"We will not accept in our country even a single soldier who will attack Muslims or Arabs"
About this Quote
A line like this is less a burst of empathy than a piece of statecraft aimed at two audiences at once: domestic legitimacy and international scrutiny. Coming from Sultan bin Abdul-Aziz Al Saud, a senior royal long tied to Saudi defense and security, the phrasing carries the weight of an establishment trying to police the boundaries of acceptable force. “We will not accept” is the language of a gatekeeper, not a moral philosopher. It signals control: the regime decides who gets to wear a uniform, who gets sanctuary, who gets expelled.
The specificity matters. “Even a single soldier” reads like absolutism, but it also functions as a political prophylactic. It suggests there is a fear of infiltration or spillover: foreign troops, mercenaries, or even allied forces whose presence could ignite public anger and religious outrage. The word “attack” is doing quiet diplomatic work, too. It’s not “fight,” not “detain,” not “intervene.” It draws a bright line around aggression, implying that security cooperation might still be acceptable as long as it can be framed as defensive or internal.
Then there’s the pairing: “Muslims or Arabs.” It’s an identity map that reveals priorities and constraints. The Saudi state’s claim to leadership rests on Islamic custodianship, yet Arab solidarity remains a parallel currency. By yoking them together, the quote offers maximum reassurance across sectarian and nationalist fault lines, while leaving room to define who counts as a legitimate target by omission: “terrorists,” “extremists,” “rebels” can be rhetorically carved out later.
In the post-Gulf War, post-9/11 era of heightened foreign troop controversies and regional wars, this statement reads as reputational defense: a promise that Saudi soil won’t be a staging ground for assaults on the very communities the kingdom must be seen protecting.
The specificity matters. “Even a single soldier” reads like absolutism, but it also functions as a political prophylactic. It suggests there is a fear of infiltration or spillover: foreign troops, mercenaries, or even allied forces whose presence could ignite public anger and religious outrage. The word “attack” is doing quiet diplomatic work, too. It’s not “fight,” not “detain,” not “intervene.” It draws a bright line around aggression, implying that security cooperation might still be acceptable as long as it can be framed as defensive or internal.
Then there’s the pairing: “Muslims or Arabs.” It’s an identity map that reveals priorities and constraints. The Saudi state’s claim to leadership rests on Islamic custodianship, yet Arab solidarity remains a parallel currency. By yoking them together, the quote offers maximum reassurance across sectarian and nationalist fault lines, while leaving room to define who counts as a legitimate target by omission: “terrorists,” “extremists,” “rebels” can be rhetorically carved out later.
In the post-Gulf War, post-9/11 era of heightened foreign troop controversies and regional wars, this statement reads as reputational defense: a promise that Saudi soil won’t be a staging ground for assaults on the very communities the kingdom must be seen protecting.
Quote Details
| Topic | Human Rights |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Sultan
Add to List
