Who are we?.
Our Objectives.
Testimony former muslims.
Contact us.
What is islam?.
How do I study Islam?.
Study of Islam.
Islamization of Belgium.
Action Points.
Questions for the Movement.
Movement in the Media.
Islamitic Terminology.



Murder of the one-eyed shepherd
The story describes the murder of a shepherd by a devout follower of Muhammad. The motive was what we would nowadays call “insulting Islam” or “Islamophobia”. The murder was committed on the initiative of this Muslim and was afterwards sanctioned by Muhammad himself.

The story was recorded by Ibn Ishaq in his biography of Muhammad, pages 673 through 675.
Ibn Ishaq reports:

‘Amr Ibn Umayya said: After the killing of Khubayb and his companions the Apostle sent an Ansari with me telling us to go and Kill Abu Sufyan, so we set out.
I suggested to my companion that we should go to Abu Sufyan’s house and I would try to kill him while he kept watch.

The story continues by saying that while in Mecca they were spotted and escaped. Both men went separate ways.
Our Comments:

Once he moved from Mecca to Medina, Muhammad was in a permanent state of war with the people of Mecca. He thought that by killing Abu Sufyan, one of the leaders there, he could gain a significant advantage against Mecca. The plan failed, however.

Muhammad’s tactic of wanting to physically eliminate an important enemy leader  reminds us of the execution by an Israeli airstrike in 2004 of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin while Ariel Sharon was the Prime Minister of Israel.

But there is an important difference. According to their Charter, the objective of Hamas was and remains the destruction of Israel by violence.

Muhammad’s opponents, on the contrary, were only interested in warding off the constant threat that Muhammad posed with his persistent attacks on Meccan caravans.
I [‘Amr] went into a cave there taking my bow and arrows, and while I was there in came a one-eyed man of B. Al-Dil driving a sheep of his. When he asked who I was I told him that I was one of B. Bakr. He said that he was also, adding of B. Al-Dil clan. Then he lay down beside me and lifting up his voice began to sing:
At this point the story turns odd. ‘Amr, the would-be killer meets an unfortunate shepherd, who proves to be a family member.

I won’t be a muslim as long as I live,
Nor heed to their religion give.

I said (to myself), “You will soon know!” and as soon as the badu was asleep and snoring I got up and killed him in a more horrible way than any man had killed. I put the end of my bow in his sound eye, then I bore down on it until I forced it out at the back of his neck.

The shepherd was clearly unimpressed by the new religion that Muhammad was spreading in the area, and vowed never to become a Muslim. He must have imagined that freedom of speech was still current among the Arabs.

But for the devout Muslim (family member) freedom of speech has clear limits, and claiming that one will never become a Muslim is definitely going too far. In fact it constitutes an insult to Muhammad and Islam, and such an insult carries the death penalty.

Note how the killer of the Shepherd brags about the horrible way that he killed the man.

Insulting Islam is the worst crime that you can commit and it deserves an “appropriate” punishment.

In the early days of Islam, extreme violence seemed to be the norm in the “defense” of the “religion of peace”.
The story continues by saying that ‘Amr Ibn Umayya returned to Medina and reported to Muhammad:

He [Muhammad] asked my news and when I told him what had happened he blessed me.

Here the murder is approved by no less than Muhammad himself. What greater reward could there be for a devout Muslim than being blessed by Muhammad?

It is interesting to note that the assassination took place outside the “jurisdiction” of the first Islamic state in Medina, and that no form of legal proceedings were needed. The fatwa of Ayatollah Khomeini against Salman Rushdie confirms that insulting Islam is such a heinous crime that it should be punished, 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 thing. 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 against Islam. 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 not one of our Imams would dare to protest this.

So our Imams have no other option than to lie and misrepresent the real teachings of Islam, as defined by the four big schools of  Islam and published worldwide.
Did Muhammad have the murder of the unfortunate shepherd in mind when he said: “I have been made victorious by terror”?