After recovering from the shock of hearing anti-boycott noises from Muslims based upon fundamentally flawed premises and lazy commentary, I had decided to write about. Alhamdulillah, this brother has done the job and done it justice. It also helps that he writes from the very place that these noises emanate from i.e. Saudi Arabia. By Nabeel Nisar Sheikh ( currently persuing PHD in ummul Quraa Makkah) For a while, the issue of whether or not to boycott Israeli goods has been under discussion on Islamic discussion forums and the social media websites. The shallowness of jurisprudential insight in most of those discussions is appalling. I will try to discuss this issue from various angles analyzing the arguments of those who are completely against it. FIRST: Boycotting is not an end (Ghaaya) in itself. If there is evidence of its effectiveness, then it is a means of inflicting economic damage to the enemy. And as with all means (Wasaail), it need NOT be proven from the practice of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) and his companions. All that is required that it be permissible (Mubah) in itself, and the end (Ghaya) be a noble one. One example of this is the lines weaved into the carpets of a Masjid so as to enable people to form straight rows. These lines were not there at the time of the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Sallam), but the commandment to straighten the rows was there. The Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) himself used to straighten out the rows by patting the shoulders of the Sahabah till they were aligned. Now we have lines on the carpets, and there is nothing wrong with that, because they are merely a means of achieving a legislated and ordained end. This quashes the argument of those oppose the boycotting of Israeli products on the pretext that it was not the practice of the Sahabah and the Salaf. SECOND: We have in the Sunnah a precedent for boycotting the enemies economically. It is the case of Thumaama ibn Uthaal (Radi Allahu Anhu) who was one of the chiefs of the Banu Hanifah tribe of Yamamah; when he accepted Islam, he enforced a wheat embargo on the Makkan pagans, until they were so hard hit that they implored the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) on the grounds of kinship to ask Thumaama to lift the embargo. [Narrated by Al-Bukhari (4372), Muslim (1764), and Al-Baihaqi 9/66]. The only difference is that Thumaamah boycotted the selling of goods to them, while now people are boycotting the purchase of good from them; both being in essence two sides of the very same economic punitive measure. THIRD: Some brothers are quoting Ahaadith in which the Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) and his companions traded with the Mushrikeen, as a proof of refuting the claim that it is “forbidden” to trade with them. No doubt the Ahaadith prove the general permissibility, but if giving up a permissible act can be a means of achieving a noble end, then it is legislated to give it up; for the means take the ruling of the desired ends. (الوسائل لها أحكام الغايات) For arguments sake, let us agree that it is not forbidden to trade with them as per the quoted Ahaadith, but does that mean it is not even undesirable? FOURTH: Some brothers are quoting Shaykh Al-Fawzaans statement: “The purchase of these products cannot be prevented unless it is a command given by the ruler...”. First of all, the command of the ruler concerns those living in Saudi Arabia, but what about those living in the UK (for example); which ruler are they supposed to follow?! Secondly, the statement of the Shaykh is concerning American goods, not Israeli ones. As for Israeli goods, they dont enter Saudi Arabia, so the command of the ruler is already there. FIFTH: There is a very important aspect to this issue which I dont find anyone mentioning: It is Haraam to purchase stolen goods if one knows that they are stolen. And since Israel has illegally confiscated and occupied Palestinian lands, the produce of that land and its natural resources are therefore considered usurped and stolen goods. For example: “EDEN SPRINGS” bottled water comes from the occupied Golan heights. “Jaffa Oranges” and “Medjool dates” are grown on land stolen and confiscated from Palestinians. So how can it be considered permissible to buy such stolen Palestinian natural resources? Those who give blanket statements against the boycott should be ashamed of themselves for legalizing the purchase of stolen goods! And they should stop speaking without being well-versed in knowledge! SIXTH: Many people who advocate the boycott go way overboard by releasing lengthy lists of brands and companies which (supposedly) have ties with Israel or which are (supposedly) owned by Jews. Trying to boycott all these brands and companies is a daunting task that has a very slim chance, if any, of having a concrete impact on Israel. For the boycott to have its impact, it should be focused and concentrated on that which hurts Israel the most. For this, professional advice should be sought on the matter. The Palestinian BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions) Movement is playing a leading role in the cause: bdsmovement.net/ One should refer to their campaigns and resources to learn how to play an effective role in the cause. Allah knows best. Written by: Nabeel Nisar Sheikh on the night preceding the 25th day of the Israeli “Operation Protective Edge” (5th Shawwal, 1435).
Posted on: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 20:27:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015