In state-to-state relations Al-taqiyya political version is known as Kitman. Politically it means to project whatever image is necessary and advantageous in order to gain concessions from an adversary. The accepted principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in the sphere of international politics. The usual method of civilized diplomacy and negotiations might normally culminate in state treaties or other articles of agreement, but must be based on honesty, trust, and honored by both parties. But this principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam implies that true lasting negotiated settlements may not be possible, as Muslims today seem to be taking ever greater liberty in expanding the parameters and scope of circumstances under which they are permitted to lie or use deceptive tactics. Knowing this, can non-Muslims expect anything more than deception and double-speak from Muslim leaders? Will nation-to-nation treaties with Islamic states yield the hoped for peace and benefits to the non-Muslim participants to such agreements? Unfortunately, when dealing with Muslims, one must keep in mind the implications of the principle of taqiyya, in that Muslims can communicate something with apparent sincerity, when in reality they may have in their hearts the opposite agenda. In AD 628 – Muhammad ongoing military conquests were not going well, and so for tactical purposes he signed a treaty with the Meccan Quarish tribe. (The Al-Hudaybiyya agreement between the Prophet and the Quarish was signed for a period of 10 years, which became, in Islamic tradition, the time limit for any agreement with non-Muslims). The Al-Hudaybiyya agreement was broken just 18 months later when Mohammed’s army advanced and conquered Mecca. Arafat’s signatures have all had about the same value.

Have you noticed that every time militant Arab Muslim groups find themselves in a losing position in conflicts they initiated, they immediately proclaim they are ready to suspend hostilities and begin negotiations? They suddenly become concerned with victims, saying "Peace" so often it becomes meaningless, yet Westerners fall for it every time. Arab Muslims have an insidious habit of negotiating falsely, a tactic that is all too easy to pass off to ignorant Westerners longing for peace. Terrorists who rise up and kill (Saddam Hussein in his time, Yasser Arafat, Osama Bin Laden, the Janjaweed in Darfur, and now Iraqi terrorist Moqtada Sadr) never stop or sue from peace when finding success. But when hit hard and causalities mount, they immediately plead for negotiations, only to start attacking again after resting and regrouping. In most prior wars involving nation states, Islamic countries howl for international intervention only when they start to lose battles they started. Nations need to start learning these rather transparent lessons of history. When they say they want to negotiate a fair ending to the conflict, it's a trick to call for a truce breather - called a "hudna". Perhaps it's forgivable for Western governments to make one or two mistakes in negotiations with Islamists, but when the same mistake is made time and again - then it is no longer mere error, its pure stupidity. Arafat frequently refers to this trick, relying upon the ignorance of the West. On May 10, 1994, 10 days after signing the First Gaza-Jericho agreement, Arafat spoke in English at a Johannesburg mosque explaining to his people why he was returning to the Peace table. He was unknowingly recorded to say; "This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Muhammad and Quraysh...” To his own people in Arabic, Arafat has often since repeated this illusion to the Hudaibiya Treaty. Although obscure to us, Palestinians understand perfectly well what he means. Under the promise of peaceful 'accommodation' or 'truce', Arafat has made and broken many agreements over time. When Arafat's terrorists were stalking around the streets of Amman, Jordan in the 1960s, Arafat made 26 separate agreements with King Hussein, breaking every single one. He went too far when he put out a contract on the King's brother, wherein the King finally declared war in September 1970 and slaughtered 7,000 of Arafat's Terrorists. Palestinians call that purge "Black September", often naming Terror attacks after it. To Israel and Westerners, the Oslo accords were supposed to provide the foundation for peace, but to Islamists they were never more than a temporary "hudna" intended to be broken from the beginning. Even after violating one cease-file, when the situation on the ground proves too dangerous for them, it is all too easy to follow it with another truce. This kind of "Bait & Switch" tactic harks back to Mohammed when he made the previously mentioned treaty with the Quarish he could not conquer, while he gathered a much stronger Muslim army and broke it 1 ½ years later. Because of the difficulty he had subduing them, after they surrendered Mohammed had all 600 men from the city slaughtered, and sold the women and children into slavery. This tactic is a template still in use because Muslims have enjoyed so much success with it.

Go to page 4