Egypt

Fatwa Bans Christian Priests from Public Transportation to Church

Dr. Yassir al-Burhami, a prominent figure in Egypt's Salafi movement and vice president of the Salafi Call has just issued a fatwa, published in the "Voice of the Righteous Salaf," forbidding Muslim taxi-drivers and bus-drivers from transporting Coptic Christian priests to their churches, which he depicted as "more forbidden than taking someone to a liquor bar."

Comments?

In the latest Uncommon Knowledge, Dennis Prager (at around the 17 minute mark) begins telling a story to emphasize a point he was making about how Islam does not value liberty.  He mentioned the Somali cab drivers at the airport in Minnesota refuse to allow passengers who carry alcohol or have dogs into their cabs.

By contrast, Mr. Prager got a call from a mailman in Colorado who is a fundamentalist Christian who said he, as a mailman, has to deliver pornography, and he is at least opposed, as a Christian, to pornography as Muslim is to alcohol or dogs.  But, he delivers the pornography because he believes in freedom.

Forgive me, but am I the only one who noticed problems with this?

First of all, that man delivers pornography because he is paid to do so.  It is his job.  He is paid a generous salary, very generous benefits and will collect a very generous pension on my dime.  So, while he may believe in freedom, he delivers it because he is paid.

Second, as far as I am able to tell (with limited research), those Minnesota Somali cab drivers, unlike the sanctimonious mailman, are not federal employees suckling on the public teat.  More likely they are independent operators or they work for a cab company.  If they are independent operators, who own or lease their cabs, it�s their business if they refuse, because of their belief system, to serve some customers.  

This is a measure of values.  Those cab drivers believe enough in Islam to stand on their principles refuse money and risk the economic consequences.  This mailman may claim to have an objection to pornography, but obviously not enough to stand on principle and refuse that government pay check, those generous government benefits or that pension.

That is what freedom is.  The freedom to associate or not associate with whom you choose based on your own personal values system.  Those taxi drivers value Islam, the mailman values his government pension.  To each his own, but it doesn't prove Islam is anti-freedom.

Don't get me wrong... I will support businesses that support my values and will do my best to avoid those that go against my values... that is freedom.   It is how free enterprise is meant to work.  The people support you, you survive.  If they don't support you, you won't.
But I won't try to tell you about how tolerant I am and that everyone else is prejudiced.

Denying a service to someone because of their different belief's... that is not the same.  That is a different matter.  Especially when it is the government legislating that free choice.

Where does that lead... doctor's who refuse to save lives?  Is that Godly?

Critical thinking at best is a loose translation of ijtihad.  Khan's article is indeed critical thinking, but far from ijtihad, and he isn't a mujtahid.  There is a big difference between a blog entitled "Ijtihad" and ijtihad in Islamic jurisprudence.