On Going Boycott Of Mcd Kfc Must Cease It Only Diminishes Zakat Contributions From Muslim Franchisees

---

 
ARE the boycotts related to Palestinian issue counter-productive to Muslim interests in Malaysia?
This was the pertinent issue raised by by Shariah-proponent Nasrullah (@mnasrullah00) who highlighted that one of the consequences of boycotting prominent fast-food brands in McDonald’s (McD’s) and KFC in Malaysia is reduced zakat contributions in contrast to non-Muslim-owned fast-food brands.

Pointing to a recent podcast that featured Perlis and the Federal Territory Mufti office committee member Dr Ahmad Sufyan Che Abdullah, it was argued that boycotting both McD’s and KFC would lead to a reduction in zakat (tithe) contributions.
Editor’s Note: For the uninitiated, zakat is an annual payment of a certain proportion of one’s personal wealth for charitable and religious purposes which is obligatory under Islamic law for every adult Muslim of sufficient means (it is regarded as one of the Five Pillars of Islam).
To underline the point, this poster further shared an info graphic purportedly showing declining profit margins as well as reduced zakat contributions by fast food brands affected by the boycotts.

On the Youcast channel on YouTube, there were also commenters on both sides of the fence. Apparently, many also disagreed with the views proffered by Dr Ahmad Sufyan.
One commenter argued that the image of Israeli soldiers feasting on free McD’s lunches has tarnished the Golden Arches brand globally regardless of brand ownership in individual countries.

One commenter sought to take a balanced approach by supporting the local McD’s franchise but boycotting the brand abroad. He believed that McD’s Malaysia brought more ‘pros’ than ‘cons’ to the equation.
Similar sentiments were also shared by influencer Pick (@pickkyhn) on X who proclaimed that he continued to support McD’s and KFC because those fast-food franchises actively employ single mums and members of the OKU (disabled) community.
This is a point that has been raised before with many arguing that the boycotts were mainly affecting B40-segment workforce from the Muslim community.

Many commenters had their say on the topic that seems to divide opinion.
There were those who agreed with Pick, believing that innocent parties trying to make an honest living should not be the victims of these boycotts.
One commenter slammed those who supported the Palestinian cause but lacked empathy towards single mothers and disabled workers at these restaurants whose rice bowls would be affected.

One commenter made it clear that domestic needs take priority.

On the flip siders, it was argued alternative employment could be found. The loss of lives (as opposed to livelihoods) in Gaza was too great a cost.

As the conflict in Palestine rages on, so will the argument over the effectiveness (or even the validity) of the boycotts aimed at brands to be perceived to be pro-Zionist.
Despite much PR (public relations) work taken by these brands to highlight local ownership as well as contributions towards the plight of Palestinians, many Malaysians remain steadfast in their boycotts as advocated by BDS Malaysia, the Malaysian chapter of the global Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement which press for sanctions against Israel.
Make no mistake that this is a complicated issue with deep emotions tied to it. However, the question has been raised before, is the toll placed on the local economy by these boycotts too high?
More pertinently, what about when it directly affects Muslim shareholdings in businesses, employment opportunities and zakat contributions? Isn’t that counter-productive? Food for thought. –  Focus Malaysia

---