Islamonline svarer på “Boykot boykotten”

Indlægget om “Boykot boykotten” florerer stadig på de muslimske netsider, hvor muslimske lærde også er begyndt at blande sig. Islamonlines Shariah Section har svaret på indlægget, hvor Prof. Dr. Monzer Kahf benytter lejligheden til at forklare mig betydningen af boykotten:

Dear Sr. Helen

Assalamu Alaykum wa Rahmatu Allahi wa Barakatuh

My Answer:

Bismillah al Rahman al Rahim

Alhamdu Lillahi Rab al Alamin, wa al Salatu wa al Salamu ala Sayyidina Muhammad, wa ala Aalihi wa Sahbihi Ajma’in

What you’ve said is a point of view that I respect although I do not agree with most of the points you made.

1.      To the best of my knowledge, the call for boycott of Denmark products came from Muslim scholars including the International association of Muslim scholar that is headed by Shaikh Qaradawi and whose Secretary General is Prof. M. Salim al Awwa. I happen to know both of them and respect them a lot. Most Muslim scholars and educated persons felt the insult not only from an individual action of the newspaper, its publisher, editor and the person who made the drawing but from the Denmark Prime minister who repeatedly and distinctly refused to distinct his government from that action or to condemn it. It is possible that some government attempted to ride the wave but really I am not aware that the Egyptian government made any statement about the boycott. and in the recent repetition of the same I am not also aware that the Sudanese government also made any statement calling for the boycott. 

2.      The boycott is fair and acceptable under all international norms and ethics. It is a popular, non-governmental appeal to Muslims and all persons of conscience to respond in a non-violent way that may affect those who support this insult to our religion (an insult to a religion is in fact an insult to all religions).

3.      Of course our Shari’ah does not accept or even permit collective punishment. But one must be much more wiser than rushing to call the boycott a collective punishment. It is not. It is an international normal and fair response to the position of the government of Denmark. In contrast collective punishment is the kind that Israel makes (and America licitly supports) in the occupied Territories when it destroys a building because one of its inhabitant is accused from the Israeli occupation authority. This is punishing the innocents for an action done by single individual.

4.      In political matters the issue is different. there are representative governments that act on behalf of their constituencies. The actions of such governments definitely affect their people. An international response to a government action is definitely an act that must, by definition affect, most if not all the people of that government. This is fair in international relations. The examples of it all tremendous in all human minds. One example in trade is when country A increases custom taxes on import from country  B in response to the increase that country B made in taxes on import from country A. of course exporters and importers are different individuals, would any rational person claim that such an increase is not moral? This is not a collective punishment but a normal and legal reaction to a governmental action or lack of action. Similarly the Qur’an [8:25] refers to such a situation when it says (my quick translation): “Guard yourself against a punishment that does not touch only those who made injustice among you” . Verse 5:78 explains that lack of action on the part of some is also a reason for the course of God to touch on all.

5.      Finally the boycott of American and British goods: This is also called for by Muslim scholars and is still there and must remain there until the aggression against innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan is removed. This does not mean that Muslim scholars supported the oppression of Taliban or the atrocity of Saddam, it means that we condemn the excessive use of power and the killing of hundreds of thousands of civilians by the aggression troops. (Here I must add that there must always be a moral standard that does not equate the freedom fighters with occupiers. Freedom fighters have all the right to defend their land and people against foreign aggression and occupation whereas aggressors have not a single right to be in the land of other people). This boycott was not a result of the case of that poor misled British teacher in Sudan (because the government of Britain did not support her action but rather dissociate itself from any insult to the Prophet Muhammad, pbuh); it rather came several years ago, immediately after it became clear that the occupation troops in Afghanistan and Iraq have become an aggression power against the people of these countries. This boycott came a little late because of the fact that at the beginning all Muslim scholars and all educated Muslims condemned the hideous action of the BenLaden Group in its aggression against innocent people in New York and called for punishing this devious group for it crimes. Some Shari’ah scholars went as far as supporting the American attack on Afghanistan in order to root out this criminal group!

Wa Allahu A’alam

Wa Alhamdu Lillahi Rab al Alamin

Wassalam

Prof. Dr. Monzer Kahf - IOL Shari`ah Section