Double Standards in Expectations | Projecting Idealism To Create Narratives of Inadequacy

Everyone understands realpolitik because it has to do with the the the consequences of taking unrealistic actions. And you're in the West, you're not willing to do that yourself, but you have unrealistic idealistic demands of everyone else. You have unrealistic idealistic demands of the Arab world, you have unrealistic idealistic demands of the Arab rulers of the of the the Muslims in the in the Muslim world, but you yourselves over there in the West don't apply those same idealistic unrealistic demands to your own selves even though you're standing there right next to the people who are funding and arming and enabling and committing the genocide. You're right there. It's your country.

In America, that's your country that's doing it. You're a taxpayer. If you think, for example, just like what brother Nayel said, you think, for example, that they're supposed to overthrow MBS, they're supposed to overthrow, king Abdullah, they're supposed to overthrow Sisi, they're supposed to do all of these things. Meanwhile, all you're supposed to do is vote for Kamala or Trump. All you're supposed to do is not buy a latte from Starbucks.

That's all that that that we can ask of you, even though you're the ones who are committing the genocide. It's being done with your money. It's being done by your governments in America, in The UK, in Europe, and so on, and you're not doing anything about it that's even remotely close to what you think that the Arabs are supposed to do about it, what the Muslims in the Muslim world are supposed to do it do about it. You don't apply these same standards to yourselves. And like I said in in a recent video, you keep talking to us.

You keep telling us about all the guns you have and about how the the America is on the verge of a civil war or on the verge of a revolution because you're all armed to the teeth. Well, where's the action then? You have all these weapons. We don't have those. The the Muslims in Egypt don't have them.

Muslims in Jordan don't have them. Muslims in Saudi Arabia don't have them. Muslims in UAE don't have them. But you have them, and the The UAE isn't committing the genocide, Saudi Arabia isn't committing the genocide, Egypt isn't committing the genocide, Jordan isn't committing the genocide, but you want us to overthrow those governments with no weapons. Meanwhile, your government is committing the genocide and you're armed to the teeth, but you don't do anything about it.

Why? Because it's unrealistic and insane. You would never do that, and you know perfectly well that it's unrealistic and insane, so you would never do it in your country, but you seem to make this demand upon all of the Muslims in the Muslim world, in the Arab world, that they're supposed to do that regardless of the consequences, regardless of the ramifications and the repercussions of taking such an action like that, which would, of course, be absolute chaos and anarchy and devastation. But when it comes to you, it's unthinkable that you will ever do it except to just talk about it, to just boast about it like it's something that you are even capable of doing, but you know perfectly well that you're never going to do that. And like I said, you shouldn't do that because it would be insane.

But you but you apply these insane idealistic standards to Muslims in the Muslim world and asking them and expecting them and demanding them and criticizing them for not doing these unrealistic crazy demands that you have, these crazy moral demands that you have that you think that they're supposed to do. And and as I say, if they did those things, if they were even able to do those things, you're not going to face the consequences of that. But you but you make these demands upon them that you would never make upon yourself, and that's because, again, you you yourselves have been so westernized and so colonized in your mind and in your in your psyche that you've normalized double standards to where you think it's normal because that's the that's a a a hallmark of the West is double standards, and now you've internalized it yourself and think that it's possible and acceptable and proper and moral to make moral demands on other people that you would never make upon yourself, and that's a very, very characteristic Western quality. Look at the protest. Look at look at the protest that are that are happening in Israel right now.

They were they were storming Netanyahu's own house. And what are you all doing in in in America? The the Israelis themselves are storming the house of Netanyahu and and people in America are doing what exactly? You know? This this unrealistic expectation of others and not applying it to yourself shows that you actually do understand realpolitik when it comes to you.

But when it comes to others, you expect a moralistic, idealistic, unrealistic strategy or or approach, but you don't apply it to yourself. Say I'm living in a in a in a dilapidated building. People in people in America in the cities, you'll understand this reference. I'm living in a dilapidated building somewhere in a in an urban center, and it's owned by a slumlord, and he makes my life a living hell. There's no no repairs.

There's no fixing. The plumbing doesn't work. The lights don't work. The electricity doesn't work, on and on and on. And he keeps raising the rent.

Right? So I'm being abused and misused and mistreated by this slumlord. Now I come to you and ask you, can you beat this guy up for me? So he'll stop treating me this way. Can you just come and beat this guy up for me?

Okay. You think it through and realize what will happen to you if you do that. You'll go to jail, and he'll still be the slumlord. So that's that's not solving my problem. So instead of doing that, instead of going according to my ignorant short term emotional wishes, let's say you get a second job or you get another job or you get a higher paying job that allows you to qualify for a loan.

You qualify by that loan and you start paying on that loan, and you use that loan to buy the building from the slumlord. Now you're the the owner of that building. Now all that time is a process that takes a long time. You go through all of those steps, and it takes a long time. And that entire time, I'm thinking to myself that you're doing nothing to help me.

I'm thinking to myself that you've abandoned me, and you're ignoring my plight, and maybe I'm even criticizing you. But that entire time, you were helping me. But I have to wait for that moral outcome to take place because you've taken responsible, realistic steps to actually solve my problem as opposed to doing the thing that I wanted you to do because the thing that I wanted you to do would maybe make me feel better momentarily, but it wouldn't actually solve my problem. So people people can understand realpolitik and trying to achieve moral outcomes through effective patient practical action when it comes to themselves, when it comes to consequences for themselves, but you don't apply it to others. And this is a a very serious mistake knowing perfectly well, as I said, that you wouldn't apply these same idealistic, unrealistic standards to yourself, and you are applying it to others.

So you should at least remain silent if you don't understand what you're talking about and have anything useful to say. This actually what you just mentioned sort of brings up a nice way maybe to explain the difference between sort of Western realpolitik and Islamic realpolitik. Because, like, on the one hand, you said that there would be some people who are the very idealistic, unrealistic people who would say, well, yeah, they should just attack the Quraysh and and, you know, slaughter them and what have you and, you know, even without that order having been given by Allah to fight them, they they would think that that's what you're supposed to do. But then there's another this is the this this would be the western realpolitik perspective because the Quraysh offered to Rasulullah to become the king if he would just agree to allow shirk. If he would if he would stop with tawhid, they would allow him to be a king.

They would give him all the money he wanted, they would give him all the power he wanted, and so on. So according to the Western realpolitik, they would say, yeah, you should do that. He should have taken the deal. He should have made that that trade off and exchanged power for Tawhid. But because his his position was an Islamic realpolitik position, that's an unacceptable trade off because we have a we have a when we engage in politics, when we engage in any sort of a strategy, it is intended for a moral outcome, and that would not have been a moral outcome.

According to the West, that would have been a moral outcome because their only moral is power, power and money. But when when you have Islamic moral outcomes that you're trying to work for, then you do try to use effective strategy, and that's the realpolitik in Islamic terms, that you're trying to achieve a moral outcome in an effective way. So this sort of highlights the difference between their approach to realpolitik and our approach to realpolitik, which is, as I said in the beginning, isn't that they take an amoral approach and we take a moral approach. The difference is that their morals are almost absent anyway. So it it comes out looking like an amoral approach because they don't really apply morals anyway except in terms of packaging.

So the difference between their as I said earlier, their the difference between their realpolitik and their other approaches to politics is simply more frank. It's more honest. And that there's they they say, well, we will just do whatever needs to be done to achieve the outcome that we want, which is always the same outcome that they want, which is, as I say, power and wealth. Whereas the outcome that we are searching for and striving for and pursuing is a moral outcome. So it's just a matter again, as I'll I'll just repeat it again, our approach is simply to take the most effective approach.

The proper positioning of ideals and morals is what your outcome is, the outcome that you want to achieve, the outcome that you want to reach, and you want to do it in the most effective way possible because pursuing moral outcomes in the most effective way is the most moral thing you can do. Trying to pursue moral outcomes in an ineffective way, I would argue, is in and of itself immoral.