Taking a Stand Against Islamic Separatism

Muslim immigrants in Minnesota have recently been demanding the right to conduct business according to Islamic tradition and customs. This simply echoes a pattern observed generally among Muslim immigrants to non-Muslim (but especially Western) nations worldwide. Muslim immigrants arrive, form communities, grow in numbers, and then demand special rights and separate facilties, legal systems and rules to "accomodate" their Islamic culture. These communities then become self-segregated enclaves, rife with Islamist fundamentalism and seething with rage against their adopted country's culture. This tactic doesn't work too well in non-Western nations, which eager to protect their own national cultures, resist Islamic infiltration, but in the West the poison of multiculturalism has dulled Western cultural self-defense, prompting Westerners to kowtow before each new demand (see Europe). Nevertheless, public officials in Minnesota seem to be taking an actual stand against the Muslims.

Airport commissioners insist it's simply a customer-service issue. But many Muslim taxi drivers say it's an unfair new penalty that violates their religious prohibitions against handling alcohol.

Both sides agree that the dispute, part of a cultural conflict in the Twin Cities that has already drawn national attention, is probably heading for a court challenge, which in turn could become a national test case.

On an 11-0 vote Monday, Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) members voted to crack down on drivers refusing service, making Minnesota the first place in the country to decide how to treat Muslim cabbies who decline to transport alcohol-toting riders on religious grounds.

Starting May 11, any airport taxi drivers who refuse riders will face 30-day suspensions. Drivers will have their licenses revoked two years for a second offense.

"We're just sending a message that if you want to drive here at this airport, you have to take all our customers," said Steve Wareham, director of Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.

Naturally, the Muslim organizations behind the cabbies' effort to carve out special rights for Muslims are frustrated and planning litigation. There is some precedent for allowing specific religious communities to avoid certain legal requirements that pertain to everyone else (the article cites Amish buggies that are allowed to use public roads without legally required reflective signs); however, the Amish do not threaten American culture. Muslims quite manifestly do. It may be that the consequence of Muslim immigration is that traditionally acccepted exceptions for religious communities will have to be abandoned in favor of strict adherence of the concept of one law for all.

Hassan A. Mohamud, an imam at the Islamic Da'wah Center in St. Paul, called the stricter sanctions frustrating and disappointing.

"We see this as a harsh penalty against fellow Americans only because they are practicing their faith," the Muslim scholar said. "This does not reflect the American values of tolerance and accommodation."

Roughly three-quarters of the 900 licensed cabbies at the airport are Somali and most are Muslim.

American values of tolerance and accomodation do not require Americans to eviscerate their own cultural heritage for the benefit of invaders who would use those values to undermine the nation. Previous waves of immigrants were not met with "tolerance and accomodation;" they were forced by law, by custom and by force of culture to assimilate to American culture and society. Thus a nation was forged. The idea that America should bend to accomodate immigrants (and not the other way around) is a manifestation of recent, multiculturalist thinking, whose ultimate goal is not the accomodation of immigrants, but the annihilation of America.

Of course the vital question every Minnesotan should be asking is: why are there 600+ Somalis legally living in Minnesota (presumably with their families)? Were the American people ever asked if they wanted to import hundreds (actually thousands) of immigrants from Somalia, or from Africa in general? And what would have been their response if they had been asked. The multiculturalist elites in Washington know the answer to that last question, which is why the public was never asked in the first place.