If so, could it be cause for revocation of the group’s 501(c)(3) tax exemption?

by Bill Levinson

Taxi proposal gets sharp response reports,

Last year, the MAC received a fatwa, or religious edict, from the Minnesota chapter of the Muslim American Society. The fatwa said that “Islamic jurisprudence” prohibits taxi drivers from carrying passengers with alcohol “because it involves cooperating in sin according to Islam.”

We’re not really interested in what the Muslim American Society says about this matter. More importantly, neither do the laws of the United States or Minnesota. The Muslim-American Society has absolutely no authority to tell its members or other Muslims that they are to deny passengers taxicab service, and perhaps it is time for the Muslim-American Society to learn that lesson the hard way.

The Muslim-American Society, as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt “charitable” or “religious” organization is not free to do whatever it pleases, as shown by this statement from the Internal Revenue Service:

IRS REV RULE 75-384, J. ACTIVITIES THAT ARE ILLEGAL OR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC POLICY 1985 EO CPE Text
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/eotopicj85.pdf

(1) Substantiality Test
Violation of constitutionally valid laws is inconsistent with exemption under IRC 501(c)(3).As a matter of trust law, one of the main sources of the general law of charity, planned activities that violate laws are not in furtherance of a charitable purpose.” A trust cannot be created for a purpose which is illegal. The purpose is illegal …if the trust tends to induce the commission of crime or if the accomplishment of the purpose is otherwise against public policy….

(4) Planning Illegal Acts
Not only is the actual conduct of illegal activities inconsistent with exemption, but the planning and sponsoring of such activities are also incompatible with charity and social welfare. Rev.Rul.75-384 holds that an organization formed to promote world peace that planned and sponsored protest demonstrations at which members were urged to commit acts of civil disobedience did not qualify for IRC 501(c)(3) or (4) exemption. G.C.M.36153, dated January 31,1975, states that because planning and sponsoring illegal acts are in themselves inconsistent with charity and social welfare it is not necessary to determine whether illegal acts were, in fact, committed in connection with the resulting demonstrations or whether such a determination can be made prior to conviction of an accused. However, it is necessary to establish that the planning and sponsorship are attributable to the organization, if exemption is to be denied or revoked on this ground.

We are not attorneys and we cannot give an opinion on whether it is actually illegal to deny service to a passenger because he or she is legally transporting alcoholic beverages. The practice definitely seems “contrary to public policy,” though, and perhaps this should be explored with the Internal Revenue Service. The Muslim-American Society’s promotion of civil disobedience, on the other hand, looks like a clear-cut violation of Rev Rule 75-384.

The same reference adds that some of these Muslim cab drivers from Somalia are also refusing service to blind passengers with guide dogs.

We cannot conceive of an individual who would discriminate against a handicapped person. These cab drivers deserve to be censured.

A group of blind Minnesotans was on hand, too, testifying about taxi drivers who refused to transport their guide dogs because Muslims consider the saliva of dogs unclean.

---

---

Related: Political Correctness

---