Ibn Ishaq reports:

SALIM B. ‘UMAYR’S EXPEDITION TO KILL ABU `AFAK


Abu 'Afak was one of B. 'Amr b. 'Auf of the B.’Ubayda clan. He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit and said:

Our Comments:

Note that an extra-judicial assassination is called “expedition” by the reporters on the life of Muhammad.

The crime leading to the assassination was “showing disaffection” for the violent behaviour of Muhammad, who at that time was involved in never-ending hostilities against almost everybody in Arabia.

Nowadays, even in non-muslim countries, the same phenomenon can be observed. Justifiable criticism, based on authoritative Islamic texts, of the violent nature of a number of Islamic teachings as well as of the “non-exemplary” behavior of Muhammad is nowadays classified as “Islamophobia” or “defaming Islam”, and is at times brought before the courts by non-Muslim supporters of Islam.

At the time there were no newspapers, and people used to comment on current events by means of poetry.

Long have I lived but never have I seen
An assembly or collection of people
More faithful to their undertaking
And their allies when called upon
Than the sons of Qayla² when they assembled,
Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted.

Abu Afak refers to the courage of the two main tribes of Medina, the descendants (sons) of Qayla.

A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)
`Permitted', 'Forbidden’³ of all sorts of things.
Had you believed in glory or kingship
You would have followed Tubba'.4

“Rider” refers to Muhammad as a military leader who caused social unrest in the community by creating thousands of rules as part of the new religion that he was founding. The people who became Muslims had to follow those new rules and a growing rift was created between the believers and the nonbelievers.

Exactly the same phenomenon is taking place right now in our society. The growing Muslim population is becoming more and more religious and is increasingly following the thousands of rules of Islam, thereby creating conflicts: we think about the banning of the headscarf in public services in order to preserve neutrality, the problems with vestimentary requirements for girls in schools and at work, the restrictions on inhumane slaughtering practices of animals, halal requirements of food served in schools, the pressure on Muslim restaurant owners not to serve alcoholic beverages, police being instructed not to drink, smoke or eat in public when on patrol in the month of Ramadan - in short, to take “Muslim sensibilities” into account. Now the “Muslim sensibilities” mostly revolve around the detailed rules that dominate the life of a Muslim and that both differentiate and separate him from non-Muslims.

1400 years ago, Abu Afak already realised that the nature of the emerging religion, Islam, had a divisive effect on the community. The same is happening now, not only in Belgium but worldwide.

The apostle said, 'Who will deal with this rascal for me?' whereupon Salim b.`Umayr, brother of B. 'Amr b. 'Auf one of the 'weepers', went forth and killed him.

Apparently, when Muhammad raised the subject of “dealing” with some “rascal”, there was no question that he meant anything other than killing him. Unfortunately it was not the first time this happened, nor the last.

Note that Muhammad did not invite Abu Afak to talk about their differences. (Following his Prophet’s example, Muhammad Bouyeri, the assassin of Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh,, had no interest in talking to a person who villified his Prophet. Theo van Gogh tried in vain to start a dialogue with the person who was about to kill him: “Let’s talk about it”, he said.

Umama b. Muzayriya said concerning that:

You gave the lie to God's religion and the man Ahmad!





By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced!





A hanif gave you a thrust in the night saying


`Take that Abu 'Afak in spite of your age!'

Though I knew whether it was man or jinn
Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught).

² Qayla was the putative ancestress of Aus and Khazraj.
³ A gibe at the language of the Quran.
4 i.e. You resisted Tubba` who, after all, was a king in fact and a man of great reputation, so why believe in Muhammad's claims?

After the killing, a “poetry counter-attack” is made with some revealing facts that throw some light on what is happening in the 21st century:

Denouncing the violent behaviour of Muhammad is equated with lying about Islam and Muhammad, here named Ahmed. In Belgium, people who denounce stoning as a barbaric practice mandated by Islam are treated as hate-mongers and liers.

The person who denounced what we would today call the violent elements of Islam teachings is himself accused to be evil. Nowadays the same thing goes on. Critics of Islam are generally called Islamophobes, inciters of hatred, racists, right-wing extremists, ...

This refers to Muhammad ordering to “take care” of Abu Afak.

Biographer Ibn Sa’d reported that Abu Afak was a very old man, about 120 years of age.

It is interesting to note that no form of legal proceedings were needed. The fatwa of Ayatullah Khomeini against Salman Rushdie confirms that insulting Islam is such a heinous crime that it must be punished by death, no matter where the scene of the “crime” was.

Since that time, little has changed. Pakistan writes in its penal code:
Insertion of new section 295-C, Act XLV of 1860. In the Pakistan Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), after section 295-B, the following new section shall be inserted, namely: 295-C.
Use of derogatory remarks, etc. in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

For those who claim that the Pakistani lawmakers are a bunch of backward tribesman, there is some bad news. Every shariah handbook says exactly the same. In the shariah handbook of the Shafi’i school, the following is written under the subject “Acts that entail leaving Islam” [that are punishable by death] in § o8.7.:

(4) Reviling Allah or his Messenger

This is also valid for non-muslims as described in § o11.10.(5) of the same book.

You can read for yourself what the Maliki school writes in the following link in §37.19:

Whoever abuses the Messenger of God - peace and blessing of God be upon him - is to be executed, and his repentance is not accepted.

If any dhimmi (by 'dhimmi' is meant a non-Muslim subject living in a Muslim country) curses the Prophet - peace be upon him - or abuses him by saying something other than what already makes him an unbeliever, or abuses God Most High by saying something other than what already makes him an unbeliever, he is to be executed unless at that juncture he accepts Islam.

It should come as no surprise that the Danish cartoon makers received the death penalty from the “international Islamic community” for depicting Muhammad with a bomb.

The same went for Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who dared to criticize the teachings of the Qur’an and was killed for it by devout Dutch Muslim Mohammed Bouyeri.

To everyone’s satisfaction, Imams in Belgium have declared that killing a critic of Muhammad and Allah is un-Islamic. Those Imams have no other option than to say so, for fear of being deported. But in their home countries, laws that penalize criticism of Islam are still in place and none of our Imams would dare to protest against this.

So our Imams have to lie and misrepresent the real teachings of Islam, as defined by the four big schools of  Islam and published worldwide.