Is dealing with Denmark and its products permissible or forbidden, in light of the repeated offenses against Muslims, taking into consideration the principles of "no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another" and "no harm and no reciprocating harm," and the impact of that on Muslim traders and others?

Originally, it is permissible to eat foods manufactured in foreign countries. However, it is known that supporting the Prophet (peace be upon him) is obligatory, and what some newspapers in those countries did by mocking him necessitates a boycott. If boycotting the goods of those countries supports the Prophet and deters the disbelievers, then Muslims should boycott their products, including food and other items, until their power weakens. As for the argument of punishing the innocent, it does not contradict the noble verse, because boycotting an entire country is permissible. The Prophet (peace be upon him) approved Thumamah ibn Uthal when he withheld wheat from the people of Mecca, despite the presence of some sympathizers and Muslims among them. Denmark has no kinship ties with us. As for Muslim traders who have purchased their goods, those who do not care about the offense will be recompensed according to their deeds. However, for those who stopped dealing with them after the offense, there is no harm in purchasing the goods they already possess, because the intention is to boycott the country, not to punish Muslim traders.