Original sentence: He openly rejected all violence and was no overt racist - his plans not to allow any more Muslims to enter the country if this were legally possible he justified as intending to preserve the Dutch society as liberal as it is, and defending it against the perceived threat caused by the influx of ever more Muslims whose traditions, he believed, run contrary to the pillars of western society in so many regards.He thought muslim culture had never undergone a process of modernisation and therefore still lacked an acceptance of democracy and women's, gays' and lesbians' as well as minority rights in general, and feared it would dismiss the Dutch legal system in favour of the shari'a law, which calls for the stoning of adulterers or the hacking-off of the hands of thieves.These statements were controversial, because the number of asylum seekers at the time was already falling, 20,000 each year were ejected and Dutch population levels cannot be maintained in the long run without an annual immigration of 150,000, given the low birthrate
Edited sentence: He rejected all violence and was no racist - his plans not to allow any more Muslims to enter the country if this were legally possible were intended to preserve the Dutch society as liberal as it is, and defend it against the influx of ever more ( radical ) Muslims whose traditions run contrary to the pillars of western society in so many regards, like the lack of acceptance for democracy, the ignorance of women's, gays' and lesbians' as well as minority rights in general, or the dismissing of the Dutch justice system in favor of the medieval shari'a law, which calls for the stoning of adulterers or the hacking-off of the hands of thieves