It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Muslim Cabbies Refuse Passengers With Alcohol Or Dogs

page: 5
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey

Originally posted by GT100FV
Muslims not following their religion well? That's inconceivable.

That's not the exclusive domain of Muslims.


I'm all for religious freedom, but refusing to transport guide dogs while driving a taxi crosses the line.

Of course, this problem could be fixed by having all the blind use guide horses instead of dogs. Would these taxi drivers be more amenable to having miniature ponies in their vehicles?

Those ponies are so cute, I don't see how anyone could object to them.


The point is that you don't hear of other faiths immigrating somewhere, and then expecting their new host to kowtow to their whims. There are significant differences between other faiths and their notions of tolerance, and with Islam. In Islam, all non believers are 2nd class citizens at best(look up the word Dhimmi, and what the Koran says about non believers.)
The PC myth is that it is religion of peace. That's why they see nothing out of the ordinary in discriminating. If they're gonna live in a western society, they're gonna have to get with the program, and stop trying to force everyone else to conform.




posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:33 AM
link   
Isn't Dhimmi status reserved for those that live in Muslim countries? I looked it up the first time I saw you use the term, earlier today.

I'm sorry but I can't lump an entire group of people into one monolithic 'they', just because they share the same religion. I know some very nice Muslims, and none of them have ever asked me for tribute. If they view me as second-class, they are doing a very good job of hiding it - and I appreciate the effort.

Yes, there are some Muslims that have to understand that we are not going to change the laws of our countries, but there are plenty that don't expect us to.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Duzey
Isn't Dhimmi status reserved for those that live in Muslim countries? I looked it up the first time I saw you use the term, earlier today.

I'm sorry but I can't lump an entire group of people into one monolithic 'they', just because they share the same religion. I know some very nice Muslims, and none of them have ever asked me for tribute. If they view me as second-class, they are doing a very good job of hiding it - and I appreciate the effort.

Yes, there are some Muslims that have to understand that we are not going to change the laws of our countries, but there are plenty that don't expect us to.


There are westernized muslims who have more liberal interpretations, but the Koran itself is pretty specific about non believers. I too have some muslim friends, and they don't get these folks. When it comes to press coverage though, you rarely hear the ones critical of those commiting heinous acts, due to whatever(fear and intimidation, identifying with enough of the ideology to overlook things, etc..). It'd be refreshing to see large scale muslim protests against their violent brethren, rather than CAIR trying to silence critics.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by The time lord

Some people may point out that it's the media exploiting Muslim controversies and it's the media's way of demonising them.

I think it can also be seen by the fact that the dominant Christian West and Europe have to deal with minority groups that want to change the laws according to their ways and bringing upon small issues that disproportionately change years of a nations history and culture because in all honestly it is an honour to win every battle against an infidel. Otherwise why try and change things than actually try and fit in?

Secondly the more a minority group or religion such as Muslims immigrate to every nation that has absolutely nothing in common with their beliefs or government structure the more problems arises and this is not because the West says you believe is Sharia law get out. It's because we the Western culture don't fit into theirs that the problems happen, religion turns into a political force because the two are entwined.

Examples are of controversies for the sake of Islam is:

Crosses being taken down in Italy in Italian schools because one Muslim complained and brought the nation to court as it offended his child.

Again a complaint recently to have crosses banned when you in cemeteries in Italy, no crosses or religious symbols showing, this is country that thrives in the religion of Christ more than the UK these days and yet fall victim to complaints by people who are immigrants.

In the 60s in the UK Muslim protests because they would not allow their daughters to go to PE or swimming lessons uncovered.

Recently a pig farmer from Texas who has been complained by Muslims that pigs offend them as they are going to build a Mosque nearby.

Muslims ignore using anti bacterial hand gels in hospitals because they contain alcohol.

Now we have the taxi driver scenario.

Crosses at air ports being taken off, but they must have prayer room built to accommodate them.

Changing of the American constitution of swearing on the Bible to the Koran, again wiping out history and culture from people's noses.

Trying to creating Muslim courts in the host country by having one rule for them and another for us.

The Muslim converted to Christianity from Afghanistan who had to flee to Italy being persecuted even if he has moved country due to fear.

Not being allowed to criticize Islam in a free country due to death threats if one does and rioting. Yet Christianity is frown upon.

I kow what you mean. Here in Britain there are people trying to put and end to christmas and change what we call it to winter holiday or something like that. I think its sad and pathetic that these other cultures no matter where they are form ar what they believe in think they can come to our country and just change things thier way. It is our country they can live here but do thing our way. If you dont like it get on the next plane home. Sound fair

[edit on 7-1-2007 by silk101]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by GT100FV
That's inconceivable.


When you posted that I just had a flash of that guy in Princess Bride saying it all the time.



Originally posted by Duzey
I'm all for religious freedom, but refusing to transport guide dogs while driving a taxi crosses the line.


Exactly. What you have said is spot-on. If you are in a country that has laws to help the blind, and you buck against those laws, expect to get in legal trouble. That's all there is to it.

The main thing SHOULD BE - Common human compassion should tell a person to allow a working-dog into the car to help another human being.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I guess they can do what they want in their own cabs. But it goes both ways. People can boycott their businesses for discrimination. These people believe menstruating women are unclean too. So what do you expect from these religious extremist?

I'm sorry, but I really wish people who don't want to assimilate into the American culture would just stay in their own countries!



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dollmonster


I guess they can do what they want in their own cabs.


No they can't it is against the law to refuse carryng passengers




341.170. Duty to accept passengers.
No driver shall refuse or neglect to convey any orderly person or persons upon request anywhere in the city unless previously engaged, provided that such person agrees to pay the legal rate of fare. No taxicab driver shall refuse or fail to provide services to any person protected under the Minneapolis Code of Ordinances section 139.10. No taxicab driver shall carry any other passenger than the person first employing the taxicab, except as provided in section 341.730, and then only with the consent of the first passenger or passengers. (88-Or-004, § 5, 1-15

Minneapolis Municipal Code
Title 13; Chapter 341; Article 1A

Source



Seems very clear to me



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Common human compassion should tell a person to allow a working-dog into the car to help another human being.


You can't legalize compassion.

In America you have the right to be un-compassionate. Actually I think it's more of an obligation if you're a true American.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 06:18 AM
link   
I love this story from the Quran, DJ.


Originally posted by DJMessiah
Dogs are not looked down upon in Islam, they're valued as protectors of man. In Muslim homes, dogs are not allowed in homes only if they're not used for protection, services with disabilities, or hunting. In Islam, we believe that the angels fear entering households with cats and dogs.

The hadith describing this states that Gabriel was to visit Muhammad's home, but did not, for an unknown reason to Muhammad. The next day Muhammad was visited by Gabriel while praying outside his home. When Muhammad asked Gabriel why the angel did not visit him, Gabriel said it was because there is a dog in his home, and that angels fear dogs. Muhammad told Gabriel that he did not own any dog, but Gabriel advised him to check his home. When Muhammad went home, he had asked his daughter Fatima if there was a dog in the house. Fatima lifted the table cloth, and underneath it, she had been keeping a dog as a pet.

This is not to say that dogs are to be avoided. The hadiths permit dogs in households for people who require them for the reasons I stated above.

What the cab drivers are doing is taking one rule and evolving it to make another rule. Denying service to the blind is not what Islam allows, and denying anyone to enter the cab with a dog is also not part of Islam.



Could it be that the cabbies don't want the dogs in their taxis because they fear their own guardian angel won't stay on the job?

Remember the old saying: Never drive faster than your guadian angel can fly.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   
It's from the Hadith, and yes, I believe that's why they won't allow dogs in their cabs. Though, the Hadith only states that the angels fear to enter households with cats and dogs, it does not say it's forbidden to keep dogs in areas like households for a temporary amount of time. I don't believe that particular Hadith should pertain to cabs, because cabs are not places for dwelling, and prayer is not usually done in the cab. Since the seeing eye dog will only be there for less than an hour, I believe it would be permitted to allow them. A Muslim is not to discriminate against the disabled, and many rules that Muslims follow are not required for disabled people, such as fasting for Ramadan for a ill person. The purpose of the dog was to help the disabled, and for that reason, the Hadith would allow the person to keep the dog.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Then from what I can see, these cabbies are in the wrong business.


"...whereupon he [Gabriel] said: It was the dog in your house which prevented me (to come), for we (angels) do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture."

source


Pictures of the driver are required in a taxi also.

Silly superstition if you ask me, but some people like covering their bases and a belief in angels fills that niche fine.

I doubt they object so much to a service dog (as they are for protection of the owner), as much as the foofoo's the ladies like to carry around like a fashion statement.

This is interesting about the pure black dog like the Doberman or Rottweiler that people like to keep for protection:



Hadith - Mishkat, Transmitted by Abu Dawud and Darimi

The Prophet said, "Were dogs not a species of creature I should command that they all be killed; but kill every pure black one." [Muslim, Narrated AbuDharr: "...The black dog is a devil."]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Here's something that may have a connection:


Jihad against pets — the four legged kind

The Saudi Arabian police see the sale of dogs and cats, particularly dogs, as a sign of “Western decadence” and are trying to put a stop to people owning them.

The decree against pets applies to Jidda, the Port City on the Red Sea, and the Holy City of Mecca and was recently issued.

...

Some clerics preach that for a Muslim to keep “Shaytaan,” the devil, out of his home, he must ban not only dogs, but pictures, music, bells and crosses (”this symbol — the cross — shows that [Christians] are a group who do not think with their minds but have been deceived by Shaytaan,” is a popular view said a cleric.)

...

"...a lot of this is left over from belief in witchcraft. These interpretations have been made over the years, some of them are crazy.

“Like every time you hear a dog bark at night you re supposed to say “bismillah” (In the Name of Allah.)

“Fundamentalist Muslims don’t like dogs and they don’t trust cats, though they like them better because they think they are cleaner; they bury their waste in the garden and don’t leave it on the grass like dogs”

source: PoliticalMavens.com


She doesn't give much detail about what's actually going on in Jidda and Mecca, but tells about rescue efforts in Afghanistan. Thank God someone's still got their senses there. Pitiful.


These cabbies aren't only in the wrong business, the clerics must be fueling this ban also.



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I agree, if they own their own cabs they can pretty much refuse services, but also the facilities where they work can stop them from picking up passengers in their property.


And the government agency that oversees the cabs going to the airport is also free to take away their privileges if they won't serve the general public.

Yes, there's freedom of speech and religion here. However, many often forget that those freedoms don't guarantee that there won't be (legal) repercussions from exercising your freedoms. Remember, you are free to scream "fire!" in a crowded theater, but it doesn't mean you won't be prosecuted for all the resulting harm you cause by doing so. Similarly, the muslim cab drivers can make their choices based on their religion and the airport officials can make their choices based on serving the general public that elected them or appointed them.

[edit on 1/13/2007 by centurion1211]



posted on Jan, 13 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by psyopswatcher
Then from what I can see, these cabbies are in the wrong business.


The Hadith also mentions statues. I believe it's meant to imply that no images/drawings/statues are allowed due to the danger of idolatry.

Regarding the exact text of the Hadith, I don't think it's very accurate. The reason behind the belief against black dogs is because it is said that jinns are able to hide themselves as the form of a black dog. What the Hadith details are their slaughter, for this same reason, I believe. Though, not one who truly believes in the Hadith, I don't think that that specific verse had been said by Prophet Muhammad.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Meanwhile, back on the 'train them up while they're young' front... the way our cultures collide:

I didn't know this, but there's a 'craze' in the USA called The American Girl Doll. The subtleties of this are the character values taught in the books that come along with each doll.

Notice the 'Girl of the Year':




Girls will love meeting Nicki, the Girl of the Year 2007!

Nicki Fleming is a natural with animals. When the chance to train a service dog comes up, she just can’t say “No,” even if it means taking on more responsibility and having to give up some of the things she loves doing. When Sprocket the puppy turns out to be a handful, it takes all Nicki’s compassion to keep on with his training. She knows that one day Sprocket will make someone else’s life better—and that makes all the difference. The “True Story” section at the back of the book focuses on real girls who have experience training service dogs.

link


And the color the makers picked for her dog? BUT, Sproc's a service dog being trained by a 10-year old:



Not all black, but a black dog nonetheless...




posted on Jan, 16 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   


Denying access to a blind person with a seeing eye dog is a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.


Agreed, and if they are a business, they must comply or face fines or worse, religion or not.

As for alchohol, many states prohibit having open alchoholic beverages in a vehicle, so they may have an out there...however, if sealed, then could be a bigger issue.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Just found something that supports my initial thoughts that Muhammad (Allah's Messenger) was afraid of dogs and projected this fear on (his imaginary friend*) Gabriel.



One of the interesting things I heard about this issue, from an Arab man was that the Druze in Lebanon have a tradition that says that when Muhammad was a child, he was bitten by a watchdog - because the dog had caught Muhammad stealing eggs!

This may or may not be true, but it would help to explain Muhammad's attitude toward dogs. Unfortunately, his absurd beliefs about dogs are now part of Islamic "dogma" (no pun intended).
...

Muhammad had superstitious beliefs about dogs and how they fit into God's world. Muhammad made them akin to evil creatures. This irrationality is now fundamental to Islam. To this day Muslims harass other Muslims who own dogs as pets.

www.answering-islam.org...


(looks like an interesting site)

The fear from being bitten by a dog as a child can be overcome. I know, my nephew did it.

That paper was last revised 8 days before 9/11--how spooky is that? (I love spooky stuff as much as anyone, as a kid I would fall asleep at night reading Edgar Allen Poe and Nathanial Hawthorne until my eyes couldn't stay open anymore. Now I watch Turner Classic Movies).




*I'm not saying that Gabriel isn't real, just that Muhammad could have cooked the story up to give more credence to his own superstitions and fears.



posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Or maybe Muhammad never said it. You will have to post which Hadith's passage Muhammad states he was bitten by the dog, and then you can see just how accurate the passage is. Muhammad himself told his followers not to write down anything he says, other than messages he receives from Gabriel. His followers passed on his non-Quranic teachings orally for about hundred years, until others decided to write it down. This in itself provides a very inaccurate record of quotes, due to the time frame between it being said and recorded. Through out the years, when the Hadiths were being complied, many false teachings from non-Muslims were added, and then later removed, with some of the current teachings showing inconstancies with other passages of the Hadith. It is for this reason that Muhammad refused anyone to record his own teachings, because people would edit what he says.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:50 AM
link   
So he puts in a loophole that history cannot judge him by his very words. You have to give Muhammad credit for the genius of that.


If you embrace an organized religion without knowing it's history, a stranger is claiming your faith.


Funny that the angels have this power over these attitudes, but no word from Allah himself? Reminds me of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and Joseph Smith's visits by the angel Moroni.


All that aside, it still makes me wonder what the mullahs must think of Barney and Mrs. Beasley in the White House.



Poor pups, I sincerely doubt they know the role they play in the business of cultures colliding. Yet they must be neurotic little things to have Laura for a mom. She's like frozen in time too.





picture source: Barney's WH webpage,
www.whitehouse.gov...





[edit on 25-1-2007 by psyopswatcher]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by psyopswatcher
So he puts in a loophole that history cannot judge him by his very words. You have to give Muhammad credit for the genius of that.


Its purpose was to keep people from falsifying his words, or including things he did not say. The Hadith is not structured through Muhammad's direct quotes, but rather it's "X once narrated that Muhammad said (blank)". This structure, even after 100 years of oral tradition, is not a means of maintaining accuracy.

Nothing in Islam requires one to believe in the Hadith, so claiming it's a required text would be a lie.

Only the Arabic Quran is the principal source of the Islamic text, and only its text has remained unchanged, unlike the Hadith.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by DJMessiah]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join