, which by then had full control of all the finances, as well as the group’s jewel: Mogadishu University.

For the last several years, al-Islah suffered defections and dissent. A new group, naming itself the New Blood, has emerged and collaborated with two other major Islamic groups, the Tajamuc and al-Isctissam, a Salafi group whose members were once part of now defunct Al-Itihad. The Tajamuc is unique because it is a local homegrown Muslim Brotherhood outfit with no ties to Cairo, the headquarters of the international Muslim Brotherhood. The Tajamuc, unlike al-Islah, has established extensive working relationships with other moderate Islamic groups in the country.

The recent turmoil in al-Islah weakens the organization as the divergent leaders of the group are going through identity crises. The fact that the leaders have failed to iron out their differences internally, but have aired out their dirty laundry to the public, is an indication that there is an organizational break-down caused by a lack of necessary mechanisms to resolve conflict. The discord among the leaders might have an impact on the functioning of Mogadishu University, perhaps, the most successful project the group has ever undertaken in Somalia, the institution provides high-quality educations to thousands of Somali students. Some say that the organization is over-extending itself, especially in its pursuit of power, and, hence, does not know its own limitations.  Perhaps, it would be better off heeding to the popular Egyptian adage, “Calaa addil xaafaha, mid riglayk,” (based on the length of the mat, extend your legs).

Government Corruption in Somalia of Yesteryears

Peter Bridges served as the American ambassador to Somalia from 1984 to 1986. In his memoir, Safirka: An American Envoy (2000), Bridges chronicled his dealings with top Somali government officials.

Bridges was considered a straight shooter. Before his appointment, his knowledge of Somalia was scant, and his experience in Africa nil. His prior postings had been Panama City, Moscow, Prague, and Rome (twice). In all, he served under seven American presidents. Bridges became the first ambassador appointed by Ronald Reagan immediately after his reelection, and he was one of 280 former American diplomats who overwhelmingly endorsed Obama in 2008. In one of his articles in The Huffington Post, Bridges concluded his ringing endorsement with a familiar phrase: that American politicians use after airing their commercials, “…and I approved this message.” Bridges wrote, “Barak Obama did not approve this message. It’s all mine.”

Bridges’ observations of Somalia seem, at times, to have been comical and stereotypical. He issued constant complaints about Somali government buildings’ structural flaws, bats in the Somali National Theater, animals wandering in the streets, and the bumpy roads of Mogadishu; he also characterized Hotel Uruba, at the time the city’s best hotel, as a place  “that was said to feature a rat in every room.” Even the American ambassador’s residence received its share of criticism. The Somali Foreign Ministry, in particular, Bridges called it, “the shabbiest ministry building I had ever seen.”

One thing that Bridges emphasized about his years in Mogadishu was the level of corruption in the Somali government. Bridges was managing one of the largest American military and foreign aid projects in sub-Saharan Africa. He wrote that every Somali cabinet minister he had met would badger him about the need for more aid. Interestingly, Bridges knew that the requests were unnecessary and unjustified. In fact, Bridges included a zinger about Somali officials being persistent beggars. The British ambassador to Somalia at the time of Bridges’ tour of duty, William Fullerton, advised him to read Richard Burton’s classic book, The First Footsteps in East Africa (1856). Burton wrote that Arabs called Somalia “Bilad wa[x] issi,” (Land of Give Me Something). “The longer you are there,” Fullerton warned Bridges, “the more you will think that name is apt.” Bridges grudgingly acknowledged that both Burton and Fullerton were right. Even so, on rare occasions, a government official would come up with a creative approach to foreign assistance. For example, Vice President Hussein Kulmiye Afrah told Bridges in 1985 that Somalia needed to exploit wind and solar energies instead of relying on oil handouts from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. 

Italian aid to Somalia in the 1980s amounted to a quarter billion US dollars. The money was spent on such projects as a road in northern Somalia, the renovation of a pharmaceutical plant, and the construction of a fertilizer plant that never produced a sack of fertilizers. According to an article in the Washington Post, “ The Italian Connection: How Rome Helped Ruin Somalia,” (01/24/1993), a former Somali minister testified in Italy that at least 10 percent of the Italian aid to Somalia was pocketed by members of Siad Barre’s family and their cronies. Many of the Somali state-owned companies made “no economic sense,” argued Bridges, but “did make business sense—family business sense.”

Bridges also mentioned how the Somali government inflated the number of refugees in the country in order to secure more foreign aid. For example, Abdi Mohamed Tarrah, Commissioner of the Somali National Refugee Commission, had the tendency to play with refugee numbers. “If there were no refugees,” Bridges stated,  “there would be no commission—and no Commissioner.”

One issue that angered Bridges was how Siad Barre courted Libya during a period of high tensions between Washington and Tripoli. Reagan had bombed Libya and Qaddafi’s compound in Tripoli, and the Libyans, were, of course, itching to retaliate against the Americans by any means necessary. Siad Barre, meanwhile, started courting Libya in part to dissuade Qaddafi from aiding Somali rebels based in Ethiopia. Bridges warned Barre about re-establishing diplomatic ties with Libya. However, Barre, the wily politician, saw an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone: court Libya’s financial assistance and undermine his rivals. One day, Bridges read a news item from the Somali News Agency about Somalia and Libya resuming diplomatic relations “in consideration of the emphatic necessity to prepare for and face the problems posed by imperialism and its likes.” Bridges was livid! He asked to see Abdirahman Jama Barre, the foreign minister, who reassured him that the statement referred to the Ethiopian imperialism. However, when Bridges met Siad Barre, the Somali president said the word “imperialism” was in reference to the Soviet Union. One thing became clear to Bridges: Qaddafi had bribed Somali officials to resume diplomatic relations. Bridges said that he had heard credible reports that Jama Barre pocketed $1 million from the Libyans.  

In November 1985, the World Bank organized a conference in Paris to provide urgent aid to Somalia which was experiencing a budget gap of $100 million.  Many countries pledged to help except Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Bridges could not understand why fellow Muslim and Arab countries would not lend assistance to Somalia. He was later told by an Arab ambassador that Siad Barre had diverted $20 million to “private pockets,” that was intended for Somalia to purchase oil. In one instance, oil from Saudi tanker was even sold to the Apartheid regime of South Africa, a country under economic boycott, rather than delivered to Somalia.

Finally, there was the matter of Somali Ambassador to Washington, Abdullahi Ahmed Adow, who had purchased a house on Foxhall Road; the property was reported to be “the second-largest residential real estate sale in the District of Columbia that year.” Bridges did not accuse Ambassador Adow of any wrongdoing, but he sardonically noted that Adow “had done well for a nomad’s son on a Somali official salary.” However, Adow’s attractive wife, Asha, was another story. She asked Ambassador Bridges whether the Americans were interested in renting one of several villas she owned in Mogadishu for, oddly, six thousand US dollars cash; no Somali  shillings, please. Bridges was taken aback by the request and politely declined. What happened next was beyond comprehension. Bridges claimed that Asha Adow threatened to rent the villa instead to the Libyan Embassy. In essence, Bridges felt he was being blackmailed. If the Libyans had rented the said villa, they would have had access to the American military compound that operated a stone’s throw from the villa.  Bridges was upset and had to tell Somali officials that Somalia would regret renting the villa to the Libyan Embassy. An international incident was, hence, averted.

Despite Bridges’ allegations, there are those who say that Siad Barre was only interested in political power, and that he never gained any financial benefits from ruling Somalia for more than 21 years. If this assumption is correct, then he at least condoned the practice of corruption because he was perfectly aware that members of his government and family were guilty of embezzling from the country’s coffers. For Barre, allowing some of his ardent supporters to get rich was a reward for their loyalty. For the small number of his family that benefited from his long reign, it was simply an entitlement, and Barre had no problem with that.

The Anti-Al Shabab Campaigner in Mogadishu

Nine months ago, Omar Abdirahman Mohamed-- commonly known as Omar-Dahir—Chairman of Midnimo Political Party and the director of the Center for Moderation and Dialogue in Mogadishu received a most unsettling phone call from an anonymous caller.


“The [Somali] people and the [Islamic] religion will be protected from people like you,” the caller said.

Omar-Dahir instantly knew that the caller was a member of the radical group and Al-Qaeda affiliate, Al Shabab. The group is known for making such ominous and mysterious calls. He was being threatened, and he got the message immediately. Life has not been the same since. Omar-Dahir, like any Somali politician closely allied with the government, is today actively being pursued by the Al Shabab. He is on constant guard, and rarely goes to his home for fear the Al Shabab assassins might flay him alive.

“When you regularly take a public swipe at the Al Shabab in Mogadishu,” explains Omar-Dahir. “Two things are certain to happen-- threats and murder, and not necessarily in that order.”

The Somali government and the African Union forces are currently fighting the militant Al Shabab militia in the old fashion way-- bullet by bullet. But Omar-Dahir has also been in war of words with the group. It is not clear where his campaign against the Al Shabab begins and where his political ambitions and agenda end.

Omar-Dahir is a no ordinary rival of the Al Shabab; he is a graduate of the Islamic University in Medina, Saudi Arabia, and personally knows the top leaders of Al Shabab. They were once active members of the Islamic Courts Union which briefly ruled Mogadishu in 2006.

“Once upon a time, they were my friends,” Omar-Dahir laments.

The word “they” here is not a generic term, instead, the pronoun specifically stands for Ahmed Godane, the co- founder and current commander of the Al Shabab, and his top lieutenant, Ibrahim Afghani. These two are individuals, who originally hailed from Somaliland, and Washington has recently placed a bounty of $7 million and $5 million, respectively, on their heads.

Omar-Dahir has a grudging respect for his old friend, Godane, and now his new nemesis. Nevertheless, he still wants to bring the fugitive to justice.

“He is much smarter than most people give him credit for,” says Omar-Dahir about the Al Shabab leader. “Come on, the guy has done some graduate work in Pakistan, and speaks Somali, Arabic, and English fluently.” But behind this veneer of education, according to Omar-Dahir, lies a dangerous, criminally-sophisticated, and disturbed man, with a long list of woes, issues, and diabolical goals.

“I can tell you that both Godane and Ibrahim Afghani do not want peace or reconciliation,” attests Omar-Dahir. “All they want is the establishment of an Islamic state as they narrowly define it.”

Omar-Dahir remembers Godane and his cohorts during the Islamic Courts Union’s rule when they were actively and secretly arming and organizing themselves. When the Courts were wiped out by the Ethiopian forces, Godane’s Al Shabab militants got their opportunity and declared themselves to be Jihadists a la Al- Qaeda fashion

Omar-Dahir is a medium-height, soft-spoken man in his early fifties. He speaks as though he is weighing every word that he utters. “I sat in front of Godane and Ibrahim Afghani as I am sitting in front of you,” he said as he slumped back into his chair. “They see the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and anybody who does not agree with them as ‘Kuffar’ (infidels).” Infidels, according to the two, deserve to be killed.
Calls for political reconciliation with Al Shabab irk Omar-Dahir. He does not understand why some Somali politicians and pundits circulate such an “asinine” idea. “These radicals want the elimination of the government. Period,” he asserts. They do not want peace. “How can you negotiate with a group of killers who want to get rid of you in the first place?”

Omar-Dahir sees no moderates in the ranks of Al Shabab. However, radicals such as Hassan Dahir Aweys and Mukhtar Robow are not as powerful as people think, believes Omar-Dahir. Not mincing words, he explains: “In fact, both Aweys and Robow are afraid of Godane so much that they cannot do anything without his approval.” Moreover, Aweys and Robow share the same ideology, are not much different than Godane and Afghani, and view any negotiations with the government with sheer contempt. In addition, the two leaders are afraid of the “Amniyaat”, a secretive intelligence and assassination unit of the Al Shabab that is under the control of Godane.

Several months ago, Sheikh Aweys publicly stated that waging Jihad was not the monopoly of one group, (i.e. Al Shabab) and that anyone could undertake it. Aweys’ speech earned a verbal lashing from Godane and other Al Shabab officers. Aweys’ fatwa was neither accepted by the radical group nor even debated. It was just summarily rejected out of hand.

Omar-Dahir and four volunteers run the Center for Moderation and Dialogue which is now engaged in a propaganda war with the Al Shabab. They are all volunteers, Dahir says, and hence receive no salaries and funding from any source.

“No help from the Somali government, or the Saudis, or the Americans?”

“Not really,” Omar-Dahir replied.

Omar-Dahir claims that he is committed to exposing what he calls “the carefully-constructed charade” of the Al Shabab. He goes to the radio stations, and talks to whoever will listen to him about the clear and present danger the Al Shabab group poses for Somali youth and children. Volunteers at the Center give interviews to local media, lecture at mosques, and public gatherings. The Center also publishes booklets, leaflets, and pamphlets. Omar-Dahir also trains Somali imams and journalists about the language Al Shabab leaders use, and how to decipher their doubletalk. “Some of the imams do not know such concepts as “at-Tasamux” (tolerance) “al-Ghuluwi” (extremism), so I teach them in order to refute the Al Shabab, “says Omar-Dahir.

Omar-Dahir acknowledges that reporters for the government-run Radio Mogadishu are the most courageous in the fight against the Al Shabab. “Some of these brave reporters, males and females, haven’t even left the station since 2009 because they are wanted by the Al Shabab,” says Omar-Dahir. “They sleep at the station and still carry on their coverage of the Al Shabab.” Omar-Dahir has found great solace and support in these journalists who, like him, are not afraid to call a spade a spade.

Radio Mogadishu does have its limitations; however. It is a FM station that does not reach beyond Mogadishu. The Al Shabab group is strong in areas outside Mogadishu, according to Omar-Dahir, where Radio Mogadishu cannot reach any audiences, and where no middle class, intellectuals, learned people, and strong institutions exist, and the level of Islamic awareness is weak. Most of Al Shabab recruits come from small villages and rural areas where the radical group controls the terrain and thinking. “Mogadishu has not been kind to the Al Shabab, when it comes to recruiting,” boasts Omar-Dahir. “What is badly needed is a shortwave radio with a long reach,” says Omar-Dahir.

The Al Shabab offer a four-month intensive religious training to their clerics, Omar-Dahir adds. He warns too that the group has been effective in brainwashing young recruits, and then controlling every aspect of their lives. Recruits, adds Omar-Dahir, are also offered incentives such as marriage. Parents, in areas under the control of the group, are pressured to give away their daughters to “Al Shabab mujahidin fighting for the cause of Islam.”

Omar-Dahir is still optimistic that the propaganda war against the Al Shabab will be won eventually. It is a war of attrition, Omar-Dahir says, that will last until Somalia gets stronger institutions, better radio stations and TV, and lasting peace and stability. “It is challenging to fight a radical group that regularly uses Facebook and Twitter,” explains Omar-Dahir with a calm brave earnestness. “The militant group also controls radio stations, such as HornAfrik, Somaliweyn, Furqan, and Andalusia.”

“We are still far behind in fully utilizing the mass media and social networking,” Omar-Dahir admits. “But we will win the war because the Al Shabab group is living on borrowed time.”

Omar-Dahir’s optimism is tempered by the bleak reality that the Al Shabab, though battered now, is still alive, and does control a large swath of land in Southern Somalia.



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.”



OK: So, How Happy Are You?

Several years ago, in an Arizona court, I met an elderly Somali woman who was accompanied by two of her pregnant daughters. I was there to assist the woman’s son, a man in his thirties, who had been convicted of burglary and drug possession. The family came to seek leniency-- on his behalf-- during his sentencing. They all testified and implored the judge to give their relative a break. After the hearing, the elderly woman approached me and thanked me for helping her son. She then asked the name of ‘my wife’ lest she knew her.

“I am not married,” I said.

“You are not?”

“No.”

There was an eerie, if not a deafening, silence.

“My two adult college-aged sons live with me,” I sheepishly volunteered to add. Or, as the older of the two had the wont of saying, “My Dad lives with me.”

More silence.

“Yeah, I was married for 22 years,” I said as though I was pleading for an understanding from the woman. In essence, I wanted her to know that I had no beef with the institution of
marriage.

More silence.

It was obvious that the continuous and loud silence left me utterly deflated.

By this time, I had given up. To the elderly lady, I was a middle-aged professional Somali man with a notable attribute: I was single. Although I am not a mind reader, I could guess what she was thinking: “Maybe he is leading a life of debauchery. He must be miserable.”

The woman finally gave me a perfunctory farewell and left. She also shared a terse—albeit, unspoken-- message: Do something and get married.

Somalis put premium on the importance of older age. According to one Somali adage, “Nin gu’ kaa weyn, garaadna kaa weyn,” (a person who is [a year] older than you is wiser than you). Although Somalis also promote the act of marriage, Somali elders have unfortunately not yet been asked, in a systematic way, what advice they can offer to young single people.

It is important to note that the idea of associating marriage with happiness is something ingrained in many people’s minds, regardless of their culture. Some studies have concluded that
single people are likely to be less happy than those who are married. Meanwhile, married people tend to live longer. Of course, some of my married friends would adamantly argue against such conclusions.

Other than the disquieting subject of marriage, I do not recall my mother ever sitting with me or my sister and giving us any advice on getting married or achieving that elusive goal called “happiness.” She was more of an action-oriented person than a talker. When my mother came to California in 1991, she lived with me for the first year and half before she got her own place. She was a fiercely independent woman who wanted to have her own space. During the short period she stayed with my family, she was reticent. She generally did not comment on my marriage at the time, either good or bad. One notable exception occurred when I would take her to visit some Somali women in our city for social gatherings. The women inevitably asked my mother about my family life. She replied that it was good. Then, my mother delivered what seemed to be a mortal blow to my role as a husband: “Hassan spends a great deal of time in the kitchen.” She, of course, meant cooking, not foraging for food in the kitchen.

I howled with laughter at my mother’s comment. She was disdainful of the fact that her son was doing what she thought to be a wife’s responsibility. In other words, I was mangling my role as a husband. My mother never mentioned the fact that she did not approve of a man cooking while the wife was home. I have always enjoyed cooking and, oddly, my children have always been my biggest fans. I guess they did not have much of a choice as they were my captive audience. My mother’s remark clarified for me her comments to me when I would present her a meal. She had a habit of taking a veiled dig at my culinary skills: “War heedhe, maxaad noo walaaqday maanta?.” “(what have you been stirring for us?).” “Walaaq”, or “stirring,” is something done by an amateur--in my case, a man wo, presumably, did not know what he was doing. When she disapproved of something said or done, her favorite phrase was, “Illeen waa daaqdaa.” (So, you graze). I found it sardonic because she had a raw sense of humor.

I wonder what my parents would have said about issues such as marriage, happiness, career, and parenting if they had spoken to me about them.
***
30 Lessons for Living: Tried and True Advice from the Wisest Americans by Karl Pillemer (Hudson Street Press, 2011) is a new book that shares the advice of 1,000 American elders whom the author calls “the Experts,” because they have done something many of us have not: lived into their 70s, 80s, 90s, and beyond. For a period of five years, the author, who is also a professor of Gerontology at Cornell University, interviewed his subjects, who were 65 years old and older,
about issues such marriage, parenting, careers, and happiness. These elders explained that
no one gave them advice when they were young. This is a summary of the advice they shared:

On Marriage: A successful marriage, according to the elders, is the one when the couple has
the same values and goals. The idea that opposites attract and, hence, make their marriage successful is nothing but a wishful thinking. Yes, many couples meet, fall in love, and then get married, but what makes a marriage durable is an amalgam of friendship, open communication, the ability to compromise, and an unwavering commitment to the institution of marriage. Romantic love, in essence, does not beget a lasting union. In Linda and Charlie Bloom’s
book, 101 Things I wish I knew when I got married (2004), the authors identified what kills a marriage and what makes it special:

#10: “It isn’t conflict that
destroys marriages; it is the cold, smoldering resentment that is bred by
withholding.”

#76: “Of all the benefits of marriage, the
greatest is the possibility of using this relationship to become a more loving person.”

Marriage is taking that extra step to make every day special. One of the elders shared this daily
advice: “When you wake up in the morning, think, ‘what can I do to make her day just a little happier?” (Antoinette Watkins, 81).

On Parenting: Discipline is crucial, but there is no need for physical punishment. The elders, paradoxically, see the futility of physical punishment-- an approach that was considered acceptable just two or three decades ago. They think that it is not an effective way of disciplining, and, in fact, may lead children to become aggressive and anti-social.

The elders urge parents to spend time with their children at any cost and make the effort to participate in their activities. The more a parent interacts with his/her child, the more that
parent is able to establish a bond and instill important values. Moreover, more interaction also enables parents to detect peer problems.

Do not engage in favoritism or comparisons, advise the elders.

On Careers: Find a job that you like, the elders say, and that you enjoy doing. You can always
get another job, on a temporary basis, while you pursue your ultimate career.
Patience is key in pursuing your dream job.

On Regrets: The elders advise you to be honest and take full advantage of the opportunities
that life presents. For those who are still young, they urge them to travel before it is too late.

On Happiness: Happiness is a choice one makes and “is not a result of how life treats you.”
Things do happen to people that are beyond their control, the important thing is how people
react to such matters. It is always good to be joyful. One 90-year- old woman stated, “I learned to be grateful for what I have, and no longer bemoan what I don’t have or can’t do.”
***
Let’s briefly discuss the topic of happiness now that the elders have extrapolated
their take on it.

Happiness as an industry

According to Psychology Today, in 2008 alone, 4000 books were published on happiness in the United States compared to 50 books published in 2000. The plethora of books on the topic-- not to mention the fact that some leading American universities are offering classes on happiness-- is intriguing. An entire
field has emerged called, “positive psychology,” that deals with the study of happiness.

In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson made the pursuit of happiness as
basic human right, along with life and liberty.

Many thinkers often define happiness in terms of living a good and meaningful life. In
Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle used the term “eudemonia” (rather than “happiness”) which means “well-being,” or “flourishing,” as the basis of ethics. Humans, Aristotle, argued pursue
“eudemonia” for its own sake, unlike wealth, friendship, or health.

Happiness is contentment. Psychologist Martin Seligman provided the basic ingredients of
happiness or “flourishing,” as he calls it, using the acronym, PERMA. People are happy when they have the following;

Pleasure (“tasty food, warm bath, etc.”),
Engagement (“the absorption of an enjoyed yet challenging activity”),
Relationships (“social ties have turned out to be an extremely important
indicator”),
Meaning (“a perceived quest for belonging to something bigger”),
Accomplishment (achieving goals).

What about money and appearances? To what extent do these affect one’s happiness?

Good Looks and Happiness

Can good looks make you richer and happier?

Some economists at the University of Texas-- Austin report that a measurable economic benefit exists for being attractive. In other words, the more attractive you are, the more likely you are to benefit from it economically and happiness-wise. “The majority of beauty’s effect on happiness works through its impact on economic outcomes,” explained Professor Daniel Hamermesh, the lead researcher. These economists sought to determine if any correlation existed among beauty, income, and happiness. They found that better-looking people earn more money and marry better-looking and higher earning spouses. Good-looking individuals have better chances to get better job interview results, make better initial impressions, influence others, and, most
of all, get the benefit of the doubt.

So, what about plastic surgery? Do some people need to change their looks in order to gain preferential treatment?

“It doesn’t help much…Your beauty is determined to a tremendous extent by the shape of your
face, by its symmetry, and how everything hangs together,” Hamermesh argued.

The study, of course, did not take into consideration some of the successful people who are simply not that attractive. Can you say that Bill Gates, Donald Trump, or the late Steve Jobs and Michael Jackson (who were alive at the time of the study) were better looking than the average Joe?

Moreover, “isn’t overall quality of life—family, money, friends, career, interests, and so on—determined by ‘how everything hangs together?” (Time, 3/30/11).


Can Money Buy Happiness?

Give me wealth, and I will be happy.

Not so fast!

Donald Trump, the flamboyant American billionaire, once aptly summarized the complex relationship between money and happiness when he said, “Money is not everything—for those who have it.” Yet, there is always the perception among many that money can buy happiness. At least one study by researchers at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School concluded that money can buy happiness if a magical figure is attained, a $75,000 annual income. There are two kinds of happiness; the changeable, day-to-day mood that reflects if one is sad, stressed, - and emotionally sound- and the “the deeper satisfaction you feel about the way your life is going.” The $75,000 annual income in the United States only improves one’s life satisfaction, not the day-to-day emotional content. Incidentally, the magical figure is quite high given the federal poverty level is $22,050 for a family of four.

Researchers found that respondents’ evaluation of their overall life was directly tied to their income. With extra income, people’s stress level was a lot lower than those suffering from inancial pinch. In essence, the more money people made, the more they felt that they were enerally satisfied with their lives. It is not absolute wealth that is linked to happiness, but elative wealth or status; that’s, how much more money you have than your neighbor.

The researchers found that most Americans (85%), regardless of their income, felt happy every year. About 40% reported feeling stressed, and 24% felt sadness. When the same study was conducted in other countries, the Americans were not unique. This is how they ranked:

5th__in terms of
happiness,
33rd__in terms of
smiling,
10th—in terms of
enjoyment
89th—in terms of
being the biggest worriers,
5th—in terms of
being most stressed (out of 151 nations studied).

According to The Economist (February, 2012), poorer nations actually fare better in the way they self-report about happiness.

A Purposeful Life

Money can enable individuals to pursue their passion but it is not an indicator that it leads to happiness. Various studies have shown that the super-rich are susceptible to a host of problems such as high level stress. People who are also materialistic tend to be less happy than those who aren’t.

So, what is the way out?

In his book, Happier, Tal Ben Shahar provides an eloquent summation of how one should approach the topic of happiness. Happiness can best be attained by:

-‘Creating rituals around the things we love,
-Expressing gratitude for the good things in our lives,
-Setting meaningful goals that reflect our values and interests,
-Playing to our strengths instead of dwelling on weaknesses, and
-Simplifying our lives—not just the stuff, but the time’.

Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111) was a Muslim philosopher and the author of Kimiya-as-Sacaadah (The Alchemy of Happiness), a practical guide to happiness. He basically called for leading a purposeful life. Al-Ghazali prescribed a life of self-discipline and spiritual purity. To Ghazzali, self-realization is very important. “He who knows himself is truly happy.” The aim of moral discipline is “to purify the heart from the rust of passion and resentment till, like a clear mirror, it reflects the light of God.” Unhappiness is when one becomes slave to his desires. “In short, man in this world is framed in infirmity and imperfection. But if he desires and wills to free himself from animal propensities, and ferocious satanic qualities, he may attain future happiness.”

Personal growth and helping others are more likely to prompt happiness than money and status. According to Kennon Sheldon, professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota, people
pursue two types of goals, intrinsic and extrinsic. “Intrinsic goals are about personal growth and self-knowledge, connections and social intimacy with other people, and wanting to help the human community for altruistic reasons,” Dr. Sheldon said. “Extrinsic goals are about money, luxury, appearance, attractiveness, status, popularity, looks, and power.” Individuals driven by
intrinsic goals are “significantly happier” than those pursuing extrinsic goals.

In a seventy-two year study, conducted by Harvard University’s psychiatrist Dr. George Valliant, looked at what makes men happy over their lifetime and discovered that happiness encompasses
having good relationships, especially with their siblings and friends; adapting to crisis, and having a stable marriage. Moreover, avoiding smoking and chemical dependency, getting regular exercise, and maintaining a healthy weight further brighten the prospects of individual happiness.

Professor Chris Peterson of the University of Michigan suggests simply making strong personal relationships as top priority in order to ward off life’s daily trials and tribulations.

Finally, there is the story of the Zen master and a 16-year old boy in a Chinese village. For his birthday, the boy received a horse as a gift. The villagers were impressed and said, “How great!” The Zen master said, “We will see.” One day, the boy fell from the horse and broke his foot. The villagers were saddened and said, “That’s awful!” The Zen master said, “We will see.” Two years later a war broke out and all the abled young men were drafted. The boy was exempted due to
his physical condition, and the villagers said, “How wonderful!” The Zen master said, “We will see.”

Life is replete with setbacks. What seems to be an opportunity might be ominous while a tragedy might be an opportunity in disguise. What is needed is not euphoric triumphalism or bemoaning but simply the ability to cope with such setbacks with grace.