Angry in the Great White North

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.