Bachmann and Muslim Women Have Something in Common

Republican presidential contender Michelle Bachmann has recently faced questions regarding her comment that she is "submissive" to her husband because of her religious beliefs. She has vacillated in her explanation. When running for Congress in 2006, she told an audience that she studied tax law because her husband instructed her to do so, and in order to be submissive to him she obeyed. She explained, "[m]y husband said 'Now you need to go and get a post-doctorate degree in tax law.' Tax law! I hate taxes -- why should I go and do something like that? But the Lord says be submissive. Wives, you are to be submissive to your husbands."

When asked, in the Iowa GOP debate last week, about her previous comments regarding her marriage and her desire to be submissive to her husband, she seemed to backtrack, explaining: "[w]hat submission means to us ... it means respect. I respect my husband ... and he respects me as his wife."

This glib response deflects the question and is contradictory to her previous statements. The Ephesians verse actually states:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.

How does submission translate into mutual respect? This is a question that many Christian women have sought to answer, and Bachmann's understanding that submission ultimately is manifested as mutual respect in modern marital relationships may be widely shared.

While Bachmann may not have any quick or easy way to explain her beliefs, she gets sympathies from one unexpected segment of American society: Muslim American women.

Like Christian women who have to contend with the passage in Ephesians instructing women to submit themselves to their husbands in everything, Muslim women have to grapple with a certain passage in the Quran delineating the hierarchy in marital relationships. The chapter of the Quran entitled "The Women" has one verse stating:

Men are the maintainers of women because God has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as God has guarded... (4:33)

This verse is subject to numerous interpretations. Some scholars contend that the language stating that men are the maintainers of women is related in part to the Islamic laws of inheritance. Because men are responsible for financially supporting their families, they are entitled to twice the share of property as their sister, which in turn further enables them to support their families.

The Quranic language also refers to the physical differences between the genders, such that men in general have more physical strength and related ability to work to support their wives. As such, the reference to men "excelling" above women does not mean that men are ontologically superior to women, but merely that they are more physically and financially able to serve as providers than women.

This interpretation makes sense in the overall context of the Quran, which repeatedly provides that men and women are equal in the eyes of God. In the chapter entitled "The Parties," the Quran states:

Surely the men who submit and the women who submit, and the believing men and the believing women, and the obeying men and the obeying women, and the truthful men and the truthful women, and the patient men and the patient women and the humble men and the humble women, and the almsgiving men and the almsgiving women, and the fasting men and the fasting women, and the men who guard their private parts and the women who guard, and the men who remember God much and the women who remember -- God has prepared for them forgiveness and a mighty reward... (33:35)

Through this verse and many others like it, the Quran provides that the worship and value of men and women is equal in the eyes of God, and neither is inherently superior to the other.

Muslim female politicians have tried, like Bachmann, to explain what these religious intonations mean to them. One of the strongest rebuttals against those who seek to capitalize on such verses to sideline women has been given by Benazir Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan and the first woman ever elected to head an Islamic country. She stated in a speech to the World Conference of Women in Beijing:

To those who claim to speak for Islam but who would deny to women our place in society, I say: The ethos of Islam is equality, equality between the sexes. ... My presence here, as the elected woman prime minister of a great Muslim country, is testament to the commitment of Islam to the role of women in society.

Bhutto's view that Islam guarantees fundamental equality between the sexes, and is not a hindrance to a woman seeking a position of power, is shared by hundreds of millions of Muslims. That is why Pakistan, Indonesia and Bangladesh, among other Muslim nations, have elected women as their heads of state.

Many Muslim American women, in their negotiations between their religion and their lived reality, rely on this same understanding that they are fundamentally equal to their male counterparts. A recent Gallup poll found that Muslim American women are one of the most highly educated female religious groups in America, second only to Jewish American women. The poll also found that, "as a group, Muslim Americans have the highest degree of economic gender parity at the high and low ends of the income spectrum." And in achieving this gender parity, Muslim American women did not have to desert their faith. The same poll found that the vast majority of Muslim Americans say that Islam is important to their lives, and Muslim American women are equally as likely as Muslim American men to attend mosque regularly.

These statistics reveal the underlying truth of Muslim American gender relations: Muslim American women and men agree with Bachmann's interpretation of "submission" as having primarily to do with respect.

 

Follow Asma Uddin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/altmuslimah

Comments

[ms schatzi]

01:40 PM on 08/21/2011

So I guess Bachmann can count on the female muslim vote.

[adelynmetze]

04:30 PM on 09/05/2011

Can't put any simpler than that.

[almostlyniceguy]

04:15 AM on 08/19/2011

All religion is bigoted toward women. There are instances where women are now in the clergy, and even pastors, but these are rare exceptions.

Religions are inventions of men used to keep women and other men in submission.

Another reason why religion is evil.

[adelynmetze]

04:34 PM on 09/05/2011

Interesting that you would use absolute statements to argue against religion and yet cite examples where those absolutes don't follow in order to strengthen your point.

[Angie Tyne 1]

03:01 PM on 08/18/2011

When you have to stretch a book so far and interpret so deeply it's time to give up on the whole "word of/inspired by God" thing. No triple-omni deity would be that bad at communicating its message. Maybe he should hire a better PR group. The one he's got can't get a consistent message through and has ruined the brand.

Until we stop thinking that any 'holy' books reveal the truth about any god/s we’ll continue to isolate ourselves into groups. Tribalism is an evolutionary asset that’s become a modern problem. Believing that god/s have dictated 'truth' to any group is destroying us.

Whatever anyone believes about god/s the idea that men from any age had the right take on what’s 'truth' is absurd. Each tradition contains some passage that states god/s are beyond our understanding and that we’re incapable of knowing the mind of god/s. How arrogant is it to claim to have the 'truth?'

We need to stop thinking that we KNOW what god/s want, accept that we're all in this together and need to work rationally as a group rather than allow ourselves to be destroyed over petty disagreements regarding who has the right book.

[MikeGhouse]

10:18 AM on 08/18/2011

GREAT ARTICLE BACHMAN AND MUSLIM WOMEN... I nearly wrote that but did not submitt to Huffington post, but a variation was posted in Dallas News:

The Palin-Bachman feminism is a new phenomenon; indeed they are setting a new assertive standard for feminism, where the deferential role for a woman in public square may become extinct like the dinosaurs. Palin-Bachman may not be the right role models, but they are the first most visible ones.

It has a lot of winning appeal to women, particularly Muslim women, it authenticates their own vision of womanhood and offers a role model for them to emulate. Be yourselves, do what is right irrespective of the opinions out there, eventually that will become the standard and the norm of the society where you are viewed as an individual contributor for the wellbeing of the family and the society. I welcome this new benchmark, it was long overdue.

Mike Ghouse is a speaker committed to a cohesive America and offers pluralistic solutions on issues of the day – Mike' articles are published at Huffington post as well.

[Jan Allen McDaniel]

10:13 AM on 08/18/2011

What is an intelligent but dogmatic believer to do when her holy text is stuck in the past?

She can't state the plain truth for fear of Hell. So she exercises her formidable powers of rationalization.

This amounts to further proof that any inconvenient holy text can be interpreted away, just as slavery was. Allah's word is eternal truth demanding submission--unchangeable, unquestionable--right up until the moment it gets changed in order to recognize human progress.

On the positive side, it proves that any religion--including Islam--can be fundamentally reformed if the pressure for reform is strong enough.

Way off topic: Bumper sticker I saw yesterday--"Venice Christian School--Go Lions!"

[OtayPanky]

06:35 AM on 08/18/2011

Here's a survey of Islamic writing on the subject. Read it and draw your own conclusions:

http://answering-islam.org/Silas/wife-beating.htm#_Toc160373828

Let me state for the record that I am not a Christian (like the author of the link), and I think that the Christian holy texts and historical record is filled with the same barbaric thinking as the Islamic holy texts and historical record.

The plain fact is, they were BOTH terribly misogynistic and patriarchial in their language and their intent.

That doesn't mean people can't worship the God of their choice within the tradition of their choice. But we all need to be more honest than these women bloggers who are acting as apologists for a flawed religion rather than as disinterested scholars.

[Qasim Rashid]

06:27 AM on 08/18/2011

Great piece Asma. Very well thought out - and - the explanation is so much more powerful coming from a Muslim woman herself. Well done.

[jthinker]

06:03 AM on 08/18/2011

The irony of our attempts to keep religion and the state separated, is that unlike Europe, where they did not do so, we are still struggling to keep the religious nuts from swamping our secular world with their own brand of religion, while all christian religions in Europe are waning. The founding fathers should have just picked a state religion, and the country would have just naturally slid away from that nonsense. It's time to stop letting superstition dominate our lives. It's time to stop letting religious kleptocrats play such a major role in our political lives.

[Lordd Bedlam]

06:00 AM on 08/18/2011

Bachmann's remarks relating to a submissive spouse exhibit a fatal flaw in her campaign. She is incapable of connecting with a broader audience or average Americans. The average American does not study scripture and speaks in a literal sense. Given this factoid, Bachmann's use of the word submissive is rightfully interpreted in the vernacular.

http://awe.sm/5RAfs

[jthinker]

05:54 AM on 08/18/2011

This is evidence of how much twisting and distorting people have to go through to maintain their allegiance to a superstition. I have always thought that the phrase "educated - fill in the religious belief- person" is an oxymoron. If people are truly educated, then they would not only try to "interpret" read twist, their religious dogma, they would challenge and question the inherent flaws, contradictions and plain crazy ideas therein. All so-called relious texts were written by people, read men, to further the agenda of some men to be able to rule over other men and all women. As a species, we would be so much better off if were to jettison the superstitions of the past.

[beninabox1]

11:34 PM on 08/17/2011

"Muslim American women and men agree with Bachmann's interpretation of "submission" as having primarily to do with respect. "

Bachmann's problem is that her example appears to indicate that she took her husband's opinion *over* her own with respect to her decision about her own career, aka her work life. The question that arises is would she take her husband's opinion over her own when it came to matters of policy, use of military force, and other decision that come with the office of President.

[TheyDidntListentoNoah]

06:27 PM on 08/17/2011

"Bachmann said she never had taken a tax course, “never had a desire for it,” but “I was going to be faithful to what I felt God was calling me to do through my husband.” Later, when the opportunity to run for Congress arose, “my husband said, ‘You need to do this,’ and I wasn’t so sure.” She became sure two days later, after praying and fasting with her husband."

Bachman is describing HER DECISION to go with her husband's idea. She CHOSE to go ahead with the tax degree, despite feelings of initial reluctance because SHE FELT that honoring biblical teaching was something SHE WANTED to do and that Marcus's idea could be God could be leading her in a direction she hadn't initially thought of. Same w/running for congress. She prayed and fasted to obtain clarity and made a decision to run.

Bachman could have refused to get the tax degree and she could have refused to run for congress. If that had been her decision, Marcus Bachman would have just had to deal with it.

I don't see any evidence that Marcus forced her to do anything against her will. She evidently respects him enough to trust his leadership in their marriage relationship.

[beninabox1]

11:35 PM on 08/17/2011

It is up to her to explain that she made her decision solely on the basis that she should submit to her husband in regard to decisions about her own professional life.

[adelynmetze]

04:28 PM on 09/05/2011

It's interesting that you would take the stance that he didn't "force" her to do anything and that she could have said no had she wanted to.

Obviously she wasn't "forced". But she made her decisions based on her belief system that she ought to be "submissive".

So yes, I agree with you that it was her choice. But I don't see how she could have made a different choice without turning her back on her beliefs.

Still, it's hard to have confidence in someone who didn't have her own internal desire to reach these goals.

[Tito James]

05:28 PM on 08/17/2011

My wife has more brains then to be submissive to me

[nolookpass2]

04:23 PM on 08/17/2011

The pastor of our current church is a woman. She is married and has children but she is the leader of the Church. The do not cut the verses out of the bible that speak to submission so that she could be the lead pastor because they understand the scriptures. The man of the household is to serve the family, the least is to be the greatest and the greatest is the one who serves unselfishly. That is the christian principle. There is a hierarchy in the church and in the family. Jesus came to serve and to save. He is the head of the church and he submitted himself as a servant of the people. He lead but by example and teaching and following God's laws. He came to fulfill the law but he also came to save us from the law that meant death because no man besides himself could live without breaking any laws.

[imdesign]

03:13 PM on 08/17/2011

Our understanding of "submissiom" is to "give in to" - it always raises the question of allowing another to "dominate" in a negative sense. Especially true when aplied to a woman allowing and accepting to be dominated by a man.

If we look at it in context of Truth or following who we are and how we express our inner self outwardly in everything we do and say - then even without religion, we are (ideally) bound to live from love, harmony, stillness and gentleness in our expression as it is our recognition of an "energetic pulse" that drives us - it is our choice to express from our Heart or not.

So to submit or give ourselves to live from this energy we are being completely True to our purpose (my opinion) - if we believe we are here to express and live these principles. In this context to live our Truth with our partner so we express without separation of thought, word and deed is an honouring of each other. Of course we have our own thoughts, words and express how we are differently, but energeticlly we are the same source. Love.

In this respect, while we are different, we meet each other in "equalness".