Are some Muslims opposed to/embarrassed by...?

Fatwah. When reward money is offered for the murder of a particular individual who is offensive to Islam in some way.

Are some Muslims opposed to this and/or embarrassed by it? Or is everyone pretty much ok with it?

If you're ok with it, know that I am not and will never be. But if you'd like to tell me why you and it should escape criticism, I could maybe look at that.

And if you're not ok with it (and also a Muslim), do you think there's anything that can be done about it?


A fatwah in general is any juristic ruling by an Islamic scholar concerning Islamic law, which is non-binding in Sunni Islam but may be binding in Shia Islam to those who have some relation to the scholar. For the vast majority of these rulings, it has to do with praxis, sometimes important things and sometimes mundane- like a ruling on head coverings when there is a law against it in a secular country. Or a situational teaching that is dietary in nature. Two examples.

However. To any non-Muslim, those types of rulings have nothing to do with them directly. But there are certain instances where a fatwah does directly affect a non-Muslim, and those instances, albeit quite rare, are also the times when a Muslim (usually an imam or ayatollah of some description) calls for the death of a particular individual who has gravely offended Islam, and reward money is offered. To non-Muslims, this is the operative definition of fatwah in general, and while it is not accurate to the Muslim experie

Update 2:


and while it is not accurate to the Muslim experience of fatwah, it describes fatwah in just about every case where it has some direct effect on non-Muslims. So to us- from our perspective, and in our experience- our exposure to fatwah, while limited, consists primarily of something that basically consists of murder-for-hire.

The most widely publicized example of fatwah happened in the late 80s when British-Indian author Salman Rushdie wrote and published The Satanic Verses. The first supreme leader of Iran, Ruhollah Khomeini, issued a fatwah offering a substantial reward for the murder of Rushdie.

Rushdie is still alive, but in the wake of the short (and generally awful) film Innocence of Muslims, the current successor to Khomeini (Ayatolla Hassan Sanei) increased the reward that continues to be on Rushdie's head twenty-plus years later. The reward now stands at 3.3 million dollars. Rushdie had absolutely nothing to do with the film, except to call it "clearly a male

Update 3:


"clearly a malevolent piece of garbage" and the filmmaker "outrageous and unpleasant and disgusting." But he also stated that Muslims need to stop engaging in violent protests whenever they are upset about something (and occasionally offering millions of dollars for the death of whoever is responsible), saying "The Muslim world needs to get out of that mindset." At any rate, the death of Rushdie is now worth an additional half-million dollars to a very powerful and influential scholar in the Muslim world, and....well....I guess that is what's been happening in the past week.

Update 4:

@Ash- I agree, it sounds terrible to me too.

@Arqam- When the military of a secular government engages in warfare, that is in no way the same thing as a religious scholar putting a hit out on a citizen (author, filmmaker, and so forth) for reasons that stem purely from religious offense. You know what would be the same thing? Imagine if a bishop, priest, pastor, minister, or president of a theological society offered millions of dollars for the murder of an Arabic writer. Better yet, imagine if a Jewish rabbi offered millions of dollars for the murder of an Arab filmmaker who denies the Holocaust and depicts Jews as baby-eating savages. Do you see those things happening? I mean- do you see any rabbis doing that. I'm sure you're familiar with anti-Semitic filmmakers. But the rabbis- are they? I didn't think so.

@Truth- you are right, fatwah is any kind of Islamic ruling, which can be non-binding depending on the alignment of the scholar. But as far as what is directly ex

Update 5:

@Truth, continued- But as far as what is directly experienced by non-Muslims, the only rulings that directly affect us are the ones that, in effect, put a hit out on someone.

@SMFA- I will criticize Jewish rabbis and Catholic bishops and Baptist ministers, just as soon as I see any of them call for the death of a filmmaker who offends their religion while offering millions of dollars to whoever does it. For now, though, I can only criticize prominent Muslim scholars.

Update 6:

@Perfume- I am not asking if you would like for me to accept the practice of offering 3.3 million dollars for the murder of someone who offends your religion. Out of curiosity, I am asking if you accept it or are embarrassed by it. From your response, I will assume that this is your way. And you can rest assured that I will judge you privately if that is the case.

Update 7:

@theAyatrollah- I think it is a little more complicated than that, as fatwah can be non-binding depending on who the scholar is and even when it is binding, it is only binding to a limited extent. There is no single teaching entity that governs all Muslims, so I would expect there to be some variety of opinion depending on which Muslims are held accountable to a particular scholar and which ones are not.

Update 8:

@zakariyy- Thank you for your input, I will look into the identity of your source. I hope that none of these learned scholars issue a fatwah on the filmmaker in question.

@Denise- Thank you for your input, that does help answer the question. I'm not sure if there would necessarily be a difference if your friends were more observant, or if there would be a greater difference depending on where they're from, but I appreciate the input. You clearly have more anecdotal knowledge of this than I do.

Update 9:

@Johnathan- Salman Rushdie didn't have to worry about bounty hunters coming to find him. He had to worry about assassination teams coming to find him. This isn't about bounty hunters- it's about assassins, murderers, and hit men for hire, working way outside the lines of legality in any country where they would try and get to one of these targets. You want to talk about this? Don't talk about bounty hunters. Talk about assassins. That's what it is.

7 Answers

  • Favorite Answer

    Fatwah is a non-binding judicial ruling in Islamic law. It's non-binding by it's nature, which makes it more of an opinion, and Muslims are not obligated to follow fatwas, and there is usually no money involved. Secondly, fatwas are not about killing, they are opinions on anything. Here is more information about it:

    I am saddened and embarrassed by any form of malicious intent. Whether it be a fatwa calling for someone's death, or a movie intending on offending a group of people's beliefs.

    As for if anything can be done about it. I believe educating Muslims on what the Quran actually says is the best way to nullify Muslim violence and extremism in the world. I hope this answer helps.

    Source(s): Muslim
  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    As you can see by your answers the Muslims here are not. The Muslims I know in real life are nothing like these, but they don’t wear headgear or pray 5 times a day either in other words they are not extreme fanatics. BTW they are also appalled, but not surprised about the riots and murders caused the Muslims.

    Most of the Muslims I know and there are not many, are physicians so they are concerned about saving lives not ending them.

  • 8 years ago

    Shaikh Fawzaan's Advice In Light of The Recent Film Degrading The Prophet Muhammad (salallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam)

    Bismillaah Al-Hamdulillaah wa salatu wa salaamu 'ala rasulullaah


    Shaikh Fawzaan's Advice In Light of The Recent Film Degrading The Prophet Muhammad (salallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam)

    Shaikh Saalih al-Fawzaan (hafidhahullaah Ta'aala) said:

    "Our advice regarding that is to show comportment (demeanor) and not to show disapproval in this manner; demonstrations or harming innocent people, and wasting wealth - this is not permissible.

    Those who must respond to this are the scholars, not the common folk. The scholars respond to these affairs. They (i.e. the kufaar) want to cause chaos amongst us, and they wish to affect us; this is what they want. They want us to fight one another.

    The soldiers withhold while these people attack, and there occurs beating, killing, and injury. This is what they want.

    Calm down. Calm down.

    Those who are responsible for responding are the people of knowledge and insight. Or they could choose not to respond to them, and resolve not to respond. The pagans used to call the Messenger (salallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) a magician, a soothsayer, a liar, etc... And Allaah commanded him to have patience. He commanded His Messenger (salallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam) to have patience.

    They did not protest in Makkah nor did they destroy any of the homes of the pagans nor did they kill anyone. Patience and demeanor until Allaah, The Exalted and Most High, facilitates a way for the Muslims.

    That which is obligatory is to have demeanor, especially in these times and during these tribulations and within this evil today which is going on within the lands of the Muslims. It is obligatory to have demeanor and not to rush into these affairs, and the commoners are not fit to deal with this, for the ignorant do not know. None should deal with this except the people of knowledge and insight."


  • 8 years ago

    it depends on the person,if the person is a criminal i will approve it,it depends on the nature of his crime

    and dont just say that Muslims do it,it happens everywhere in the world,money is offered by many countries to kill many people,you should call them bad first

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • ?
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    That sounds terrible. I have never heard of anything like that before. I may do some further research now.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    The fatwas are based on the laws and life given to Muslims by Mohammed. If you are against or embarrassed by them you are against and embarrassed by Islam and Mohammed. If that is true you would be apostate and the penalty for that is death.

    So no they are not. That is Islam

  • 8 years ago

    What you don't accept is your business.

    No is asking to accept fatwahs.

    You to your way and me to mine.


    no I am not embarrassed by it.

    This is why I said "You to your way and me to mine.".

    It means I accept my way.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.