Somalis in Somalia are the best!!

[Castro]

^ That's just wrong atheer. I smart, you no smart. There's a spot free on the bacaad over there. Feel like wrestling?

 

We all have different experiences to bring to the table. I think this is quite healthy actually. In India they have something called the "Laughter festival" where thousands upon thousands gather in a big area and just laugh there heads off. Their blood pressure decreases. Their migraines go away (allegedly) and they leave the festival rejuvenated to tackle the problems of life. Highly therapeutic and I recommend it.

 

SOL is the "Shouting festival" of nomads. I read all that's said and I'm happy to see most of it. We've come a long way. We just need to iron out some details, that's all.

[ElPunto]

Well - Naden, I am surprised you are willing to give me the last word since you were so vehement in your arguments and liberally sprinkled in insults and insinuations in your posts. However, here goes:

 

Originally posted by naden:

[QB]

Proselytizing? Exaggeration much! She was giving her opinion on how people deal with their (sad) lot in life on the basis of their faith.

 

You and I both know it was not an opinion piece on dealing with a 'sad lot'. Where is the evidence of any type of coping other than a non-depressed hungry face? Any time you admonish people to leave a 'kafir' land and to shed a 'western individualistic culture', you are preaching, maybe even proselytizing.

This was an opinion piece - the tone is something else. You can accurately describe the tone as gushing but little in the way of preaching far less proselytizing. The post has the phrases "everyone should live in Somalia" and "...should visit a muslim country". When you put qualifiers in your statements you are hardly forcing your opinion down anyone's throats as in the case of preaching or proselytizing. I have read and re-read the original post - there is no instance where it says leave 'kafir' land or shed 'western individualistic culture'. If from the criticism of those two latter items, you have foisted upon yourself the implications of leaving and shedding - then that is something that you have done yourself and not the poster.

 

 

Because thousands ran away from Somalia - it is a hell-hole with no redeeming points about it? Hardly.

 

Hundreds of thousands ran away, hundreds of thousands more died, tens of thousands are dying now of hunger and disease, not to mention the hundreds who will venture out to the sea every few weeks and die there. That pretty much defines a hell-hole in my world. Yours?

Let's not mix the past with the present. Somalia during the civil war and for a period afterwards was a hell-hole. Hell-hole being in my definition - a place where things are bad and where the situation is stagnating or getting worse. Is Somalia a hell-hole now? Not according to any reasonable metric. This supposed hell-hole has seen hundreds of members of the disapora return, invest, set up businesses, schools, hospital, universities, libraries etc. etc. Well, how did this square with the term hell-hole and what is your definition of hell-hole? And how is Ethiopia or the Congo different or for that matter much of sub-saharan Africa - is all of it a hellhole with nothing redeeming at all about it?

 

Thousands flee Mexico risking their lives to enter the US - I would hardly call Mexico a hellhole.

 

Mexico and Somalia, the comparison is laughable. I'm not touching it.

It's funny - since you established the metric of people fleeing as something that indicts the society they fled. Here is what you said: "She was proselytizing about the purity and wonders of Somalia when everyone knows the hundreds of thousands who ran with their tail between their legs know how desolate it is."

 

Ergo - according to the metric you established - hundreds of thousands running with their tail between their legs = desolation(aka hellhole, maybe??). So using that metric I stated that hundreds of thousands flee/fled Meixco - is it a hellhole(or to put it in your exact comparison - is all of Mexico a desolate wasteland because hundreds of thousands fled?)

 

Establish appropriate metrics and your arguments may be more relevant.

 

 

when faced with that how do you deal with it? Do you persevere, remain stoic and put your faith in God and do your very best?

 

Don't even try to shove faith in my face and scare me away. They don't need anyone to point out their stoicism; resignation to one's poverty and hunger maybe an academic exercise for the likes of you but it is an inescapable reality for others.

Shoving faith in your face? Faith and its power in the lives of Somalis in Somalia was an intergral part of the original post. You have to deal with it. Scaring you away? I hardly tried to do that - strange what the mind will believe when it wants to. Whether they need anyone to point out their stocism or not is beside the point - the comment made was that their stocism is admirable. You can either agree with that or disagree with it.

 

Resignation to poverty and hunger? Is that what you believe their faith and reliance on God is about? You have sadly misunderstood the case indeed. In Somalia, you have an extended family of 25 people living in one person's home - their only physical sustanance is biil sent out from the West - hardly enough for 5 or 6 people. It is stretched out to feed everyone and although those receiving it hardly know when/whether the next one will come they put their faith in God and do their very best. This is the admirable moral and spirtual basis that I was referring to and which even in the direst circumstances provides for the people.

 

The point here is the basis of the faith in Islam and God gives Somalis sustenance that the average Westerner is unable to tap into in troubled times

 

No, the point you're espousing, others are clapping for and the sister initiated is one of delusion and hiding your head in the sand. This is actually akin to catholic fervor of silent suffering. A lot like mother Teresa encouraging poor, TB-ridden Indians to accept salvation instead of medicine and running to a Santa Monica clinic for a stomach ache. Get a grip, the lot of you!

Where is the delusion and the head in the sand syndrome? It's fascinatingly interesting - unsubstaniated and irresponsible accusations are made right and left. I did not say the anyone should forgo medicine and rely on 'salvation'. What I said was in the absence of food(or medicine) one should put one's reliance in God and hold steady and stay hopeful. Now, much to my consternation, that latter point is apparently not as widely shared as I had assumed. Silly Me!

 

I don't know what you mean by the 'average Westerner' not being able to cope with troubled times. I will give you this illustration, though. When any Somali sister is giving birth in any Western hospital, as Western doctors and nurses hover over her and her infant so they are healthy, I doubt she will trade places with a sister back home whose child has a 22.5% chance of dying. Look it up if you want.

Troubled times = natural catastrophes, personal loss, death of a loved one. Many people in the West turn to drink, drugs, etc. Now some in Somalia certainly do the same but because the society is faith-based more or less, many more lean on their faith and take sustanance from it. I hope that point is clear now.

 

So she mentions positive aspects of somalia - she automatically has to give up her western passport and live there?

 

Yes, she does. She is the one who finds the Western world objectionable and describes a Utopic Somalia. My call for anyone who does that to return to Somalia is a simple extension of their arguments. Arguments that are shallow and self-deceiving. When you find a place intolerable and a threat to your faith, don't waste your breath trying to get others to see things your way, simply leave. If you are truly nostalgic (as we all get), do share with the rest of us the smells, taste, pcitures of Somalia. Otherwise, pull the rest of that crap with young Somalis who have either never seen Somalia or are too young to imagine a place with no infrastructure. :rolleyes:

What a hilarious concept you have here. Because she mentioned one positive aspect about Somalia and said it lacked in the west - she must unceremoniously leave. If you think saying Somalia has a simpler way of life and people are rooted in their faith as 'utopic' - then you have little idea what that word means. I wonder if we could conduct a thought experiment here: If a white British woman went to the Middle East and commented on how she like the close-knit families there and how it was lacking in British society - would you demand she pack of and move the M.E.? I bet not! But then I could be mistaken. You could be an equal opportunity ejectionist rather than one focused solely on Muslims/Somalis who dare to criticize.

 

That no matter the physical poverty and lack of order - spirtual and moral order rooted in Islam

 

Say the men and women who have passports and money to fly back and forth. Again, put the Quran on the table and back away slowly where I can see your hands. You don't scare me. Keep repeating that to yourself, sooner or later you will be delusional enough to never explore any issues of poverty and lawlessness.

A spiritual and moral order rooted in Islam is useful for everyone and anyone regardless of where they are. A single mother with 5 kids in the west has as much need of it as someone in Somalia. Physical poverty and lack of order do not define the individual or the society - how they cope with them is what defines them. For you, however, poverty and lawlessness define the individual and the society.

 

I am at a loss to understand why you keep referring to me trying 'scare' you? For the record, I haven't tried that or done that(to the best of my knowledge).

 

I also adore your last line there: "you will be delusional enough to never explore any issues of poverty and lawlessness." Is the thread about the poverty or lawlessness of Somalia or about what one poster's opinion on the state of Somalis' faith and condition. If somehow I have been completely dyslexic and the thread is about the poverty and lawlessness of Somalia - then disregard everything I wrote for I have oodles of subject matter on that topic! This reminds of me situations where you are commenting on one person's good points and then others keep coming in and pointing out their bad points. That is legitimate but off-topic yet that escapes them.

 

This kind of moral armour is something few in the West have.

 

Again, I don't know what this means.

Moral armour = strenght of character, high level of faith, patience. You have good moral armour if you have lost your job, your wife left you, your kids were taken away, sued by your business partners, been diagnosed with cancer and still you are hopeful, patient, are not bitter and do your best to get on with life.

 

At the end of the day, the post of Modesty was not about pro/con, Somalia vs. the West.

 

Yes, it was. Reread the post.

No it wasn't. It was about the impact of faith in governing the lives of Somalis in Somalia. There is only one reference to the west and here it is: "Somalis in the west are so different, I just noticed the major difference in their cultures, it seems the ones in the west take the western individualistic culture, but the ones here masha'Allah ...."

 

She's not even referring to the West in general - she is referring to the character of SOMALIS in the West. Could you be more wrong in your characterization of a blatant contrast between Somalia and the West??????

 

you shouldn't veer off into the unrelated question of pro/con, Somalia vs. the West.

 

Again, I wasn't the one who brought up the contrast between the two. The sister's post repeatedly paralleled Somalia vs. the West. And honestly, I used the Cheney pellets equivalent to disagree with the original post's thesis statement. The next time I run across a trite argument that paints a romantic, glib view of today's Somalia, I will point my kalashnikov up their asses and pull the trigger

To this I say - prove it. Show where she paralleled the West and Somalia. If anything, she paralleled 'western' Somalis with Somalis in Somalia. That is a major difference.

[ElPunto]

As I ponder this thread I am amazed at some of the postings. To me - it seems you could have only 2 reasonable responses to the original post:

 

1- That's interesting sister, and we are glad you enjoyed it - but on the whole Somalia's disadvantages are more than its advantages.

 

2- That's interesting sister, and we are glad you enjoyed it - and I agree that on the point of their faith Somalis have a strength even if they are lacking in other things.(essentially my point)

 

What is not reasonable is a post like this(summarized or quoted directly):

 

3- OMG sister, you're deluded, head in the sand, give your passport away and leave, "A stress free life leads only to people being hungry, faith alone doesn't build hospitals and schools", "Anyone who gets all excited about this return to the earth crap"

 

To me this latter response is not reasonable, legitimate, or respectful. It is an extreme response. It really has no place in a proper discussion. I could be wrong but likely not.

[Castro]

This is very interesting and naden, I believe, has met her match. Keep going please.

[Naden]

ThePoint,

 

I changed my mind about how much more I have to say about this topic. But only because a couple of distinct points are being discussed simultaneously and should be clarified.

 

This was an opinion piece - the tone is something else.

 

I disagree. Preachers are a dime a dozen on this site and the tone you refer to leaves little space for opposing views. When people use deterministic words like 'kafir' - which I find to be a most unfortunate description of Christians, they are speaking from a point of severe judgement and disdain. So in the opinion of the original poster, a seminal difference between Somalis in the West and those in Somalia is a 'culture and faith so untainted by kafirism'. What are the implications of this? You believe it is a 'gushing' tone and I think it's 'preachy'. Enough of that.

 

Hell-hole being in my definition - a place where things are bad and where the situation is stagnating or getting worse. Is Somalia a hell-hole now? Not according to any reasonable metric.

 

Reasonable metric, huh? According to the UNDP (2002), Somalia has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world (1 in 4) and it is estimated that 71% of the population is chronically undernourished. Twenty-five percent of newborns dying and 7 in 10 people undernourished is a 'bad' situation by any standard. Pick a reasonable metric of your choice and find out if it will pass the hell-hole test for you. There are painful indications that long-standing droughts and environmental degradation make economic and agricultural recovery perilous at best. This, in my book, is a sign of stagnation and potential for worse hunger. I could go on and on but if you have a healthy mistrust of NGOs and their figures, like I do, I rely on personal experience. I've supported one relative or another even as a high-schooler. So many died of preventable illness preventable by a nourishing diet and primary health care.

 

You see the return of Somalis to invest and open businesses and so on as 'reasonable metrics' of improvement. We clearly see this aspect of recovery and its impact on Somalis differently. To each his own.

 

Establish appropriate metrics and your arguments may be more relevant.

 

You seem eager to take out your logic 101 wheels for a ride. The reason I refused to compare Mexico and Somalia is because the two are incomparable given economic indicators. Now if you compare Somalia to say, Eriteria or any of the smaller countries in Africa with similar social/economic indicators (such as mortality/literacy rates and so on), we would have something.

 

since you established the metric of people fleeing as something that indicts the society they fled.

 

No, I didn't. A society seeing its members run out of fear for life and limb should be indicted. I pointed that fleeing a place in addition to other indicators of collapse (people dying then and at the threat of starvation now) fit my definition of a hell-hole (your word). What would the purpose of such a comparison be? To debate what defines a present state of unmitigated disaster? We can certainly engage in that too, the UN does it all the time.

 

comment made was that their stocism is admirable.

 

Who could disagree with this? I think it is excessively romanticizing, you obviously don't. Again, to each his own.

 

It is stretched out to feed everyone and although those receiving it hardly know when/whether the next one will come they put their faith in God and do their very best.

 

This is called surviving and who could possibly see anything wrong with that?

 

Where is the delusion and the head in the sand syndrome? It's fascinatingly interesting - unsubstaniated and irresponsible accusations are made right and left.

 

The delusion I saw in the original post is that despite abject poverty and at times lack of basic sustenance, many Somalis live a 'life here is so stress free, you see people who might not even have anything to eat but they never frown or get depressed'. These are the sister's words. You continue injecting your thesis on the faith of these folks into this. This, unfortunately, is not what I have the contention about. People with nothing to eat have a stress-free life that doesn't even warrant some depression????? Are we understanding this sentimental, dreamy interpretation the same way? Perhaps not.

 

I did not say the anyone should forgo medicine and rely on 'salvation'. What I said was in the absence of food(or medicine) one should put one's reliance in God and hold steady and stay hopeful.

 

I never said you said it, I drew an example to illustrate my view of this silent and admirable suffering. Is it too much to say that people are suffering and very few have the means to alleviate their suffering? If the sister who posted this felt better sleeping at night believing this, I certainly don't. It is a personal, wretched, and unsolvable problem in my lifetime that haunts my dreams.

 

You second statement is a given. Reliance on God is a must in all circumstances, probably the only thing when one has nothing to eat. I seek a more pragmatic and empathic discussion of the plight when it does arise. A quarrel about faith being central to one's coping doesn't apply.

 

Now some in Somalia certainly do the same but because the society is faith-based more or less, many more lean on their faith and take sustanance from it. I hope that point is clear now.

 

The point was never unclear. Just wrapped in a great deal of syrupy sentimentality.

 

Because she mentioned one positive aspect about Somalia and said it lacked in the west - she must unceremoniously leave. If you think saying Somalia has a simpler way of life and people are rooted in their faith as 'utopic' - then you have little idea what that word means.

 

I thought the sister's thesis that you defended so vehemently was not a comparison between Somalia and the West, rather a comparison of Somalis here and there? Alas, all of this talk of a simple, rooted-in-faith life is non debatable. What can one say against it? I understand what the word means and the reference is to this stress-free life where one is non-depressed even when hungry. Would you not think of this place as a Utopia? I do. This is the point of contention, not whether Somalis in Somalia have an untainted, astounding faith lacking in their Western counterparts.

 

This kind of moral armour is something few in the West have.

 

I am still unclear on why you think 'moral armour' is deficient in the West.

 

For you, however, poverty and lawlessness define the individual and the society.

 

That's not what I said. Poverty and lawlessness determine the quality of life.

 

Is the thread about the poverty or lawlessness of Somalia or about what one poster's opinion on the state of Somalis' faith and condition.

 

Neither. The original poster posted her views, people posted their views. She may have initiated the topic but her views are not rare. The discussion moved beyond her reflections into larger ones. Talk of poverty is inescapable when we bring up people who may not have enough to eat.

 

Could you be more wrong in your characterization of a blatant contrast between Somalia and the West??????

 

Maybe we are not talking to each other but talking at each other. Only one point needs to be debated, in my opinion, and it has nothing to do with faith.

 

and I agree that on the point of their faith Somalis have a strength even if they are lacking in other things.(essentially my point)

 

Okay, your point is that Somalis are a strong lot who are anchored by their faith. How can anyone disagree with that?

 

The sister's simplistic outlook did not warrant this lenghty thread. Unlike what was asserted, I do not believe it was a simple opinion piece of someone going for a visit and sharing reflections. It contained a romanticized characterization of the suffering (due to hunger) of people in Somalia. For me and maybe others, this is bizarre and difficult to tolerate. This was my point and it was certainly not as simple as you make it to be in your second post.

 

To me this latter response is not reasonable, legitimate, or respectful. It is an extreme response. It really has no place in a proper discussion. I could be wrong but likely not.

 

Fortunately, you do not decide the legitimacy of my argument (which surprisingly is not in contradiction with yours). Don't worry yourself with the respect or reason behind my points, I don't believe enough realistic discussions are taken on by Somalis on this topic. A proper discussion calls out trite and superficial arguments that are confounded by non-debatable issues such as faith. Back-slapping and dreamy reflections of a better life in present day Somalia don't impress me. You're probably not wrong about this, but then again, we're not discussing the same thing.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by naden:

[QB] ThePoint,

 

I changed my mind about how much more I have to say about this topic. But only because a couple of distinct points are being discussed simultaneously and should be clarified.

What a Fragile Ego! :rolleyes:

[Khayr]

DP

[Modesty]

I can't speak for all of Somalia, but Alhamdulilah where I am right now, most people aren't starving, food and water is abundant, and life is still kicking. Most people that haven't been here recently think that all of Somalia is basically hungry, that is far from the truth. Some of the restaurants here have better food than some somali restaurants I ate from in America.

 

P.S. thanks for your duas for those who wished me well.

[makalajabti]

Originally posted by Modesty:

I can't speak for all of Somalia, but Alhamdulilah where I am right now, most people aren't starving, food and water is abundant, and life is still kicking. Most people that haven't been here recently think that all of Somalia is basically hungry, that is far from the truth. Some of the restaurants here have better food than some somali restaurants I ate from in America.

 

P.S. thanks for your duas for those who wished me well.

Are you doing something for somalis who are starving in another corner of Somalia?

Not you individually but your city: do you do fundraising or collect food from these "good" restaurants and send to hungry people?

 

We are glad to know that your corner of Somalia is safe from famine, but is there any solidarity for the starving?

 

In the West, they are fundraising and stuff like that, so what's going on in Somalia?

[Castro]

^ I think Naden was right about Modesty. She's living in a cocoon and should begin the proceedings of relinquishing that American passport so she could eat from those restaurants with great food in her little oasis in Somalia. And where is she again? Anyone have the GPS coordinates? :rolleyes:

 

Blessed, when are you going to Somalia/land?

[STOIC]

^^^The sheep has a delusion that there is no wolve out there in the wild, but the wolves are there.Where will the sheeps escape when the wolves appear? will they run towards the sheepdog?

 

PS I am just curious about the whole Somalia Paradise thing Saaxiib.

[Zafir]

Heh, see you have a protected brick house to shield you from wolves where you are now. But never underestimate the power of sheepdog with a revolver, they are as safe as brick house if not better.

[ElPunto]

This was an opinion piece - the tone is something else.

 

I disagree. Preachers are a dime a dozen on this site and the tone you refer to leaves little space for opposing views. When people use deterministic words like 'kafir' - which I find to be a most unfortunate description of Christians, they are speaking from a point of severe judgement and disdain. So in the opinion of the original poster, a seminal difference between Somalis in the West and those in Somalia is a 'culture and faith so untainted by kafirism'. What are the implications of this? You believe it is a 'gushing' tone and I think it's 'preachy'. Enough of that.

I think words are an important tool of communication and so I place a lot of value on specificity and clarity. Preaching tries to tell you who to be and what to do. There was little of that in the original post. The most that was said was 'should live in Somalia' and 'should visit a Muslim country'. The original post does not fit the preaching label.

 

As to any implications of the phrase 'culture and faith so untainted by kafirism' - there are a number. But those are ones you draw - and were not elucidated or drawn out by the poster. The tone of this peice can best be described as gushing because it focused solely on positive aspects.

 

 

Reasonable metric, huh? According to the UNDP (2002), Somalia has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world (1 in 4) and it is estimated that 71% of the population is chronically undernourished. Twenty-five percent of newborns dying and 7 in 10 people undernourished is a 'bad' situation by any standard. Pick a reasonable metric of your choice and find out if it will pass the hell-hole test for you. There are painful indications that long-standing droughts and environmental degradation make economic and agricultural recovery perilous at best. This, in my book, is a sign of stagnation and potential for worse hunger. I could go on and on but if you have a healthy mistrust of NGOs and their figures, like I do, I rely on personal experience. I've supported one relative or another even as a high-schooler. So many died of preventable illness preventable by a nourishing diet and primary health care.

 

You see the return of Somalis to invest and open businesses and so on as 'reasonable metrics' of improvement. We clearly see this aspect of recovery and its impact on Somalis differently. To each his own.

Your first paragraph posits little to argue about. But the question becomes: much of sub-saharan Africa registers similar stats - are they then all hellholes - the lot of them?

 

As to your second paragraph - your easy dismissal of the signs of recovery I mentioned poses a conundrum for your point of view. Is it reasonable and rational to see members of the diaspora returning to and investing in a hellhole? Does that make sense? Again, words are important. What one could say about the situation in Somalia is that on a global basis, it is bad. But characterizations like hellhole are really intemperate, inaccurate and unilluminating. The term tells you very little but allows the one using it to dimiss and discard with ease.

 

since you established the metric of people fleeing as something that indicts the society they fled.

 

No, I didn't. A society seeing its members run out of fear for life and limb should be indicted. I pointed that fleeing a place in addition to other indicators of collapse (people dying then and at the threat of starvation now) fit my definition of a hell-hole (your word). What would the purpose of such a comparison be? To debate what defines a present state of unmitigated disaster? We can certainly engage in that too, the UN does it all the time.

From the quote I used - you only stated the fleeing aspect as the primary determinant of indicting the society in which it occurred. If that was not your intention, then that changes the argument.

 

 

Where is the delusion and the head in the sand syndrome? It's fascinatingly interesting - unsubstaniated and irresponsible accusations are made right and left.

 

The delusion I saw in the original post is that despite abject poverty and at times lack of basic sustenance, many Somalis live a 'life here is so stress free, you see people who might not even have anything to eat but they never frown or get depressed'. These are the sister's words. You continue injecting your thesis on the faith of these folks into this. This, unfortunately, is not what I have the contention about. People with nothing to eat have a stress-free life that doesn't even warrant some depression????? Are we understanding this sentimental, dreamy interpretation the same way? Perhaps not.

I did not inject faith into the argument. Her point was that faith helps to create a life that is 'stress free' and faith helps to alleviate their 'frown..and depression'. And, again, this was her PERSEPECTIVE and OBSERVATION. Why is that so hard to understand or to accept? It is as if some illiterate nomad was taken to the States and shown only the slums and ghettos and the drug dealers - he then came back to his community and told them of all the negative things he saw. This nomad's PERSPECTIVE is legitimate and correct but it may not be complete. This was the same with the original poster. She simply stated her perspective and in the absence of proof that her perspective is fraudulent - the most you could say is that it is incomplete. And I doubt she would object and say that it was complete.

 

I find interesting your repeated references to sentimentality, dreaminess, romanticizing etc. Does one's persepective and observation have to be unsentimental, undreamy and unromantic supposing that her post conformed to those characterisitcs? Isn't one allowed leeway and freedom with one's own perspective and observations? I just find the attack on her persepective rather strange unless limited to the legitimate point of incompletness.

 

I did not say the anyone should forgo medicine and rely on 'salvation'. What I said was in the absence of food(or medicine) one should put one's reliance in God and hold steady and stay hopeful.

 

I never said you said it, I drew an example to illustrate my view of this silent and admirable suffering. Is it too much to say that people are suffering and very few have the means to alleviate their suffering? If the sister who posted this felt better sleeping at night believing this, I certainly don't. It is a personal, wretched, and unsolvable problem in my lifetime that haunts my dreams.

It is not too much to say that 'people are suffering and very few have the means to alleviate their suffering'. I wish you had simply stated that in your earlier posts. What is too much is 'head in the sand', 'delusional' and 'give your passport away'. And the hostile and dismissive tone I found too much also.

 

But, again, this was her persepective and observation. She, apparently, did not see much suffering. Must she post on something she did not observe and was not part of her perspective? I find this viewpoint strange and wacky to say the least.

 

Because she mentioned one positive aspect about Somalia and said it lacked in the west - she must unceremoniously leave. If you think saying Somalia has a simpler way of life and people are rooted in their faith as 'utopic' - then you have little idea what that word means.

 

I understand what the word means and the reference is to this stress-free life where one is non-depressed even when hungry. Would you not think of this place as a Utopia? I do. This is the point of contention, not whether Somalis in Somalia have an untainted, astounding faith lacking in their Western counterparts.

No, a utopia is where one has all their needs and wants and nothing troubles one's ever present happiness. That is not a conclusion you could draw from the original post. The stress-free life and the lack of depression stem from sticking to the faith. The faith is an alleviator. The post does not say that hunger, stress, and depression do not exist. The post is confined to a particular perspective.

 

Is the thread about the poverty or lawlessness of Somalia or about what one poster's opinion on the state of Somalis' faith and condition.

 

Neither. The original poster posted her views, people posted their views. She may have initiated the topic but her views are not rare. The discussion moved beyond her reflections into larger ones. Talk of poverty is inescapable when we bring up people who may not have enough to eat.

I disagree. The thread is about her perspective on conditions in Somalia. If your commentary is restriced to agreement/disagreement with her narrow perspective or a commentary that her perspective is incomplete then the thread makes sense. If you take it upon yourself to digress from the original post and launch into a discussion about the numerous ills affecting Somalia - then that is another thread altogether and is definitely off-topic. But even that is not so bad - the nasty tone and dismissive content were what bothered me.

 

and I agree that on the point of their faith Somalis have a strength even if they are lacking in other things.(essentially my point)

 

The sister's simplistic outlook did not warrant this lenghty thread. Unlike what was asserted, I do not believe it was a simple opinion piece of someone going for a visit and sharing reflections. It contained a romanticized characterization of the suffering (due to hunger) of people in Somalia. For me and maybe others, this is bizarre and difficult to tolerate. This was my point and it was certainly not as simple as you make it to be in your second post.

NO - it did NOT contain a romanticized characterization of the suffering (due to hunger) of people in Somalia. It contained almost nothing about suffering. What it contain was her PERSPECTIVE. Evidently, a mostly positive one. She did not say that suffering and poverty do not exist or are limited etc. What is so bizarre and intolerable about one positing her perspective? Or must the perspective posted conform to your pre-conceived notions?

 

To me this latter response is not reasonable, legitimate, or respectful. It is an extreme response. It really has no place in a proper discussion. I could be wrong but likely not.

 

Fortunately, you do not decide the legitimacy of my argument (which surprisingly is not in contradiction with yours). Don't worry yourself with the respect or reason behind my points, I don't believe enough realistic discussions are taken on by Somalis on this topic. A proper discussion calls out trite and superficial arguments that are confounded by non-debatable issues such as faith. Back-slapping and dreamy reflections of a better life in present day Somalia don't impress me. You're probably not wrong about this, but then again, we're not discussing the same thing.

The rigour of your argument decides the legitimacy of it - for the intelligent and unbiased person. Respect and reason matters greatly if as in your words you "don't believe enough realistic discussions are taken on by Somalis on this topic". How can one engage with you in good faith to discuss a problem if your level of respect and your reasoning abilities are in question? A proper discussion does call out trite and superficial arguments - but it has no place in dimissing and degrading an individual perspective. The dismissing and degrading of individual perspective is trite and superficial in itself! "Back-slapping and dreamy reflections of a better life in present day Somalia don't impress me" - but who wanted to impress you? No one. It was simply, again, a perspective.

 

At the end of the day - it seems you and I don't have huge disagreements on the fundamental issue - more a matter of tone and content. If you would like to start a thread on the poverty, lawlessness, disorder, hunger and other issues affecting Somalia and how we could begin to address those, I would happily contribute. Until then......

[Pi]

^Lool. *bites tongue*

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Modesty:

I can't speak for all of Somalia, but Alhamdulilah where I am right now, most people aren't starving, food and water is abundant, and life is still kicking. Most people that haven't been here recently think that all of Somalia is basically hungry, that is far from the truth. Some of the restaurants here have better food than some somali restaurants I ate from in America.

 

P.S. thanks for your duas for those who wished me well.

Enjoy your trip... wish you safe and sound return.