𝐄𝐋𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐅𝐅𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐒 𝐎𝐅 𝐀 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇-𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐍 𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐆𝐘 𝐎𝐅 𝐏𝐎𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐋 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐄𝐏𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍

2

𝐄𝐋𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒: 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐄𝐅𝐅𝐄𝐂𝐓𝐒 𝐎𝐅 𝐀 𝐁𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐒𝐇-𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐍 𝐒𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐆𝐘 𝐎𝐅 𝐏𝐎𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐀𝐋 𝐃𝐄𝐂𝐄𝐏𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍

Election is one of the main ingredients of the modern state as designed by the British Empire in order to rule the world. It is perhaps the main mechanism used to disguise the political power as packaged under the concept of republic. Elections are held everywhere, from the USA to China, Russia, North Korea, France, Egypt, including partially even countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Oman which are typically Muslim countries.

For clarification, what makes a modern election distinct and idiosyncratic is the participation of all citizens of a territory, men and women, rich and poor, businessmen and working class, scholars and illiterate ones, thinkers and common people. There is nothing blameworthy in the concept of election itself as long as it is applied in the real world. The politics of human society and its organizational aspects have always employed the mechanism of election, whether by agreeing with a proposal, or electing a leader by those who are the real elite, electing a religious leader by the committee of top scholars, election a university president by professors, or even electing a monarch within the royal family. It is a mechanism which can be used and has been used always within the contours of the real world.

Elections of our time, as part of the modern state, have been transformed and altered thoroughly in order to serve a completely new purpose, that is, to conceal the real power and to prevent people from looking for political solutions, from identifying the flaws of the political system, and to prevent them from holding accountable those responsible for the corruption and maintenance of the political deterioration of the system itself.

Elections are a massive political theater, which seem very entertaining and having no negative consequences in the worst-case scenario. On the contrary, its proponents argue that at the very least people are given a choice and a platform to come in connection with the political elite, express their concerns and propose solutions while the future politicians and law-makers can introduce their policies and articulate their ideas. Again, the argument seems logical, and the political show itself breathes hope and optimism.

In reality, a political election held by the modern state is absolutely a show, and a dangerous deceptive strategy. It lies at the heart of the modern republic: the most deceptive political system of human history, which was established for the first time by the British Empire in North America in 1776 when they founded the Republic of the United States of America.

To begin with, the modern elections are not realistic. An election can be realistic only within a small group of people, with discrete members who recognize and know each other, whose voice clearly matters and is heard. If there are 11 engineers responsible for a project, for example, they can vote to agree on one out of several alternatives because their voices matter – they are experts, they know each other, and they have to deal with each other. If one of the 11 engineers raises a concern, no one can dismiss his or her voice that easily, not because the law says so, but because the voice of an expert or the one who has been given responsibility has a weight.

On the other hand, nothing is realistic about the elections of the modern state. They operate on the crowd dimension of people – not discrete voices of citizens, on political parties that we still do not know how they are funded and organized behind the scenes, on candidates that we do not know how they are actually selected behind the scenes – the process is completely vague and non-transparent, and on a non-realistic electoral process: massive numbers voters and unrealistic numbers of ballos to be counted transparently.

Again, the proponents would argue that even though the whole process is unrealistic and more theatrical than substance, yet there are some benefits: people are given a relative right to choose at least among two or more candidates who each represents a set of policies and political positions. People somehow are given the right to show some level of agreement or disagreement with certain policies and agendas. According to them, this is better than a dictatorship when a man on the top of the political hierarchy imposes his will in an absolute sense. At the very least, their argument would continue, there is no harm in elections even if they’re not a perfect political mechanism.

This is exactly the point of contention, that elections are not a harmless political tool. Within the deceptive nature of the modern state, elections lie at the core of that deception to the extent that we might not even be able to count its negative effects. The very fact that elections function on unrealistic principles and infrastructure is a clear red flag.

As for the dictatorship, elections have nothing to do with it, not to say that dictators per se use elections as a major disguise. Dictatorship has to do with the ability and will of people to raise their voice within the society, not with the formality of a system. In this regard, elections are a fraud, not a real platform to genuinely encourage people to raise their voice against the government.

Some of the negative effects that I would underline with regard to the elections held by the modern state are: first, they prevent people from understanding the nature of the modern state, how power works, who is really in charge, and who really makes policies; second, it prevents people from resorting to better and more realistic avenues of addressing political issues and complaints; third, by participating in an unrealistic process, people become unfairly responsible for the negative political outcome and the corruption of a certain government – why take responsibility for something that you do not own; forth, the voting process and the preceding political campaign are toxic and a big distraction from the real issues; five, the history of the modern state has proven that elections have never dictated the change of policies – the real power behind the scenes always pushes ahead its agendas regardless of what people say; six, elections ‘punish’ an individual or political party for the failure or corruption, which is a symbol punishment anyway (removing someone from office), and absolving the real culprit: the system itself, the laws, the constitution, the economic system, the tax policies etc., which make up the very political system.

There is a genuine reason why the ruling elite wants people to vote and to become part of this theatrical process because those who have come up with the concept of the modern elections, they know very well what the negative consequences are.

As Muslims, the question is not whether elections are Islamically permitted or not. The part that it is harām to elect someone to be part of a legislative council when the right to make laws and legislate are exclusive for Allah, this is only one aspect, which in any case it is not to be dismissed so quickly. Many scholars have argued that this impermissible aspect can be overlooked under the extraordinarily political situation that the Ummah is going through – we are occupied, if there are some tangible benefits, such as protecting the rights of Muslims, repelling political threats, and using elections as a platform of raising the voice. In short, if the benefits outweigh the harm.

However, we have not seen such scholars so far explaining exhaustively and honestly all the possible harm that results form participating in such a theatrical and deceptive process. On the contrary, most of those who advocate for participating in the elections held by the modern state speak from a pragmatist point of view, not to mention the fact that they seem to have some vested interests in such a process: perhaps they are propagandists paid by the state, promised a favor, blackmailed, threatened by the state, or they are mere mercenaries of the state disguised as Muslim preachers.

In conclusion, not only is there no tangible benefit resulting from elections that its proponents can convince us to be part of, but actually there are harms that we can identify easily.

An election held by the modern state is unrealistic, and it operates on unrealistic [deceptive] principles and infrastructure. It is a process of massive deception and magic which prevents people from identifying the real culprits, the flaws of the system itself, and, more importantly, it prevents people from resorting to real and more effective ways of affecting the politics and finding solutions.

I personally believe that elections are very harmful. This is not how the real power works, and, for sure, this is not how the real world works. We’ve watched the same scene over and over again: vote, elect a new government, and nothing changes, resulting in a total waste of time and energy in a corrupt and deceptive process.

The world changes, including politics, by dealing with the real world, and not by becoming part of a lie or a British-American deception. We already know that the British-American tyrants are liars. We know that the world is ruled by the British-American Global Government. We know that such a government runs in a very centralized way. We know that the economic and social agendas are imposed by the Global Government. Why then vote? To rubber-stamp policies and politics that eventually are going to bite our hands? Or, we must vote because some propagandists among our communities get paid because the propaganda to convince people to vote is actually commercialized – there are people paid to do this job?!

How to change the world, there is only one book which gives clear instructions: the Qur’an. The lies and the deception of the western tyrants have become so sickening and unbearable.

Sabri Lushi

November 1, 2026