Muslim cab drivers refuse service to passengers with alcohol, dogs
There are some fights that I wish Muslim-Americans wouldn’t pick. Muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis (who are mostly of Somali descent) are apparently refusing service to passengers who are accompanied by dogs (including disabled passengers with guide dogs) or carrying alcohol. Commissioners of the Minneapolis airport (from which a significant portion of taxi passengers originate) are considering suspending drivers who refuse service to passengers on these grounds. In my opinion, this is a foolish and dangerous battle for these cabbies to be fighting, for a number of reasons.
Firstly, I’m no sheikh, but it seems to me that there are no simple, unambiguous Islamic rules relating to the issues in question. The majority position on dogs in Sunni jurisprudence relates to the impurity of their saliva, hair, and skin, not their mere presence in a particular place (except the home, which is not at issue here). Typically, a taxi driver never comes into contact with his passenger’s dog. And even if he does, each of the three Sunni madhabs (Islamic schools of jurisprudence) that prohibit contact with dogs allows exemptions for hunting and guard dogs, a category that guide dogs presumably fall into. Furthermore, the Maliki madhab does not consider any part of the dog to be impure and does not prohibit contact with them. The cabbies’ refusal to transport passengers carrying alcohol apparently derives from ahadith (oral traditions of the Prophet Muhammad, SAW) that appear to prohibit not just the consumption but also the sale, production, and distribution of alcohol. However, scholars in some Muslim countries that purport to enforce Islamic Law (such as Saudi Arabia) allow non-Muslims to sell and purchase alcohol and carry it aboard flights (which are presumably flown by Muslim pilots). Even in pre-modern times, Muslim rulers (with the blessing of the ‘ulema) traditionally allowed Christian minorities to import wine for use in their religious ceremonies.
Secondly, any litigation these cabbies pursue might set a bad precedent that could make it difficult for Muslims fighting legitimate cases of discrimination. Legally, these cabbies have very little chance of convincing a court that being allowed to refuse service to passengers is a “reasonable accommodation” of their religious beliefs. If the cabbies’ fight actually makes it into an appeals court and is struck down, the court’s opinion could subsequently be used by an unscrupulous employer against a Muslim fighting for the right to pray or keep a beard/hijab at work. Each legal battle Muslims pursue in the courts can’t be viewed in isolation. Our efforts to preserve our rights to practice our religion at work or school must be conducted within an overall strategy, and picking a fight you have no hope of winning is a pretty foolish strategy.
Thirdly, one of the most important battles Muslims are currently fighting is in the hearts and minds of our neighbors and colleagues. Attempting to impose our rules on others reinforces perceptions that Muslims are intolerant fanatics. Worse, it potentially gives publicity to the whacko bigots who insist that Muslim-Americans are evil infiltrators seeking to implement Shari’ah in America. Our community can ill afford to give our enemies more ammunition during a time of intensifying scrutiny of Islam and Muslims. The Minneapolis cabbies and those who counsel them would do well to weigh these concerns before pressing forward with this ill-advised fight.