I certainly do not begrudge Palazzi his goal. I most certainly do not wish Muslims to enter upon prolonged residence in the West until the good Sheik's goals are met. Neither do I believe the Wahhabis are the only violent sect within Islam.
Just as you and I are formed by the relentless logic of the Christian West, Muslims are formed and driven by a logic that is completely alien to us and has not matured beyond the era of strife and bloodshed in the name of sectarianism epitomized in our own history by the point and counterpoint of a Cromwell and a Bloody Mary. Furthermore, the Muslims Palazzi (and you and I) consider "Bad" want to wipe out all Christian Sects. Luther? The Pope? Calvin? Zwingli; The Vicar of Brae? Makes no difference to them.
Besides the philosophical differences which are now causing bloodshed, slavery, mutilation, and enforced conversion of Christians across the globe, there is the simple question of today's numbers. Cromwell did not have even 50,000 troops with which to oppress Ireland. Bloody Mary burned hundreds at the stake. Ditto Zwingli and Calvin. They executed 15 witches at Salem. The Romans executed thousands.
This sordid litany pales in comparison to the damage now being done in the Sudan and which was done in East TImor. And the number of oppressors in the name of religion dwarfs any total of the worst ever known. The tiny percentage of Muslims who are Islamists, or jihadists, or "Bad" Muslims in Palazzi's book number in the 10's of millions, at the very least.
How many 9/11s does the good Sheik think might occur while he is working his ambitious process? How long does he think it will take him to bring 50MILLION vicious dogs to heel and lead them to the sweet light which he claims radiates from the teachings of Muhammed, May Peace Be Upon Him?
Let the good Sheik make his circuit of the watering places and raise all the money he can for his project. Perhaps the europeans, or our government will back his foundation, or whatever mechanism he develops. But if it includes any more Muslims taking up residence in the West, I'll fight it. I won't be alone, as I predict you'll see if the "bad" Muslims commit any atrocity soon in the West.
What I think you ought to fight is logical relativism. You probably cannot profitably apply the thought processes of the West to Islam. In fact, I think Palazzi is trying to apply a thought process from the East ;;;; Good Kharma. But east or West, if you and the Sheik wish to reform Islam, don't do it in my backyard.
I notice, however, that we only learned religious toleration relatively recently. It is not something we've had for time out of mind that is alien in other atmospheres, it is instead a still revolutionary new principle that has simply never been accepted in half of the world. Including the communist half quite recently, in China today, etc.
If you go look at how we learned it, principle did play a role and the arguments for it can be run through and repeated, for those who can listen to reason. But we did not really get it established by deriving it from first intellectual principles - let alone finding it in ancient books, slapping our heads, and crying out "oh sorry, now it is so obvious we've been doing it wrong for the last 1500 years".
Instead, we arrived at the principle of tolerance -practically-. By exhaustion. We tried persecution at the wholesale level in the reformation and counterreformation - and fought ourselves to a bloody stalemate. We gave up, because it did not work in practice. It seems to me this is quite relevant to the present war against Islamic terrorists.
I think we can teach them religious toleration in much the same way we learned it. But thwarting their will to persecute, directly, by superior force. Some of them are having a persecution brain-storm right about now, and think it will somehow help them. We can make sure it doesn't, in spades. While simultaneously working with those like the article writer to hold out a reformed islam, and the carrot of reasonable treatment for reformist countries by the west (e.g. Turkey).
One has to envision the eventual state we can live with as victory. And coordinate our practical actions so that they move things toward it. In the long run, victory will mean islamic countries we can live with, that are not determinately hostile. They will be thinking differently than the islamicists are urging them to think now. A large part of that will be enforcement of practical outcomes, what will work vs what we won't let work. Some will be theoretical justification, in their own traditional terms, some in ours, the language of human rights, etc.
As for how many terrorist attacks will occur while this is going on, fifty to a hundred sizable ones is a realistic estimate. I am extrapolating from history, and things have changed somewhat, so that is obviously just a guess. But millions are not going to actively engage in terrorism. Armies will fight wars, particularly against the weak - Islamic armies have a limited and pathetically inglorious record against opponents that are fully armed. All powerful they most certainly are not.