Many Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis are refusing to allow passengers carrying alcohol in their cabs, saying it is against the Islamic Shariah [law] to do so. More than half the taxi drivers on the airport are Muslims, and as soon as they got a majority, they have resorted to imposing their beliefs on others.

Imagine if you have just flown in from Baghdad after a long flight, you can�wait to get home, reconnect with your family, and share a glass of some exotic alcoholic drink that you purchased at the Dubai airport [a Muslim country] with your wife to celebrate your return home alive from Iraq. It is 2:00 AM, but your reunion is delayed because cab after cab, driven by Muslims, refuses to take you home once they spot you carrying alcohol.

Sounds crazy, but sadly it is true. As a Muslim, I am both ashamed and shocked at this strange conduct of my coreligionists. In principle, Islam does not advocate imposition of Islamic values on others; there are several injunctions in Islamic sources which make this clear. To cite only two:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion" [Quran: 2:256]

"To us shall be accounted our deeds, and to you, your deeds. Let there be no contention between us and you: God will bring us all together - for with Him is all journey�end" [Quran, 42:15].

But when it comes to contemporary Muslims, we must always remember, there is always an ocean between what Islam teaches in principle and what Muslims practice in reality. Most Muslims will acknowledge this readily. I call it the ocean of ignorance.

Apparently, the cab drivers have provided the Metropolitan Airports Commission with a fatwa, dated June 6, 2006, from the Fatwa department of the local chapter of the Muslim American Society [MAS]. The fatwa proclaims that "Islamic jurisprudence" prohibits taxi drivers from carrying passengers with alcohol, "because it involves cooperating in sin according to Islam."

MAS, the organization behind this fitna [Arabic for contention and strife], is the American extention of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, and a close affiliate of Islamic Circle of North America. MAS hypocritically run a public affairs department called "Freedom Foundation". I guess it is seeking the freedom to infringe on the freedom of others.

To be fair to them, Islamic sources do forbid alcohol consumption unequivocally [Quran 2:219] and Prophet Muhammad, may peace and blessings be upon him, also forbid trade in alcohol [Bukhari 34:297, 8:449, 34:429], but all these sources forbid selling and trading alcohol. Extending this ban to giving rides to tired travelers carrying alcohol for personal consumption requires an irrational and politically motivated leap that smells of mischief. Moderates and Muslims of goodwill should not stand for such thinly veiled attempts to sow discord.

Most Muslim scholars and most Muslims of Minnesota will tell you that the fatwa is indeed without merit. And indeed many Muslim voices, yours truly included, have already condemned and ridiculed this position. Even in Saudi Arabia, which is usually the champion when it comes to extremely narrow, irrational and intolerant interpretations of Islam, non-Muslims are allowed to consume alcohol, and even carry them on flights.

The alcohol issue is not really the problem. It is just the tip of the iceberg. It raises a fundamental and critical issue of whether Muslims who live in free and democratic societies can simultaneously demand freedom and tolerance for Islam while denying others the same. Can we and should we demand freedom to practice Islam, and then turn around and use these same freedoms to impose anachronistic understandings of Islam on others?

What next? Will Muslim doctors working in ER refuse to administer to patients brought in from an accident site or with a heart attack because they have alcohol on their breath? Will Muslim doctors refuse to serve an HIV-positive patient because he or she is gay? Will Muslim firefighters refuse to save people who are caught in a fire in a place that sells alcohol? Will Muslim cops refuse to protect women who do not wear Hijab [head scarf]? Will Muslim teachers refuse to educate children because their mothers do not wear the veil? All of the above would entail supporting sin according to popular Muslim beliefs.

If the cab episode in Minnesota becomes a norm - and MAS could make it so, as it claims that it is the biggest Muslim grass roots organization in America - can America then trust Muslims in any job where it is important to treat all people, Muslim and non-Muslim, sinner and Imam equally? Since 98% of Americans are non-Muslims, I am sure they routinely commit acts which according to Islam are sins, such as worshipping Jesus. Will Muslims stop doing business with them?

Can Muslims live with those who do not share their beliefs?

This is an important debate, especially for Muslim immigrants, who come to America with their religious baggage. Are we here to give our families a better life, or are we here to convert America into an Afghanistan under the Taliban? Do we want to use American freedoms to learn about Islam and practice it in an intimidation-free environment, or use it to spread the disease of religious intolerance? Will Muslim presence in America strengthen it or subvert it?

American Muslims have the opportunity to demonstrate that not only is Islam a religion for all times and all places, but is not a threat or trial for others. We can prove that Muslims can live in harmony with non-Muslims and that the thesis of the clash of civilizations is bogus.

America, in spite of its faults, its limitations, and even its sins and sinners, is easily the best place to live on earth. If you do not believe me, then ask the millions of Muslims desperate to leave their countries, their families, their societies to come to America.

The thing that is most precious about America is not its capitalist nature or its wealth, it is the first amendment. The ideal of freedom of religion and thought in America has allowed it to become a society that most people in the world aspire to emulate and live in. The principle of freedom of religion allows Muslims to practice Islam. In essence there can be no faith without freedom; it must therefore be guarded very jealously.

A vast majority of American Muslims are highly educated, enlightened and have for decades performed their jobs with dignity, integrity and excellence. Unlike the Fatwa department of MAS, they remember what the Quran really teaches:

Where Muslims are allowed to practice their religion and there is no one trying to drive them away from their homes, Muslims are required to deal kindly and justly with all non-Muslims [Quran 60:8].

Muslim scholars have a name for places like America ᠄r-ul-Aman [house of peace].

We, and by we I mean all Americans, Muslims and non-Muslims must not allow, a few rotten apples, to impose their thoughtless understanding of Islam on others, subvert free societies, distort Islamic teachings and undermine the hope for a harmonious relationship between America and its Muslims.

At 2:00 AM in the morning, we cannot leave you hanging in the cold waiting to go home. It would be inhuman.

And elsewhere --

A case potentially pitting rights of the disabled against religious beliefs will be heard by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal after a blind man from the North Shore who uses a guide dog to get around launched a complaint against North Shore Taxi.

Bruce Gilmour filed the complaint after a cab driver from North Shore Taxi refused to let his guide dog into the cab in January of this year. Gilmour, who says it's not the first time he's been refused service by a taxicab, is complaining that North Shore taxi discriminated against him on the basis of physical disability.

But the taxi driver, Behzad Saidy, is arguing his Muslim religious beliefs will not allow him to take dogs in his taxi, because Muslims can't associate with dogs.

http://www.nsnews.com/issues06/w111206/113206/news/113206nn1.html

Ridiculous, if these taxi driver choose not to drive a cab because they don't want to carry passengers who have alcohol then they need to choose another profession. Why not exclue couples who are not married from riding together in the cab, or those who are eating a McRib, etc., etc. you see the slippery slope....................
As far as the dog goes, a classic example of being ignorant of ones own faith. We are not forbidden from contact with dogs, the rules apply only to prayer/washing after contact, and even those have been subject to debate on context and validity.

Maybe cab drivers are tired of carrying around rowdy drunks. I can't blame them. We should respect their views. I wouldn't want to give a ride to an adulterer or a drunk. It's hard to tell who's an adulterer, but a drunk is easier to spot.

The people in question aren't drunk, BTW - they are just carrying alcohol. But even if they were drunk, it is better for them to take a taxi than to get behind the wheel and kill someone.

Good point about taxis being better than drunk people driving. But on the other hand, this is nothing compared to the billion compromises Muslims are frequently forced to make living in the West. Our rights not to be dissed on the basis of religion will only become law in the UK as from next year. How come every time we do something to annoy anyone is major news, but we can be vomited on daily and that's fine?

this is nothing compared to the billion compromises Muslims are frequently forced to make living in the West.

Why not compose a cogent, numbered list for the edification of non-Muslims who wish to sensitize themselves to Muslim concerns?

Yakoub, in answer to your question: 1) it is open season for Muslims, and 2) some Muslims have come to the conclusion that by taking up such causes they will be gain favor from their true masters.

Note that Muqtedar Khan is happy to heap scorn on Taxi Drivers and other working class Muslims, but he fails to discuss his affiliation with the Zionist Saban Center that he is so proud off... (details on the Saban Center coming soon to a blog near you).

This is my first time to post a comment here. I've been reading altmuslim for sometime now, and I've become a loyal visitor to this website. I really am glad that there are a lot of Muslims in the world who express such an open-minded, purely-Islamic way of thinking. And I hope more Muslims would eventually adopt this approach to understanding Islam.
My comment here is directed to 'publicdebate', the one posted on Nov 22, 06 | 12:58 pm... I want to say that whatever "affiliations" the author of this article has with whomever, why can't we Muslims simply accept criticism?! Even when it comes from a complete outsider to Islam; why do we always act defensive when anybody makes an attempt to point out our mistakes, we Muslims? I do believe that there is a problem with us (not with Islam), which is that we think we are above all criticism. I'm sorry but let's face it... had we been better interpreters of our religion, we would have been in a much better shape right now. And the moment we decide to welcome criticism (whomever it may come from) and reform ourselves accordingly, we'd definitely start to get back on our feet. I thank Prof. Khan for the article, and I hope to see more honest Muslims who are brave enough to point out the very flaws in our "mis"interpretation of Islam.

Assalamu Alaykum readers.

I was surprised by the comments made by publicdebate making strange accusations and using the neocon strategy of guilt by association. First of all, you yourself are posting anonymously, Islam frowns upon accusations made anonymously, they must be made publicly and we should know who is making them, and then with no substantive arguments.

The article does not heap scorn on the cab drivers but raises very important arguments about freedom of religion. Recently Dr. Khan spoke at our masjid and even then he emphasized the importance of freedom of thought and religion and I realize that he feels that Islam can thrive only when we are all free to believe.

As an amusing aside let me point out that Dr. Khan is now a fellow with the Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center at Georgetown University, does that mean that he is now a Wahhabi? See for yourself:

http://www3.georgetown.edu/sfs/acmcu/14534.html

Dr. Khan:
Which verse shall we rely on to believe that Muslims must not force their beliefs on others? is it the vesrse that you used: "No compulsion in religion!" OR the verse that came after:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.î? (9:29)
Which verse is abrogating the other?

>> It raises a fundamental and critical issue of whether Muslims who live in free and democratic societies can simultaneously demand freedom and tolerance for Islam while denying others the same.

Either we ascribe to good values or we don't. People should understand that personal religious choices don't translate into discriminating in a public sphere. This is the legal and civil basis for the functioning of a just society. Any muslims first responsibility within a society is to ensure his equitable and just participation within that society. Fulfilling Allah's rights, Our Personal Rights, The Rights of Family, The Rights of Society.

Besides .. taxi drivers form the backbone of a societies infrastructure. Their participation should be inherently non-discriminatory. Had the inidvidual been drunk but needed to get home .. who else will ensure safe passage for this person? Doctors, cabbies, farmers .. chaos abound if people could deny access to services using moralistic determinants.

>> Note that Muqtedar Khan is happy to heap scorn on Taxi Drivers

He isn't heaping scorn. He's pointing out a problem, contradiction, social dynamic. He is giving good advice with good intent and his tone is sincere. You wan't to compare smear campaigns from other websites .. the smears abound "modernist, hypocrite, left wing scum, ignorant ...". Your defensiveness alludes to the idea that muslims are flawless and victims. That attitude will never improve the position of muslims in the world because it feeds on all our vulnerabilities and only enables strengths that defend those vulnerabilities.

I agree w/author on disaprvg of said action.Tacklg rgdty is smthng Mus world ovr need 2 face,b/c its 1 factor in ill-advisd reactins/actions. As Mus in West,we need 2 b more mindful of pluralism/ diversity--and by ext have wiser plang 4 engmnt and integ(&yes;,"integ," not "asimiltn") etc--despite all the pressures we face 2
"asimil8" in socty in ways we maynt alwys/fully agree w/.I'd also agree that such action can harm tolrnt img of Islm that needs 2 counteract steretypcl& snsatinlst portryl 2which descrptns of Mus/Islm r prevalently reducd.If this fatwa was truly issued by MAS,its illadvised @best & .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) said that,Ive 1 remrk of critcsm 2 make:some conclu appear 2 b sweepg indctmnts of
"consertiv"/"religs" /"islmst" mus & of histricl figs (eg Banna).When discsd, Banna's assumd 2 b tolrnt,non-violent,& soc rformr rathr than havg emphasis on extr pol action,despite ostensbl legcy of some successrs who faced (in a#of ways) dif circum--esp when juxtposd & contrasd w/figs like S.Qutb [whose radclsm was gr8tly enhncd by being torturd in prison in 50s & 60s & then exectd]. Intrestgly, portrayal of Banna in recently-produced drama series (e.g. "Al Andaleeb"aired on MBC during Ramadan)reflected this juxtapsitn.this portrayal has deeply contrasted past dramatizations of "religs/islmst /constiv/ etc mus" as automticly intolerant/ rabidly violent in Arab drama (eg acclaimd film "Al Erhabi" starring Adel Imam in the 1990s). But a reductionist /smplstc approach[i fear taken byauthor]gives immediate impression of a strictly linear reltinshp that being "consrtiv" /"religious"/ or even "islamist" Muslim is in its own right hallmrk of intolrnce and extrism--that every1 here is w/o deb8 or reflectn rigid/ backward, teristviolent, misgonystic, intolerant,etc.as strtg pt of study--I recom "Islam in Contem Egypt:Civil Society vs. the State"(1999) by Denis J. Sullivan/Sana Abed-Kotob--devotes entire chps to Mus Bro,wmns rghts &Islmc; femnism,mus extrism,etc.Outta respect,i wont venture in2 "lib" v "consrv" deb8 [i fear will only polrize us further w/o any fruitful result],but will make 1 quick remrk:just as it would be foolishly erroneous to blacklist "lib" mus as ill-intentioned (indeed a # of issues needing address have been pinpointed by this group],it would be similarly erroneous to subscribe to mentined stereotypes of 'religs /consertv /islmst/etc'muslims.We have more serious issues needg att 4 moment.

FYI: no hyperlink exists--that was a typo.