Analyst's note:  Absolutely must read.  A former member of the Islamist ideology speaks out about two very interesting and related topics regarding the Islamist mindset. Dr. Tawfik Hamid (aka Tarek Abdelhamid), is an Islamic thinker and reformer, and one time Islamic extremist from Egypt. He was a member of a terrorist Islamic organization JI with Dr. Ayman Al-Zawaherri who became later on the second in command of Al-Qaeda. Dr. Hamid is currently a Senior Fellow and Chair of the study of Islamic Radicalism at the Potomac Institute for Policy Studies.

Why the US Must Have killed al-Awlaki

Since the killing of Al-Awlaki several voices have been raised to criticize his killing. For example, in an Op-Ed by Ed Hussein published on CNN (Sep 30 2011), the author considered killing al-Awlaki as counterproductive to defeating terrorism in the long run because "it demolishes the very values that America stands for: the rule of law and trial by jury" (Note: In an Op-Ed published in USA today on October 3 Nihad Awad of CAIR organization also shared the same view of Ed. Hussein).

Hussein considered that the torture of Islamic radicals in prisons as being the main cause for transforming non-violent extremists into violent ones. Mr. Hussein sees that "an easier, cheaper and more effective way of discrediting al-Awlaki and countering his message would have been to disclose his three arrests for the solicitation of prostitutes in San Diego and the Washington, D.C., area between 1996 and 1997".

The above approach in dealing with radical Muslims is not only erroneous but is also dangerous.

On the contrary to what the author suggested, the lack of a strong military response to Islamic terrorists when they attacked the US embassy in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 was one of the factors that encouraged the radicals to attack the US again on September 11 which resulted in the killing of thousands of innocent American people. Had the response of the US administration back then been very powerful and had it resulted in the killing of the leaders of Al-Qaeda - without a court trial - September 11 likely would not have happened and thousands of innocents would have been saved.

The Jihadists are likely to be laughing by now when they watch the US having such debate over if leading terrorists such as al-Awlaki have to be given a due trial before killing them.  Mr. Hussein needs to realize that we deal with people who behead innocent human beings and enjoy watching and videotaping them. Such barbarians do not understand the language of "due trial". They can only understand the language of power.

Attempting to capture al-Awlaki to give him the privilege of a due trial while he was hiding in a place like Yemen could have resulted in the potential death of American soldiers. Is the life of a terrorist like al-Awlaki more important in the view of Mr. Hussein than the lives of the American soldiers?

The reality is that the US had not been able to capture al-Awlaki so it did have a choice of 'giving him a due trial' or not. The ONLY options were either to kill him and protect the lives of Americans, or to let him roam free and allow him to continue to encourage the killing of more American people.

Furthermore, the author's view that torture in prisons is the main factor that transforms non-violent extremists into violent ones is very misleading as most home grown terrorists in the West such as Maj. Nidal Hasan [1] and many others have NEVER been imprisoned or tortured in the West. Nice treatment and freedom in western countries did not stop Islamist terrorists from trying to kill their fellow citizens.     

The author's idea that it was better to discredit al-Awlaki to disclose his arrests for the solicitation of prostitutes in the past than to kill him is a very primitive idea as al-Awlaki can simply say he committed fornication before he became a good Muslim and has been forgiven by Allah based on the Quranic verse that teaches that an adulterer's sins will change into good deeds once they have repented [2] (See Quran 25 : 68-70).

The killing of al-Awlaki is a great step as it sends a clear message to the radicals that their US nationality will no longer protect them. In addition, killing the leaders of terrorist groups makes them perceived as 'weak' by young Muslims and thus decreases the appeal of terrorist groups in the eyes of these young Muslims. Additionally, showing the terrorist groups that the US intelligence is capable of infiltrating their cells can make members of the terror cells mistrust one another - which can only work for our benefit.

In fact, people like al-Awlaki must be considered traitors AND the law makers in the US may need to consider withdrawing the American citizenship from the terrorists who join the enemies of the country and incite others to kill Americans. It is time that human rights activists consider giving care for the rights of the innocent people to live safe as they also care for the rights of the criminals to have a "due trial".

Finally, the US intelligence community, the military and the administration must be saluted for orchestrating such a well synchronized attack on the enemies of humanity.
 

[1] Maj. Nidal Hasan actually got the permission to kill innocent Americans from al-Awlaki    

[2] {Quran 25: 68-70:  25:68  Those who invoke not, with Allah, any other god, nor slay such life as Allah has made sacred except for just cause, nor commit fornication; - and any that does this (not only) meets punishment. (But) the Penalty on the Day of Judgment will be doubled to him, and he will dwell therein in ignominy,- Unless he repents, believes, and works righteous deeds, for Allah will change the evil of such persons into good, and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful}

How Western Tolerance breeds Intolerance in the Muslim world

Recently a well-known Egyptian TV show host Wael El-Abrashi invited a leading Islamic scholar  Sheick Yasser Burhani to discuss the future of tourism in Egypt after the Jan 25 Revolution. The discussion that appeared on one of the mainstream TV channels in the country was titled: "This is the Halal Tourism that Slafi Muslims want to see in Egypt".

Sheick Burhani  is well known to promote Sharia controlled country where women are stoned for adultery, gays are beheaded, and Non-Muslims are humiliated as second class citizens. On the contrary, Wael El-Abrashi is well known to be a very liberal person who believes in secularism, freedom, and equality.

Sheik Burhani promoted a form of tourism that separates men from women on beaches, and prevents women tourists from wearing Un-Islamic dress and does not allow drinking alcohol. Ironically, Sheick Burhani views were based on the fact that the Queen of England showed respect to the Muslim world when she was in the UAE by wearing the Hijab.  He sees that what the Queen of England did supports the Salafi Islamic view that tourists MUST respect the culture when they visit Egypt by abandoning alcohol, by wearing Hijab dress, and by avoiding that women tourists  wear swimming togs in public beaches. ''

The discussion was a clear example on how actions of some western liberals that aims at showing cultural sensitivity became the fuel that aggravates Islamist intolerance to the values of freedom and Liberty.

In conclusion, what western liberals do as a matter of showing cultural sensitivity to Muslims can actually encourage more intolerant views to grow in the Muslim world. The actions of the West toward the Muslim world MUST be calculated on the basis of how they are perceived in mind of Muslims as what we think of as a model to show cultural sensitivity can actually be counterproductive.

Note: The discussion mentioned above  is available on You Tube in Arabic and a Photo of the Queen of England wearing the Islamic Hijab is shown during the discussion.

Related article:

Hate preacher wins human rights payout... even though he shouldn't be here at all