LONDON – As London comes together for the Mayoral elections, candidates from across the spectrum race to gather votes. From the Green Party to the BNP, to Women’s Equality Party to UKIP, there is even one named Cannabis is Safer than Alcohol.

But as diverse as the selection is, the two front-runners are Sadiq Khan and Zac Goldsmith. Their manifestos aside, there are two matters which have affected my position with regards to these two candidates.

Earlier on, Sadiq played the ‘Muslim’ card, I found this distasteful. I do not vote for any person based on their personal beliefs, rather, based on the values they hold and the policies they wish to introduce.

These had become lost, playing second fiddle to what should have been focus on his program to improve the lives of everyday Londoners.

Perhaps inspired by the growth of hate and divisive politics in the US trumped by Donal Trump in his electoral campaign, Zac Goldsmith stooped to equally low levels, by implying that Sadiq’s Muslimness was not a positive thing.

Perhaps this was a general take on trying to capture cheap votes through division and hatred, or perhaps he was reflecting attitudes towards Pakistani men, manifesting his dislike of his sister, Jemima Khan’s marriage to Pakistani cricketer, now politician, Imran Khan. I do not know.

What I do know is that in the past couple of weeks, the policies of both men has been lost to a sea of political diatribe based around statements both have made to try an solicit votes, ironically for the same thing.

One to show the world that there can be a positivity with a Muslim mayor, the other to show the world that having a Muslim mayor in a leading Western nation can be a negative. If you ask me to name three policies from either candidate, I cannot, as this sideshow has taken up so much airspace.

Community First

One gleaming example of success is the pilgrimage to Makkah. Despite the more conservative interpretation of Islam adopted by Saudi Arabia, in general, the nation does not focus on an individual’s personal religious interpretation, rather, they facilitate access to Makkah and Madinah for pilgrims from around the world, irrespective.

People may disagree with the way Makkah for example has been modernized, but they cannot dispute the growing numbers of pilgrims, nor that Saudi Arabia now provides access for all Muslims, according to their respective means to fulfill their spiritual needs.

This provision is proof that it is not faith or interpretation within faith that determines how we live, rather that we provide a safe environment for Muslims to practice their faith. For this, Saudi Arabia cannot be faulted.

Back to London, we are faced with two candidates, one monetizing his religion, the other using religion as a means of division.

While I am personally not a fan of either approach, London is amongst the handful of unique cities, where people of different faiths have found a way to live side by side. A modern Andalusia. A modern reflection of Prophet Muhammad’s Ummah, where the focus was less on being Muslim and more on having mutual respect irrespective of your faith, as outlined in the Constitution of Madinah.

As such, it is not just Muslims, but all Londoners, who would be foolish to elect any candidate who would seek to divide a city which is held together by its beautiful cultural-religious diversity.

And for this reason alone, my vote would be with the candidate who is trying to bring people of different faiths together, who happens to be a Muslim, Sadiq Khan.