The money quote:
Making “common cause” with Muslim states to vote down pro-abortion law at the UN becomes dangerous if and when it means constructing a Trojan Horse by which proponents of sharia make their stealthy advance into regions of respectability in the West that would otherwise be closed to them as sworn enemies of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This is what happens when the inevitable etiquette of political alliance supresses pointed discussion of sharia’s anti-Western precepts.
Choice at the UN, Part 2
Written by: Diana West
Tuesday, January 17, 2012 6:40 AM
It was when anti-abortion advocate Austin Ruse explained to his audience that because his sturdiest allies at the United Nations were Muslims countries, his international anti-abortion coalition could not also be an international religious freedom coalition that my dhimmitude-meter kicked on — dhimmitude in this case meaning appeasement of Islam. (This is what I first wrote about it.)
Ruse was describing a classic example of the divide-and-conquer reversals that ensue when the Free World seeks common ground with totalitarian Islam. In isolating the subset of commonality — in this case, opposition to abortion — the greater set of Western principles abjured by Islam must be bracketed away. The thinking is, concessions as a matter of course are required to form a coalition with Islam. Thus, bedrock Western principles of religious freedom, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech, etc. must, in effect, be suspended if representatives of the umma (Islamic community), which outlaws such liberties under Islamic law (sharia), are to be lured into political alliance.
It’s never, ever the other-way round. That is, it’s never the Muslims who must hold their collectivist nose to overlook the freedoms they abhor for, in this case, the sake of helping to protect unborn life. It’s always the West that willingly loosens its attachment to its defining principles for fear of offending Islam. That’s the culture of dhimmitude. As a measure of the vital signs of these respective cultures, the West is clearly weaker.
This is highly alarming. So, too, is this political advance of proponents of Islamic law — which apparenly protects the unborn, but also sentences to death those who leave or insult or criticize Islam as “apostates” — into respected religious and moral circles in the West. (I say “apparently” because this is the conventional wisdom, but I can’t find any reference to abortion in the subject index of my trusty Islamic law book, Reliance of the Traveller; there are multiple entries on “apostasy” and “apostates.”)
NOTE: Here is how the OIC makes criticism of Islam and/or sharia impossible at the UN