Islamic taxi drivers pushed too far -- and now they've become the dhimmitude
In Minneapolis, there has been a recent problem with Muslim taxi drivers refusing fares at the airport. People who were carrying alcohol or were accompanied by dogs, including seeing eye dogs, were told that they could not get a ride. Why? Because of Islam's ban on alcohol, and the fact that dogs are considered unclean.
In case you were wondering just how big the problem is, almost 75% of the taxi drivers are Somali Muslims. But they are being influenced by an very fundamentalist Arab Muslim group, the Muslim Brotherhood.
Well, the cabbies, prodded by these imams, pushed too far, and the regulating authority is about to put in tough new rules. New rules for a group of religious believers designed to limit they ways in which they can express their religious beliefs. Sounds familiar.
Taxi drivers must not refuse fares, under the new rules being proposed in Minneapolis:
Officials at Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport are proposing stiffer penalties - including suspension of an airport taxi license - to Muslim cab drivers who refuse service to passengers toting alcohol or service dogs.
Officials on Wednesday asked the Metropolitan Airport Commission for permission to hold public hearings on a proposal that would suspend the airport licenses of cab drivers who refuse service for reasons other than safety concerns. The penalties would also apply to drivers who refuse a fare because a trip is too short.
Drivers would have their airport licenses suspended 30 days for the first offense and revoked for two years after the second offense, according to the proposal.
Hassan Mohamud, imam at Al-Taqwa Mosque of St. Paul and director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, one of the largest Islamic organizations in the state, said asking Muslims to transport alcohol "is a violation of their faith. Muslims do not consume, carry, sell or buy alcohol, and Islam also considers the saliva of dogs to be unclean, he said.
Another compromise, a special indication on the cab that identifies the driver as one unwilling to transport alcohol or dogs, was rejected.
Now this has gone too far. Not that the cabbies ought to be required to transport anyone anywhere within their licensed area of operation. Of course that should be the case. We would not tolerate a racist making it policy to refuse service to black people, no matter how sincere he was in his beliefs.
What is ironic is that for many, perhaps most, of these taxi drivers, there has never been a problem:
An animated circle of Somalis gathered when the question of the airport controversy was raised.
"I was surprised and shocked when I heard it was an issue at the airport," said Faysal Omar. "Back in Somalia, there was never any problem with taking alcohol in a taxi."
Jama Dirie said, "If a driver doesn't pick up everyone, he should get his license canceled and get kicked out of the airport."
Two of the Somalis present defended the idea that Islam prohibits cabdrivers from transporting passengers with alcohol. An argument erupted. The consensus seemed to be that only a small number of Somalis object to transporting alcohol. It's a matter of personal opinion, not Islamic law, several men said.
Ahmed Samatar, a nationally recognized expert on Somali society at Macalester College, confirmed that view. "There is a general Islamic prohibition against drinking," he said, "but carrying alcohol for people in commercial enterprise has never been forbidden. There is no basis in Somali cultural practice or legal tradition for that.
"This is one of those new concoctions."It is being foisted on the Somali community by an inside or outside group," he added. "I do not know who."
Actually, we know exactly who that group is. That outside group is Arab, not Somali:
But many Somali drivers at the airport are refusing to carry passengers with alcohol. When I asked Patrick Hogan, Metropolitan Airports Commission spokesman, for his explanation, he forwarded a fatwa, or religious edict, that the [Metropolitan Airports Commission ] had received. The fatwa proclaims that "Islamic jurisprudence" prohibits taxi drivers from carrying passengers with alcohol, "because it involves cooperating in sin according to the Islam."
The fatwa, dated June 6, 2006, was issued by the "fatwa department" of the Muslim American Society, Minnesota chapter, and signed by society officials.
Omar Jamal, director of the Somali Justice Advocacy Center, thinks he knows why the society is promoting a "no-alcohol-carry" agenda with no basis in Somali culture. "MAC is an Arab group; we Somalis are African, not Arabs," he said. "MAS wants to polarize the world, create two camps. I think they are trying to hijack the Somali community for their Middle East agenda. They look for issues they can capitalize on, like religion, to rally the community around. The majority of Somalis oppose this, but they are vulnerable because of their social and economic situation."
The MAS has links to the fundamentalist and violent Muslim Brotherhood:
How are society members to respond when questioned about a Muslim Brotherhood connection? The Tribune cites an undated internal memo: "If asked, 'Are you the Muslim Brothers?' leaders should respond that they are an independent group called the Muslim American Society."
The April 2001 issue of the society's magazine, the American Muslim, lists "essential books" for understanding Islam. They include works by Hassan al-Banna, the Brotherhood's founder, and Sayyid Qutb, one of its most violent theoreticians.
Here's the flavor of these authors' writings:
"Always cherish the intention of jihad and the desire for martyrdom in the Way of Allah, and actually prepare yourself for that," wrote Al-Banna.
Hassan Mohamud is vice president of the [MAS] Minnesota chapter. The society is independent and has no connection with the Muslim Brotherhood, he said.
The Minnesota chapter's website, however, states that the organization's roots lie in the Islamic revival movement that "brought the call of Islam to Muslim masses ... to reestablish Islam as a total way of life."
By letting themselves be railroaded by the fatwa-issuing meddlers at the MAS, the cabbies have painted themselves into a corner. Now if they refuse service, they can lose their livelihood. How soon after these rules are in place are we going to have troublemakers showing up at the airport, a bottle of wine in hand and a weiner dog in tow, for the sole purpose of snagging cabbies trying to evade the rules? I wouldn't put it past some people nursing a grudge against Muslims to try a stunt like this.
And the cabbies handed these people the power to get the cabbies suspended by not thinking ahead. The advice they got from these imams at the MAS was simplistic and not suited to the American pluralistic reality. They figured they could treat the dhimmi with contempt and get away with it. But this isn't Somalia or Saudi Arabia where the government (such as it is in the case of Somalia) would gladly take the side of a Muslim just because he is a Muslim. Because of that naive obstinence, they have caused the creation of rules specifically targeted to punishing Muslim attitudes. I happen to think the rules are correct, but the only reason they are justified is that these Somali cab drivers were unwilling to stand up to these Arab fundamentalists. Because of that, the State has had to step in, and now individual citizens can use those laws to punish Muslims for being Muslim, in effect.
Before, individual drivers would be punished individually. They've succeeded in getting themselves treated as a single group, subjected to a common set of restrictions, conditions, and punishments.
When you think about it, these cabbies and these imams have succeeded into turning themselves into dhimmitude. Because some drivers made the wrong choice in who to listen to, all Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis are subject to laws that essentially target them, not unlike the way Jews and Christians in Muslim countries are forced to tolerate special rules and restrictions.
Ironic, isn't it?
It is possible that the MAS wants to compel the creation of these sorts of rules. Then they can cry discrimination and rally moderate Muslims to their cause. Play the martyr card, as it were. Of course, it is easier to play the martyr card when it is a bunch of Somalis that are going to feel the brunt of the pain. That plays better with the Arab constituency of the MAS.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Muslims taxis airport Minneapolis Muslim American Society Muslim Brotherhood Islam Somalia Arab alcohol dogs dhimmi dhimmitude
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
How refreshing that something is being done to remedy the situation, rather than have a bunch of pc morons wring their hands and say that they can do nothing. I was expecting it to be a 'personal choice' for the cabbies. I'm certain that in Canada, that's the way it would be played - and, in fact, I'm sure that when it occurs here, that's the way it will be played at our airports.
Posted by: Twolane at January 18, 2007 03:06 PM
For every action, there is an equal and opposing reaction. Physics 101.
Posted by: anonymous at January 18, 2007 03:50 PM
It's pretty obvious when you're transporting a dog via taxi. But how would a Muslim taxi driver know whether or not I had liquor with me? If I was carrying liquor, chances are I'd be carrying it in my suitcase or a shoulder bag.
Is the taxi driver going to ASK me whether or not I'm carrying liquor, and if he did, would I be obliged to tell him? I don't know that it's ever been the business of a taxi driver to know what's in my bags--unless it's a bomb, and they're not asking that.
By being totally unreasonable, the Imam-influenced taxi drivers have, in fact, imposed these restrictions on themselves. It's called logical consequences, and I am grateful to see that the folks in Minneapolis haven't fallen victim to political correctness in their levying these rules.
Dhimmitude is as dhimmitude does.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 18, 2007 06:11 PM
The mind boggles at what whirlwind of media indignation would engulph the taxi drivers has this come from non minority drivers.
Sorry, I'm an equal opportunity basher when I see constitutional breech...these asshole should have their licence revoked maybe they can find work at a Mosque where the same ideals limit who can go in there.
Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 18, 2007 06:41 PM
Uh... how can one distinct ethnic subgroup corner 75% of a profession in a very multi-cultural society? Is that not an example of corruption in itself?
Where is the diversity in 75% control?
Posted by: Real Conservative at January 18, 2007 07:11 PM
Keep in mind that there are very few occupations that government f**ks with as much as taxi driving. Getting a license to practice medicine is probably less of a hassle and less costly. I can assure you that in occupations which are not f**ked with by government, Islamists, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists get along perfectly fine with no squabbles about dogs, cows, pigs, chickens, prayer rooms, veils, holy days or anything else.
Whenever government is heavily involved in something, as the owner, the regulator, the keeper of a monopoly or oligopoly, the nanny, etc. you will find stupid, pointless conflicts like this cropping up. If you insist that some aspect of human activity is "too important", "too sensitive", "too ... you know, just too ... too ... whatever" to be trusted to free, private individuals to decide on a voluntary basis, then you can pretty expect it to be ruined by the heavy, forceful hand of government. That's why you hear about hissy fits happening in government-regulated airports, government-owned schools, within government departments, and in all occupations and activities which are heavily regulated or subsidized. It's because (1) it's a Tragedy of the Commons thing, i.e. nothing is really privately owned so there is no way to establish rules except by squabbling over them, and (2) the violations of freedom which are the result of government intervention leave everyone in a snarly, fighting mood. (A: "Goddamn it! I paid for this airport with my taxes and I goddamn well better get a taxi here pronto!", B: "By the beard of the prophet (peace be upon him)! I waited 8 years to get this taxi license and paid $35,000 dollars for it and I paid $30,000 for this taxi and curse to satan anyone who tries to tell me who can ride in it!")
Who gives a crap if someone refuses to carry someone with booze in their car? Because they have a taxi license! Why not just let someone else take the business from them? Because not everyone is allowed to drive a taxi! Why? Is driving a taxi some kind of extremely specialized, exotic or dangerous occupation? No, it's actually one of the most brainless, simple, joe-jobs that anyone who can see over the top of a steering wheel could do! So what would you do if someone who actually wants to carry all kinds of passengers shows up at the airport? We'd stop them at the airport entrance, fine them, and put them in jail! Why? Because driving someone in a car for money is too ... too ... too ... What are you, some kind of troublemaker? Why don't you just pull over there, and get out your license, registration and insurance! And keep your hands where I can see them!
To make a long story short: when government f**ks with your life, don't use it as another excuse to pick a fight with your neighbor. Get your government out of your face, and watch how well everyone gets along.
Posted by: at January 18, 2007 11:17 PM
I'm confused.
You don't like it when the nanny-state forces Christian marriage commissioners to perform homosexual marriages, and you don't like it when the nanny-state forces Christian printers to print anti-religious texts; but you want the nanny-state to determine who a Muslim cabbie should accept as a fare?
Posted by: bob at January 19, 2007 07:09 AM
If you set yourself up in a business which deals with the public, you have to deal with the public.
If someone is carrying alcohol by being intoxicated, a cabbie is well within their rights to refuse service. When someone is carrying a sealed, legal product such as a bottle of wine, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. Where does it end?
I am a dog owner and I have no problem with certain taxis not wanting to transport dogs. I get it. They may have allergies or be worried about hair (although I probably have as much dog hair on my clothes as my wiener dog has on his body). However, a guide dog gets special treatment in society and that should extend to taxis. The 'dogs are unclean' theme is way overdone. Muslims don't hate dogs at all, just as most Muslims don't have a burning desire to commit suicide or wreak havoc.
If you don't like dealing with the public at large, which is completely understandable, then get a different job. I'm surprised the taxi association itself didn't step in to clear this up. Too bad, because when you ask the government to solve your problem, you rarely get an elegant solution.
Posted by: Selma at January 19, 2007 09:35 AM
Just to be clear, then, Selma. You don't mind it when the Government steps in to force Christian marriage commissioners to conduct homosexual marriages? Afterall, they are in a job that deals with the public at large. Same with Christian printers. If they don't like it, should they just "get a different job"?
Just trying to get a sense of the landscape here.
Posted by: bob at January 19, 2007 09:53 AM
bob, are you being purposely obtuse or are you just lacking in brain cells today?
The difference between a taxi driver and the Christian printer is that the taxi driver's job is regulated by the government and the private-entrepreneur printer's job is PRIVATE and non-government regulated--or, at least, the government should keep its nose out of a private entrepreneur's choice of who they will provide a service for.
In the private-printer business's case, supply and demand and word of mouth will regulate what business he takes in; it's definitely not government's business--unless we license big brother to interfere--to demand that he do the job himself (especially when he has offered, as this printer did, to find a company that was willing to do the job and to pay for it. Give me a break.)
There's a huge difference here, and it's unfortunate that you are unable to understand it. Perhaps you're someone who has already given over to big-brother governance, which might explain your fuzziness on the issue.
'Hope I've been able to help.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 19, 2007 10:12 AM
And the marriage commissioner, which is regulated by the government . . . ?
Posted by: bob at January 19, 2007 10:16 AM
Just so I get this right, BATB, you seem to not only support the fact that Taxi drivers are "regulated by the federal government"; but you want the Federal Government to become EVEN MORE involved in the taxi business by imposing regulations on who drivers should take as fares?
Sorry. I'd go the other direction and say that the Feds should become LESS involved and so let individual taxi drivers, who often have to use their own cars or, at least, rent their cars from their employers, choose who they want to take.
I'm for less government interference in business, not more.
Posted by: bob at January 19, 2007 10:24 AM
If this is a religious issue, then why is it only happening in one city ? I've been following this story on some of the American sites and apart from one brief mention of a similar problem in Australia there are no other cities where this seems to be happening. Anywhere.
Everywhere you go, there are plenty of Muslims driving taxis. Are Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis more devout than the ones in L.A., San Francisco, Toronto, Winnipeg, London, Paris ? This issue has been going on for a couple of months now. If it was happening elsewhere, surely some blogger would have managed to dig something up on it (and you can bet some of them are looking).
Is it possible that Minneapolis is the site of an experiment by radical Islamists to see how far they can push ?
Posted by: up north at January 19, 2007 11:00 AM
up north - it is not just in the US, there is a case before the HRC in British Columbia right now for the same thing. Guide dog and owner at the Vancouver airport were refused by a taxi driver. According to the report, 35% of the taxi drivers for the company are islamists, not a surprise that the owner of the company backs the decision of the drivers.
Posted by: Don't Want To at January 19, 2007 11:41 AM
Regarding marriage commissioners, because it is regulated by the government, government has the duty to see that the services of a marriage commissioner are available to all, without regard to type of marriage being performed, and that a same-sex couple who wishes to get married has access to a marriage commissioner. However, I for one do not feel that government has the right to insist that a specific marriage commissioner perform it at the expense of his or her religious beliefs. Instead, government must make every reasonable effort to accomodate the commissioner. Nor, by the way, do I think that a same-sex couple has the right to insist that a specific, unwilling, commissioner perform the ceremony if there is an alternate one available - and if there isn't this is an issue between the couple and the government in question. This is part of an employer-employee relationship, since commissioners are paid directly by the government (I think - if I'm wrong about the general relationship between commissioner and government I apologize). In fact, I think Human Rights Code legislation specifies that an employer must make every reasonable effort to accomodate the religious beliefs and affiliation of its employees. This should apply whether the employee in question is Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Shinto, Pagan, Buddhist(sp?), Wiccan, whatever. It should certainly also apply when the employer is the government.
I think this duty by the government vis a vis the commissioner (to accomodate his or her religious views) is even stronger with respect to commissioners that were hired or appointed BEFORE same-sex marriages were legalized. The job description was changed on the commissioners, from one which did not require them to perform same-sex marriages to one which could, and at the cost of violating his or her religious views. This is quite unfair.
With respect to taxi drivers, it MIGHT be different IF there were sufficient numbers of other taxi drivers available. However, it seems clear that there are not. This results in an unfair restriction on the rights of people wishing to engage a taxi.
With respect to the general issue of "government interference in business," government always will (and should in my opinion) get involved when it is a case of having to balance competing interests. That is what governing is all about.
Posted by: Brian in Calgary at January 19, 2007 01:05 PM
Thanks 'Don't Want To' -I hadn't heard of any others.
The report I read from Australia was dated Oct 10, 2006. It made mention of the case in Minneapolis back then.
You'd think we'd have heard of a case or two out of Toronto. TO's a helluva lot bigger than Minneapolis and unless there's been some serious ethnic cleansing since I was last there, there should be plenty of Muslim cab drivers (not to mention people with assistance dogs). Ditto for Winnipeg -which I do visit from time to time.
So, again, why is this battle being fought almost exclusively in one North American city ? I'm not looking for a conspiracy theory. I just find it damned curious.
Posted by: up north at January 19, 2007 01:42 PM
"With respect to taxi drivers, it MIGHT be different IF there were sufficient numbers of other taxi drivers available. However, it seems clear that there are not. This results in an unfair restriction on the rights of people wishing to engage a taxi."
First, I'm not sure when you got married; but we found it a lot more difficult to book a marriage commissioner for a Saturday afternoon that it was to book taxis.
Second, do you really want to make hiring a taxi a "right"? Do people really have a "right" to hire a taxi? It seems to me that increasing the number of taxis is a better solution to there not being enough taxis than forcing drivers to accept fares they don't want.
Posted by: bob at January 19, 2007 02:17 PM
bob,
Suppose we increase the number of taxis so that there will be more available to people who carry booze or have an assistance dog. That would mean resticting the additional hiring to non-Muslims. How well do you think that would go over ?
Plus, now that we've got all these extra taxi's vying for the regular (non-alcoholic/non-canine) business -that's going to put a serious crimp into all the cabbies' wages.
I drove hack for a while. I didn't like carrying drunks -they're often a pain in the ass. But it goes with the job. You take what you can get -driving taxi is hardly the path to riches. Would you prefer that the drunks drove themselves ?
And the last time I checked, it is illegal to refuse admittance/access whatever you want to call it -to a person with an assistance dog. (come to think of it, where is the vaunted ACLU in all this brouhaha in Minneapolis ?)
My personal belief: this is Islam making a "test shove" on this side of the world.
The solution: shove back. Hard. Do it now while it is still relatively easy to do.
Posted by: up north at January 19, 2007 06:13 PM
By the way bob,
This just occurred to me (everything always occurs to me after the fact ...sigh) since you insist on turning this thread into a referendum on same-sex marriage:
Those same cabbies who are so devout that they won't carry dogs or alcohol would sure as hell not be having anything to do with a same-sex wedding.
Maybe you oughtta be helping us shove back...
Posted by: up north at January 19, 2007 06:24 PM
Well, Bob, since you're asking in your characteristically collegial manner, I am personally not against same-sex marriage. It's not mandatory. If Hank wants to marry Barney, why should I care? It doesn't affect me personally, it's been decided as a Charter issue and I agree with the decision.
I don't know about the Christian printer you mention, but if it involves freedom of expression being constrained, I'm against that. I think everyone should be free to voice their opinion, with the caveat that others aren't hurt in the process, such as with hate mongering or child pornography.
Oh, here's the kicker - politically, I'm a conservative. I support Harper all the way and I'm glad he got in because we needed a breath of fresh air in this country, in more ways than one.
Back to the taxi thing, how would it work if there were bus drivers who wouldn't take passengers carrying particular products? Would that be acceptable?
The taxi industry is regulated for reasons of safety for the drivers and the public. It is a public business, like running a restaurant. If I moved to Saudi Arabia and started refusing passengers wearing burnooses, a) how much sympathy would I get and b) how much money would I make?
I guess this artificial crisis is great for the 25% who will accept any passengers, they must be making a mint.
Posted by: Selma at January 19, 2007 07:46 PM
Thanks, Brian in Calgary, for your articulate answer to bob's questions about Marriage Commissioners.
If, bob, Muslims' religious sensibilities are taken into consideration--which, in Canada, they are all the time: In the public education system, Muslim prayer rooms are regularly popping up, whereas if any Christian group asked for similar accommodations, they'd be told to go fly a kite because their request would be considered "insensitive," not "open," and "intolerant" of other cultures--then other cultural groups' religious sensibilities (aka Christian, Hindu, Jewish, etc.) should be too.
I, like you, bob, would like to see LESS government involvement in the affairs of its citizens, but with the new multiculti dispensation in Canada, this is just a distant dream. As Marriage Commissioners happen to be government-appointed marriers of couples, their religious sensibilities should, definitely, be taken into consideration vis a vis SSM. There will always be another Marriage Commissioner who would be happy to perform a SSM.
You don't seem to think that Christians have religious sensibilities that need to be protected, whereas your position seems to be that all other religious groups, in this case Muslims, should be accommodated at all times.
Please explain again. I didn't quite get your drift the first time. And please refer to Brian in Calgary's e-mail, posted at 1:05 p.m., Jan. 19, 2007.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 19, 2007 08:26 PM
bob: I'm not defending the fact that taxi drivers are government-regulated. I'm simply stating the fact that they are. That's a fact and there's nothing I can do about it. They have been for a long time.
Which means, ipso facto, that they aren't private businesses.
Posted by: 'been around the block at January 19, 2007 08:32 PM
"a bottle of wine in hand and a weiner dog in tow"
Better, for males, would be a to carry a dozen miniature liquor bottles and a chihuahua in your matching handbag. Matching, that is, your dress.
Posted by: Hershblogger at January 20, 2007 05:52 PM
I had originally dropped in just to let the writer of the article know that I found it well written and informative. I found myself caught up reading the previous comments and now I also want to send cudos to those of you who have posted so many interesting opinions!
Posted by: Brockvillian at January 20, 2007 08:31 PM
There is one solution for these ultra religious Muslims...go to hell back to the Country they came from which is ruled by their religion.
Our Western Democracies and strict Islam are not a fit. We live in the 21st century, they are still stuck in the stone age.
We simply cannot afford to give up any more of our way of life to accommodate all and sundry stupidity.
We have a very dangerous mix with the Charter and Multiculturalism, it will erode all this Country was built on. We will stand for nothing.
Time to wake up is now.
Posted by: Liz J at January 20, 2007 09:41 PM
Steve, I disagree that the Muslim taxidrivers in Minneapolis-St. Paul are in a state of dhimmitude as a result of the expected regulation.
There is NOTHING in this regulation that controls what livelihood they pursue, imposes a tax on them for being Muslim or prohibits them from full citizenship and voting -- to name just a few elements of the real status of dhimmis under Shari'a.
If MSP is anything like most other cities in the US, the cab concession is allotted to multiple companies who bid for it. They in turn hire drivers, often from among friends, family and those of similar ethnic background, hence the concentration of Somalis at MSP. Moreover, while some may be employees, legally speaking, chances are most are independent operators who rent the cab from the company rather than own it themselves.
It is a voluntary association, in other words, unimposed in any way. And as such, it is the responsibility of the cab drivers to accomodate the public and not vice versa. Note that there are plenty of other entry-level jobs that immigrant Muslims with poor educations can take that would NOT require them to deal directly with that public.
They want the job - which is not, I agree, the most attractive or lucrative way to make a living - they need to accomodate the public. Period.
I've about had it with the demands that Muslim sensibilities be imposed on the majority in this country. Even if there WERE one single majority Muslim country that had the equivalent respect and forebearance for other faiths -- and there isn't -- it would still be wrong to impose their demands on the rest of us. And it's triply wrong to do so as an immigrant.
Posted by: Molon Labe at January 21, 2007 02:29 PM
 
|
|
