Let me also add this: There is absolutely no meaning to having a boycott predicated on "permission from the ruler" He's the ruler! He can just ban certain products and services from entering the country to begin with!
This is some of the most baseless, unfounded rationale I've ever heard. Personal wealth is inviolable under Islamic law, and just as a ruler has no prima facie right to force a sale, he has no prima facie right to force a purchase. This is one of the ABCs of Fiqh. Additionally,…
I find it necessary to add:
Lots of you in the comments are using bad language and insulting words, there's no need for that.
Some of you are engaging in the same type of poorly formed opinions and debates that I'm detracting from here. Learning Islamic law is not YouTube links…
On Economic Boycotts and the incorrect opinion that it's contingent on government approval:
al-Bukhari narrates that after Thumama Ibn Uthāl accepted Islam, the Prophet ﷺ gave him glad tidings & ordered him to perform the `Umra. When he came to Mecca, someone said to him, "So…
@joebradford
Well how does the rulers “right to ban” conflict with the Prophet ﷺ policy of(more or less to the meaning )“never price fixing” because he said that prices are the will of Allahعزَّوجل
@SunYRainYDaY
Regulatory interventions must be predicated on protecting the public interest, else they are unjust
The variant discussions on price regulation is a good example of that as you had mentioned.
@joebradford
For years there have been numerous serious deviant issues going on in America. You never spoke out against them. Now that this brother from UAE said something you don’t agree with you decide to blast him? Keep the same energy for the people who promote takfir and other deviance
@joebradford
Yes but they add that ruler caveat part, so they want their loyalty known and obedience to the tyranical rule to be accepted and never questioned let alone challenged.