What is the use of boycott? Is this necessary?

Gaza is a place of pride, a source of honor, a land that raised heroes and witnessed the bravery of children. But the Zionists and their American allies drowned this country in blood, killed children, women, old people, destroyed houses and destroyed gardens.

While the official Arab and Islamic countries do not support the people of Gaza in any way, the Muslim nations must stop buying the products of the Zionist sympathizers and sponsors of America, as well as the products of all companies that support these crimes and continue to promote this cause. So that the boycott becomes a necessary part of our life and there are no products produced by the aggressors, whose profits are used for aggression!

Here, let's continue with information about the meaning and origin of the word "boycott". "Boycott" means to decide not to do something or act, to cut off any connection with a person, group or country in order to achieve some goal.

Throughout history, countries and individuals have used commerce as a means of responding to events. So much so that on many issues, such as minority rights, women's rights, and workers' rights, the standards in place today were achieved through actions such as strikes or boycotts. The history of the use of the word "Boycott" for such actions does not go back very far. This word entered the English language thanks to Captain Charles Boycott, an English officer who managed the leasing of lands in Ireland to peasants on behalf of the English lords.

In 1880, the villagers demanded a 25 percent discount on the rent they paid due to a reduced harvest. However, Boycott says it will only accept a 10 percent discount. In response to the intolerant attitude of the boycott, the villagers did not plant anything in the land in protest and cut off their communications. Postmen join this protest and do not deliver letters from England to Boycott. As a result, the kingdom sent workers, equipment, and many soldiers to Ireland to keep the work going. So this case of Boycott, who is not used to £500, will cost the Queen £10,000! The tenants would eventually achieve their goals, a move named "Boycott" after the person being boycotted.

In fact, economic boycott represents the weakest form of faith. This is the bare minimum to fight oppression. At the same time, it should not be forgotten that the boycott is an effective and important weapon. America is using its money, weapons and political power to manipulate the Zionists. And we should not use our funds to support our enemy, and we should not contribute to rockets, artillery and bullets destroying the homes and hearts of Muslims in Gaza.

In fact, the issue of economic restraint is not something that appeared only yesterday. We know from history that the polytheists of Makkah declared an economic restriction (boycott) against the clans of Banu Hashim and Banu Muttalib in order to hand over the Prophet. The polytheists decided not to sell anything to these two families, nor to buy anything from them, and as a result, the Muslims suffered from hunger and even had to eat tree bark and leaves.

Similarly, Sumama bin Usal, may Allah be pleased with them, did not sell anything to the Makkans after accepting Islam. However, Sumoma ibn Usal and his tribe, who lived in Yamama's lands, supplied Makkah with wheat. And the Makkans are forced to write to our Prophet to persuade Sumoma to cancel the economic restriction.

Let's give another example. In the last century, Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi announced a boycott of British products, and the people followed him. As a result, Britain was forced to withdraw all its troops from India in 1947. This practice was also observed in Egypt: after the revolution of 1919, Egyptians also announced a boycott of British products.

In the October wars of 1973, the Arabs also cut off oil sales to America and pro-Zionist countries. This led England and France to adopt a position of neutrality and refuse to transfer American and Zionist military equipment from their airports. The European governments issued a statement calling on the Zionists to leave the Arab lands. More precisely, they were forced to do so.

Many such cases have been observed in our recent history. France recently announced a ban (boycott) on American products, not only American products, but also American films, even in English. Indeed, between 1993 and 1996, 60 boycotts against 35 countries were declared in America.

The weapon of boycott was widely used by the Zionists themselves. In 2003, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced a boycott of Belgian products and called on other Jews to do the same. Also, the Zionists have been imposing economic restrictions on the people of Gaza for seventeen years.

From the above examples, it can be concluded that the opinions of those who say "boycott is useless" and "it is not important" have no value! Such people just want to break the morale of Muslims and stop the efforts of Mujahideen, just like the hypocrites did in Tabuk Ghazat. Just as a baby does not want to be separated from its mother's breast, they do not want to be separated from the products of America and the Zionists. As a result, they remain captive to their hegemony in terms of political, cultural, military...

Well, if we have to boycott, how does it benefit us?

First: Economic restrictions have the power to paralyze the Zionist economy. As a result of the war, the Zionists, who are losing 170 million dollars a day, will lose even more.

Second: Boycott is the main factor of putting pressure on America. Because America is a country built on interests. American politicians, senators or government representatives are directly or indirectly related to some companies in some way. Harming the interests of these companies directly affects the real players behind the scenes who have the power to change American politics in action, not words.

Restrictions on American products cause them to remain in warehouses. Unsold products cause a sharp decrease in monthly salaries for workers. Shortage of wages leads to mass strike. This creates serious pressure on the American government.

Third: The mass boycott and the widespread adoption of this idea will inform the young generation about the events taking place in the country where the Isra and Miraj incident took place, and will cause them to develop feelings such as Islamic and national pride, resistance to oppression, and struggle for justice.

Fourth: Uniting around the idea of a comprehensive boycott will bring Arab and Islamic countries into an alliance. It helps to get out of the influence of American hegemony.

The opinions of those who say that "if the boycott is carried out, our people working in these enterprises will remain unemployed and without salary" are also not correct. Because the funds paid for their products can easily be used as an alternative investment for the production of national products. This creates a historic opportunity for Muslim investors to expand their activities and create independent jobs that are not dependent on others.

Local and Muslim investors, unlike American and Zionist companies, do not direct part of their profits to support wars. They don't take the profits with them and reinvest them in the country itself. Therefore, domestic investors will benefit much more than foreign companies will benefit.

So, a boycott is an important necessity not only for the benefit of the Muslims in Gaza, but also for the revival of our own economy. Because, let's repeat, the economic restriction against American and Zionist companies is an excellent opportunity for the development of local companies, the increase of new jobs, as well as the reduction of dollar pressure against local currencies.

In conclusion, we say that citizens of Muslim countries should unite individually or institutionally and declare a boycott against American and Zionist company products in a planned, targeted and continuous manner. The effect of the boycott should also be reflected in the food we eat, the drinks we drink, the clothes we wear, the books and movies we read and watch.

Dr. Ashraf Dawabba, President of the European Academy of Islamic Finance and Economics (EAIFE).