“Where do you look for me (god), O man? I am with you….. Kabir says, I (god) am in faith”. In his bhajan, he outlines basically that as long as one believes in god (by whatever name one wants to call him), it doesn’t matter particularly how you worship. He goes into detail in the verses eg. “I am not in the mosque or the temple, not in the kaaba or in kailash…”

As Bhagat Kabir said “Mo ko kahan dhunday bandhay, main to teray pas hoon… kahata kabir suno bhaee sado, main to hoon vishwas main” “

That’s a question you need to ask the hard core fundamentalists – I’m clueless since I’m not an extremist and I never question how or why people worship the way they do. Also, can someone please translate the Hindi? This Telugu/Kannadiga is clueless about anything other than English, German, Spanish, and of course, Kannada and Telugu..

Well, if liberalism excludes moralising then presumably most of the churches, masjids, temples, unions, environmental groups, Congress, the President, and many others in the United States should be accused of being illiberal. liberalism is the idea that you use use ideas and not force or money to reach political decisions, not that opinions should not be questioned, critiqued, or moralised about.

That said, I think I was quite fair to him, particularly since I have to evaluate what he says as a fundamentally political statement, since he has presented it as such and is, in fact, openly a politician (not closeted . In fact, what I did, if you read the entire passage that you quoted rather than just the portion you quoted, is to say that by being a self-defined Muslim who is acting in support of some LGBT rights, he is dismantling stereotypes about Muslims and bridging divides; but in the language that he is using, he is reinforcing some.

If you read closely what he says here:

I am the first Muslim in the legislature. Homosexuality is strictly forbidden in Islam. As such I have evinced much grief from my most conservative supporters. But I recognize that I represent people of all faiths and no faith at all. If I tried to enforce religion by law — as in a theocracy — I would be doing a disservice to my both constituents and to my religion.

He is arguing that

a) Homosexuality and Islam are incompatible. b) Muslims are his “most conservative supporters” c) not legalising same-sex marriage would be an enforcement of religion, and therefore should be defended on grounds of secular liberalism, presumably expressing consent for Muslims to continue to be homophobic as long as they tolerate a state that is not.

So it is a carefully worded statement imo that is not quite clear on whether “all Muslims” or some subset of Muslims are “his most conservative supporters” who are against LGBT marriage. It is also not clear whether “enforcement of religion” means enforcement of “Islam.” It does not deny and in fact potentially reinforces that Islam and Muslims are universally homophobic, or acknowledge that Muslims can be LGB, which are the stereotypes that need to be broken down.

I would guess this lack of clarity in the language is by design, though that is a gut instinct based on years of hearing politicians speak and the obvious grandstanding at the top about civil rights while he identifies in a social group that is allegedly homophobic in the bottom. However, I’d concede that I could be wrong on further inspection and additionally (as I did above) that the implications of his act might be stronger than the problems with his language. I might even go as far as to say – okay, it’s good, even though it’s not perfect, depending on the context.

Anyway, mostly, it’s all very interesting – fascinating creatures, these politicians

As Bhagat Kabir said “Mo ko kahan dhunday bandhay, main to teray pas hoon… kahata kabir suno bhaee sado, main to hoon vishwas main”

In this case, instead of separation of church and state, it’s separation of mosque and state. To me, all the Abrahamic religions texts are very similar. The 3 religions messages are all about serving God, helping mankind, don’t cheat, don’t kill, etc. Judeo-Christian values should really be Judeo-Christian-Islamic values, in my opinion. (I’m Hindu and I guess I have Hindu-Buddhist-Jain values.)

How do you even read that in a comment that says “Muslims are obligated to be true to themselves?” If he disagrees with the idea of homosexuality and that disagreement is grounded in his being religious beliefs then that’s his deal. He is obligated to act according to the dictates of his conscience. Where in that do you see anything about it being a given that all Muslims must think and interpret their religion alike?

What exactly is the definition of ‘getting up on a high horse’?

Generally it means moralizing rather than empathizing with people who hold opinions contrary to yours. When I read a comment like “but in the language that he’s using, he’s perpetuating the idea that they are not compatible. My personal preference is for those people who claim both identities rather than playing into choosing one over the other, but it’s better than nothing.” it sounds to me like you’re not open to the idea that he might be correct in his opinion and you might be wrong. You aren’t evaluating his statements on their logical consistency or truth value, but in how closely they mirror your own opinions.

You can fundamentally disagree with someone while still acknowledging that given their core principles, background, and logical train of thought their opinion is internally valid and consistent.

As to the discussion about whether Sufism is “true” Islam or not, I would firmly argue that no one has the right to decide what makes someone a “true” Muslim. This is the decision of the Pakistan government to legislate that Ahmedis are non-Muslim is so horrible. Once the state starts doing that, where does it stop? What’s to say that in the future anyone who isn’t mainstream Sunni won’t be declared non-Muslim? Even the scripture itself says that if an individual declares himself a Muslim, only God has the right to judge him.

I also agree that a person should be free to believe and practice their religion how they see fit. It is one of the best parts of those countries that have chosen to embrace that approach. It will not (usually) stop the rest of the believers (who are in the vast majority and often more true to the original ideas–at least the original ideas as recorded in “the book” of the religion) from calling those people heretics and saying they do not believe what the religion says. And to be honest, in those situations, the “old believers” usually have the better argument, although not always. For instance, Muhammad was no friend to gays, and he is considered the man who is the most close to Allah, therefore it is hard to argue that a Muslim who is a practicing homosexual is practicing the religion as “correctly” as a Muslim who agrees with Muhammad.

I think that the Sufi example is apt in that although it may not be representative of the core ideology or majority (as it is chosen to be interpreted) it still shows that some can chose to reconcile the different views and live (and love) the way they wish to and still be spiritual.

I think the important thing that people forget about religion or any faith is that it is and should always be a very personal choice and every individual can choose for themselves how they wish to practice. There are many gays who are practicing Muslims and I believe they would all disagree with the statement that they are not ‘real’ muslims. The great thing here is that everyone can have their own opinion and agree to disagree without blanket statements.