How to speak to Muslims
The overwhelming message has to be, "I need nothing from you, because you have nothing to give!" Subtext: Muslims are of no value to the world. This directly negates Qur’an 3:110, that Allah has "raised up" Muslims to be “the best of people,” and also that they are "divinely protected from error".
If you are Western, you cannot make a deal, come to an agreement, share, collaborate, etc., with Muslims on the basis of equality or good faith, because the only relationship a Muslim is able to conceive of with a non-Muslim is domination. If you wish for anything approaching equality, it is necessary for you to dominate Muslims, and to keep dominating them, for the moment you treat them as equals, they will reestablish their domination over you.
I need to set up a framework for the above and for what follows. Western readers will be familiar with the sentiment often heard in the context of Muslim non-integration into Western societies: "We have to do more to help Muslims integrate." What goes through the Muslim's mind when he hears this? You want to help me? You think I want to integrate with you? You, a filthy, pig-eating, wine-drinking kafir presume I, a Muslim, want to live amongst you? How dare you presume such a thing?
Similarly, "We must make Muslims feel at home, not discriminate against them, make them feel equal to us." To the Muslim, this "making sure that Muslims feel equal to us" sentiment is even more offensive than the one just discussed. For a Muslim, being made equal to an infidel, a kafir, a non-Muslim, is a lowering to the level of "the lowest of created beings". A just order, to them, is one in which they, Muslims, discriminate against us, non-Muslims. To a Muslim, not being able to discriminate against non-Muslims is discrimination against Muslims. The presumption of equality between Muslims and non-Muslims is an offence that they will someday exact revenge for to restore their honour.
In short, Islam must dominate, and so, naturally, there can be no equality between Muslim and non-Muslim. A Muslim cannot be beneath a non-Muslim, regardless of anything else. The lowest Muslim is always higher than the highest non-Muslim. It follows that only Muslims may rule, even if there is not a single Muslim in the land. There can, therefore, be no such thing as a legitimate Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, etc., ruler. Domination by virtue of divine supremacism is the framework within which Muslims mediate their relations with the kufaar.
As it happens, Muslims seldom need to establish their domination over Western kufaar, though, for Western people submit to Muslims at first contact, obviating the need for them to explicitly dominate, by virtue of the simple fact that they desperately want to make them feel at home, and so do everything they ask for, initially politely, pitifully, later by "negotiating", and later still, by aggressive demanding, then by threats, and finally by taking what they want anyway (a Muslim's contract with a non-Muslim is never binding on the Muslim, only on the non-Muslim). At every step along the way, the Western kufaar obliges, even though it gets wearisome, they feel increasingly put upon, and slowly but surely their country changes beyond recognition, and their own children become strangers to them.
Explicit domination is only resorted to once the patience of the Western kufaar with Muslims is surpassed by their reluctance to take firm action for fear of, on the one hand, accusations of "racism" and "Islamophobia" or, on the other, "becoming just like them". The Western kufaar will go for decades enduring such Muslim behaviour as raping their women and girls, befouling and burning their cities, desecrating of their holy places, emptying their coffers and much worse besides. By the way, to accommodate to Muslims always means throwing women under the bus. There is never an exception.
Only then, and with the greatest reluctance and constant apology, explanation and qualification, and when there is no longer any law left to take into their own hands, they take the law into their own hands. Even then, they only understand Muslim behaviour as misbehaviour, and say silly things like, "If you hate it here so much, why don't you leave?" In the Muslim mind, the question immediately arises, if you are so sure that this is your country, then why are you inviting me to leave? Why are you not throwing me out? Of course you are not serious. We, the Western kufaar, still do not know how to speak to Muslims, even when we are very, very, very angry about them, and we have had quite enough of being dominated.
But if being dominated is just fine by you, then you might take a leaf out of US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken's book. Not for nothing is Antony Blinken known as the world's most useless man. On 18 March 2021, Blinken hosted a Chinese trade delegation in Anchorage, Alaska. Now if you are to know just one thing about China, then know this: as with Muslims, domination is everything. Blinken, unsurprisingly, does not know this. His opening lecture to the Chinese on how to behave betrayed a staggering naïvety that was music to their ears:
The rules-based international order ...helps countries resolve differences peacefully, coordinate multilateral efforts effectively and participate in global commerce with the assurance that everyone is following the same rules.
Boom! First mistake. The Chinese now know your every move and the limits to those moves: it's all written in the rules. You've just given them a free hand to cheat like mad, knowing that you will never do the same. They have a straightforward advantage until you catch them out, at which point they'll deny everything and carry on regardless, forcing you to either acquiesce or act. And since you "don't want to become like them," you will not attack them, but rather gather evidence to prove that they've cheated, during which time they'll intensify their cheating, knowing that they have a closing window. When you eventually do prove that they've been cheating, they'll ignore you until you take them to arbitration somewhere, buying them more time for cheating, and so forth, until they are found guilty, by which point they'll have put an alternative cheating strategy in place and switch to that, having worn you down so much that you'll be reluctant to start the whole thing all over again. Muslims operate in exactly the same way, only sneakier. The Secretary of State of the United States spoke:
Today, we'll have an opportunity to discuss key priorities, both domestic and global, so that China can better understand our administration's intentions and approach.
Again, we see the "they are just like us" presumption in all its folly. The only ones with an opportunity here was the Chinese, who got to learn America's key priorities, both domestic and global. Anthony Blinken expected to discuss key priorities with a society in which everything is a state secret, because we are open, we share, and we want a win-win for both sides. "The United States' relationship with China will be competitive where it should be, collaborative where it can be, adversarial where it must be," said Blinken. In that case, you will lose, because the Chinese relationship with the US will never be either competitive or collaborative, but always and only adversarial, even when it appears otherwise. Muslims operate in exactly the same way, only sneakier.
The Chinese Director of the Office of the Central Commission for Foreign Affairs, Yang Jiechi, who dominated Blinken by speaking in a humiliating tone throughout, said:
So the way we see the relationship with the United States is as President Xi Jinping has said – that is, we hope to see no confrontation, no conflict, mutual respect and win-win cooperation with the United States.
Embedded in the ambiguities of a culture that dominates are always the terms of their domination and your submission: "No confrontation, no conflict" — we do whatever we want and you do not interfere; "mutual respect" — we dominate, you submit; "win-win" — we win, then we win again; "cooperation" — you do whatever we want. Muslims operate in exactly the same way, only sneakier.
As with the Chinese, Antony Blinken does not know that Palestinians are not like Americans. In fact, he insists that Palestinians are exactly like Americans. This being so, one can be fairly certain about the tone Blinken would adopt in speaking to, say, Yahya Sinwar directly. Two months ago, Blinken even thought Sinwar presented Hamas with a moral dilemma:
We await the answer from Hamas, and that will speak volumes about what they want, what they’re looking for, who they’re looking after. Are they looking after one guy who may be pronounced safe, while the people that he purports to represent continue to suffer in a crossfire of his own making? Or will he do what’s necessary to actually move this to a better place, to help end the suffering of people, to help bring real security to Israelis and Palestinians alike?
Hamas has given their answer. Yahya Sinwar has just been made Hamas top dog, after Israel assassinated Ismael Haniyeh in Tehran one week ago today. Sinwar is the barbarian's barbarian, and the vacancy at the top presented his barbarian nation with the opportunity to bestow on him their highest honour for his extraordinary accomplishments on 7 October. As befits diplomatic decorum, Antony Blinken acknowledges the elevation of the subterranean fugitive to national leadership, and talks about him with due respect.
With regard to um uh Mr Sinwar, um he has been, uh and remains, the primary decider when it comes to concluding a ceasefire. And so I think this only underscores the uh fact that uh it is really on him uh to decide whether to move forward with a ceasefire that manifestly uh will uh help so many Palestinians in desperate need: women, children, men, who were caught in a crossfire of Hamas’s making in Gaza. uh Whether we can put um Gaza and the region more broadly onto a more peaceful and uh and secure path. uh So, uh it only emphasises the fact that, as has been the case for for some time, it really is on him.
Biden's reflection on Sinwar is also a thinly-veiled warning to Israel (something the useless man is good at): Yahya Sinwar is not only a peacemaker, but now is the most important peacemaker. So if you were thinking of killing him, DON'T. But Antony Blinken looked unsure of himself, shifty, tired, worn out, not by Hamas's duplicity (for they are good-faith negotiators seeking peace) by Netanyahu's unwillingness to "de-escalate", i.e., do nothing when Israel is attacked. This brings us to Blinken's last utterance on Biden's darlings, Hezbollah, who had murdered fifty Israeli children ten days ago. The US supported Israel's right to defend herself, provided she de-escalates. In other words, we support your right to defend yourself, provided you don't defend yourself.
The problem with Israel limiting her security entitlement to only "defending herself", as I have been at pains to argue on this website and elsewhere, is not due to the United States, but to Israel herself. One step back from that point and you lose the right to defend yourself. But that has been Israel since her inception, always asking for the least, and losing from there, even to the most useless man on earth, and this in a region were domination is everything. To de-escalate from defending yourself is to not defend yourself. To de-escalate from your right to not be attacked is to end up with only the right to defend yourself, while you have simultaneously conceded to your enemies a right to attack you. Antony Blinken never demands of Israel's enemies that they not attack Israel. He only demands that both sides de-escalate. This means that Israel loses the right to defend herself, while her enemies retain the right to attack her. These are the practical implications of a mentality of submission to domination. But there is a silver lining.
One of a growing number of Israelis willing to address the question of Islam and Muslims head-on is Dr Gadi Taub of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Another is Dr Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University. On 12 December 2017, Dr Kedar shared a panel with Syrian sheikh and imam Abd al-Rahman Saeed Kuki on Aljazeera's "The Opposite Direction" debate. It was an object lesson in how to speak to Muslims if you do not wish to be dominated. I recommend watching the video and paying particular attention to the Muslim's body language.
Dr Mordechai Kedar: [laughs at the sheikhs nonsensical diatribe]—
Sheikh Abd al-Rahman Kuki: You are the laughingstock! You are the laughingstock throughout history! You are the ones who are crying. You are the ones who are lying—
MK: We were in Jerusalem more than 3,000 years ago, when the forefathers of Islam were drinking wine, burying their daughters alive, and worshipped [the goddess daughters of Allah] al-’Uzza, al-Lat and al-Manat in the Arabian Desert. We were in Jerusalem worshipping the one and only God, when you were worshipping idols in the Arabian Desert. What are you talking about? David, Solomon and all the prophets were Jews. Even Jesus son of Mary was born Jewish and lived as a Jew.
When was Islam introduced to the world? Only in the 7th century, with the purpose to take over the world, and impose the desert culture over civilisation. And we came back to the land of our ancestors, to rebuild our country and to restore our independence and our freedom from the grasp of Islam. We are nobody's dhimmis! And we are not the protégés of anyone and we are not descendants of apes and pigs, as you would like to believe! And we are not "the murderers of the Prophets". We do not live under your “protection”! We will not be humiliated and pay the jizya to anyone; not even to the Muslims.
And why not? Because we are a nation, and our religion is not a false religion, just as Islam is not the religion of truth! Every religion has its place. Every nation has its religion. You ought to recognise the rights of others, since after you occupied the Middle East geographically, you have occupied the history of the Middle East, and you have occupied the religions of the Middle East!
[...]
The Palestinians should raise their hands to Allah five times a day to thank him and praise him that their problem is with the Israelis, and not with the Syrians, not with the Russians, not with the Iraqis, not with the Egyptians, not even with the Jordanians, not even with the Iranians and not even with their “brothers” who treat them in a way that everyone knows.
[...]
The Arab and Muslim people know that the origin of the Arabic name "Al-Quds" is "Beit al-Maqdes". Your guest in the studio also mentioned that. Beit al-Maqdes is nothing but the Arabic version of Beit HaMikdash, which is the Jewish Holy Temple. This is an Arabic proof that the Jewish Temple of Mikdash was located there and was translated into Arabic as Beit al-Maqdes. Anyone with half a brain knows this fact.
We in Israel do not think we are interested in making peace with the Arab world. Why? Because those who do not have cannot give. The Arab world doesn't know the meaning of peace—
AK: You have nothing to give! I just want to remind him—
Moderator: Sheikh, sheikh...
MK: Look at what is happening between Sunnis and Shi'as, between Kurds and and Arabs. Look at what is happening between the tribes of Libya and Yemen. Look at what is happening between Iran and the Arab countries, which Iran picks up like eggs from the ground, and the Arab world remains silent, incompetent. It has no domestic peace nor foreign one. We would love to join an Arab peace, but first make peace amongst yourselves — between the tribes, the ethnic groups, the different religions, then we would join the Arab peace. But the Arab world today is a swamp of fire, tears and blood! Who would want to get close to you?! Who would want to talk to you?! The Arab world is a failure. The ummah is a failure. Who at all wants you?!
We live in an advanced country, a democratic country, a developed country, part of the OECD! If Israel were to open her gates to the Arabs, half of them would enter on the first day, and the other half on the second day. That is the truth that no one can deny, even in the studio of Aljazeera.
That is how you speak to Muslims, if you do not wish to be dominated. Polite presentation of facts and fine arguments have no meaning to Muslims. Facts and arguments delivered in unapologetic, full-throttle, rapid-fire rants, however, keep Muslims off-balance and so unable to obliterate our facts and sound arguments by intimidation and humiliation. Make a point of riding roughshod over as many Muslim sensibilities as you can, and never mince words. Dr Kedar launched right in from the start, making it quite clear that he was not there for a polite exchange of views. It took no more than ten minutes to finish off this sheikh, whose body language needs to be carefully studied to understand what Dr Kedar was doing to him. The overwhelming message has to be, "I need nothing from you, because you have nothing to give!" Subtext: Muslims are of no value to the world. This directly negates Qur’an 3:110, that Allah has "raised up" Muslims to be “the best of people,” and also that they are "divinely protected from error", the core of every Muslim's supremacism.
The fatal mistake that Jews make, day in and day out, is to proclaim to people who understand only domination and submission, that they want peace, indeed, to beg Muslims to make peace with them. To the Muslim mind, the only reason anyone would beg for peace is if they are at their weakest, and therefore ripe for the taking, so to speak. They ask, what are the Muslim armies waiting for? Attack! Hamas attacked, and Muslims the world over will hold them forever in their hearts.
Picture credits:
IDF
Screenshots from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3qTnSdmeNU
Screenshot from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bODCPCmkKQ