«(...) The Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences has determined that over ninety percent of Pakistani wives have been struck, beaten, or abused sexually — for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal. Others were punished for failing to give birth to a male child. Dominating their women by violence is a prerogative Muslim men cling to tenaciously. In Spring 2005, when the East African nation of Chad tried to institute a new family law that would outlaw wife beating, Muslim clerics led resistance to the measure as un-Islamic. Why do things like this happen? Because Islamic clerics worldwide have spoken approvingly of wife-beating. (...) (...) Muslim men bring this religiously sanctioned violence with them when they immigrate to the West, even to the United States. The prominent American Muslim leader Dr. Muzammil H. Siddiqi, former president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), has said that “in some cases a husband may use some light disciplinary action in order to correct the moral infraction of his wife…The Koran is very clear on this issue.” In 1984, Sheikh Yousef Qaradhawi, who is one of the most respected and influential Islamic clerics in the world, wrote: “If the husband senses that feelings of disobedience and rebelliousness are rising against him in his wife, he should try his best to rectify her attitude by kind words, gentle persuasion, and reasoning with her. If this is not helpful, he should sleep apart from her, trying to awaken her agreeable feminine nature so that serenity may be restored, and she may respond to him in a harmonious fashion. If this approach fails, it is permissible for him to beat her lightly with his hands, avoiding her face and other sensitive parts.” Why do they say such things? Because the permission to beat one’s wife is rooted in the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an, and Islamic tradition. The Qur'an says: “Men shall take full care of women with the bounties which God has bestowed more abundantly on the former than on the latter, and with what they may spend out of their possessions. And the righteous women are the truly devout ones, who guard the intimacy which God has [ordained to be] guarded. And as for those women whose ill-will you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them…” (4:34) (...) (...) Ignoring the Islamic justifications for domestic violence harms Muslim women.»
A propósito da decisão do Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros do Reino Unido de impedir a entrada de Gert Wilders no país, o responsável máximo desse ministério afirma:
«(...) the film contained extreme anti-Muslim hate and we have very clear laws in this country.»
Confirma-se, portanto, o que já se percebia pela abundância de indícios: a sharia é lei no Reino Unido.
It is he, not them, who is considered a ‘serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society’. Why? Because the result of this stand for life and liberty against those who would destroy them might be an attack by violent thugs. The response is not to face down such a threat of violence but to capitulate to it instead.(...) And now a Dutch politician who doesn’t threaten anyone is banned for telling unpalatable truths about those who do; while those who threaten life and liberty find that the more they do so, the more the British government will do exactly what they want, in the interests of ‘community harmony’. (...)»
Tudo parece acontecer no mais firme respeito da legalidade, pelo menos quando as leis, que permitem o aborto e a eutanásia, são votadas segundo as chamadas regras democráticas. Na verdade, porém, estamos perante uma mera e trágica aparência de legalidade, e o ideal democrático, que é verdadeiramente tal apenas quando reconhece e tutela a dignidade de toda a pessoa humana, é atraiçoado nas suas próprias bases: « Como é possível falar ainda de dignidade de toda a pessoa humana, quando se permite matar a mais débil e a mais inocente? Em nome de qual justiça se realiza a mais injusta das discriminações entre as pessoas, declarando algumas dignas de ser defendidas, enquanto a outras esta dignidade é negada? ». Quando se verificam tais condições, estão já desencadeados aqueles mecanismos que levam à dissolução da convivência humana autêntica e à desagregação da própria realidade estatal.
Reivindicar o direito ao aborto, ao infanticídio, à eutanásia, e reconhecê-lo legalmente, equivale a atribuir à liberdade humana um significado perverso e iníquo: o significado de um poder absoluto sobre os outros e contra os outros. Mas isto é a morte da verdadeira liberdade: « Em verdade, em verdade vos digo: todo aquele que comete o pecado é escravo do pecado » (Jo 8, 34).»