So basically, in a lecture this woman told Somali women back home not to marry overly poor men:
Now the men in Somalia went up in arms and started insulting her.
Now this Jiheeye man is even insinuating disgusting things about her just because she dared to say donβt marry very poor men.
Knowing the situation back home in which very poor means not even having proper roof over their heads or even food to feed their kids which is why they beg the diaspora and we see crying women on TikTok asking for money, why is that advise so threatening to Somali men? Didnβt the Prophet s.a.w tell very poor men to fast?
Her message is flawed, for she is conflating two critically opposing theories:
materialism vs
spiritualism; the two theories at the heart of her message are very familiar, if old ground in philosophical discourse amongst seasoned theologians, and students of epistemology, but perhaps new to Somalis.
At first, let us define a few words to avoid distractions:
- Decency (Good): Of guiding moral, and ethical principles grounded in Islam.
- Bad (Wicked): Lacking decency.
- Rich (not wealthy): With equity to self-sustain, and afford a decent life.
- Poor (impoverished): Lacking basic needs, or means for a decent existence.
I'll see if I could opt for brevity for relatability. In social norms,
Materialism in the physical sense, and in lifestyle is being reduced to all substance being marketable incl. body and soul of humans, where if one does not have it [material], one is on the market whereas if one has it, all substance is at one's disposal and pleasure.
In a nutshell, a rich person acquires any and all. A poor person is for acquisition, for instance, a young, healthy, desirable lady seeks a man
with means with her ultimate desire being: material (farthings). Character matters not. A man with means seeks a
desirable lady with his ultimate desire being: material (
body and soul). Character matters not. And therein lies the exchange: pretty pennies for body and soul. A trade of sort, no different from the Stock market. I am trying to keep this within the context of her message.
No place is this more prevalent than in S E Asia, and W Europe where at business gatherings and social outings, businessmen hawk their wives, girlfriends, and daughters to potential partners to sweeten, so to speak, a deal to a closure. This is well-rehearsed in Hollywood (movies:
indecent proposal, pretty woman to name a couple), but the reality is far darker, if worse where clients are entertained (
veil for sordid in all sorts of indecency) to their hearts' content with all substance at their disposal.
Now, back to her message, on one hand, her message to the ladies is: marry not poor men, where she is advocating for the material world, put it differently, it is as if she equates substance / material with decency whereas poverty is innately regarded as being bad. Yet, she argues for men of good character: decency, of moral, and ethical principles, wholesome, hardwork amongst other 'good' attributes:
Spiritualism. Here, it is the content of one's character, for which she so passionately advocates, as being regarded as the ultimate 'good', and not one's mere possessions:
Materialism. A poor man could possess all the properties of being a 'good' man, the most suitable to be a father, husband, or a life partner. A wealthy man could be the worse of human kind possessing none of the said 'good' traits she so seeks in the desirable man.
How does one then advocate for substance over decency? How does one reconcile Ms Muna's critically opposing theories? Shall we presume naivete on Ms Muna part hardly comprehending that which she is preaching? Or shall we selectively exclude Materialism from her message focusing upon Spiritual elements of her message, which meets '
the form of the 'good' ', even if lacking in essence, breadth, and depth.
I must admit I think not Ms Muna is advocating for indecency, but herein leads the nub of her argument: When a lady chooses a potential suitor by the size of his wallet, she attaches little, if any significance to his character, therefore is technically trading her body and soul in return for material gains. In her summation, one could argue, and I am just going by those two clips, good character, skill / profession, education, good upbringing etc. matter a lot less than a pretty penny. Germain Greer might disagree, but would be so proud of Ms Muna's core message.
It must said the two are not mutually exclusive, and there are good wealthy men, if very few, as there are poor bad men, and therein lies the dichotomy in Ms Muna's premise. It is a classic trap generally fallen into by, and found in, people with limited academic research in the field they wish to speak of. I might add her intentions might be admirable, but there is a great deal that is wrong with her rational thinking, and if I am a thinking wo(man), I would be concerned as to her intentions.
Postscript:
She comes across polite, cultured, possibly with a past, and in this clip, she advises ladies not to engage in gender wars using men in her life as examples of 'good' men. Very commendable!
She sounds more of an activist, with a past, than a learnt Islamic scholar on a clear path to educate in that she mispronounces, misquotes, and mis-references, an indication of her not being a genuine Islamic scholar of discernible body of work, and of a great mind. I do not know, and am only going by those two videos, and wonder as to her professional background.