Should Muslims Be Allowed To Impose Islam On Other Americans?
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. 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? To read the entire article click here.
32 Comments:
I am grateful to Muqtedar Khan to bring it to the knowledge of the general muslim public that muslim taxi drivers at Minneapolis Airport are engaged in Fitna.
It will be a very sad development for the muslim ummah if the muslim taxi drivers at Minneapolis Airport are not dissuaded from continuing with this course of action.
I wish there were provisions in the Penal Code for defining and dealing with this sort of Fitna and holding its perpetrators to account.
It is unfortunate when a scholar decides to give an opinion, regarding an issue that is not really within his field of expertise, using arguments typically used from his field of expertise... The issue at hand has nothing to do with Shariah. It needs to be discussed from a free enterprise point of view. It needs to be viewed from a perspective using the following question: Does a business owner have the right to deny service to certain individuals based on the business owner's declared values and principles? Allow me to illustrate..
How many of us have seen a sign posted at the entrance of a retail business establishment, stating: "No Shoes, No Shirts, No Service."? How many of us have seen a sign that states "We have the right to deny refuse service to anyone."?
A couple of months ago, I tried to offer a business partnership to one of my suppliers whom I viewed as a very honest and upright person. I wanted someone like this person by my side, to help me grow my own business. He declined my offer, of course, politely. But I was absolutely amazed at his reasoning. He told me that he could not accept my offer for partnership because I was not a committed Christian like he was. He did not even ask if I was a Muslim or anything else. He just made a statement that he would only partner with people who were "equally yoked" in service to The Lord.
People have the right to make decisions regarding how to run their businesses. This is a free country last time I checked. This is not about imposing Shariah on anyone else. To present the issue as something relating to imposing Shariah is itself the problem. In other words, these cab drivers have the right to decide how to run their businesses. The consumer in turn has the right to seek cab drivers who don't use these rules for using their taxis. The market economy system of free enterprise would provide the necessary checks and balances, and these cab drivers would then have to make a decision on whether to continue or not.
These cab drivers came to this country to provide a good environment for their families, true. But they should not be asked to give up their faith in order to earn their livelihood, especially as they're running their own business using their own vehicle.
Dr Khan: I have met you before and I respect your opinions on many other matters. But you're plain wrong in the framing of the question on this issue.
Hany Atchan, Ph.D.
Dear Dr. Hany Atchan, I do remember you and fondly so. I agree with you that this is a free country, and believe me, I wan't it to remain so.
I have four points to make in response to your comments:
1. Taxicabs are public transport and hence are not the same as a restaurant or other private businesses. It is for this reason that you can sue a private airlines if it discriminates against Muslims and Imams who chose to fly on them for religious or racial discrimination.
2. America is also a secular country and it is in the interest of Muslims to ensure that religious values are not forced on others. If Christians stopped driving and flying and hiring Muslims, then we will all be in deep trouble.
3. MAS Islamized it by issuing a Fatwa on behalf of Islamic juridprudence, which I believe in itself is dubious. If the fatwa was not issued then this would have been limited to individual peculiarities and not bothered me at all [this is in respone to your first paragraph].
4. We live in a time when Islamophobia is on the rise, and it does not behoove Muslims to discriminate against other people based on their own religious values. It will certainly not help. It is ironic to see MAS protesting Imams being thrown out of planes but defending non-Muslims being tossed out of Muslim cabs by issuing Fatwas.
People unsympathetic to Muslim desires to adhere to shariah, will see this as a contradiction and develop negative attitudes towards Muslims.
How can we say that "do not discriminate against us because we are Muslims, but we will discrminate against you becuase we are Muslims."
Dear Dr Khan... Thanks for your reply... And your kind words.
On your first point, taxis are definitely not a public transport like, say, an airline or a public bus. Taxis are private vehicles owned and operated privately. Their owners offer a service for a fee, based on set rules and guidelines, supplemented if they choose with their own restrictions and conditions.
On your second point, taxi drivers are not discriminating based on religion. They're not saying that they don't offer service to Christians or Jews. They're saying that they don't want their vehicles used to transport liquor and alcohol. They have the right to do that. Alcohol is not a public right. It's a privilege allowed by the state based on a limited set of conditions...
On the third point, I partly agree... I am not a fan of MAS or for that fact, any organized, identity-based, group... Especially in America. But the religious decision is sound as you yourself admitted in the initial article. To have any civil-right organization defend the right of a private business owner to run his/her business according to his/her values is something very American and very much in accordance with the principles of this country. The taxi drivers are not acting because they're Muslims. They're acting because they have a problem with Alcohol. That's only tangentially a religious issue. It could happen to Christian or a Jewish cab driver... It's more likely to be a social and economic issue.
Your forth point is a public relation argument. Again, this has nothing to do with religion or foring Shariah on anyone.
So my main argument against your framing of the question is that you framed it as "Imposing Shariah" on the American public. And although I may agree with your public relation argument, I definitely think that your framing of the question as "Imposing Shariah" is inflamatory. It derails the main issues concerning this question.
I know of many business owners who refuse to buy McDonald or Burger King franchises because these restaurants serve Pork. They choose instead Taco Bell or KFC. I also know many independent restaurant owners who are clearly Muslims, and who do not serve alcohol or pork. One can argue that a restaurant is a public service istitution. But the owners are totally within their American civil rights to choose how to run their private businesses...
THAT is what this country allows every citizen to do. Being a Muslim is not something we should hide or compromise as long as we're not infringing on other's rights. No one has the God-given right to ride in any taxi they want while violating the business owners rules, any more than they have the right to eat any food they want in any restaurant they want..
Thanks for the kind reply.
Hany Atchan, Ph.D.
Dr. Khan,
I agree with Dr. Atchan on many of his points. Furthermore, your article is, with respect, misguided and misrepresents numerous facts. You state in your opening paragraph that the cab drivers "resorted to imposing their beliefs on others as soon as they got a majority". This is at best irresponsible reporting of the facts and at worst, a blatant lie. Someone with your credentials should know better. If you had bothered yourself with learning the facts, you would have known that this has been an issue for years regardless of the percentage of Muslims driving cabs at the airport. You continue by stating that MAS is an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. While not clear on your implications, many can be interpreted from this statement, this is also incorrect. You obviously relied on erroneous reports by the Chicago Tribune and USA Today that have since been discredited. This is another example of lazy reporting on your part. You then suggest that the fatwa by MAS is incorrect because Islam only forbids the consumption and trade of alcohol. In fact, there is a well-known and valid haddith where Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, states that it is also forbidden to transport alcohol. And it is this haddith which MAS scholars relied on for their fatwa. It should also be mentioned that MAS only became involved with this matter at the request of the Metropolitan Airports Commission at Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport. This is both relevant and material because it speaks to motive. MAS, as the Head of the Airports Commission has stated, has provided valuable help and input to resolve this matter with a win/win resolution. A perfect example of cooperation between Muslims and non-Muslims if ever there was one. Your suggestion that this may only be the beginning and listing examples of what might come next is, frankly, embarrassing to you and your argument. Islam does not forbid any of the examples you mention. However, transporting alcohol is forbidden as I mentioned. You seem to claim to be a champion of freedom of religion, yet you hypocritically denounce those who exercise this value which you claim to support. The resolution which was arrived at would have ensured that customers would not be denied service and would experience no delay in service while allowing the cab drivers to continue working without compromising their religious beliefs(another American right in case you're interested). However, this agreement was cancelled due to public backlash. An overwhelming majority of this backlash was based on public ignorance and misinformation according to the Airports Commission itself. Much of this misinformation came in the form of articles like yours which misrepresented the facts. You finish by stating that we must not allow a few rotten apples to impose their thoughtless understanding of Islam on others. This is the only valid point you make in your article. And it is the only one with which I agree. I assure you that I will not allow someone like you to impose his thoughtless understanding of Islam on me. I am frankly wondering what the motive is of someone with your credentials to write such an embarrassingly poor article.
Br. Khalid, I don't know what to say to you. You are welcome to disagree with me, and judge my understanding of Islam thoughtless. All I can say to you is Peace!
I am however curious by what you mean when you say ... "I assure you that I will not allow someone like you to impose his thoughtless understanding of Islam on me. I am frankly wondering what the motive is of someone with your credentials to write such an embarrassingly poor article. ...." First let me assure you, I am not imposing my understanding on you or for that matter on anyone. I am merely placing my argument in the public sphere.
And as far as my motives are concerned, they are simple: Quran 51:55 -- But teach, for teaching benefits the Believers.
That is why I chose teaching as my profession.
Dr. Hany, AA.
1. I did not use the phrase "imposing shariah" in the entire article, therefore your main argument...... "So my main argument against your framing of the question is that you framed it as "Imposing Shariah" on the American public." is moot. I will not dignify conclusions based on one hadith reported only by Tirmidhi as Shariah. I actually refer to it as "anachronistic interpretations of Islam".
2. Cabs are part of the public transport system. Just as US Air does not have the right to deny Muslims a ride and the pilot cannot refuse to fly Muslims whatever his beleievs might be, cabs on airports should not have the option to deny rides based on religious adherence.
3. I am not advocating hiding that we are Muslims, on the contrary I wrote this article stating that I am a Muslim and wrote it because I am a Muslim. Unlike the cab drivers, who will leave a man returning home waiting on the airport, I believe that the Quran encourages us to do beautiful [Ihsan] things. In my mind Ihsan [excelence/compassion/beauty] will trump adl [justice] anytime.
4. I also profoundly disagree with the cab drivers' interpretation of what is Islam. They are welcome to cause inconvenience to others in the name of Islam, I will speak up for what is right in my opinion [even if it is against one of our own], Wallahu Alam.
5. In the Quran, Allah Swt says he loves those who do beautiful things [3:134, 3:148, 2:195, 5:13, 5:93], in fact in Surah Maidah Allah SWT asks Muslims to overlook the misdeeds of Jews[also applicable to Christians] and forgive them for he loves people who do good deeds [5:13]. This Quranic principle for me trumps anything hadith in Tirmidhi or any other collection.
11:53 PM
Br. Khan, teaching is certainly a noble profession when practiced in a noble manner. Your effort at teaching, in the form of your article about the cab drivers, does a disservice to the teaching profession. Your article, as I pointed out in my previous post, is filled with misstatements of fact and lies about the matter itself and MAS. As a "teacher", are you not concerned with the truth? You state that you are placing your argument in the public sphere. With respect, if your article is all you have to present your argument, then you have no argument because it is blatantly false. You did not respond to a single point I made to refute your claims. If you truly embrace the teaching profession, I suggest you do some research and learn the facts for yourself before you attempt your version of teaching others. Forgive my strong language, but I was extremely offended by your portrayal of the situation and of MAS when you clearly did not understand the facts or chose not to share them. You finish by quoting the Quran and stating that teaching benefits the believers. Indeed, this is true. However, I believe that the meaning of this refers to teaching of the truth. Your article did not contain the truth. So I ask you again sir, why would someone with your credentials write such an embarrassingly poor article? I do not ask you this question because I simply like to debate or argue or place it in the public sphere. I ask you because you have a responsibility to report the truth. Muslims suffer from a negative perception by many westerners because of false stereotypes and misrepresentations. Your article has contributed to the perpetuation of false information being reported about Muslims. But you didn't stop there. You went a step further by suggesting that more negatives, that do not exist, except in your imagination, could come next with your questions about Muslim doctors and firefighters refusing to perform their jobs for silly reasons. This helps perpetuate stereotypes about Muslims. And while I have come to expect it from a few intolerant non-Muslims, I am offended when it comes from a Muslim. I think you owe the cab drivers of the twin cities, MAS and your readers an apology. But it is not my place to ask you to apologize, it is simply my opinion. However, I do think that it is my place to ask you why you did not respond to a single point I made in refuting most of the relevant facts in your article. If you truly respect the teaching profession, you will at least make an attempt. Only then, when you learn how you have misprespresented things so irresponsibly, will it be my place to ask you to apologize.
Br. Khalid, AA.
As far as MAS is concerned I have already had a very serious dialogue with its national leadership and I am satisfied at my end. When I learned about Muslim Brotherhood's position I immediately linked it to my article and inshallah if MAS does issue a statement, I will link it to.
Since you are so well informed, how about sending me a copy of MAS's Fatwa.
You are suggesting that I am hinting at imaginary negatives, but that is not true, since stronger statements have been made by very well known and respected members of the Somali community [most of the drivers involved are from that community.
See for example:
"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. "MAS 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."
Also see: "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."
Both these quotes are from Star Tribune:
www.startribune.com/191/story/766918.html
I have been part of a number of conferences with Dr. Samatar and have a lot of respect for him and I am sure he would not be making statements like those irresponsibly.
Like I said, I am in touch with the national leadership of MAS and please do not force me to share the substance of the conversation and names in a public forum, they are not flattering to all involved. I am not even sure whether you are authorized to speak on behalf of MAS and whether you represent it. [you have not introduced yourself].
And please try to maintain some decorum in your conversation, you have heaped enough abuse on me already. Surely you are familiar with Islamic Adab.
Dear Dr Khan...
I would advise you to follow the Islamic Adab for scholars...
By using the inflamatory words "Imposing Islam" in your article's title, by maligning the intentions (which noone except God should have any business judging) of the various people involved, and by summarily dismissing the Hadith collection by Tirmidhi as "anachronistic interpretation of Islam", you're showing very poor Islamic etiquette that's not becoming of a scholar like yourself...
As a matter of fact, you're leaving yourself totally exposed to have your true intentions questioned by people who aren't familiar with you and your background...
These three facts beg the question: Is your article attempting to pursue an objective scholarly presentation based on the Truth, or are you trying to sensationalize the issue to get the attention of people who would like to join in the Islam bashing party currently going on in the western media?
I don't recall any Muslim scholar in history using inflamatory words and broad-brushing of intentions like you did... I also don't recall any Muslim scholar in history summarily dismiss a whole collection of Hadith based on a personal opinion, without offering clear evidence to support your conclusion.
To label the Tirmidhi collection of Hadith, an indispensable reference from the Islamic tradition and considered by even the Orientalists as an important primary and historical source about Islam, as "anachronistic interpretation of Islam", is, frankly, a little concerning.
I advise you to reconsider many of your methods, conclusions, and dare I say, your intentions. My advice is in the same spirit of the Qur'anic verse that you quoted earlier: "Remind. Indeed a good reminder benefits the believers."
Thank You
Hany Atchan, Ph.D.
Dr. Hany, with all due respect, you are not reading carefully and reacting very quickly.
1. I niether rejected the collection of Tirmidhi nor referred to it as anachronistic. If you had read my commen carefully, and I reproduce it here;
"I will not dignify conclusions based on one hadith reported only by Tirmidhi as Shariah. I actually refer to it as "anachronistic interpretations of Islam".
Let me simplify. in the above statement I say [1] I will not accept conclusions based on a single hadith reported only by Tirmidhi as Shariah! Muwatta the earliest collection does not have nad niether does Bukhari, no faqih will make a shariah ruling based on a single hadith.
I am saying that I will not consider the conclusion of MAS' Fatwa which was based on one hadith as shariah, I refer to that conclusion as an anachronistic interpretation of Islam. In the article I use the phrase anachronistic interpretations to refer to the opinion of the MAS fatwa and not Tirmidhi.
BTW, having said that I have not rejected Tirmidhi, I must express my surprise that you have never come across a scholar who has rejected one entire collection of ahadith., infact there are those who have rejected all the hadith collections, they are called ah-le Quran. Even wikipedia knows about them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an_alone
Also Dr. Hany you tell me that only Allah knows people's intentions, yet you speculate on mine.
Anyway, if there is nothing substantive to say, then let us stop here and not make a spectacle.
Br. Khan,
You ask me to maintain some decorum in my post when it is you who has called MAS "hypocritical" without knowing the facts and it is you who has referred to them as "a few rotten apples" unjustly. You attempt to lecture me about Islamic adab, yet you display none of your own. I am well aware of Islamic adab dear sir, and I have never read an article about Muslims by a Muslim so lacking in adab as yours. I, therefore, see it as my duty to point out to your readers and to you your failings in said article. And it is with Islamic adab in mind that I have asked you to apologize to those you have wronged and offended. I am glad you finally referred to the Minneapolis Star Tribune article by Katherine Kersten written about this matter because your article is a mirror image of hers. I am very familiar with the article and I suspected while reading yours that you gathered most of your information from it. Katherine Kersten is known to bash Muslims in her columns and is referred to as an extreme right winger by right wingers themselves. She does not have credibility within her own community. I will not attack the character of individuals you mention in your last response to me, but you and Katherine Kersten both misrepresent Mr. Omar Jamal's position in the Somali Community. You use Kersten's quote of him when he says that MAS has an "Arab agenda" when in fact the MAS leadership in Minnesota, the chapter involved in this matter, serves more Somalis and non-Arabs than Arabs. The MAS-Minnesota leadership has a Somali as it's leading Sheikh and Islamic scholar and it includes one Somali and one Bangladeshi among the top three of its leadership. The other is Arab, but Omar Jamal's statement about an Arab agenda is laughable when you simply consider the heirarchy of MAS in Minnesota and look at who it primarily serves. Furthermore, if the majority of Somalis oppose MAS as he states, why do they use its services more than any other group in the state and why would they encourage the Metropolitan Airports Commission to contact MAS to negotiate on their behalf. Omar Jamal is well known in the Somali community and surely they could have requested his help initially, but they did not. This should speak volumes to you and Kersten and objective observers. Mr. Jamal only became involved after the fact. Regarding your reference to Katherine Kersten's reference to Mr. Samatar, he is an expert on Somali Society as Kersten states. He is not an expert on Islamic jurisprudence. Yet Kersten asks him for his religious opinion on a religious ruling. This would be like someone writing an article on the Catholic Church's position on homosexuality and rather than using a source who is an expert on Catholicism, the reporter chooses a Sociology professor who says he knows that there are many gay Catholics. His point is material, but not relevant to the issue. The same holds true for Mr. Samatar's comment. Indeed there may not be a history of this in Somali cultural practice, but that in itself does not make it halal and as an expert on a culture, he should recognize this. Many of us are from immigrant families. And many Muslim immigrant families to America only embraced Islam fully after leaving their native land. I know many people from many countries who followed the culture of their native lands when they were there and only began to differentiate between their nation's culture and Islamic practice when they came to the U.S. So the idea that Somali cab drivers transported alcohol carrying passengers in Somalia does not negate the fact that they now recognize that it is haram and want to stop engaging in the practice. And I will point out again, it was these cab drivers and the Airports Commission who requested MAS involvement so the idea that MAS is trying to impose certain beliefs or a hidden agenda is false. I ask you to contact the Airports Commission itself and ask. And it is a sad fact of journalism that if I want to report a story from a certain angle, I can do so easily by quoting the proper sources. This is exactly what Kersten did by asking an expert on Somali culture to interpret Islamic law for her. Rather than question whether MAS has an agenda, one is left to question the agenda of Mr. Samatar, Mr. Jamal, Ms. Kersten and by association, you. The impression I get is that you did nothing more than read Kersten's article and subsequently write your own opinion piece, which leads one to question your credibility. Or did you actually conduct a poll of Minnesota Muslims when you stated, "most Muslims of Minnesota will tell you that indeed the fatwa is without merit"? I did not receive my phone call asking me about the fatwa if indeed you conducted a poll. I suspect you did not, so please do not speak on behalf of "most Muslims of Minnesota", we can speak for ourselves. I have asked you many pointed questions in my posts and replies to you. You have not responded to them. I suspect that you have no intention of addressing my points which call your article's credibility into question or you would have responded by now.
Dr. Khan,
Thanks for an insightful article. I live in Minnesota and I echo your sentiments. This edict was the last thing we need when the Islamophobia is on the rise. I forwarded the link to your blog to many of my friends and each one of them came back with a positive feedback.
Keep up the good work
Regards
Yasmeen
Thanks Sr. Yasmeen,
I am very grateful to the dozens of emails I have received in support, specially from MN. I encourage Muslims to stand up to the bullying by MAS. Even Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt has recognized the emptiness of their claims and issued a statement disassociating itself from MAS's Fatwa and the politics that drives it.
9:39 PM
I was proud when my fellow Islamic residents refused to do abortions. That is taking a stand, refusing to do an evil deed.
But not carrying a seeing eye dog? Isn't that a sin against charity?
If you are a taxi driver, you are performing a service. Your job is not to help people sin, but to transport them. So you transport people with dogs, drunks coming home from bars, homosexuals, etc.
If you can't perform the action because it is against your morality, you can either change your job or ask to work where your beliefs can be accomedated (e.g. daytime taxi for the elderly going to doctors etc.)
Americans accomadate religion. But you don't chose a job where you constantly have to act against your faith and then whine when they can't do it.
Which is why I became a family doctor instead of an Obstetrician...
Second comment:
There seems to be a question about privately owned taxis refusing to carry certain things. This may or may not be legal under anti discrimination laws.(i.e. refusing a seeing eye dog is discrimination against the handicapped. Refusing to carry a drunk may not be. Refusing to carry a flaming queen may be illegal in MSP but not in Tulsa, etc.)
But most taxi drivers, like my cousin, don't own their own cab but work for a company. The company in the US can make provisions for religion, (i.e. assigning the driver to do another type of transport e.g. at hospitals rather than airports) but I don't know if a driver, who signed a contract that does not have a conscience clause, can refuse to do so. They gave up that right when they signed the contract.
Boinky,
I agree with some of what you state, but respectfully disagree with other points in your two posts. First, you state that you are against abortion and even chose a practice in medicine that would allow you to practice without compromising your religious beliefs. I gather that you did this because abortion is against Islam except in extreme cases. I would like to point out that there is a clear Haddith that prohibits the transportation or distribution of alcohol, thereby making it haram as well. So why do you support those who would not perform abortions, but not those who would not transport alcohol? Especially if declining to transport passengers carrying alcohol would not cause any inconvenience to passengers under an agreed to arrangement that would provide cabs immediately based on a coding system that the Airport commission accepted. Your point about refusing a blind passenger with a seeing eye dog is well taken and the driver who did this was blatantly wrong and should be disciplined. Furthermore, fears about drivers refusing homosexuals and other passengers that they have biases against are a completely separate issue. Articles like the ones in USA Todayand the Minneapolis Star Tribune as well as Br. Khan's have played on those fears by reporting a lot of misinformation and lies. If a cab driver refuses a blind person because they have a seeing eye dog with them or a homosexual or anyone that they have a bias against , that driver should be disciplined and even relieved of their job if the Airport Commission and Owner of the cab company think it is necessary because refusing passengers on these grounds is discriminatory and should not be tolerated. Nor is it prohibited in Islam to carry these passengers. This brings me to my point. It is not haram to carry these passengers, but it is haram to transport alcohol just like it is haram to perform abortions in most cases. We can debate whether one is more serious than the other and this would be a meaningful debate. However, Br. Khan has avoided such a debate by reporting lies and misrepresenting the positions of MAS, the cab drivers and even the Airport Commission. I would ask you or anyone reading this port one question. Why has he avoided this debate? If his position is that of strength, why has he not responded to my or brother Hany's points in previous posts? We can respectfully disagree about an issue, but the manner in which we conduct any debate can have serious ramifications for our Ummah and how we are perceived, especially if one's position is based on a gross misrepresentation of the truth as is the case with br. Khan.
Br. Khan, since this is your blog, perhaps you know why many of my posts and those of others have been changed to an anonymous source. A bit odd, don't you think?
Yesterday, google changed the technology on all blogs, creating a disaster for me. I use blogs for my classes and now I have trouble grading some students for their postings since it has turned some entries to anonymous, see for yourself: http://www.ijtihad.org/Arab-Israeli
Sorry this is not some conspiracy theory to avoid debating you.
Whether you call yourself Khalid or Anon does not really matter since we hardly know who your are.
I am not responding to you because I am in discussions with Dr. Omeish [the national President of MAS] and Imam Bray [who BTW spoke at my Islamophobia conference on monday at Brookings]. They have both assured me that [1] people in MN do not speak for MAS and [2] that MAS is not in the business of fatwas. I have agreed to comment further on the matter only after the MAS national shura has finished deliberating on the issue.
I made my case in the article [whch BTW is now being published even overseas in Muslim countries] and you have not refuted my references from the Quran.. a famous hadith says, is the best argument you have in defense of the Fatwa.
Why don't you post the original text of the fatwa itself here so others can see its merits for themselves.
So we are clear, I am not a conspiracy theorist. But, perhaps you suffer from some paranoia that causes you to get defensive when I simply point out that something is wrong on your blog.
Now, to the more important matter. For a so-called scholar, you certainly do not read carefully. You say I have not refuted your argument and then you attempt to pit the Quran against a Haddith. They do not exist so that we may pick and choose between the two for our benefit. They compliment each other rather than contradict each other as you come close to suggesting on more than one occassion. There are many things that are not mentioned in the Quran that are part of Islam or that are haram. Your flawed logic would suggest that if something is not mentioned in the Quran, we can interpret it for ourselves as we see fit. There is in fact a Haddith in Ibn Maajah that prohibits transporting alcohol and shows how serious dealing with alcohol can be:
“God’s curse falls on ten groups of people who deal with alcohol. The one who distills it, the one for whom it has been distilled, the one who drinks it, the one who transports it, the one to whom it has been brought, the one who serves it, the one who sells it, the one who utilizes money from it, the one who buys it and the one who buys it for someone else.” This Haddith compliments the prohibition from drinking alcohol in the Quran. The fact that you do not see this speaks volumes louder than any words I or anyone can add. But this is not the only argument that you have failed to respond to. You have failed to respond to the perception that you plagiarized your article from the Star Tribune. You have failed to respond to the charge that you blatantly lied by stating that the cab drivers "resorted to imposing their beliefs on others as soon as they got a majority". You have failed to repond to a second lie in your article when you stated that "most Muslims of Minnesota will tell you that indeed the fatwa is without merit". You have failed to respond to a third lie by completely misrepresenting the relationship between the cab drivers and MAS in this matter. For those who doubt that your article is laced with lies and misrepresentations of the facts, they need just look at the role you claim the Muslim Brotherhood plays in this matter. You were forced to post a link to their statement that they had nothing to do with the fatwa nor anything to do with MAS-MN to save yourself further embarrassment about your claims of their role. Now, you inadvertently admit not doing the necessary research for your article by twice asking me for a copy of the MAS Fatwa prohibiting transporting alcohol. This Fatwa is the whole basis for your article. And you have not read it!! How can you write an article giving an opinion on something you have not read? You have already admitted a factual error about the relationship between MAS and the Muslim Brotherhood. The only relationship between them, it turns out, exists in the imaginations of the Minneapolis Star Tribune and you. You now admit you have not read the fatwa. Yet you write an entire article about it(it can also be read in the Minneapolis Star Tribune's October 26th edition)and proudly boast that it is being published in Muslim countries that conveniently don't receive the Minneapolis Star Tribune. For those who want to see the original article, they can go to www.startribune.com and click on columnists, under columnists, you can select Katherine Kersten and go to her 10/26/06 article about the Airport Taxi situation. People should also be aware that Br. Khan is a fellow for the conservative think tank, the Brookings Institution. According to the Wall Street Journal, CBS News and Fortune Magazine, the Brookings Institution is backed by corporate funding, including donations from the military and oil industries, and Brookings has long had a conservative, right-wing orientation. As far back as the mid-'80s, Fortune magazine was approvingly noting that "Brookings Tilts Right."
I mention this because it gives proper context for Br. Khan's position. In this era of Islamophobia, conservatives are trying to "westernize" Islam. And according to their own action points, they believe the best strategy to accomplish this is to enact change from within. This brings us to br. Khan. As a Muslim, he writes an article attacking an Islamic organization which was asked by the Airports Commission in Minneapolis to help and they mediate a resolution where all are happy. Public backlash appeared only after false information was reported by people including Br. Khan who clearly has a bias. The Airport Commission itself stated that the backlash was because of false information. Are you waiting to complete your high level meetings before responding to this too Br. Khan? As for my identity, I'm a Muslim living in Minnesota. That is really all and more than you need to know. I have no vested interest in this. I don't drive a cab and I don't carry alcohol in my luggage. I simply have an interest in people knowing the truth, which is something you clearly have a problem with. As a Muslim, I always want to see fellow Muslims succeed and do well. Frankly, while I don't sense that you are embarrassed by your article brother Khan, I am embarrassed for you. I have devoted enough time to this. And while it is unlikely that I will devote any more time to this topic since brother Khan ignores my relevant points, he can rest assured that continued lies will be exposed. People can research my claims and judge for themselves. Allah knows best.
In Fairness to my Muslim Brothers and Sisters who want to judge for themselves based on the truth, the Haddith I quoted is Al-Tirmidhi #2776, Narrated by Anas ibn Malik and trasmitted by Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah. It clearly prohibits the transporting of alcohol:"Allah's Messenger,PBUH, cursed ten people in connection with wine: the wine-presser, the one who has it pressed, the one who drinks it, the one who conveys(transports) it, the one to whom it is conveyed, the one who serves it, the one who sells it, the one who benefits from the price paid for it, the one who buys it, and the one for whom it is bought."
The role of MAS was to explain this to the Airport Commission when they were asked. I repeat, they were "asked" by the Airport Commission. The Commission then said, let's sit down and see if we can resolve this because we have a lot of drivers who are refusing passengers based on their beliefs. They found a fair resolution in the form of a color coding system. Taxi starters, the people who direct passengers to a specific cab at the airport, directed customers to cabs based on this system if alcohol was clearly visible in their bags. If it was not, they were directed to any cab and drivers would not be allowed to ask about luggage contents. So you have a win/win arrangement with customer satisfaction being top priority.
This would have been the end of it, but people like Br. Khan muddied the situation for agendas only they can explain. This is a simple matter of Muslims trying to earn a living without compromising their Islamic beliefs. Brother Khan muddies the situation by asking us to imagine returning from a trip to Iraq carrying a bottle of alcohol and being refused a cab. Muslim readers can't imagine this silly scenario because we do not drink. Non-Muslim readers can't either because most haven't been to Iraq. The only potential readers who can fit his profile and possibly imagine such a scenario would be alcohol drinking, neo-conservatives affiliated with a conservative think tank like the Brookings Institution and/or the present administration who played some role in the invasion of Iraq so they have, therefore, been to Iraq and back. Perhaps they needed a drink after witnessing the carnage their agenda wreaked on the innocent citizens of Iraq. It seems that these are the very people Brother Khan is catering to in his article.
Mr. Khalid,
Such lengthy rant's to defend a Fatwa which even the Muslim brotherhood deems incorrect.
Since you will not take the opinion of a Fellow of the oldest, most influential and most prestigious think tank in the World, Brookings Institution -- you might take the judgement of the Muslim Brotherhood, the parent of MAS.
"Dr. Mohamed Habib, the first Deputy Chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood, affirmed that Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do whatsoever with what these Muslim cab drivers believe or view mistakenly as religious decree. Dr. Habib Said “Muslims must respect and comply with the laws and regulations of the countries they live in and be a good example for their fellow citizens” .
http://www.ikhwanweb.com/Home.asp?zPage=Systems&System=PressR&Press=Show&Lang=E&ID=5582
In case you missed the point, here is the relevant section: "Muslim Brotherhood has nothing to do whatsoever with what these Muslim cab drivers believe or view mistakenly as religious decree" .. mistakenly assume as religious decree...
Now is the MB also a rightwing anti-Islamic think tank since it disagrees with MAS's Fatwa?
You cite a hadith from tirmidhi.
When it refers to those who transport alcohol, it refers to those who are part of the production and marketing cycle. The cab drivers are not part of the alcohol producing and marketing cycle, they are in the business of serving travellers.
I am also firmly convinced that the Quran abrogates hadith anyday, in 4:36 the Quran instructs us to treat travellers with kindness and therefore a Shura ruling based on both Quran and Sunna, will use 4:36 and 2:256 to abrogate any hadith and rule.
It is also a prominent Islamic jurisprudential rule to pick the lesser of the two evils, transporting people carrying alcohol or contributing to rise of Islamophobia in the US.
Post the fatwa, why are you so shy about it. My article is part of this discussion and everyone who comes here can read it, let everyone read the Fatwa and they can see how thin it is.
Br. Khan,
Your response to my numerous mentions of your lies is to copy and paste text which I have already read, just like you copied and pasted your article from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, which I also had already read. If the Muslim Brotherhood is the parent of MAS, another of your lies, why did they allow this to happen in the first place? And if they were not informed about it initially, why have they not instructed MAS to retract it? Perhaps because there is no connection between the two, except in the minds of right wing propoganda machines and their puppets. The Muslim Brotherhood is entitled to their opinion. However, I suspect their opinion is based on a falsification of the facts as people like you present them. Moreover, no person I am aware of is "shy" about sharing the fatwa. I am simply choosing to help you highlight the fact that you form opinions and write(copy and paste) articles about subjects you have not even read and researched yourself. As a so-called scholar and teacher, is this what you teach your students? What credibility do you have if you catch one of your students plagiarizing a paper?
Your statement about being convinced that the Quran abrogates Hadith begs a certain question. Do you know the definition of the word abrogate? If you do and still believe your statement, you have bigger problems than your embarrassment of an article.
Mr. Khalid, your discourse is a good advertisement for the kind of Islam you practice and preach -- angry, viscious, venomous and intolerant.
Another sweeping conclusion and blanket statement by you. In this instance, it is because I exposed your lies and clear bias. I am only intolerant of those who try to distort the truth and have no regard for it. Again, you ignored my points and responded to NONE of them. You have modified the blog so that you can censor it. In addition to your other qualifications and qualities, you seem to also be a champion of free speech. Perhaps it is time to create a new blog devoted to monitoring lies and misrepresentations about Islam and Muslims. You have provided enough material to sustain such a blog.
AA Dr. Khan,
I came to your blog through your bio on UD's website.
In the matter addressing cab drivers, I say it is up to them to decide who they allow in their cabs and who they do not. Its more of a safety issue, than a religious one. Would you let someone in your cab who was carrying a loaded weapon? If there are restaurants prohibiting smoking/drinking, then why cant cab drivers' ask for the same courtesy? Why must every issue be a religious issue? Why must people make Islam out to be the big bad wolf when really its common sense?
I am against assimilation, but there is a great deal of finesse involved in dealing diplomatically with people of different cultural/backgrounds. It can be done, and it can be done peacefully. If we ask for religious tolerance, then we must be tolerant of other religions as well.
Yes, the spread of Islam is every Muslim's duty, however, the best way to bring someone to Islam is through positive actions, not mandates and harsh words and certainly not through fighting. Islam is a peaceful religion.
The Prophet (saw) did business with people of the Jewish faith, did he not? Shame on us if after all our intelligence, education and civilization, time is the only thing that has moved forward... leaving us, socially inept.
Dr. Khan, I shall continue to read your blog, iA. I hope this is not offensive to anyone who reads it. I was born and raised in America with Islamic ideals and principles and conduct my life as best as I can accordingly. I am constantly learning more about Islam, always open to discussions and other viewpoints, and I hope insha'Allah we can find some way to make the world a better place for future generations. If not, then our existence was all for nothing and everything is a waste of time. I will have to read your book on bridging the gap between civilizations, Dr. Khan. I am a member of an organization known as CAMP (Council for the Advancement of Muslim Professionals) and we are forming an alliance with Civilizations of Exchange & Cooperation Foundation to send Ambassadors of Peace to Middle Eastern countries next April insha'Allah to do just as your book says, 'bridge the gap' and initiate communication.
you a forgetting one thing mr. Muqtedar Khan,
This is USA, everyone has choice to do what they belive. If some taxi drivers decide to define rules for their taxis, let them do it. It is none of your business.
It you who is actually imposing on what you belive the islam is.
Nadeem
Mr. Nadeem, this is indeed America, but you are wrong when you say "everyone has choice to do what they belive"...for one you will not be allowed to practice polygamy even if you believe in it, nor can you practice child marriage or for that matter you could not kill your underage child if he or she decided to convert from Islam to say Budhism -- no matter how profoundly you might believe that Islam advocates death for the apostates.
Yes, there is freedom of religion in the US but it is curtailed in the interest of public safety, health and if the believes themselves are cruel or inhuman.
A Muslim cab company in Chicago is now being sued because a cab driver would not give a blind man with a dog a ride, saying that his religion does not allow him to allow dogs in the car.. well I am sure the court will not look upon it favorably.
At the airport, cabs are public transport, refusing to drive a priest carrying wine for sacrement is like refusing to fly an Imam because he said Allahu Akbar, airlines too are private companies in the US but they too cannot do whatever they believe in.
Also I am not imposing my Islam on anyone. There is no penalty for disagreeing with me, I am merely suggesting that Islam is a religion of compassion and kindness to all, feel free to disagree.
I also pray that no one fires you, or refuses to fly you because he or she believes that Muslims are terrorists and that Islam teaches violence and intolerance. According to CAIR surveys 46% Americans believe that Islam teaches violence and intolerance.
Well here is the latest on the cab drivers issue. The airport authorities are planning to revoke the licenses of the cab drivers who refuse service for reasons other than safety:
http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S21055.html?cat=1
I have read through the various and long-winded (some) blogs. Summary: This is the U. S. By the Constitution, religion and state are separate. We are all bound by laws (religion neutral) of the state. Taxi cabs are licensed by the state and are bound by state law. They are not allowed to discriminate and must pick up all law abiding people. Alcohol is not illegal. Neither are seeing-eye dogs (see the ADA). If people do not want to obey these laws, don't drive a taxi. Period. If you want to live in a theocracy, don't choose to live in the United States. End of case.
VICTORIA
while br. khan is right in saying he did not literally state that muslims are imposing shariah on other americans, the title contained the words "muslims be allowed to impose islam"
and the word sharia figures prominently in the beginning of the article, and people will fill in the blams in their own heads.
so it seems to have made a judgement before it explores the content of the story.
br. khan your point seems to be that the greater good of not spreading islamophobia is subordinated to the spiritual welfare and will of the drivers.
maybe an oversimplification, but valid.
yes, taxis are a form of (priviledged)public transportation.
so are buses.
one cannot get onto a bus with alchohol in evidence.
and taxis are privately leased from companies (unless privated owned by the medallion holder).
so they are indeed private businesses, and are the same as restaurants or other businesses.
every cab you get in states clearly behind the driver that they do indeed reserve the right to refuse service to a customer at their own discretion.
its not an issue that will affect you personally br. khan.
but it does weigh heavily on the minds of some honest brothers who are jsut trying to feed their families and be good muslims.
i have been in situations where as a waitress i have had to do some fancy footwork to serve my customers alcohol.
i would have to get others to do it, as i wear hijab and it was too close for my personal comfort- also it is extremely difficult for me to even find a job, i dont have an education, have been working all my life, and i dont fit the stereotype- being white with blue eyes.
so, quitting wasnt an option at the time.
these are things that really do affect people on a day to day basis, as ive had many many conversations with cabbies about this very issue at my local mosque.
as the criteria was if alcohol is in evidence- service could be refused- anyone who has ever been to a cabstand at an airport(especially o'hare- and i have been there) knows that day or night at any hour there are many many cabs willing to transport anyone.
so points 4 and 5 are inaccurate.
there are always many cabs and no on eis ever left waiting at the airport, cabs wait in long lines for literally hours to get customers- not the other way around as you suggest.
i feel you did a small disservice to the blue collar muslims in your willingness to characterize the story in a somewhat inflammatory and critical fashion of your brothers, who while they may not be proffesionals, still are deserving of some show of solidarity.
you definitely could have been kinder, and ususally your articles are quite unifying, but i feel this one is set up to polarize.
also, no priests anywhere carry their own sacramental wine.
there is always an abundant supply in the sacristy available for any traveling priest to utilize.
if a priest is carrying wine, it is for his own enjoyment.
there are many people in the church whose job it is to take care of those mundane issues. it is definitely not in the realm of priestly duties.
(strange hypothetical).
the fact is america is an alcohol fueled society, and in this instance- it really is disharmonious with islam.
jehovahs witnesses actually do not get blood transfusions, which is a nuisance to health care emergency providers- but there is a saline solution that in 90% of the cases is more than adequate.
so there are times when a persons religious beliefs are accomadated in a respectful way.
i didnt mean to go on so, but id like to point out to the people posting here that as a revert to islam, i have noticed a phenomenon that i didnt experience as a christian in america.
this issue really points to a deeper divide between the educate and wealthier muslims who emigrate here, and the many poor uneducated muslims who come here and do the service work.
for instance- at the Muslim Community Center in Chicago (where a great many somali, sudanese, algerian, moroccan etc) drivers worship), ive noticed a great disconnect between the amounts of monies distributed and spent on the congregants.
i sat in the yearly financial committee meeting and saw 150,000 (out of 200,000 budgeted for the following year) taken from the sadaqa account and put into the wealthy suburban and all pakistani muslim elementary school.
when i asked why there was no computer lab for the children of the locals who actually used the mosque all the time, nor education programs for the mahgreb peoples who are the ones who are at the mosque every day, i was told that there are provisions. but i was there , took notes, and saw the entire budget laid out and appropriated.
neddless to say, i was never allowed to attend a budget meeting again. also, when it cam etime to vote on the budget in the public forum, the majority of the quorum members did not show up, so no vote could be taken.
of course, there was a dinner, and the folks who showed up for the vote and dinner didnt return for the actual vote, when the quorum DID show up-
i only say this because there are only muslims in here, and this post is over a year old, and i know no one will come back to look at it.
but i am distressed at the inequality i see and think perhaps the poorer and weaker elements of the american muslim society as a whole were possibly thrown to the lions a little bit to make the professional muslims look more palatable to american culture in general.
so if you really want to dissuade them from this acton, give their children computers, and assimilate them more thoroughly into muslim businesses- and not as a labor pool that is easily abused, or misled by their own economic insecurities.
peace
I concur with the viewpoints mentioned in this article. Taxi cabs are a form of public transportation and although they are similar to public buses, individuals using their services should be permitted to carry items such as alcohol. Alcohol is not an illegal drug by any means, provided the user is of a legal drinking age. Although there are numerous instances of it having devastating effects on people, it is commonly a large part of peoples' culture.
I do not think it's right to restrict the desires and activities of those just traveling in taxi cabs, as long as they're not in any way disrupting of or causing harm to the driver directly. Although I understand the desire of taxi drivers to instill their cultural values in their work, I feel that not permitting travelers to carry alcohol is overstepping their boundaries in a sense and should be modified. It wouldn't be in the country's best interest to have this new regulation create any unnecessary negative repurcussions in the future.
Post a Comment
<< Home