Blind woman's 'Unclean' guide dog banned by Muslim cab driver

[Nemesis6]

Airport Drops Muslim Cabbie Compromise

MINNEAPOLIS (AP) -- Airport officials gave up Tuesday on a proposal to meant to ensure that travelers carrying liquor don't get stranded at the curb by Muslim cabbies who refuse to transport alcohol.

Hundreds of the taxi drivers who serve Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport are Muslims, and many of them, citing Islamic prohibitions against alcohol, refuse to knowingly take passengers who are carrying see-through bags of duty-free liquor, wine boxes from the Napa Valley and the like.

The Metropolitan Airports Commission had been working with the Muslim American Society and taxi companies on a pilot program under which drivers who won't take riders carrying alcohol would put a different top light on their cabs. That would have allowed airport employees to direct these travelers to willing drivers.

But the Metropolitan Airports Commission said the public response was overwhelmingly negative, and some taxi companies feared that people opposed to the system would switch to other forms of ground transport instead of cabs.

Blind people's seeing eye dogs, transsexuals, people with alcohol, and if they knew about it, probably homosexuals, too.

 

[CptStern]

Heil Allah...er, I mean amen.



I see.



Then what is it to do with? Israel maybe? George Bush? The Illuminati?

Edit: eish, NOW you go and edit...

yes my browser ate my post ..luckily I could retrieve it

oh and you're attempt to redicule me will come back to bite you in your ass ..especially because I've proved my point

 

[repiV]

I meant within this thread




because it is not:

“A dog can be owned for purposes such as the following:

2. A trained dog as a guide. This would be the case if a person is blind and he/she has no choice but to keep a dog for essential services. In this case, it is permissible for him/her to keep a dog inside the house once it has been trained for service, but it is still recommended that the dog have its own sleeping arrangement.

besides the fact that they advise you not sleep with your dog guide dogs ARE premissible under islamic teaching

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/...h-Ask_Scholar/FatwaE/FatwaE&cid=1119503547226

http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/...bility of Keeping Hunting Dogs and Watch Dogs

http://www.drc-gb.org/newsroom/news_releases/2002/no_ban_on_guide_dogs_under_isl.aspx

So, you consider what some website says are "Islamic teachings" to be a more accurate representation of Islam than what Muslims do in the name of their religion? Right...

he excercised his freewill, not his religion's

He exercised his free will, in the name of his religion.

again it's an example of someone following their own convictions: non-Muslim are not in any way prohibited from buying/consuming/carrying alcohol

Um, no. It's an example of someone refusing to carry passengers with alcohol because their religion forbids it. That's abundantly obvious.

please I live in one of the most ethnically diverse cities in the world (roughly half are immigrants or children of immigrants) dont give me bullshit about cultures being subverted ..because I'm not speaking chinese or going to a freaking synagogue on the sabbath ..although I do enjoy a good stir fry and latkas every now and then

I live in the most ethnically diverse city in the world. I live a short distance away from the largest Hindu temple in the world outside India. Really, what are you trying to accomplish by pointing that out?
Other cultures don't try to subvert ours. Only Islam does that, as I have pointed out many times. Funny that you avoided mentioning Islam in that little rant.

as only you see it ..hysterics imho

Hardly. It's a classic leaf out of the lefty playbook. All groups must be equal, no matter what the reality is. Unless they're Americans, who are responsible for all the world's evil. Yes, it's a generalisation. Yes, it's also true to a large extent.

so islam is on the same magnitude of evilness as the Nazis? ...and you're saying you're not prone to hysterics? .......oooooooooooooh-kaaay :rolling:

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's pretty evil in any case. Have you ever actually READ the Qu'ran? The Bible actually seems good by comparison.
In any case, that isn't the point anyway. It's evil.

so by your logic jesus was responsible for the crusades, the inquisition, predestination/tithing, pedophelia, and Ernest ****ing Angley?

Uh, no. Although Mohammed was a rapist, a child molester, a murderer, a thief and a terrorist.

Ignoring a Common Cause logical yadda yadda

Whatever...

:upstare: more hysterics ...I've proven the guide dog thing was an individual choice

No shit, of course it was an individual choice. An individual choice based on following his religion. To claim that Islam is not responsible is almost as absurd as some of the crap Solaris comes out with.

 

[repiV]

yes my browser ate my post ..luckily I could retrieve it

oh and you're attempt to redicule me will come back to bite you in your ass ..especially because I've proved my point

You haven't proven your point at all. All you've proven is that you consider theory to be more important than reality.

 

[CptStern]

So, you consider what some website says are "Islamic teachings" to be a more accurate representation of Islam than what Muslims do in the name of their religion? Right...

did you intentionally skip this part?

Recent [2002] guidance from the Shariat Council has confirmed that trained assistance dogs can accompany disabled people into restaurants or taxis managed or driven by Muslims. With two million Muslims in Great Britain, many running businesses in the service sector, this represents an important ruling with potentially far-reaching effects

http://www.drc-gb.org/newsroom/news_releases/2002/no_ban_on_guide_dogs_under_isl.aspx

He exercised his free will, in the name of his religion.

that's a contradiction

Um, no. It's an example of someone refusing to carry passengers with alcohol because their religion forbids it. That's abundantly obvious.

nope, again there is no law that forbids non muslims from carrying alcohol

I live in the most ethnically diverse city in the world.

no you dont, I do

According to the United Nations, Toronto is the most ethnically diverse city in the world.

http://www.utoronto.ca/student.exchange/utprofile/toronto.html
http://www.economist.com/cities/displayobject.cfm?obj_id=4312205
http://www1.oise.utoronto.ca/cwse/humanrights_07.htm

I live a short distance away from the largest Hindu temple in the world outside India. Really, what are you trying to accomplish by pointing that out? Other cultures don't try to subvert ours. Only Islam does that, as I have pointed out many times.

hysterics ..guide dogs and alcohol is hardly "subverting"

Funny that you avoided mentioning Islam in that little rant.

yes because there are no muslims in toronto ..have I mentioned my muslim secretary? you still havent advised me on whether I should stab her or not because one day her religion may be a threat to my country

Hardly. It's a classic leaf out of the lefty playbook.

oh stfu with your idiotic lefty label ..have I once referred to you as a right winged nazi loving goon? really it's poor debating

All groups must be equal, no matter what the reality is. Unless they're Americans, who are responsible for all the world's evil. Yes, it's a generalisation. Yes, it's also true to a large extent.

hysterics bordering on paranoid delusional ..all groups are not created equal specifically right winged, conservative, religious, racists looneys

Perhaps, perhaps not. It's pretty evil in any case. Have you ever actually READ the Qu'ran? The Bible actually seems good by comparison.
In any case, that isn't the point anyway. It's evil.

oooohhh it's teh evils :upstare:

and yes I have the bible is full of genocide this/sacrifice that ....every ****ing religion is a sore spot on mankind ..they're idiotic but they're certainly not evil (which is in essence a religious/moral term)

Uh, no. Although Mohammed was a rapist, a child molester, a murderer, a thief and a terrorist.

then why is it true for the religion of islam? how is the religion itself responsible for the cabbies actions if the religion itself DOES NOT phrohibit guide dogs?

meh that can describe practically any number of religious figures ..I mean god raped Mary cuz she sure as hell didnt get pregnant by herself ..you're really starting to border on the rediculous now

No shit, of course it was an individual choice. An individual choice based on following his religion.

you're flipflopping again ..what's it gonna be? is the religion responsible (no because it is NOT prohibited ..I cant styress this enough) or the individual who just pretty much does whatever the hell he wants and uses his religion as an excuse

To claim that Islam is not responsible is almost as absurd as some of the crap Solaris comes out with.

wtf? have you been paying attention?
I've just PROVED without a shadow of a doubt that guide dogs are NOT prohibited ..hysterics on your part wont change that fact

You haven't proven your point at all. All you've proven is that you consider theory to be more important than reality.

right right right so in other words you're saying that individual interpretation of religious edicts take precedent over the religion itself ..now you're just talking crazy talk ..using your warped logic people can pretty much do anyrthing and use some obscure religious statement to justify their actions ...riiiiiiight

 

[repiV]

did you intentionally skip this part?



http://www.drc-gb.org/newsroom/news_releases/2002/no_ban_on_guide_dogs_under_isl.aspx

So what?
Obviously a large section of the Muslim community believe otherwise. The world doesn't run on intentions, it runs on results.

that's a contradiction

We all do things for specific reasons. Cause and effect. So is free will just an illusion?

nope, again there is no law that forbids non muslims from carrying alcohol

And where did I make any claim to the contrary?

no you dont, I do


http://www.utoronto.ca/student.exchange/utprofile/toronto.html
http://www.economist.com/cities/displayobject.cfm?obj_id=4312205
http://www1.oise.utoronto.ca/cwse/humanrights_07.htm

Point taken, yet it's still ridiculous to play the "ethnically diverse city" card on someone who lives in London.

hysterics ..guide dogs and alcohol is hardly "subverting"

Did I say it was?
Although, since alcohol is such an integral part of British culture, an anti-alcohol movement could indeed be seen as subverting our culture.

yes because there are no muslims in toronto ..have I mentioned my muslim secretary? you still havent advised me on whether I should stab her or not because one day her religion may be a threat to my country

It's a stupid question. Interesting is your assumption that I am automatically hostile to any Muslim I come into contact with.

oh stfu with your idiotic lefty label ..have I once referred to you as a right winged nazi loving goon? really it's poor debating

By all means, go ahead. I've been called a pinko-commie, simpering leftie, liberal snob, commie, welfare queen, Frenchie lover and whatever the hell else you can think of, but I've never been called a right-wing anything before. It would be a badge of honour.

hysterics bordering on paranoid delusional ..all groups are not created equal specifically right winged, conservative, religious, racists looneys

Nope. It has somehow become consensus that discrimination itself is wrong. We all discriminate, all the time. Without discrimination, our competitive society would collapse. And our kids would be ugly mofos.
Somewhere along the way, "discrimination based on unimportant factors that don't affect the choice at hand" got turned into just plain old "discrimination". To choose is to discriminate.

oooohhh it's teh evils :upstare:

and yes I have the bible is full of genocide this/sacrifice that ....every ****ing religion is a sore spot on mankind ..they're idiotic but they're certainly not evil (which is in essence a religious/moral term)

Why not evil? Religion is the single biggest cause of suffering and horror in this world. You could go so far to say that almost all conflict is driven by it.
Right now, Islam is the worst of them. Christianity had its day, now it's Islam. Although I loathe Christianity almost as much as I do Islam, it's nowhere near as bad right now.

then why is it true for the religion of islam? how is the religion itself responsible for the cabbies actions if the religion itself DOES NOT phrohibit guide dogs?

You see religion as a theoretical, non-negotiable entity. I see it as something living, defined by its followers. If large numbers of Muslims are doing things in the name of Islam, then Islam is at fault.
The Christianity of today is very different to the Christianity of the Middle Ages, but the scriptures are the same. Ever thought of it that way?

meh that can describe practically any number of religious figures ..I mean god raped Mary cuz she sure as hell didnt get pregnant by herself ..you're really starting to border on the rediculous now

Bizarre and obtuse comparison.

you're flipflopping again ..what's it gonna be? is the religion responsible (no because it is NOT prohibited ..I cant styress this enough) or the individual who just pretty much does whatever the hell he wants and uses his religion as an excuse

Religion is not a static entity, as I've already said.

wtf? have you been paying attention?
I've just PROVED without a shadow of a doubt that guide dogs are NOT prohibited ..hysterics on your part wont change that fact

The Qu'ran doesn't mention the veil, but it is something that is rightly associated with Islam, is it not?

right right right so in other words you're saying that individual interpretation of religious edicts take precedent over the religion itself ..now you're just talking crazy talk ..using your warped logic people can pretty much do anyrthing and use some obscure religious statement to justify their actions ...riiiiiiight

Religion is a human construct. What it manifests itself as is what we should be paying attention to, as that is what matters and that is what is happening in the real world. What some guy thought it should be is completely irrelevant.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

You see religion as a theoretical, non-negotiable entity. I see it as something living, defined by its followers. If large numbers of Muslims are doing things in the name of Islam, then Islam is at fault.
The Christianity of today is very different to the Christianity of the Middle Ages, but the scriptures are the same. Ever thought of it that way?

While I would agree Islam has seen its culture manipulated ( as the same goes for the likes of prior and modern Catholicism and Christianity ) or confused, the tennets of the Quran are not exclusively to blame.

The followers? Indeed. A book will never make a choice for a man, no matter how emotionally striking it may be. Looking beyond the book we must see the people putting faith into it, and then, in a cruel reguard defining what faith should be for this religion. And most people, wanting to belong to something as moving as some religions are in this world, would be willing to match any goal set for them.

I don't particularly blame the religions, although my hammpering might read as so. But ultimately, it is the people to blame. Islam may not have changed that much, but for a course of 60 years Islam and Christianity have seen quite a recent peak in terms of cultural conflict. That is, if you are someone who reads the invasion of Iraq as something religious.

 

[99.vikram]

Islam certainly cannot be blamed for one such incident.

Religion in general causes situations like this, where people have to choose between logic and useless obsolete rules.

 

[Tr0n]

Yes relogion does. lololol

 

[99.vikram]

You'll never prove it, Tr0n!!! :E

 

[Tr0n]

I think I'm going to kill you.

 

[delusional]

i think im going to make love with both of you

 

[Aenama]

Islam certainly cannot be blamed for one such incident.

Religion in general causes situations like this, where people have to choose between logic and useless obsolete rules.

qfT

 

[Ome_Vince]

heh, i must have missed something on that story, but i dont see any religious connection between a cab driver not wanting a dirty dog in his cab, and Islam (or religion as a whole lol).

 

[Raziaar]

heh, i must have missed something on that story, but i dont see any religious connection between a cab driver not wanting a dirty dog in his cab, and Islam (or religion as a whole lol).

Unclean is often used in a religious sense to describe things exactly like this...

Pigs are not eaten because they are 'unclean'. It's not just cause they're dirty, thats not why they say it. Its because they're against the religion.


Here... here's some light reading for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_animals

Dogs

Dogs are mentioned in Muslims holy book the Quran several times e.g. in the main story of sura 18 where a dog is a companion of the dwellers of the Cave. The Quran also tells that it is permissible to eat what trained dogs catch (5:4). Nevertheless, many Islamic teachers state dogs should be considered unclean and that Muslims licked by them must perform purification. According to Hadith, anything a dog touches must be washed seven times, the final time in dust[10]. Some religious traditions hold that if a dog passes in front of someone preparing to pray, that it pollutes their purity and negates the prayer.

This view is contested by many modern scholars of the Qu'ran. Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, professor of Islamic Law at UCLA, says this zealous adherence to doctrine led one religious authority to advise a Muslim that his pet dog was evil and should be driven away by cutting off its food and water.[11]

Another exception appears to be made by the Bedouin in the case of the Saluki. They are allowed in the tents and considered special companions. It has been said that the Bedouin will never sell a Saluki, but will give one as a special and precious gift.[12]

 

[Ome_Vince]

lol oeps, i misread the article. Yes i know what unclean animals are in religions.

 

[kirovman]

Since eating bacon is forbidden in the Old Testament, do you goto hell if you're a Christian who eats it?

 

[Nemesis6]

That's the strange part... Pardon me for my rusty knowledge of Christianity, but I'm pretty sure that the Christian doctrine is that you're not allowed to eat pig meat on the Sabbath or the weekend. Otherwise, it should be fine I think.

 

[Solaris]

You should also stone homosexuals.

 

[ríomhaire]

Since eating bacon is forbidden in the Old Testament, do you goto hell if you're a Christian who eats it?

You go to hell because God said not to.

 

[Bull Goose Loony]

also working on the sabbath is punishable by death

 

[Nemesis6]

Bull, that's exactly what this interesting flash movie is about - http://newgrounds.com/portal/view/255060

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I still think, that the very fact we are disputing something as insignificant as a muslim man, on the other side of the world, not allowing a dog into his cab, is not only idiotic, but says alot about how biased and racist the media can be. If a christian man, with exactly same conviction were to do the same thing no one would here about it.

More over, to completely judge the whole muslim community because one guy didnt allow a blind lady with a guide dog into his taxi is ridicoulous. Stop talking about such an insignificant issue and focus on things that are more important.

 

[repiV]

I still think, that the very fact we are disputing something as insignificant as a muslim man, on the other side of the world, not allowing a dog into his cab, is not only idiotic, but says alot about how biased and racist the media can be. If a christian man, with exactly same conviction were to do the same thing no one would here about it.

More over, to completely judge the whole muslim community because one guy didnt allow a blind lady with a guide dog into his taxi is ridicoulous. Stop talking about such an insignificant issue and focus on things that are more important.

Other side of the world? About seven miles away by my estimation...

 

[Nemesis6]

That's the problem, Frenzy - This is not an isolated case. This has happened before, and is still happening.

 

[CptStern]

fearmongering bullshit that appeals to easily swayed (re:guilible) or the on-the-fence-racist/nationalist/those looking for a scapegoat


individuals do not represent the majority. I've already proved countless times that nowhere in the religion of Islam is there restrictions on guide dogs ..even London's Shariat Council said carrying guide dogs is not prohibited

Recent [2002] guidance from the Shariat Council has confirmed that trained assistance dogs can accompany disabled people into restaurants or taxis managed or driven by Muslims. With two million Muslims in Great Britain, many running businesses in the service sector, this represents an important ruling with potentially far-reaching effects

http://www.drc-gb.org/newsroom/news_releases/2002/no_ban_on_guide_dogs_under_isl.aspx

 

[Nemesis6]

There's that "Criticize Islam and you're Islamophobic/racist/nazi" thing that CAIR and other extremist groups like to use to silence critics. And I don't seem to recall that anyone has said that all Muslims are like this.

 

[CptStern]

mid way through this thread there's a few people who pointed at islam as the culprit

and please point out where I said "Criticize Islam and you're Islamophobic/racist/nazi"

There's that "Criticize Islam and you're Islamophobic/racist/nazi" thing that CAIR and other extremist groups like to use to silence critics.

you mean like these fine upstanding groups

dissent = unamerican

commie scum!

would you like ketchup with that?

 

[Angry Lawyer]

You're all mini-Hitlers. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[CptStern]

You're all mini-Hitlers. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

-Angry Lawyer

:O

http://www.kalerab.sk/pic/forum/l/little_hitler_copy_6iv8szp.jpg

 

[kirovman]

Better mini-Hitler than mini....me!

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/ADVG/390~Mini-Me-Goldmember-Posters.jpg

 

[Nemesis6]

Actually I just meant groups like CAIR like the MPAC of Britain and all those "Islamic chartity" organizations.

 

[repiV]

This guy says it well. He's an idiot, but this article is good.


Some sobering lessons from Muslim taxi drivers
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, October 17, 2006

Understandably, those troubled by the contemporary Muslim world point to the amount of gratuitous violence emanating from it and the apparent absence of Muslim anger against it.

In response, Muslim defenders of their faith -- and Western defenders such as Karen Armstrong and John Esposito -- inform us that the terror, suicide and cruelty that emanate from a portion of the Muslim world are all aberrations. We are assured that the average Muslim is as appalled as all other decent people are by Muslims who torture, decapitate and blow up innocent people.

Some recent news items from Britain, Australia and the United States, however, suggest that we can make a more accurate assessment of contemporary Islam by looking beyond Islamic terror and beyond the lack of Muslim opposition to it.

I am referring to news reports not about Muslim terrorists but about the far more mundane group of religious Muslims who happen to be taxi drivers. In Britain and Australia, Muslim taxi drivers refuse to pick up passengers who have a dog with them -- even when the passenger is blind and the dog is a Seeing Eye dog. Nearly all religious Muslims believe that Islam forbids them to come into contact with dogs. Therefore, Muslim taxi drivers will even drive by a blind person standing in the cold, lest they come into contact with the dog.

And in Minneapolis, Minn., Muslim taxi drivers, who make up a significant percentage of taxi drivers in that city, refuse to pick up passengers who have a bottle of wine or other alcoholic beverage with them.

This is significant. We are not talking here about Muslim fanatics or Muslim terrorists, but about decent every day Muslims. And what these practices reveal is something virtually unknown in Judeo-Christian societies -- the imposing of one's religious practices on others.

Now, many of those with a graduate degree in the humanities, and others taught how not to think clearly, will object that religious Christians do exactly this sort of thing when they try to impose their religious views on abortion, for example, on society.

But there is no analogy between a Muslim not allowing a non-Muslim to bring a bottle of wine or a dog into a Muslim-driven taxi and Christians trying to convince a democratic society to outlaw most abortions.

There is no comparing ritual prohibitions with moral prohibitions. Christians argue that taking the life of a human fetus where the mother's life is not endangered is immoral. And so do religious Jews (and Muslims) and many secular individuals -- because the issue of abortion is a moral issue. Contact with dogs, on the other hand, is a ritual issue, not a moral issue. Which is why non-Muslims do not consider it immoral -- unlike the many non-Christians who consider most abortions immoral.

And Christians and others who deem abortions immoral when the mother's health is not threatened have as much right to argue for passing laws banning most such abortions as other citizens do to pass laws banning racial discrimination.

Ah, the skeptic may argue, but what if Muslims deem human contact with a dog (except, according to Muslim jurists, for security purposes, farming and hunting) an immoral act, not just a ritually prohibited act for Muslims?

If indeed such were the Muslim argument, we would have an example of an unbridgeable difference between a Muslim conception of morality and that of non-Muslims.

There is then no analogy between Christians wanting to use the democratic process to ban a practice regarded by hundreds of millions of non-Christians as immoral and the Muslim ban on human contact with dogs, a practice regarded by no non-Muslims as immoral.

The appropriate analogy to Muslim taxi drivers refusing to take passengers accompanied by a dog or carrying a bottle of wine would be religious Jewish taxi drivers refusing to take passengers eating a ham sandwich or Mormon drivers refusing to take passengers drinking alcoholic or caffeinated drinks.

But such Jewish or Mormon examples don't exist (and if they did, religious Jews and Mormons would regard such persons as crackpots). They do not exist because Jews and Mormons do not believe that non-Jews are required to change their behavior owing to Judaism's or Mormonism's distinctive laws. Religious Muslims, on the other hand, do believe that wherever applicable, non-Muslims should change their behavior in the light of Islam's distinctive laws. And that difference is at least as important to Muslim-non-Muslim relations as the vexing issue of violent Muslims.

As for the difference between fundamentalist Muslims and fundamentalist Christians, a Christian mailman in Denver called my radio show to say that despite his profound religious objections to pornography, he could not imagine objecting to delivering even the raunchiest porn to homes that ordered it. First, religious non-Muslims, especially in America, believe that liberty, too, is a religious value; that is why Christians put a quote about liberty from the Torah on the Liberty Bell. And second, they have no doctrine that holds outsiders bound to their religious practices.

And that is why there may be more to be learned about the future of religious Muslims' relations with non-Muslims from Muslim taxi drivers than from Muslim terrorists.

 

[99.vikram]

Yet if we were to act on the basis of such studies we would widen already deep rifts.

 

[repiV]

Yet if we were to act on the basis of such studies we would widen already deep rifts.

And what is your suggestion?