If we boycott Danish products over cartoons why not American products used to help kill Muslims?

By: Sabria Jawhar

The other day I received an e-mail from a Saudi brother
who told me that Netto market, which is less than a block
from where I live, is owned by a company in Denmark.
He didn’t have to tell me to boycott Netto. I already made

that decision once I looked up the market’s
ownership and found it to be true.

You won’t find me in the streets protesting the publication
of the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad
(peace be upon him) or Geert Wilders' anti-Muslim video
like we saw in Pakistan earlier this week. No, I’d rather
use my pocketbook. Boycotting goods and services of a
business in a country that seems to think it’s OK to
hurt and humiliate one-fifth of the world’s population,
and then hide behind the right to freedom of speech,
is the right way to protest. Nothing hurts more than
depriving people of money.

In fact, I’m not very happy with those noisy demonstrators
who seem to think that violence is the solution to stop the
publication of the cartoons. It makes us look rather foolish.
But a well thought out campaign to stage boycotts, write
letters and use good old-fashioned diplomacy is a more
mature, intelligent and effective device for
demonstrating my anger.

Now I must take the train to Tesco, buy my stuff there,
and haul it back in plastic bags like a beggar. All my fellow
train passengers will know that I have a weakness for
Kit-Kat bars and frozen cheese cake. I just hope the
Danes don’t buy a majority interest in Tesco anytime soon.

But I must confess that I am more than a little curious
about the boycott and the protests occurring around
the world over the cartoon issue. I admire my brothers
and sisters who have taken up this burden to spend
considerable time attempting to educate the world
about what it means to be Muslim and why publishing
these cartoons is so wrong.

What I don’t understand is why similar efforts are not
made to boycott products and countries that are responsible
for the deaths of hundreds of Muslims worldwide.
If a cartoon is so offensive to us, isn’t murder of a
Muslim in an illegal war or occupation equally or
more offensive.

I’m referring, of course, to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
and the continuing Israeli assaults on Gaza. We have
been boycotting Israeli products for decades now, as we
should. But when scores of Iraqi and Afghan civilians,
the vast majority Muslims, are killed daily, we do little
to rise up and demand action against those responsible.

We have discovered that boycotts are effective.
We’ve learned that Danish businesses have lost millions
of euros due to the Muslim boycott. The Swiss-Danish
company Arla Foods reportedly lost 1.3 million euros
a day in 2006 due to the boycott. Danish business
leaders estimate losses between February 2006
through this summer will reach as much as 36 billion euros
In other words, it’s working.

So perhaps it’s time that we expand the boycott to
include businesses that aid and abet the slaughter of Muslims.

For example, although British troops evacuated from
Basra late last year, did you know that more than 125
Muslim women doctors, lawyers, activists and just plain
housewives were tortured and murdered on the streets
of that city? Most of these murders occurred under the
coalition’s and the local government’s watch.

American soldiers each day kill Iraqi and Afghan civilians
and attribute it to unfortunate collateral damage in the
pursuit of insurgents. Private American companies
charged with providing security for American businesses
have killed innocent women and children. The most
infamous abuses have been perpetrated by the firm Blackwater.

Why is it that we do not boycott businesses in these
countries? Should we boycott General Motors and Ford
for building vehicles that transport troops to small
villages where Muslims will certainly die? When
Muslims purchase a Hummer, or Humvee
(and you know who you are), they are buying the most
recognizable symbol of the US military in Iraq.
The Hummer is built and sold by the same people who
send vehicles to Iraq to aid the war effort. Shouldn’t
Muslims consider a boycott of General Motors products?

Are we boycotting Sara Lee and Tyson Foods for feeding
the men that kill Muslims? Next time you buy a frozen pie
look at the manufacturer’s label. Is this company feeding
the man who killed your Muslim brother or sister.
Rolls Royce, owned by the German automaker BMW,
manufactures engines for military aircraft, including
helicopter gunships, to send troops to kill. Why do rich
Muslims continue to purchase Rolls Royce cars?

Boycotting products is a personal choice and we do it
for a variety of reasons, notwithstanding the original
intent of the protest. We either engage in a boycott or
not depending on convenience and whether it’s practical.

Maybe it’s not practical to boycott General Motors if the
only affordable car you can buy at the time is a Chevrolet.
But it’s easier to boycott Sara Lee. Just move to the next
freezer and get another frozen pie from another maker.

The choice is yours.