If you instead meant it as a — for example, typing Arabic letters while the keyboard is set to English (QWERTY) — here’s what happens:
Given the appearance of "rb rb" (رب رب) and "bldy" (بلدي), and "btklm" (بتكلم), it looks like someone was trying to write an Arabic sentence but , producing a ciphertext.
But that result is nonsensical — it seems the mapping was done incorrectly or the original Arabic was typed in a different layout (perhaps someone typed Arabic words using an English keyboard without switching the layout properly). althmyl- rb rb sat nwdz lshrmwtt bldy btklm ...
Given the context, the most for a "useful piece" would be: "This looks like someone typed Arabic text on an English keyboard without switching layouts. To decode it, enable the Arabic keyboard and retype the same letters. However, the given string seems scrambled or mistyped — possibly it should read something like: ‘التمييل - رب رب سأتحدث لشرمطة بلدي بتكلم’ but that’s not standard. Could you provide the intended Arabic sentence or clarify the cipher method?"
likely decodes to:
A more likely intended reading (by mapping English letters back to the they would occupy if the user thought they were typing Arabic but had English layout active) would require a reverse mapping.
But since the sequence doesn't produce fluent Arabic, it might instead be a over English letters? Let's test: althmyl → reverse: lymhtla — not obvious. If you instead meant it as a —
althmyl- rb rb sat nwdz lshrmwtt bldy btklm ...