My last two articles on immigration stirred up quite a maelstrom. Now here is another tidbit that is sure to add more grist to the mill. Many Muslim cab drivers, operating out of the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport are refusing to take passengers carrying alcohol. Some passengers, who do manage to engage one of these cabs, have found themselves dumped unceremoniously, mid-ride, on city streets, when the drivers found out there was liquor in their luggage. Some city drivers even refuse customers who are carrying a bottle of wine or liquor with their groceries.
Most of these cab drivers are Somali immigrants; and Minnesota has nearly 50,000 of them. The unauthorized ‘ban’ is the result of a fatwa issued, a year ago, by a group of local imams, who called alcohol “the mother of all evils” and told drivers it was not permissible to transport passengers carrying alcohol “because it involves cooperating in sin.” And that’s not all. Some Muslim supermarket cashiers are refusing to scan pork items at the check-out counter, leading to frequent flare ups with outraged customers.
This issue is not about illegal immigrants. I am presuming that most of the Somali cab drivers are legal immigrants; because they have managed to obtain a taxi license. It is a question of assimilation – and here I am solidly on the side of the conservatives. I am not positive about this, but it is likely that most of these guys achieved legal immigrant status, based on political asylum – escaping from political persecution in Somalia. That seems justified, because it is a known fact that Somalia has been in political turmoil for years. Remember Black Hawk Down? Which is all the more reason, the refugees should be damn grateful that they have been granted the opportunity to live in a free society – where their standard of living has suddenly shot up a hundredfold. They have no business – and no right – to impose their religious convictions on others who do not share their faith.
Sometimes, too much freedom – in the hands of those not equipped to handle it – can be a bad thing. This was demonstrated with chilling effect in Britain; where over tolerant authorities enabled the emergence of a home grown fundamentalist movement – culminating in the dreadful London Underground bombings.
On May 11, Minneapolis airport authorities enacted tough penalties on cab drivers who refused passengers. A first offense results in a 30-day suspension of the driver’s license. Subsequent violations bring a two-year revocation. It’s a step in the right direction but, in my opinion, not tough enough. Those imams need to be reminded that they are in America at the pleasure of the US government – and that, if they don’t get their act together – they can be shipped back home. That ought to shut them up.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 45
There was a time in the not so distant past when certain huge chain stores wouldn't carry materials for birth control - prevention or after the fact. The head of the organization stated it was against HIS religious principles.
When people have such strong beliefs, they need to figure out a way to mingle with society at the same time.
We have laws that allow pharmacists to refuse to issue birth control pills because it violates their religion. And yet, those same people are OUTRAGED that a cabbie would refuse to allow them in the cab with a bottle of wine in their luggage.
Religion-freaks of all stripes always justify their OWN reasons for following THEIR religious precepts and simultaneously declare that everyone else does not have the same right.
And Firoze .. please be careful about using terms like "frequent flare ups with outraged customers" --- there have a been a few incidents of this, not "frequent" and outrage has not been part of the picture. And it has not been "many Muslim cab drivers" - again, it's been a few. Remember, I live here in the Twin Cities. There has been more chatter about this than there have been incidents of it.
I think the decision to impose fines for refusing to take passengers was correct, and I also think it's time to repeal the law that allows pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control pill prescriptions. People are indeed free to practice their own religion, but they are NOT free to impose their religion on others.
Amen to that. I asked my Muslim friend why he refuses to take customers carrying alcohol but is willing to buy gasoline from stations owned by Zionists whom he views as political enemies. Naturally, I got no answer to my query.
Those same cab drivers carry passengers who are abortion doctors, sellers of alcohol or pork, make donations to Zionist organizations, and/or vote Republican. Why is it OK to give service to these people and not to others???
The first generation of immigrants always tries to maintain their ties to the "old country" by becoming hyper-vigilant about customs, etc. It's the 2nd and 3rd generations that eventually assimilate. This too, will pass .
I've not heard of any law which says that pharmacists don't have to fill prescriptions. I know this has been talked about as a problem but I've not heard of nor would I approve any law to this effect.
A pharmacist chooses his job by choice, not duress, and should he not want to fulfill the needs of the job he should not apply. I have a little more sympathy for a cab driver in that I cannot believe many persons "choose" to enter that profession. However, if you are going to accept the paycheck you'd better be ready to do the job.
Sound cold? Perhaps it is but that is what I was raised to think about jobs. A cabby, like a cop, preforms a public safety service and letting people off in unwanted, dangerous areas of town is totally unconscionable! If they are going to refuse to transport they have a similar obligation to state this fact up front and loudly. If I owned the cab company none of my drivers would be guilty of doing this act twice!
Good Article, Firoze!
In this area we have two religious groups who strongly object to the use of alcohol and I've never hear of either of them kicking someone out of a taxi because of it. Refusing to serve an intoxicated patron is another matter. While many cabs routinely carry drunks home, if I hired a driver who objected to this I'd respect that right as long as I could hire sufficient drivers who would carry intoxicated persons.
As to this issue: It's happened here too. The solution is simple. Pull their licenses or don't let them serve the airport. In my state the pharmacy issue is being resolved in the interest of the patient. Pharmacists no more have a right to override a doctor's prescription than do taxi drivers have the right to dictate what passengers can carry. As with the pharmacist, it's none of their business.
If you have religious objections then don't take a job where you have to compromise them. You do not have a right to impose your religious beliefs onto anyone else.
Here, the law states that a pharmacist may refuse to fill a prescription that violates his/her moral precepts only if they can find someone else to provide the prescription (another store, another pharmacist). But it does allow them to refuse.
My father was a pharmacist, and I know he'd have been horrified at that law. I agree with Carolyn's statements on this; don't take a job when you know you'll be asked to do things that compromise your beliefs. Once you are in a job, it's your duty to fulfill the needs of the job.
As a real estate agent, I was allowed to turn away clients without a reason - it could have been as simple a thought on my part that the transaction would not go well and I would eventually be sued.
After a while, people in business for themselves develop something like a sixth sense, if you will, for who will be a good or bad customer or client. However, most cities have ordinances that govern cab, limo, or ride-for-hire type companies; unless the passenger is breaking a law, the driver must drive them to their destination.
Another ordinance, at least in Los Angeles, is that if you offer someone a ride such as during a bus or transit strike, you have to have a ride-for-hire license, unless you DON'T take money for gas, then it's just a carpool. No joke.
Don't know about most localities but here that rule is pursuant to local ordinance. These same set of rules do not allow cabbies to refuse service. In fact, they are punished by having to go to the back of the cabbie line while a taxi is found for the aggrieved passenger with alcohol.
As I wrote above, selectivity is impermissible. Why deny service to drinkers but allow it for abortionists who are carrying their instruments when that also violates Islamic law? It makes no sense. None whatsoever.
And yes, society can fall into utter chaos if there isn't some expectation that people set aside their beliefs in order to accomplish day-to-day activities. If the Muslim store clerks cannot touch pork, they should go work in a setting which won't require it (a clothing store, a kosher delicatessen or grocery, if they can get hired in one).
I must admit that, personally, as a Christian, I have always felt terrible doing any kind of shopping or eating out on the Sabbath. After all, if I do those activities, I'm requiring stores and restaurants to be open that day, which requires other people to have no choice but to work. If I value this as an important thing, shouldn't I do my best to allow others the same opportunity to hold it sacred?
That, however, is a personal choice in an attempt to allow others freedom, rather than imposing my belief system ON others....
How about the Moslem cabbies who refuse people with dogs -- as in seeing eye dogs?
Although you do not have a right to impose your religious beliefs on others; you do have a right to your beliefs and honoring your convictions. There are a number of ways to work these out these things with your employer if you feel there is something in your job that compromises your beliefs.
If you can work out these issues; say as a pharmacist, you don't want to fill "after morning prescription" you work for a place that there is someone that can fill these or say you are a Seven Day Adventist that believes you should not work on Saturday as your sabbath; you work that out. If you can work these issues out with your employer; you are not imposing your beliefs but honoring your convictions. And the beauty in the U.S is that you can do that; whereas in these countries that some of the fundamentalist left, you cannot.
The issue of course for them is assimilation and learning acceptance of others beliefs. There is nothing so illuminating as losing or not being able to keep a job because you are not able to learn that. And of course in the case of these cabbies; it they cannot work this out with their employers; they can walk, hit the road or whatever other term their employer wants to use when he fires them.
Of course on the other side of this is the mention that this does not happen that frequently leads me to believe our sensationalist journalism is at it again. It may be the fact that is has happened on a few rare occasions that has made it news; similar to the pharmacy scenario; which also is not that prevalent.
The point that you missed is my objection to people attempting to impose their religious or 'moral' standards on our society. When I read Pickthall's translation of the Koran, he specifically said that Islam does not have the right to impose its standards of conduct and morality upon any society. According to his historic research, morality is to be measured by the standards in which Islam finds itself and that this is what Mohammed taught.
Therefore, Islamic adherents do not have the right to dictate to our society what constitutes acceptable conduct. For those who don't know it, Pickthall was the world's foremost authority on the subject.
My erstwhile and longtime rival Greg Schiller cites another example in which Muslims have attempted to impose their standards upon the greater society here in the Twin Cities. And he is correct.
But I can cite still another example as to why the imposition of alien standards are to be disdain:
Here in St Paul's West Side, a man who had 8 children grew tired of his wife and wanted a new one. He filled the wife with bullet holes and croaked her. A great many of my neighbors heard the shots as he did this quite in the open just across the street from where I live. When asked why he did it he replied that he had done nothing wrong as that is the way things are done in his culture.
Are we as a society obligated to accept his ways?
Sorry, but I think not.
If you are unwilling to perform the duties of the job you are assigned - for ANY reason - as long as those duties are within the law - then you need to find another field to work.
There are thousands of entry-level type jobs out there, and if these immigrants can't adapt to the standards of those jobs, then they need to go find other jobs.
No sympathy. Do your job, or don't let the doorknob hit you in the behind on your way out.
I am sorry; there are a lot of things that are within the law that we may feel we have a moral obligation to not do. For instance; it is not against the law to lie to a client and tell them your boss is out when you boss does not want to talk to them; but some people may have more moral sensiblity than others and not want to lie for their boss.
This is a minor item; but these kind of things issues consistently crop up in the work place. A lot of these can be worked out. Some cannot and you may have to look for a new job.
There is nothing wrong with an employee maintaining their moral standards (after all a persons ethics is really relative to their morals) and working their differences out with their employers and customers.
Of course, if we are determined to be uncompromising and unyielding we may have to suffer the consequences. In the case of the taxi drivers; if they are determined to not pick up people with alcohol; they probably need a new job, perhaps driving a church bus for the Baptists?
Except that respect must always be a two way street {pardon the pun}.
According to the Bible I am entitled to imbibe alcohol as much as I want. Since Mohammed did not say that any Muslim has a right to impose his standards on me, this means I can imbibe in his cab. If Pickthall was alive today he would agree. And according to historical accounts, so would Mohammed.
This is not a matter of liberal vs conservative beliefs. It is a matter of tolerance for the majoritarian view.
1. Post a sign: "This cab does not carry alcoholic beverages of any kind."
2. Find another job more in tune with your beliefs.
3. Go back where Muslim fatwas are the law of the land.
No one can impose their beliefs on others; those who try are labelled "tyrants".
On the other hand, one needs to remain true to one's personal moral code. Therefore the suggestion that cabbies objecting to alcohol pre-warn potential fares. Throwing them out of the cab is unacceptable.
Not legal in Minnesota. Whether anyone likes it or not, the law must prevail.
First of all, Thanks Firoze for a very fascinating Article.
Now on to the rest of the story.
People who immigrate here, generally try to assimilate. Many are so thankful to be here, that they leave much of their traditions behind them. Its usually the next generation, or the one behind that, that wants to rekindle that culture.
Islamic peoples come from many cultures as well as varieties of discipline withen their belief system. They all try to live up to their codes. Their culture is so vastly different than american, that it is hard to assimilate. Like some groups, such as the Italians, they stick to their own areas- communities if you may. Many live very decent, quite lives.
Many are doctors, Teachers, Nurses, Professores and Pilots. Not all of them are illiterate to "English-American" culture of lifestyle. Remember, many people do come here from the Middle-East and study at the great Universities. Many of the women do stay and marry Americans.
For those, whom come here under political strife- whom are not educated in our ways or Language, do go to their Islamic Community Centres and seek assistance. Of course the Jobs that are avaliable to them are limited. They are just doing their best. Of course they listen to their Sheiks. Don't Catholics Listen to their Pope? The LDS Listen to their current Prophet? The Lutherans follow their conferences and declarations written by their founder? The Epsicopalians- follow what the Defender of their church says as well as the Archbishop of Canterbury? See- those of us who even minimalistically practice some belief system, follow some kind of leadership. Why shouldn't the average Islamic person follow their Sheik?
We sometimes need to recall that in America, one of the rights that we have is Freedom of Religeon. One of the responsibilities that comes with that is respect of another persons beliefs, as well as understanding. Perhaps they do need guidence- but sometimes, the best lessons are given by those of us who live here. If a person problaims they are a Christian, then Tolerance, Benevolence, Understanding, Love, Charity as well as Liberty, are some of the most important things we can adopt and Learn. Perhaps we can learn from the Moslem concerning Alcohol. They, however, will never adapt as long as we exhibit the behavior they have been taught that we have. Many Moslems do believe that all Westerners are Evil. All they have to do is look and see it. Think what it would be like, if you come from an extremly religeous background, like the Amish, and all of a sudden you are planted in the deepest, darkest part of Las Vegas. Wouldn't you too think you have descended into the bad place, and that everything around you is evil? Many of these Immigrants feel that. Remember: you don't have to come from Iraq or Iran to be Islamic! There are many Islamic peoples all over the world- some even in India!
Johannes
And sometimes, it needs to be remembered that we are guaranteed freedom from religion by our Constitution.
Where? That is a myth. We are free from the establishment of a state church. We are free to accept or not accept a religion or belief.
But free from it; I am no more free from religion than I am free from other people's stupidity.
Johannes - I see your point here, but we need also need to perserve our laws and culture and not bend to the demands of every extreme belief just to be "politically correct". My moral code does not support pornography. Therefore, I don't place myself in the middle of areas where it flourishes (i.e., Times Square), and I don't demand that these areas bend to my needs when I happen to walk through them. I also wouldn't get a job in a sex shop based on my beliefs, but I would defend the right of someone to have such a business in America.
There are 1000's of jobs, in all sorts of "entry level" positions. Taxi driving and grocery check-out are NOT the only unskilled "careers" available. Suggesting that "That is all they are qualified for" is disingenuous. That may be all they WANT to do - but it's clear to me that they're complaining just to try and force THEIR "Sharia" bovine excrement on America.
It remains to be seen if the solution offered by the Airports Commission will solve the problem.
There is no question about the moral responsibility of the cab driver to see that their fare is delivered safely to their destination … once that party is allowed in the taxi. If the vehicle is owned by other than the driver, the owner also has at least a shared responsibility, probably even a legal one, to deliver the promised service offered.
I have no idea if a verbal restriction given to every person who seeks to engage the taxi provided by the system established by the airport operators would be acceptable or not. Perhaps that would solve the problem, while also forcing the driver to have to return to the end of the line to again await a new opportunity to offer their personally restricted service.
I believe arriving passengers would largely tolerate the minimum delay involved with relative grace and understanding by having to wait a minute or three for an alternate cab to arrive, particularly if some nominal credit were offered to smooth any frayed reactions noted.
Call this Plan B if you like, but Plan A with the new rule and flat-out "Do it my way, or the highway" may actually solve the problem.
Wanna bet?
We discussed this subject several times previously. If you looked up my repeated references to Professor Mark McGarvie's extensive studies on the subject you would know that what I wrote above is correct. But since it has been a while, here is my earlier reference =
As someone with a law degree and as one whose hobby is the study of American history, I am well qualified to say that his thesis is correct.
As for 'moral code', I have always said that what society and the world needs is not an imposed morality, but a shared morality. According to Pickthall, Mohammed would be the first one to agree with that idea.
Politicians run the cities and towns.
Lobbyists and special interests persuade the politicians ... and the laws are made.
As many have said use a car service, call a friend or a hotel shuttle but choose and DO NOT USE THEIR CABS!
This is just the beginning.
Politicians don't care because they do not live next door to a person that has no idea what a shower is. Politicians have no idea what it is like to walk down a neighborhood that you grew up in and you can't have a conversation because no one speaks your language. Enforce some freaking laws, stop all this nonsense and give me my america back where when someone was privledged enough to come here they worked hard to contribute and make a good life for their family and home. My grandfather came here from another country and we can have a conversation in ENGLISH, because he worked hard to do so. When will someone listen?