We can't boycott everyone
Sister Kareema Hamdan, over at UmmahPulse.com, suggests a Muslim boycott of Dutch products in response to Geert Wilders' planned film insulting the Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) or Islam, claiming that a similar boycott after the cartoons episode of a couple of years ago resulting in the subject of the boycott, the Arla food company, losing major contracts and had politicians scurrying around trying to mend ties with various Muslim countries. Kareema is one of the more astute writers at UmmahPulse, but I disagree with her about this. The problem with the boycott of Danish goods was that it was unjust and hit a target largely unrelated to the offensive cartoons.
Arla is a large, multinational company which happens to be based in Denmark. Doubtless it advertises in Jyllands-Posten, much as its subsidiaries advertise in major newspapers in other countries, including the UK, where at the time it owned Express Dairies; since then, that business has been sold to Dairy Crest, but it still owns various British dairy brands, such as Anchor butter and Cravendale milk; it also owns a large chunk of the Swedish dairy industry, and the name Arla originated in Sweden. The targets of a boycott of food companies are typically people entirely outside the media industry, such as farmers and factory workers, and thus innocent of the offence which gave rise to the boycott.
The consequences hardly bear thinking about. They are the people most likely to be swayed by inflammatory arguments on the radio and in down-market newspapers because they are least likely to be well-educated. Even if they had not voted for the right-wing parties which trade on fear of "outsiders" before, they might choose to now if they lose their jobs because of actions by these "outsiders" or their friends abroad. If people are rioting at home, it does not matter if the government is cosying up to leaders of Muslim countries. Economic crisis is what gives a boost to extremist parties. Whether or not anti-discrimination laws exist, employers could easily find ways to get rid of Muslims if they have to get rid of people (e.g. by banning headscarves).
I dispute that the boycott had such a chastening effect on Denmark. The climate of anti-Muslim opinion has not changed much, and the laws preventing young people bringing young spouses into the country from outside the EU, which was aimed at Muslims, are still in place. Meanwhile, the cartoons are readily available on websites the world over which moan about, or mock, the intolerant nature of Muslims. In the Netherlands, Pim Fortuyn became a martyr as did Theo Van Gogh, as will Geert Wilders if any harm should befall him as a result of his rantings. In the hysteria that followed the Danish cartoons, it was even suggested that Norwegian products be boycotted as well, after a low-circulation magazine there reprinted the cartoons.
I cannot think what products we will boycott from the Netherlands, anyway. Flowers? Vegetables? Unless they come from some media hot-shot's hobby farm (do they have them in Holland as they do here?), what benefit could possibly come from that? The only result will be jobs lost to ordinary workers. However, that is really not my main objection to these boycotts.
My main objection is that they always seem to take place in response to insults, not assaults on the community. There has been no mass movement to boycott French goods, for example, in response to their anti-hijab laws, which caused real suffering rather than offence, and countries do not get boycotted when parties come to power on openly or thinly-disguised anti-Muslim platforms. When a crypto-fascist party, the Freedom Party, entered the governing coalition in Austria, it resulted in sanctions from the EU against that country, and we all know what happened when the Palestinians elected politicians connected to Hamas to office. As for Muslims, our boycotts are usually in response to insults from individuals or private organisations, and hit targets unrelated to the insult. We cannot boycott entire countries in response to such insults; we should choose our targets more carefully.
Comments
I don't think anyone should bear the burden of another, simply because they are living in the same country. If I were to believe this, I would have to hold myself to the exact same standard, and that would prove to be quite problematic.
Blanket blame is unfair, and in my opinion, unIslamic.
Posted by: Dynamite Soul | February 1, 2008 1:05 AM
"countries do not get boycotted when parties come to power on openly or thinly-disguised anti-Muslim platforms. When a crypto-fascist party... entered the governing coalition in Austria, it resulted in sanctions from the EU against that country." The second sentence contradicts the first. The Freedom Party was- among other things- anti-muslim.
Posted by: Thersites | February 1, 2008 2:47 AM
Is boycotting even from our sunnah? I'd be interested in someone exploring this. The only example of a boycott I am aware of at the time of the Prophet (saws) was the pagan Meccans' boycot of the early Muslims.
Posted by: Tim | February 1, 2008 9:01 AM
I meant that there was no Muslim boycott against Austria (rightly so, in that particular case), and no call for one.
Posted by: Indigo Jo
|
February 1, 2008 10:18 AM
Was their not a boycott in the time of the prophet against some companions who were not hypocrites but did not go to a certain battle . So no one would speak to them or have dealings with them and then a verse came down about them and then people started mixing with them .
Posted by: Noora | February 1, 2008 8:21 PM
Good post. Boycott's are frankly lazy thinking.
http://piquancy.blogspot.com/2006/04/boycotts-are-placebo-rather-than.html
Posted by: Bhaskar Dasgupta | February 2, 2008 7:19 AM
Boycots can be powerful. However, if a country contains idiots then you cannot punish the entire country collectively.
Thats what the right wing/ Evangelical /brown bishop/ apostate/ ignorant bnp alliance is doing with their hatred and scaremongering about all muslims based on the actions of a few.
This argument obviously does not apply to facist countries like Israel that house concentration camps for natives. Israel should be boycotted till the cows come home.
Posted by: notanangel | February 2, 2008 4:54 PM
Assalamualaikum Dear Br Yusuf, Thank you for taking the time to read my article and commenting on it.
I have responded to your post on UmmahPulse.com (link below), have a read and let's discuss.
http://ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=315&Itemid=1
Posted by: Karima Hamdan | February 2, 2008 9:41 PM
Would you boycott books (not about Islam) whose authors were rabid Islamophobes?
Posted by: George Carty
|
February 3, 2008 1:55 PM
Good post, Yusuf. I am strongly in favor of organized boycotts, they work best over a long period. I believe in hurting the bastards where it hurts most, in the pocket book. Who cares about Danish dairies? If the xenophobes are so paranoid about "foreigners," then why do business with them? The Jews initiated a worldwide boycott of German goods back in the 1930s, it was their right to do so. Its our right to do business with whom we share mutual respect.
Posted by: DrM | February 4, 2008 5:45 AM
DrM - re-read the post.
Yusuf is actually against boycotts. He was criticising an article on UmmahPulse that was pro-boycott.
For my money - I am in favour of boycotts. I don't think it is lazy or unjust but rather an effective way for Muslims to unite across the world to demonstrate our opposition to an issue. OK, I agree that sometimes they don't work or effect 'innocents' but what is the alternative?? Yelling at the TV or radio?
Posted by: Hijabun | February 4, 2008 10:40 AM
As-Salaamu 'alaikum,
I am not against boycotts in general (eg. Israel), only against boycotting entire countries for the actions of a minority. They hurt the innocent with the guilty and the Muslims with the non-Muslims, as I explained over at Ummah Pulse. Every society has its bigots, including the UK and including most Muslim countries too, but you cannot cut off every society when you are offended by stupid or offensive utterances from its bigots otherwise you would end up starving, unless you could eat what you grew in your garden.
As for Danish dairies, the fact is that the halal food in Europe is mostly grown in Europe, or in one of the usual air-freight food sources (e.g. South Africa). If all Muslims boycott a given country's produce, before long they will stop producing halal food because it ceases to be worthwhile. The Israel boycott, on the other hand, is a very different proposition because their offence consists of murder and oppression of Muslims, and the very existence of Israel required, and continues to require, such behaviour.
Posted by: Indigo Jo
|
February 4, 2008 12:13 PM
I did read the post, Hijabun. I still thought it was good, despite not agreeing with everything. Maybe I didn't make that clear in my first post.
Posted by: DrM | February 5, 2008 6:59 AM