Don’t You Dare Bring That Booze into My Taxi!

Jewish World Review Daniel Pipes October 11, 2006

American Muslims demanding ‘infidels’ abide by their rules. One city caves. Will others soon follow?

A minor issue at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP) has potentially major implications for the future of Islam in the United States.


Starting about a decade ago, some Muslim taxi drivers serving the airport declared, that they would not transport passengers visibly carrying alcohol, in transparent duty-free shopping bags, for example. This stance stemmed from their understanding of the Koran’s ban on alcohol. A driver named Fuad Omar explained: “This is our religion. We could be punished in the afterlife if we agree to [transport alcohol]. This is a Koran issue. This came from heaven.” Another driver, Muhamed Mursal, echoed his words: “It is forbidden in Islam to carry alcohol.”

The issue emerged publicly in 2000. On one occasion, 16 drivers in a row refused a passenger with bottles of alcohol. This left the passenger — who had done nothing legally wrong — feeling like a criminal. For their part, the 16 cabbies lost income. As Josh L. Dickey of the Associated Press put it, when drivers at MSP refuse a fare for any reason, “they go to the back of the line. Waaaay back. Past the terminal, down a long service road, and into a sprawling parking lot jammed with cabs in Bloomington, where drivers sit idle for hours, waiting to be called again.”

. . . more

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

17 thoughts on “Don’t You Dare Bring That Booze into My Taxi!”

  1. Fr. Jacobse asks:

    “American Muslims demanding ‘infidels’ abide by their rules. One city caves. Will others soon follow?”

    Yes. Question: Will Christians have the good sense to move out of cities/states that go the dhimmi route?

  2. Note 2, Christopher, “moving out” is exactly what they want

    Christopher, political power in America is organized by geographical unit. If Muslims are evenly scattered across America they will never gain the critical mass necessary to elect Muslim politicians. They want Christians to “move out.” Remember Hamtranck, Michigan was settled by Roman Catholic Poles, now the presence of 5 mosques publicly blaring the Islamic call to prayer, five time a day, seven times a week, effectively is pushing non-Muslims out of the city. Once Muslims have a majority in the city, they have the mayor and the city council, later a Congressional district.

    Muslims understand Western politics enough to understand that geographical enclaves give them power, not dispersal.

    Some religious bodies in the United States have been agitating for exemptions to certain laws and an expansion of accommodation for religion, this is a mistake because of the opening for Islam. Tricky territory in which to maneuver.

  3. I see your point Missourian, but I don’t think Christian’s should voluntarily submit themselves to dhimmi. I certainly would not subject myself or my family to it, thus I would never live in Hamtranck or any other such place. Your not arguing that we should stay in these areas are you? The only solution I can think of is a rethinking of multiculturalism and what it means to be an “American” in a fundamental way. Since I am not holding my breath for that, I suspect that moving out is the only prudent choice in the next 50 to 100 years.

  4. Note 2. It is indeed tricky territory. All these decades of disparaging America and its native freedoms by progressive multiculturalists is starting bear some rotten fruit.

    It seems to me a place to begin is to insist on a base line behavior by immigrants to America, including learning English, strict enforcement of the civil laws, etc. Also, strict immigration quotas have to be put in place. We should not make the mistake Europe has made. Frankly, sharia law cannot be allowed to be implemented in the United States.

  5. Note 3, Christopher

    I wouldn’t stay in Hamtranck and expose my family to the sound of the call to prayer 35 times a week, I would go. However, non-Muslims need to be vigilant and resist this type of thing. Muslims had to go to the city council and get an exemption from the noise ordinance; that is why I am not enthusiastic about creating precedents for religious exemptions from ordinary civil laws, they work in the favor of Muslims since our culture and our laws are already consistent with Christianity in many ways (yes, I am aware of the secular rot in the laws of marriage and family, let alone abortion).

    We need to be vigilant and resist religious exemptions with the exception of some very critical matters such as abortion because these involve life and death issues. So, although I consider myself religious, I would oppose exemptions from noice ordinances for any religious body whether for church bells or the Muslim call to prayer of the ram’s horn that Jews blow at certain solemn religious days.

    I don’t have a good overall answer however.

  6. Dean’s plan to De-Muslimize Muslims: Why was India Partitioned?

    From the Telegraph

    Source and full article:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/20/do2003.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/10/20/ixopinion.html

    That partly explains why we are so far apart. Jack Straw’s brush with Islam over veils was only a tiny illustration of the gulf between us.

    We have come to regard blasphemy as a symbol of free speech; Islam treats offensive words about the Prophet or the Koran as a serious offence.

    It is vain to say: “Well, if they come here, they must conform with British society and its easy ways.” Muslims will not do that. Their religion forbids it.

    Why do we suppose India had to be partitioned? There was no other way of keeping the peace in that great sub-continent. We cannot do that here, but perhaps we should be thinking in terms of a supreme council on which our principal religions, including Islam, would sit and try to resolve misunderstandings.

    What is never going to work is telling followers of Islam here: “You must conform to our ways!”

    Ask yourself why was India partitioned?
    Why did Kemal Ataturk need an army to suppress Islamic customs inconsistent
    with the 20th century?
    Why does Tunisia outlaw the hijab?
    Why, why and why again.

    Lastly, why does our beautiful country have to be another battleground for Islam? There is no reason on this earth why we have to admit more Muslims, there is no power on this earth that can compell us to do so, we have to do that voluntarily.

    Pray God, we come to our senses.

  7. To: Missourian,
    As we are now finding out in Europe that multiculturism is not working and there can be no exceptions to a constitution, we also cannot fall back upon the Getto mentality.
    While I am not a great fan of Cardinal Richelieu’s political manipulations I find that Louis X111’s First Minister did have one salient thought-France. The corollary to that is ‘a state cannot exist within The State’. The corollary to that is that there can be only one set of laws within the state. Almost all cities have a noise abatement law.
    Sincerely, J R Dittbrenner

  8. Note 8, JR Dittbrenner, Worker-Bee is Missourian, of course

    Just a note: Worker-Bee is Missourian. Worker-Bee refers to those members of the hive that perform productive work necessary for the survival of the colony. It does not include government bureaucrats.

  9. Dear Worker-Bee:
    I learned from a bee keeper hiveal activity in the later 40s, in Napa Valley from the bee keeper on the base. Worker bees are sterlel females. They work, they protect and they die. No queen, no hive, i.e. The State.
    See, analogies only work for general discussions but not in logical discourses.
    Sincerely,
    J R Dittbrenner

  10. Muslims appear to be taking the Mormon route in geographic powrer take over rather than the Mennonoite ‘sprinkling’ or Amish ‘clumping’. Each, imo, is more effective than the mainstream Christian ‘scatter and disperse’ method. A queen without workers is as powerless as a worker without a queen is pointless. Families need community.

    A common Interest or Gated Community is preferable in that it maintains freedom of religious expression and practice under civil zoning managment to buffer against a geographic takeover. For example, limiting the size of exclusively religious communites so as to maintain a neutral ‘common area’. Ring your bells, blow your horns or call your prayers at whatever decible you choose so long as they do not spill over into surrounding communities above the agreed upon noise level.

    Presently, universal support could be as simple– and effective, as people around the world choosing to always travel with visible alcohol (or sparkling cider) to combat Muslim imposed dhimmi status.

    Disbanding ethnocentric ghettos without replacing them with a faith community in which we are able to teach our children ‘as we go out, walk along the way, and come in’, will continue to sacrifice many to the global secular humanist community that educates them. An annual ‘catholic’ Orthodox festival, perhaps on the Feast of Pentecost, celebrating and honoring all of our various cultures would provide a regular venue and platform for united voice and outreach as well as establishing and strengthening our cross-cultural bonds. Alas, to combat dhimmitude, we would have to cooperate in faith, which is highly unlikely considering the world-wide ethnic competitive and adversarial leadership of the EP and MP.

  11. Note 9, J R Dittbrenner, thanks for the info, interesting;-)

    Thanks for the information, interesting. I will have to read up on bees. You ahve an interesting scope of knowledge JR.

    😉

  12. It seems worth mentioning that the rules of the airport–before they came up with the idea of creating a “signal light” for followers of sharia law–seemed to be pretty reasonable. That is, if any cabbie refuses a fare for any reason, they go to the back of the line. This allows muslim drivers who believe God will punish them for knowingly transporting alcohol to keep their consciences clear, and it creates a disincentive for claiming frivolous religious exceptions.

  13. Missourian, care to comment on the Muslim woman who’s legal complaint was dismissed by a judge because she refused to remove her veil in court when she testified? She was and is trying to force the U.S. judicial system to accomodate Sharia law (except it is unlikely that she would have been allowed to testify at all under Sharia law as I understand it) and is now complaining that she was denied justice. Do you think that the U.S. legal system will stand steadfastly against such attempts?

  14. Note 13, Veil ruling should hold up, Michael

    Michael, I think that the ruling should hold up quite well. There is a long and broad line of casees that discuss the importance of a jury evaluating the credibility of a witness by observing how that witness testifies. It is clear that the jury would be severely handicapped if the witness wore a veil covering most of a witness;s face. This is common sense, we all rely on observing the face of the person who is talking in order to interpret the full meaning of their words.

    I think the ruling has a wealth of good law to support it and I think it will hold. The observation that scares me the most is that “the assault has begun.” This is just the beginning of the repeated attempts to chip away a little here and little there, bit by bit. The one step at a time expansion of sharia in the name of multi-cultural accommodation is an orchestrated program advanced by CAIR and many other organizations.

    Question? Does anyone remember when professional basketball players wore very short pants when playing basketball? Have you noted that they now where baggy pants that reach down to their knees? This is an Islamic accommodation to Kareem Abdul Jabar who was subject to the male dress code which forbids exposure of the body between the knees and the shoulders.
    One player and the entire league followed suit, no real struggle.

    There is quite an attempt to force acceptance of full veiling in America, the psychological tool is to paint those who find Islamic garb to be ignorant, fearful, xenophobic bigots. I think it is a traveling jail for the female. Hope the so-called feminists can find time to fight this one, I tend to doubt NOW will be taking the lead on this.

  15. I was up in Minnesota this week and one of the big stories on the news was about a public transit bus driver, a Christian who asked not to be assigned certain buses to drive because they carried an ad for a homosexual magazine. The bus company complied, but now her union has filed a complaint saying that the company should not have allowed her to change routes because of the hardship it placed on the rest of the drivers.

  16. Note 16, Michael, Christian bus driver

    Michael, this is a tough issue for Christians.

    It is relatively easy and natural for me to think in terms of legal/political strategies. It is more difficult to think in terms of Christian ethics as I am not a very well educated in Christian ethics. (The truth is the truth, I might as well admit it) The optimal legal/political strategy may or may not be the most sound Christian ethics.

    I could offer you my strategic assessment but I think you are interested in something more than strategies and politics, I haven’t thought that through, although Christian leaders really need to do so very soon. The Islamists have their strategy established and they have made great headway with it in many parts of the world, we also need to be “as wise as serpents, but as innocent as doves.”

    As a strategy I would prefer to refrain from asking for religious accommodation unless it is a very, very critical matter. I would consider issues affecting life and death to be critical, such as abortion/end of life/embryo experimentation or basic free speech issues. Beyond that I think we need to resist creating exceptions to generally neutral secular laws for religious practices.

Comments are closed.