Assalamualaikum, Sh. Sajid. From an Islamic transactions perspective, how would calls to boycott products be viewed?

بسم الله، والحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام على رسول الله، أما بعد

From an Islamic perspective, trade (al-tijārah) is regarded as a means (wasīlah) towards achieving different ends (maqāṣid). We engage in trade not for its own sake, but to secure a recognised benefit.

Accordingly, the rulings of Sharīʿah are applied to the means in light of the outcomes they bring about. Thus, if the outcome of a trade is permissible, the means leading to it will likewise be considered permissible. Conversely, if the outcome of a transaction is impermissible, then the means leading to that outcome will also be deemed impermissible.

As discussed in previous posts, articles, and courses, trade in and of itself is categorised as mubāḥ (permissible). However, scholars of Uṣūl al-Fiqh (Jurisprudence Methodology) have explained that mubāḥ practices can shift in ruling depending on their outcomes.

Ibn al-Qayyim (raḥimahu Allāh) elaborates on this with four categories:

1. A mubāḥ act that directly leads to a prohibited outcome — e.g., selling a tool to someone who intends to use it unlawfully. The act of selling, though mubāḥ, becomes prohibited due to its role in facilitating harm.
2. A mubāḥ act undertaken with an impermissible intent — e.g., marrying a divorced woman (normally mubāḥ) with the sole intention of making her ḥalāl again for her former husband (taḥlīl marriage). In such a case, the otherwise permissible act becomes prohibited because of the impermissible intent behind it.
3. A mubāḥ act that, through experience, is shown to typically result in harm, and thus is restricted by the Sharīʿah—e.g., forbidding ṣalāh at sunrise and sunset to prevent resemblance with idol-worshippers who prostrated to the sun at those times. While ṣalāh is intrinsically mubāḥ and praiseworthy, an exception was made due to the sensitive outcome it might cause.
4. A mubāḥ act that may potentially lead to harm but whose benefits generally outweigh the risks, with harmful outcomes being rare—e.g., permitting a prospective groom to look at the woman he intends to marry. This allowance, though mubāḥ, can be escalated to mustaḥabb (recommended) or even wājib (obligatory) depending on the harm it prevents and the good it secures.

Applying this framework to the question of boycotting:

It is category four that is most relevant. If a financial boycott exerts real pressure against policies of oppression, leading to the reduction or cessation of harm, then it is not merely mubāḥ—it can rise to the level of recommendation (mustaḥabb) or even obligation (wājib). This is particularly so when oppression is confirmed and when viable alternatives exist in the marketplace to replace the boycotted products. Since oppression is categorically forbidden, and supporting the oppressed is mandated by the Sharīʿah, boycotting—when proven to be effective—becomes a valid and even necessary means of fulfilling this obligation.

Some may question: what of the harm caused to businesses or individuals not directly responsible for the oppression?

This is a valid concern. However, it should be noted that such harm arises not from the consumer but from the realisation of market risk—a known element of all free markets, where buyers exercise autonomy over their choices, loyalty, and spending patterns. Moreover, in today’s globalised economy, boycotts often serve as a powerful incentive for markets to leverage their influence and apply meaningful pressure, thereby becoming part of the collective effort to end injustice and restore balance.

And Allah knows best.

Your brother

Sajid Umar

Location: 'somewhere en route to the hereafter'

12/03/1442 (AH) - 29/10/2020