I have said it before and I will say it again: We need a moratorium on Muslims in Western politics.

Consider this latest infograph from 5pillarsuk.com:

This is such a sad, embarrassing state of affairs.

In the US, the situation is arguably worse. Whenever our “Muslim representatives” aren’t introducing anti-Sharia legislation and making heretical statements referring to Allah as “she,” they are out dancing and partying at pride parades and taking selfies with drag queens.

You know, it is almost comical to think about the folks who were bloviating about Muslims “strategically allying” with LGBT groups, how “strategic” support of LGBT rights would have so many benefits for the Muslim community, blah blah blah. This idea was really nonsense to begin with, as I repeatedly pointed out. But you have to step back to appreciate it in its full nonsensical glory.

The most obvious thing is that to have a strategic alliance, you first have to have two organized political factions who want to ally together for their mutual benefit. And this is where the problem begins: Muslims don’t have an organized political faction. We have nothing even close to resembling that. So to even talk about alliances is a farce. A hoax. What the Muslim advocates of “strategic LGBT alliances” are really pushing is nothing more than acceptance of a leftist political agenda onto the Muslim community and garnishing it with fancy buzzwords and half-hearted Hudaybiya references to pull the wool over our eyes.

The reason Western Muslims are not a political faction can be explained as follows.

An organized political faction needs to have at least two things: Leadership and a political vision. Both these things require strong moral principles. Of course, a political vision requires moral principles. And, furthermore, a true leader is defined by, among other things, clear principles that he sticks to, especially when it is politically, financially, pragmatically inconvenient.

All of these things, sadly, are lacking in the Western Muslim community. Sure, you have certain figures — e.g., Compassionate Imams, academics, social justice warriors — pretending to be leaders. But they aren’t leaders. Not for Muslims, at least. Why? Because their work is not defined by strong moral principles, at least not uniquely Islamic ones. Sure, some of these figures do express commitment to strong principles, but they are just leftist principles, secularist principles, feminist principles, etc. The more creative figures work very hard to dress up these commitments in Islamic garb. They will cite ayat of the Quran or hadith (often mistranslated, taken out of context, etc.), give fiery khutbahs, and so forth.

But the true test of principle comes when Islam contradicts the leftist, secularist, feminist platform. In these moments, such figures have an opportunity to prove with whom their allegiance really lies. Are they going stand just as strongly, boldly when Islamic values are on the line? Are they going to throw those values under the bus? Or are they going to take the coward’s way out and remain silent?

Unfortunately, we have seen mostly the latter two.

Another way to put it: You are not going to prove to me, as a Muslim, that you are a leader of Muslims by, for example, marching for health care reform or refugees or black lives matter or workers’ rights, etc. Are these good causes that Muslims should support? Perhaps some of them are, depending on the details. But these are all very popular, well regarded components of the Democratic party platform. Even opposition to islamophobia is standard. So how can I tell that you are really standing for me as a Muslim and not just standing as a Democrat, pursuing your own personal political career? The only way to tell for certain is if you consistently stand in favor of Islam even when it contradicts the leftist platform. LGBT rights is the perfect test of that, but these figures keep striking out. It’s become a joke.

Which brings me to my question: Have we seen a Muslim politician or popular activist/imam type who openly diverged from his political party on an issue because of Islamic principles?

It’s a challenge really. Name one.

I certainly can’t.

So what is the point of voting for them, donating to them, etc., as opposed to voting for non-Muslims or (here’s a crazy thought) not voting/donating at all?

Let’s just assume, for the sake of argument, that democratic elections and Western secular governance is something permissible that Muslims can participate in. Let’s just table that larger debate for now. Or, let’s even raise the stakes. Let’s say that it is obligatory (wajib) for Muslims to vote (as some clueless “woke” imams and khatibs have claimed in recent years). Even assuming a shar`i obligation, why should Muslims favor Muslim politicians? Arguably, we should avoid supporting Muslim politicians in this case since, as history has shown, they inevitably end up violating basic Islamic principles.

And, yes, violation of Islamic principles matters. Don’t give me this swill about “They’re just representing their constituents!” If I have the ability to vote for a Muslim politician in an election, that means I am his constituent. That’s kind of the whole point of representational democracy. So, if this Muslim politician is not going to be governed by anything Islamic, then I might as well vote for any other non-Muslim. Their political outlooks will be indistinguishable, but at least the non-Muslim isn’t going to make a mockery of the deen.

So much for “Muslim political involvement.”

I guess calling it “Muslim political involvement” is giving it too much credit, now that I think about it. It’s more like “token Muslims pursuing their personal career ambitions in politics and fleecing the Muslim community in the process.” So, let’s call a moratorium on that.