FP: Is it un-Islamic to observe and comment on the beauty of a woman? Have you never noticed a woman and thought to yourself: “She is beautiful”? And did you do this knowing that you are simply appreciating God’s creation?

Palazzi: To admire a woman for her beauty is not forbidden in Islam, as in so doing one appreciates God's Creation.  The Prophet Muhammad said "God is beautiful and loves beauty".  He also said that "Three things alone are dear to me in this world of yours:  perfumes, women and prayer which was the relief of my eyes".

According to one of the outstanding Sheikhs of Sufism, the Persian poet Maulana Jalaluddin Rumi, the feminine archetype uniquely manifests aspects of the Divine Essence not manifested elsewhere.  A normal person is obviously aware of female beauty, as that person is aware of other forms of beauty.  However, looking at a married woman with physical desire, or looking at a non-married woman with physical desire and without an intention to ask her in marriage, is forbidden by Islam. Looking is not forbidden in and of itself, but due to the forbidden physical desires that looking engenders.

FP: How a normal male can look at a beautiful woman without physical desires of any kind in his being is beyond me. And to pretend that this physical desire is not part of human nature is a lie -- a lie that is highly destructive and leads to many morbid pathologies. I am not saying humans are supposed to act on every whim; I am saying that a teaching that demonizes normal and natural human urges and desires (in the realm of physical attraction) creates many more problems than it solves.

In any case, when I ask these questions, I am primarily inquiring into the realm of whether it is anybody’s business how, or how not, a male or female, or two adults of the same sex for that matter, admire one another and are intimate with one another. In other words, I find abhorrent the reality of a “morality police” anywhere, whether it be a Stalinist or Maoist version or a Saudi or Iranian version. 

Palazzi: I find abhorrent the reality of a “morality police” too. The only "police" of one's morality should be one's consciousness.

FP: Ok. Let’s move on. What do you think of wife beating and the Qur’an’s support of it? (Sura  4:34) What do you think of polygamy and the Quran’s support of it? (Sura 4:3)

Palazzi:  The Qur'an views a family as subject to the authority of the father, and gives a father permission to lightly spank his wife and children if necessary to maintain discipline and as punishment for prohibited behavior.  Nevertheless, even to engage in light spanking is seen as an extreme disciplinary measure.  Both the Qur'an and hadith warn against the dangers of abuse inherent in corporal punishment, such as light spanking.

In our time, however, it is not socially acceptable for a husband to spank his wife, for a father to spank his children, or for a teacher to spank his students.  In many countries it is against the law to do so.  The Shari'ah forbids a Muslim from performing acts -- even acts declared permissible in the Qur'an -- that violate the law of the State in which he lives.  Consequently, Muslims must abstain from disciplinary measures allowed in the Qur'an when those acts are illegal in a host society where a Muslim lives.

At the time the Qur'an was revealed polygamy was widespread among Arabs and other peoples.  Islam limited the number of women a man may marry to four wives, and established specific conditions under which polygamy may be practiced.  In those days, battles and wars were frequent, involved hand to hand combat, were fought with swords and other hand held weapons far from cities, and casualties were men only.

The high casualty rates resulting from battles and wars left more women than men in societies, and a higher percentage of widows with children.  Polygamy was the only way for most women and widows to have a husband.  However, polygamy in Islam is not compulsory, but is only allowed under certain circumstances.  Avoiding sedition (which includes abstaining from violating the law of the State) is on the contrary compulsory.

As stated before, an act permitted by Shari'ah that violates the law of a State is forbidden to a Muslim who resides in that State.  Consequently, in countries where polygamy is not forbidden by the State, a Muslim may practise polygamy under the conditions established by the Shari'ah, while in countries where polygamy is forbidden by the State a Muslim is forbidden to practice it.

Marriage laws vary in Western countries.  To the best of my knowledge, in some American States religious marriages must also be registered as civil marriages.  Where prohibited by the State, a Muslim is forbidden to practice polygamy as discussed above.  If he marries a second wife while being already married, a Muslim violates the law of the State and thereby violates the Shari'ah prohibition against sedition.

In Italy and other European countries, citizens may conduct religious marriages without registering them as civil marriages.  As a result, in Italy we tell Muslims, "If you have a civil marriage, polygamy is forbidden to you.  If you have a religious marriage only, polygamy is permitted to you.  Consequently, if you conduct a second, third or fourth religious marriage according to Shari'ah, you are not violating Italian law, as Italian law forbids polygamy in civil marriages only".

As long as Italian law is such, I believe this to be the most sensible solution.  Separation between "Church" and "State" in this case involves recognition of the difference between religious and civil marriage.

FP: There is a lot of blurriness in your answer. I guess what I am hearing is that Muslims believe that there is a God above that sanctions a husband to strike his wife but not a wife to strike her husband. The notion that there is a Divine being that creates rules like this is, for me, completely absurd -- and dangerous, since males will exploit these ludicrous self-created inventions in order to control and subjugate the opposite gender.

Let’s discuss Female Genital Mutilation. What do you think of its widespread practise in the Muslim world today? If it is un-Islamic, where are all the mass protests of Muslims and Muslim clerics who are vehemently trying to stop this barbarity against their women in the Muslim world because it is a slander to, and violation of, their religion?

I have had many arguments with myriad Muslims about this and I always notice one dynamic: they spend all of their energy arguing that FGM is not Islamic, yet they spend zero energy in protesting this abuse of their religion and trying to prevent Muslim girls from being victimized by this barbarity. If they are so excited during arguments about this vicious practise in denying that it has anything to do with Islam, why do they never channel this excitement into actually doing something about it? For instance, name me a few prominent Muslim clerics in the Islamic world who are ferociously fighting this horror because it is un-Islamic. Why haven't we heard of them? Name some angry mass demonstrations by Muslims that have occurred in the Muslim world against FGM because it is a violation of their religion.

Palazzi:  I beg the pardon of your readers who may find a detailed discussion of these issues to be indelicate, but such a detailed discussion is necessary to understand the subject properly.  We must distinguish between:  1) Female Genital Circumcision ("excision" -- removal of skin covering a clitoris); 2) Clitoridectomy (removal of a clitoris itself), and 3) Infibulation (cutting the labia majora of a vagina and sewing the labia minora together).

Numbers #2 (Clitoridectomy) and #3 (Infibulation) are ancient tribal customs in areas of Africa predating the arrival of Christianity and Islam.  Such customs are practiced by Muslim, Christian and animist Africans living in those areas today.  Female Genital Circumcision (#1) is a practice dating from Ancient Egypt that till today is common in areas to which Egyptian civilization spread.

Many Westerners confuse Female Genital Circumcision (#1) with Clitoridectomy (#2) and/or with Infibulation (#3).  While Clitoridectomy (#2) and Infibulation (#3) are barbaric practices that cause women terrible pain and deprive them of sexual satisfaction, Female Genital Circumcision (#1) if performed properly is not so different from male circumcision.  As with male circumcision, Female Genital Circumcision can endanger health when performed by an improperly trained person and when in unsanitary conditions.

Female Genital Circumcision (#1) should in any event be abolished as there is no religious requirement to perform according to Islam, it provides no benefit to the woman on whom it is performed and often leads to needless pain and medical complications.  However, Female Genital Circumcision (#1) should not be confused with the barbaric tribal customs of Clitoridectomy (#2) and Infibulation (#3).

A basic principle of Shafi'i jurisprudence is that, where local pre-Islamic customs exist, they are acceptable in cases where they do not violate Islamic Law and or cause injury.  As a result, when Islam spread to areas wherein Female Genital Circumcision (#1) was the pre-existing tribal custom, many Shafi'i jurists of old ruled that it was acceptable.

Today, most Shafi'i scholars on the contrary conclude that there is abundant medical evidence showing Female Genital Circumcision (#1) to be dangerous to a woman's health, and we can no longer say that it is not dangerous.  Consequently, one cannot claim anymore that Female Genital Circumcision is permitted according to Shari'ah.  My late Sheikh, Isma'il al-Azhari, strove to stamp out Female Genital Circumcision (#1) in Egypt.  In Somalia, Sheikh Abdul Rahim Hassan is today doing the same.

The Egyptian government has established special medical units to stamp out Female Genital Circumcision (#1) and to investigate cases where it is still practiced.  Resistance to such State efforts originates within families traditionally practicing this custom.  Even in cases where the government opposes it, conservative families insist on practicing Female Genital Circumcision (#1) since they claim that -- within their traditional society -- no man will marry a woman who did no undergo Female Genital Circumcision (#1).

This problem is one of traditional pre-existing culture, not Islam.  The challenge is teaching people to change deeply engrained pre-Islamic cultural traditions.  Such change never comes overnight.  It is certainly true that much more must be done, especially in the field of education.  However, we must recognize the sociological and psychological reality of human nature that customs in cultures throughout the world, regardless of the nature of those customs, are extremely resistant to change, which comes slowly, if at all.

To give one example, Islam forbids tattooing.  Even so, in some areas of the Muslim world, the custom is for parents to tattoo their children.  Muslim scholars have repeatedly condemned this custom and explained time and again why this custom is against Islamic law, but people go on practicing it anyway.

Regarding mass demonstrations, they are permitted and effective in democracies only.  Most Muslim countries are dictatorships which only permit demonstrations in support of the regimes themselves.  No dictatorship will permit demonstrations against Female Genital Circumcision (#1), exactly as they do not permit demonstrations against unemployment, corruption, etc.  Dictatorships never permit people to protest and expose anything wrong in their countries.

Apart from this, I doubt that mass demonstrations are effective vehicles for effecting change vis-a-vis ancient customs such as Female Genital Circumcision (#1).  I also believe that attempting to stamp out this custom through passing laws break down when it comes to enforcement.

Suppose a country passes a law according to which parents in underdeveloped areas who practice Female Genital Circumcision (#1) upon their daughters are put in jail.  The result will be that those parents who are put in jail will not even understand why this is happening to them.  They will think, "I am sent to jail while I only did what my grandfather did to my mother, what my great grandfather did to my grandmother, and even the judge who is sending me to jail does so while I only did what his grandfather did to his mother, what his great grandfather did to his grandmother, etc."

The main hope for eradicating this custom is changing social attitudes.  This can only be done, if at all, through education, requiring enlightened cooperation between government, medical and religious leaders.

FP: My overall point, which I think is clear, is that if female genital mutilation is as un-Islamic as so many Muslims vehemently argue it is (not to mention the many who justify it: Sheikh Youssef al-Badri, etc.), then they would rise up in an upheaval and get rid of this barbarity that is being practised in their religion’s name. But this is not the case. And I think it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why, even in places where Muslims can gather in huge demonstrations, that they do not rise up against this practise that supposedly slanders their religion. It says something very significant about the state of Islam.

Let’s move on to politics. What do you think of communism?

Palazzi: Communism is an ideology based on a perverted anthropology.  In communism, the human being is a means only, and not a goal. There exists an eschatological goal which must be reached at all costs, a society without classes where private property is abolished.

The number of human beings who must be annihilated during this "messianic" process of human "redemption" is irrelevant.  Karl Marx writes that "the essence of a human being is basically the sum of his social relations".  Communism does not attribute to the human being any intrinsic dignity.  When such an anti-humane philosophy is applied, the consequences are necessarily tragic:  planned mass starvations, imprisonments, deportations and murder.

Classical European philosophy is characterized by two main thinkers, Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel.  Kant reflected upon the limit of human reason, and thought that philosophy is called to investigate not only what the human reason can know, but even more what human reason cannot know.  Hegel on the contrary deified human reason and conceived history as the milieu wherein reason reaches an absolute self-consciousness.

To Hegel and his disciples, the individual counts for nothing:  War (!) is the real engine of human progress.  "Periods of peace are blank pages in history", Hegel dared to write.  Kant's philosophy was a foundation for the development of modern democracy and pluralism.  Hegel's philosophy was a foundation for the development of modern fascism and communism.

Communists have in common with Fascists the idea that they alone have discovered the secrets of the ultimate truths about the development of human history, and that it is their right to secure the implementation of these truths no matter what the human cost. In a certain sense, contemporary Wahhabi Islamists are heirs of both Fascism and Communism.

If one reads the works of Sayyid Qutb, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood who is the forefather of contemporary Wahhabi terrorism, one realizes that he is more indebted to Lenin and to Sorel than he is to the classical sources of Islamic thought, which incidentally Qutb knows very superficially.  The notion of a worldwide network of secret cells which are ready to be activated for terror attacks is what Wahhabi terrorists inherited from Leninism.

FP: What do you think of the Left's position today in the War on Terror?

Palazzi: The Left is blind and irresponsible.  By opposing the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Left objectively helps terrorists reach their objectives.  The Left has not learnt the lesson of Vietnam.  What happened once the U.S. army withdrew from Vietnam?  Did peace and democracy prevail in Indo-China?  Surely not.  There came a totalitarian Vietnamese regime, and then the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia.

Suppose the U.S. army withdraws from Iraq before the Iraqi government is able to control the country, what is supposed to happen?  Iraq will become something similar to Lebanon before Syrian occupation, a No Man's Land wherein different armed factions fight each other and spread terror among the civilian population.

George Orwell said in 1942 that "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.  This is elementary common sense.  If you hamper the war effort of one side, you automatically help out that of the other".  This was true for the Left in Orwell's time, and is true for Left in our time.

FP: What do you think of Sharia Law? Do you renounce any intention, now or in the future, to impose Sharia even by peaceful means in Italy or any other country?

Palazzi: The prevalence of Wahhabi propaganda in the West caused a distorted perception of what Shari'ah actually is, and of how it is implemented.  To give one example, the Mass Media in general focuses on "imposing Shari'ah" when reporting on the application of some specific penal aspects of Shari'ah.  If an extremist regime decides to execute a person on charges of heresy, apostasy, etc., or if some person is stoned on charges of adultery, the Mass Media focuses on "imposing Shari'ah".

However, the Shari'ah itself distinguishes between crimes against God and crimes against our fellow human beings.  According to the Shari'ah, a ruler is authorized to apply capital punishments for crimes against human beings, (e.g. for murder, for slaughter, for sedition), but the only person who can authorize execution for crimes against God (e.g. blasphemy, heresy, adultery, etc.) is a Caliph.  In a time when there is no Caliph, none can give the same authorization in his place.  Consequently, if a regime condemns a person to death for blasphemy, heresy, adultery, etc., this represents a violation rather than an implementation of Shari'ah.

Shari'ah involves different categories of laws which must be put into practice by an individual believer, community and Caliphate.  When a Caliphate does not exist, the basis for putting into practice laws that can only be enforced by the Caliphate are absent.  A State which is not a Caliphate and which attempts to enforce laws which may only be applied by a Caliphate is in serious violation of Shari'ah.  The Wahhabi revolution in respect to the classical understanding of Shari'ah also implies this:  denying the Sunni belief about the presence or absence of the Caliphate, and pretending that States which are not the Caliphate may implement those aspects of Shari'ah which only the Caliphate can apply.  No Sunni can pretend this, be he in Italy or elsewhere.

FP: Do you consider that Qur'an 9:29 (the instruction to fight unbelievers) has any application in the modern world, now or in the future? If so, what is it?

Palazzi: The verse to which you refer deals with fighting non-Muslims who are hostile towards Muslims, deny their religious freedom and do not even want to permit them to survive as Muslims.  When such as situation exists, Muslims must defend themselves, until the persecution has passed.  Such a situation prevailed in the time when the Qur'an was revealed. Enemies of Islam simply wanted to annihilate the Muslim community.

Even at that time, however, there existed non-Muslim countries which were not hostile toward Muslims.  The Christian ruler of Abyssinia, for instance, was friendly.  The Prophet Muhammad sent Muslims to Abyssinia not to fight, but to live as peaceful citizens under the Christian Abyssinian king's righteous and humane government.

In our time, most non-Muslim countries do not want to annihilate Islam, exterminate Muslims or to convert them to another religion by force.  Even countries where Muslims are persecuted (China, Myanmar/Burma, etc.) do not reach such a level.  However, some cases in which Muslims must fight non-Muslims to defend their existence and their religious freedom still exist in the modern world.

Let us consider what happened in Bosnia:  people of different religions were living together in peace and had reached a good level of integration, when suddenly a group of fanatic Serbian nationalists started a war which was based on religious identity.  With the dissolution of former Yugoslavia, Muslims of Sarajevo saw their houses bombed by their former Serbian neighbors, by people with whom they were living side by side in peace the day before.  Serbian nationalists made religious identity a basis for discrimination.  For Serbian Chetnik squads, whoever was a Muslim, simply by virtue of being a Muslim, was an enemy to be fought.  In such circumstances, Muslims have every right to defend themselves and to fight non-Muslims, not since such opponents are non-Muslims, but since they started attacking peaceful Muslims.

FP: Fair enough, but in general, the definition that Islam has for what exactly is defensive war and who exactly is an innocent in war is grounds for debate and very much a problem area.

What do you think of a Muslim who converts to Christianity? Should he be punished?

Palazzi: As a matter of principle, the Shari'ah permits punishment of a Muslim who converts to another religion only when the leaders of that religion are at war with Muslims.  In such circumstances, there is the serious possibility that the conversion involves treachery and transferring sensitive information to the enemy.  Apart from this, according to the Shari'ah, enforcing a punishment for conversion to another religion is only possible with the approval of a Caliph.  When there is no Caliph -- as in our time -- no punishment for apostasy or for conversion to another religion can be enforced.

FP: The problem is that many Muslims interpret certain parts of the Qur’an as teaching that there is always a state of war until the whole world submits to Islam. That is the problem.

Can non-Muslims, even atheists, enter heaven?

Palazzi: When dealing with the abodes of the World to Come, we must avoid simplistic and anthropomorphic representations.  Heaven is the condition wherein God's glory is manifested to His creatures as mercy.  Hellfire, on the contrary, is the condition wherein God's glory is manifested to His creatures as judgment.  A creature who does not believe in God cannot reach the level of seeing His glory manifested as mercy.  He first needs to realize the presence of Divine glory through what he did not suppose to exist, i.e. through the punishment of hellfire.

As for heaven, no one will enter it except in "Islam" in its literal sense, i.e. in a state of submission to God, regardless of the religion in which one may believe and faith community to which one may belong.  This clearly does not mean that those judged by God to be in a state of submission are automatically identified with those who in this world nominally belong to the Islamic religion, and those who are judged by God to be in a state of rebellion are automatically identified with those who in this world nominally belong to religions other than Islam.

It is possible that some people who are considered Muslims in this world will be judged in a state of denial for what concerns the Hereafter, and sent to hellfire, as it is possible that some people who are considered non-Muslims in this world will be judged in a state of submission for what concerns the Hereafter, and admitted to heaven.  Apart from this, God's mercy prevails over His punishment, and a time will come when the inhabitants of hellfire while be enlightened by the glory of God which was manifested to them as punishment.

At that point, hell will stop "burning" for them, and will become a place of "freshness".  Then the whole of the Creation will be redeemed, and everything which was manifested by God will come back to God.  Everything will perish, except for God's Face, i.e. except for the Divine Essence which is presently veiled and manifested under every existing thing.

FP: When you say that “the whole of the Creation will be redeemed” are you saying that even the Devil himself will, in the end, find redemption? And when you say “everything will perish, except for God's Face,” do you mean our own souls are not eternal?

Palazzi: From the perspective of speculative theology, redemption is limited to those who are saved in the Hereafter.  The inhabitants of Heaven are redeemed, while the Devil, demons and sinners who are not forgiven will dwell in hellfire forever, without being redeemed in a theological sense.  The metaphysical perspective of Sufism, however, transcends speculative theology.  Sufism sees speculative theology as an aspect of truth, but not the highest level of truth.

According to Sufi metaphysics, defined as "Unity of Existence" or "Mono-existentialism" (Wahdat al-Wujud), redemption will be universal and include every created being, including the Devil.  Souls are eternal since they are limited manifestations of unlimited Divine attributes.  The idea of the soul's "ontological independence" from God is that it is contingent and perishable.

Speculative theology distinguishes between Necessary Being (Creator) and Contingent Being (His creatures).  A theologian says that Necessary Being is Self-subsistent, while Contingent Being receives its being from the Necessary Being (God) who created it (creature).  Sufism, in particular the school of Ibn 'Arabi, teaches that "There is nothing in existence except for God" (laysa fi-l-wujud siwa' Allah), i,.e. that what theologians conceived as Contingent Being is -- on a higher level -- nothing but Necessary Being covered by a veil of createdness.

Consequently, when a theologian speaks about "redemption" he refers to admission to Heaven, while when a Sufi uses the term "redemption" he refers to the removal of the veil of createdness from every creature.  This includes the Devil, demons and sinners:  the veil of their createdness will be removed, and the related Divine attributes will be completely manifested in them.

Souls will not cease to exist, but their seeming separation from God will be removed.  Souls will cease to appear to exist as Contingent Beings, and will be manifested as one of the attributes of Necessary Being.  That is the sense of "everything will perish, except for God's Face".

FP: What do you think are the sources of anti-Semitism?

Palazzi: Anti-Semitism developed as a consequence of replacement theology and Christian anti-Judaism.  Early Jewish-Christians did not consider themselves as members of a new religion separate from Judaism.  They considered themselves as a part of the Children of Israel who were distinguished from other Jews by their belief in Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, as for example is the case with the messianic movement within Chabad Lubavitch which believes that the last Lubavticher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneersohn, was the Jewish Messiah.  Aside from this distinguishing belief, early Jewish-Christians went on abiding by the dictates of Torah as they were understood by the Rabbinical teachers of their time, the Pharisees.  These Jewish Christians were in all other respects Torah-observant (i.e. "orthodox") Jews.

When Paul of Tarsus converted to Christianity, he started understanding Christianity in a very different way.  There was no need of circumcision anymore, no need of Temple services and no need to observe the ritual commandments of Torah.  The entire Jewish tradition was considered to be a temporarily valid religion, as a preliminary stage for the advent of the Messiah.  Now that the Messiah has come, Judaism was rejected and meaningless.  Jews were the Chosen People since the Messiah was going to be born among them, but since they rejected the Messiah, they were changed from Chosen People into an accursed People.

Consequently, two forms of Christianity started to exist:  the Church of Jacob (Jesus's brother), or Judeo-Christian Church, which saw no break between Judaism and Christianity, and the Pauline Church, which was anti-Jewish and considered Jews who did not convert to Christianity as rejected by God.  While the early Judeo-Christian Church was exclusively comprised of Torah-observant Jews, the Pauline Church was also comprised of non-Jewish converts.

With the destruction of Jerusalem, the Judeo-Christian Church disappeared, while the Pauline Church sided with the Roman authorities and became dominant in Western Europe.  For centuries, that Church contributed to spread among its followers the idea that Jews were an accursed People, whose only option for salvation was conversion to Christianity.  Christian Anti-Judaism, i.e. considering Judaism as the religion of an accursed, deicide (God murdering) People, as such is not identical to anti-Semitism, but surely prepares the ground for it.

According to anti-Judaism, a Jew who converts to Christianity should cease to be a member of the accursed People and become a Christian on the same level as Gentile Christians.  However, with the passing of the time, an attitude prevailed in Europe according to which even a converted Jew came to be viewed with suspicion, since it was possible that his conversion was not sincere and he could be possibly working to destroy Christianity from within.  Step by step, the hostility was transferred from Jewish faith to Jewish "race".

Under Ferdinando of Aragon and Isabella of Castilla, 15th Century Spain conceived a policy of forced conversion to Christianity of non-Christian subjects (Jews and Muslims).  However, even those Jews who converted to Christianity to avoid deportation were not considered equal to born Christians.  An act was passed about "purity of blood" (limpieza de sangre):  even if he was now a devout Catholic, a convert from Judaism was considered to have "impure blood", and banned from the most important professional and social positions.

The Protestant Reformation in Germany was characterized by a renewal of Pauline belief, including anti-Judaism.  Luther ascribed fundamental importance to Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which is the basic source for Christian anti-Judaism, and in his essays Luther voiced a very violent form of anti-Semitism.  Thanks to this, anti-Semitism became an integral part of German national-popular culture, which explains how Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda found such a fertile ground during the first half of the 20th century in Germany.

FP: Do you have hope about this terror war? Are you optimistic or pessimistic that the West has what it takes to defeat Islamism?

Palazzi: As I have said repeatedly for over a decade, as long as the Saudis are not identified as ground zero for global terror and unless a decisive (no waffling, no ands-ifs-or-buts) decision is made to totally destroy the Saudi Wahhabi petro-dollar profit financed international terror sponsoring regime, there is no "victory" in a "War" on "Terror" to discuss.

Measures taken to counter the Wahhabi pro-terror network in the West -- despite the mass murder attacks in New York and Washington (9/11), Madrid (3/11) and London (7/7) -- are until now extremely weak. The pro-terror network is only marginally, minimally and superficially damaged, but the top level Wahhabi leaders remain untouched and protected.

To give some examples, CAIR, the North American branch of Hamas, is still completely legal in the United States.  The Governor of Florida and brother of the U.S. President, Governor Jeb Bush, even sends messages of greetings to CAIR. meetings.  CAIR's boss, Hamas leader Nihad Awad, notwithstanding his past involvement in an outlawed terror-funding organization, is still active in the United States.

The main living ideologue of suicide terrorism, Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, was recently invited as an honored guest to London by Mayor Ken Livingstone.  al-Qaradawi openly praises suicide attacks against United States and United Kingdom forces, while al-Qaradawi's daughters study for masters degrees at British universities.  Neither the United States, the United Kingdom nor any other nations that were victims of suicide bombers ever asked Qatar for al-Qaradawi's extradition.

In Switzerland, Bin Laden's banker for Europe, Youssef Nada, is free and still investing his "charity funds" in leading sectors of the European economy.  Someone who massively funded terror attacks against the West is still free to buy in Western financial markets whatever he likes.  Nada's son, Hazim Nada, is paradoxically a senior majoring in mathematics at Rutgers College, New Jersey, studying in a country which his father Youssef Nada works to destroy.  When I lectured at Rutgers, Nada's son tried and failed to intimidate and defame me.

All of those people I mentioned have a leading role in the Wahhabi international pro-terror network, yet they still feel free to move at will in enemy territory, i.e. the West.  Their children can even study the enemy in the field, and even achieve positions of prominence in Western society, as did Tareq and Hani Saed Ramadan, grandchildren of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hasan al-Bannah.

How can the West win a "War of Terror" while the enemy's Fifth Column is free to act in the United States, United Kingdom and in continental Europe?  It is critical that citizens of Western countries confront their governments with such questions.  United States citizens, in particular, should go on repeatedly asking these questions of the White House, hoping to receive satisfactory answers.

The tragic truth is that Western citizens will almost certainly never receive satisfactory answers to such questions.  Too many of those who hold power in the Western nations are business partners of the very Saudi and Gulf State rulers engaged in funding terror attacks on the West. The lure of almost 100% U.S. tax free oil and other financial profits to be gained from doing business with the Saudis and Gulf State rulers is so overwhelming that some Western leaders unhesitatingly place personal and corporate profit over the lives of their own citizens.

One should not engage in the fatal mistake, which represents the highest form of personal and national psychological denial, of accepting the make believe that the Saudi and Gulf State ruling families are themselves "victims" of what is in fact their own terror.  This is as ridiculous as suggesting that the Nazi Party was a victim of and separate from its S.S. and S.A. military units.  Terror attacks within Saudi Arabia merely represents rivalries being worked out between different factions among the princes in the ruling Saudi pro-terror family, no different from similar feuds between major Italian Mafia crime families in New York.

FP: Sheikh Palazzi, it was an honor to speak with you.

Palazzi: The honor is mine. I want to thank for the opportunity to share my views with your valuable readers. 

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.