Who's falling for Saudi prince's "moderating" rhetoric in pursuit of US weapons & nukes?

In Saudi Arabia's quest to obtain US nuclear reactors and military weaponry, Prince Mohammed bin Salman has launched a PR campaign through America in an attempt to overcome justifiable concerns about its Wahabist advocacy and rejection of the Jewish state, US-ally Israel. While NY magazine headlines rush to proclaim Salman's "recognizing Israel," two, distinct Israeli journalists (one based in Amman, Jordan) and an American Arabist-expert offer a more sober perspective on the Saudis' charm-campaign. 

Saudi Prince Mohammed courts Pres. Trump to sell US nuclear reactors and weapons systems amidst concerns could spark a nuclear arms race among Muslim states and nuclear terrorists.  (photo: The Atlantic, 20 March 2018)

"Our Fair-Weathered Saudi Friend" Opinion by Caroline B. Glick in THE JERUSALEM POST April 4, 2018

Have we entered a new period of sweetness and light with our Arab neighbors? On Monday, The Atlantic published an interview which the magazine’s editor Jeffrey Goldberg conducted with Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman.  

Hours after its publication, the responses began pouring in. The basic line, repeated by all major newspapers, is that the Saudi crown prince recognized Israel’s right to exist. Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt gushed about it on his Twitter feed. 

Referring to the interview as “amazing,” Greenblatt wrote that “all should watch [Muhammad bin Salman]. 

He is far from perfect [and] there is a long road ahead, but in a region long dominated by hateful despots, [the prince] envisions a very different future for Muslims, Jews, Christians and all in the Middle East.”  Other commentators were even more exhilarated.

Are the prince’s fans correct? Is his ascendance to the Saudi crown the harbinger of a reformation of Islam and the beginning of a new era in Islamic relations with the Jews and the world as a whole? Not really. 

Most of the reports on the interview have focused on the prince’s remarks in which he ostensibly recognized Israel’s right to exist. But did he actually recognize Israel’s right to exist? Did he distinguish himself from all the other Arab leaders who to date have recognized that Israel exists but not admitted it has a right to exist? Let’s check the text. 

. . .  As Dr. Harold Rhode, a recently retired adviser on Islamic Affairs in the Office of the US Secretary of Defense explains, during much of his conversation with Goldberg, Muhammad engaged in the Islamic practice of “taqiyya,” or dissimulation for the benefit of Islam. 

According to the Koran, Muslims are permitted to lie about Islam to advance the faith.

This conclusion is easily reached when considering his responses to other questions, which like his answer regarding Israel, were deliberately imprecise. Goldberg asked Muhammad simple direct questions and he responded with answers that were either misleading or open to multiple interpretations. 

Dr. Harold Rhode explains the Muslim rejection of any Jewish sovereignty in Mid-East


Consider their discussion of Wahhabism. Since Saudi Arabia was established 85 years ago, it has been governed under Wahhabist Islam. Wahhabism, a school of Islam founded in the 18th century by the radical Islamic scholar Ibn Abdel el-Wahhab, views itself as the only legitimate version of Islam. Wahhabism calls for the abrogation of all novel interpretations of Islam. It aspires to Islamic global dominion. And upholds jihad.

Since at least 1979, the Saudis have invested billions of petro-dollars in spreading Wahhabist Islam throughout the world.

But when Goldberg asked Muhammad about those petro dollars, the crown prince acted like he didn’t know what Goldberg was talking about.

“This Wahhabism, please define it for us. We’re not familiar with it. We don’t know about it,” Muhammad said innocently. 

Goldberg responded with amazement, “What do you mean you don’t know about it?” Unmoved, he responded, “What is Wahhabism?” Goldberg replied, “You’re the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. You know what Wahhabism is.”

Muhammad countered, “No one can define this Wahhabism.” 

He then proceeded to deny any connection with the creed of Saudi Arabia while boldly and entirely dishonestly presenting the kingdom as a paragon of religious tolerance where all forms of Islam, including Shi’ite Islam, are treated equally.

Another statement from Muhammad that generated significant interest was his claim that there is no Islamic religious duty to propagate Islam in the non-Islamic world today.

In his words, “Today in non-Muslim countries, every human being has the right to choose his or her belief.

Religious books can be bought in every country. The message is delivered. Now it is no longer a duty for us to fight for the propagation of Islam.”

While Muhammad’s statement is refreshingly straightforward, its meaning is less so. He made his statement as a way of arguing that the calls for jihad and the establishment of a caliphate by the Muslim Brotherhood are un-Islamic.

Certainly, it would be significant if the Saudis stopped funding the radical mosques they founded worldwide.

It would be even more significant if he said that his regime is ordering the mosques the Saudis established throughout the world to preach peaceful coexistence with the non-Islamic world and to reject jihad. But he said nothing of the sort.

Moreover, it is hard to take his claims seriously since he then went on to deny any familiarity with Wahhabism, the creed that has ruled his kingdom for four generations.  

Read more:  www.CarolineGlick.com

Does the Saudi Crown Prince’s Rosy Rhetoric Indicate Real Change? by Zvi Bar'el in Ha'aretz, Apr 4, 2018

Prince Mohammed was not asked, and therefore did not share his thoughts, about what is usually referred to as the “deal of the century” that the Trump administration is cooking up. (Or is it already ready in President Donald Trump’s kitchen?) 

Does the Saudi crown prince still insist on Israel’s full withdrawal from all the territories, as the Arab Initiative demanded? Would Saudi Arabia permit changes to the agreement? Would the prince be willing to recognize West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital? Does he have an opinion about the 1967 borders?
These questions might not have come up in the interview because it was agreed ahead of time not to bring them up.

. . . Will this interest lead Israel to agree to Saudi Arabia’s launching its own nuclear program? Will Israel encourage the U.S. Congress to approve the sale of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes to Saudi Arabia, or will it continue to thwart the nuclear reactor deal between Washington and Riyadh?

. . . The crown prince’s vision to diversify the kingdom’s sources of income and reduce its dependence on oil, as called for in the Saudi 2030 plan, is still awaiting proof, while meanwhile he has to deal with a budget deficit caused by plummeting oil prices and heavy expenditures on the war in Yemen. We should wish him success, because Saudi Arabia still carries great weight in shaping pro-Western policies in the Middle East. And if need be, it can wrestle quite a few Arab and Western arms. But anyone who sees Mohammed bin Salman’s statements as a sign that an Israeli flag will soon fly in Riyadh should examine whether Saudi Arabia really has a partner in Israel.

Read more:

"Undercover Mosque- the Return" exposes top Anglo mosque inculcating violence, racism, deceiving non-Muslims - despite public pledge to reform

A year-and-a-half after the critically-acclaimed film Undercover Mosque was first screened, Dispatches goes undercover again to see whether extremist beliefs continue to be promoted in certain key British Muslim institutions in Dispatches: Undercover Mosque- The Return.

A female reporter attends prayer meetings at an important British mosque which claims to be dedicated to moderation and dialogue with other faiths. She secretly films shocking sermons given to the women-only congregation in which female preachers recite extremist and intolerant beliefs. As hundreds of women and some children come to pray, a preacher calls for adulterers, homosexuals, women who act like men and Muslim converts to other faiths to be killed, saying: "Kill him, kill him. You have to kill him, you understand. This is Islam."

David Thompson comments:
I’ve remarked before on how the enthusiasm for sacralised murder never quite fails to jar. And despite repeated exposure to such impressive piety, I still can’t help noting that the quoted sermons feature the word “kill” no fewer than nine times. However, the news isn’t all bad.

These punishments, the preacher says, are to be implemented in a future Islamic state. “This is not to tell you to start killing people,” she continues. “There must be a Muslim leader, when the Muslim army becomes stronger, when Islam has grown enough.”

Naturally, as with most things Islamic, inconsistencies abound.

Regent’s Park Mosque has a major interfaith department, which arranges visits from the Government, the civil service, representatives of other religions and thousands of British school children a year. I watched as an interfaith group was brought in to meet the mosque’s women’s circle for a civilised exchange. But when the interfaith group wasn’t there, the preacher attacked other faiths, and the very concept of interfaith dialogue. One preacher said of Christians praying in a church: “What are these people doing in there, these things are so vile, what they say with their tongues is so vile and disgusting, it’s an abomination.” As for the concept of interfaith live-and-let-live: “This is false. It does not work. This concept is a lie, it is fake, and it is a farce.”

Doubtless these inconsistencies will be resolved “when the Muslim army becomes stronger.” Allah willing, of course. The Telegraph published an article by Sarah Hassan, the pen-name of the undercover reporter on Dispatches.

Regent's Park Mosque has a major interfaith department, which arranges visits from the Government, the civil service, representatives of other religions and thousands of British school children a year.

I watched as an interfaith group was brought in to meet the mosque's women's circle for a civilised exchange. But when the interfaith group wasn't there, the preacher attacked other faiths, and the very concept of interfaith dialogue.

One preacher said of Christians praying in a church: "What are these people doing in there, these things are so vile, what they say with their tongues is so vile and disgusting, it's an abomination." As for the concept of interfaith live-and-let-live: "This is false. It does not work. This concept is a lie, it is fake, and it is a farce."
Interviewees for the film explained that an ideology like this has spread throughout Britain's mosques from the Saudi Arabian religious establishment. One leading Muslim figure told me: "Petrodollar money coming from Saudi Arabia has basically distorted the growth and development of the Muslim community in Britain"; while a British imam accuses them of distorting Islam - "the abuse and misuse of this great faith of mine".

The imam went on to say: "The underlying motive here is to find a way of continuously implanting this permanent wedge between the wider British society and the younger Muslims living in Britain."

As Professor Anthony Glees, who runs the Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies at Brunel University, explains: "To think, as I believe our government thinks, that it makes ideological sense to play patsy with the Saudi government is folly of the first order of magnitude. We will be paying for it for years to come."

Saudi Arabian socio-religious incitement (not Palestine vs Israel) true fuel of global jihad

(Democracy Broadcasting News Exclusive) 'Israeli conflict is actually just a red-herring for Islamist global conquest,' reveals Islamist whistleblower, Dr. Tawfik Hamid

Jihadist-reformer, Egyptian Dr. Tawfik Hamid, reveals how Islamism conspires to conquer the West through a campaign of economic destabilization and socio-political revolution. Dr. Hamid believes the Saudis are institutionally fundamentalizing Islam to increase their socio-religious hegemony throughout the world.

The Israel-Palestine conflict, he reveals, is Islamism's red-herring - effective in confusing the West about the true nature of the global Islamist imperialist movement.



Dr. Hamid illuminates the relationship between Saudi oil affluence and Islamist anti-Zionism. The Saudi's rationalized their oil-affluence upon their fundamentalism, he explains, in their promoting themselves and their fundamentalism throughout the Muslim world - which has been widely accepted.