Skip to main content
Refutations

Was Abu Afak Murdered in His Sleep? The Story Is Weak and the Bible Does Worse

11 min read 2314 words

The Story of Abu Afak: A Fabricated Narration and a Christian Double Standard

Table of Contents

Introduction: A Weak Story Repeated Without Shame

The Doubt Some Christians raise the story of the killing of Abu Afak — allegedly while he was asleep — as evidence of the Prophet’s ﷺ cruelty and moral corruption. They repeat this objection despite it having been answered thousands of times, and despite knowing that the story is weak and unreliable.

This article addresses the objection from three angles:

  1. Clarifying the weakness of the chains of transmission of the story and its invalidity.
  2. Clarifying that Abu Afak deserved to be killed for breaking the covenant of Medina and inciting against the Prophet ﷺ — assuming the narration were correct.
  3. Obligating the Christians to abide by what is in their own books about killing people while they are asleep.

Three Points of Refutation

Overview The story of Abu Afak rests on three narrations — all of them weak. No narration with a sound chain of transmission establishes this story. It is therefore not permissible to use it as an argument against Islam, and every objection built on it collapses before even examining the content.

First: The Chains of Transmission Are Weak and Unreliable

Narration One: Al-Waqidi’s Maghazi — Three Reasons for Rejection

The Narration Al-Waqidi’s Maghazi: “Sa’id ibn Muhammad narrated to us, on the authority of ‘Umarah ibn Ghaziyyah, and Abu Mus’ab Isma’il ibn Mus’ab ibn Isma’il ibn Zayd ibn Thabit narrated to us, on the authority of his sheikhs, who said: An old man from Banu ‘Amr ibn ‘Awf was called Abu Afak, and he was an old man who had reached one hundred and twenty years of age when the Prophet ﷺ came to Medina. He was inciting people to enmity towards the Prophet ﷺ but did not enter Islam. When the Messenger of Allah ﷺ went out to Badr and returned, and Allah had granted him victory…”
Three Reasons This Narration Is Rejected First: Ambiguity in the narration and ignorance of the sheikhs of Ismail ibn Mus’ab — the narrators whose names are withheld are unknown and cannot be evaluated.

Second: Ismail ibn Mus’ab himself is unknown (majhul). Ibn Abi Hatim mentioned him in Al-Jarh wa Al-Ta’dil, Part Two, Page 199, with neither criticism nor approval — a status that renders his narrations unreliable by default.

Third: Al-Waqidi himself is a rejected narrator, condemned by the major hadith scholars.

The Hadith Scholars’ Verdict on Al-Waqidi From Tahdhib al-Kamal by Imam al-Mizzi, Part 26:

— Zakariya ibn Yahya al-Saji: “Muhammad ibn Umar ibn Waqid al-Aslami is accused.”

— Ahmad ibn Hanbal: “I have no doubt that al-Waqidi was turning the hadiths upside down — he attributes the hadith of Yunus to Muammar.” And in another statement: “He is a liar.”

— Al-Bukhari: “Al-Waqidi was from Medina and lived in Baghdad. His hadith is rejected.” And in another place: “He is a liar.”

— Yahya ibn Ma’in: “Weak.” And: “He is nothing.” And: “He is not trustworthy.”

— Ali ibn al-Madini: “Al-Haytham ibn ‘Adi is more trustworthy to me than al-Waqidi, and I do not accept him in hadith, genealogy, or anything.”

— Abu Dawud: “Al-Waqidi narrated thirty thousand strange hadiths.”

— Muslim: “His hadith is abandoned.”

— Al-Nasa’i: “He is not trustworthy.”

Verdict on Narration One This narration is weak for three independent and sufficient reasons: unknown narrators, an unvetted transmitter, and a narrator condemned as a liar and fabricator by the foremost hadith scholars of the Islamic tradition.

Narration Two: The Second Narration from Al-Waqidi

The Narration Al-Waqidi’s Maghazi: “Ma’n ibn ‘Umar told me: Ibn Ruqaysh told me: Abu Afak was killed in Shawwal, at the beginning of twenty months.”
Two Reasons This Narration Is Rejected First: The transmission goes through Sa’id ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn Yazid ibn Ruqaysh — an unreliable link.

Second: Al-Waqidi is weak, as established in detail above, making it unnecessary to repeat the evaluation.

Narration Three: Ibn Ishaq in Ibn Hisham’s Biography

The Narration Sira of Ibn Hisham: “Ibn Ishaq said: And the campaign of Salim ibn Umair to kill Abu Afak, one of Banu ‘Amr ibn ‘Awf, then from Banu ‘Ubaydah, and his hypocrisy had become apparent, when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ killed al-Harith ibn Suwayd ibn Samit, so he said: I have lived for a long time and I have not seen among the people a house or a gathering more faithful to covenants…”
This Narration Is Not Authentic Ibn Ishaq was born in the year 80 AH — meaning he narrates this story without a connected chain back to eyewitnesses, with no mention of who transmitted it to him.
Source: Siyar A’lam al-Nubala by Imam al-Dhahabi, Part Six “Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Yasar ibn Khiyar — the scholar, preserver, and historian… Ibn Ishaq was born in the year eighty and saw Anas ibn Malik in Medina, and Sa’id ibn al-Musayyib.”
Verdict on All Three Narrations All three narrations of the Abu Afak story are weak. There is no sound chain of transmission establishing this incident. Any objection built on these narrations has no solid foundation, and the weakness of the chains of transmission frees us from any further effort in refuting the content.

Second: Even If the Story Were True, Abu Afak Deserved Punishment

A Concession Argument Assuming for the sake of argument that the story were true — Abu Afak’s actions, as described even in the weak narration, would make him deserving of punishment under the terms of the Covenant of Medina.

According to the weak narration itself, Abu Afak was inciting enmity against the Prophet ﷺ through his poetry, rallying people against him, and calling upon the tribes to rise against the emerging Muslim community. This incitement constituted a breach of the Covenant of Medina — making him a traitor and a covenant-breaker who was subject to the punishment for treachery.

Two Different Reasons Across the Two Narrations It should be noted that the weak narration of al-Waqidi and the weak narration of Ibn Ishaq actually contradict each other on the reason for the killing:

— Al-Waqidi’s narration indicates the killing was for covenant-breaking and incitement against the Prophet ﷺ.

— Ibn Ishaq’s narration mentions that “his hypocrisy had become apparent,” suggesting the killing was the application of the punishment for apostasy.

These two reasons are distinct legal categories. The contradiction between the two weak narrations further undermines their reliability as a coherent historical account. In either case, the weakness of the chains of transmission makes any analysis of the content unnecessary — but if pressed, both scenarios carry legitimate jurisprudential grounding in Islamic law.

Third: The Christian Bible Praises Killing Enemies While They Sleep

Turning the Objection Around The Christians who raise the story of Abu Afak should examine what is in their own scriptures. The Bible not only records incidents of killing enemies while they sleep — it presents such killings as divinely approved acts of heroism, and the Church’s interpreters praise them as spiritual allegories.

Judges 4: Jael Kills Sisera by Treachery While He Sleeps

Judges 4:14–24 14 Then Deborah said to Barak, “Arise, for this is the day that the Lord has delivered Sisera into your hand.”

17 But Sisera fled on foot to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, for there had been peace between Jabin king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite.

18 Then Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him, “Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; do not be afraid.” So he turned in to her into the tent, and she covered him with the blanket.

19 Then he said to her, “Please give me a little water to drink, for I am thirsty.” So she opened the milk tub and gave him a drink, then covered him.

20 Then he said to her, “Stand at the door of the tent, and if anyone comes and asks you, ‘Is there a man here?’ you will say, ‘No.’”

21 Then Jael, Heber’s wife, took a tent peg and put the stick in her hand. Then she went to him and drove the peg into his temple, and it went into the ground. But he was heavy in sleep and weary, and he died.

23 So God humbled Jabin king of Canaan that day before the children of Israel.

Here is Jael receiving her thirsty guest — a man with whom her family had an alliance and a peace treaty. She deceives him with false reassurance, gives him milk so that he falls into a heavy sleep, and then drives a tent peg through his temple while he sleeps. The Bible presents this as God granting victory to the children of Israel through her act.

The Church’s Endorsement of Jael’s Action

Not only does the Bible record this act without condemnation — the Church actively praises it and draws spiritual lessons from it. Father Tadros Maltese, in his commentary on Judges Chapter 4, writes:

Father Tadros Maltese — Commentary on Judges 4 “Jael, as we said, represents the Church of the Nations… The strange thing is that he found her coming out to receive him with words that seemed very nice, even though she had deceived him with lies and killed him, which is contrary to the duties of hospitality. Perhaps Jael did this not of herself, but through an announcement in one way or another…”

“This milk is nothing but the teachings of faith that quench the soul of the believer and intoxicate it with the love of God, but it is deadly to Satan and destructive to him.”

“Sisera dies at the hand of a woman with the wooden stake in her hand, as she approached him to strike him with the stake in his temple so that it would penetrate the ground while he was heavy asleep and he would die. In other words, let the devil’s desires be fulfilled in us by the hand of the Church, the bride of Christ, who carries the cross, lightly and quickly striking the devil in the head, that is, at the beginning of his thoughts while he is still sound asleep, before he enters with his thoughts into the depths to awaken and take possession.”

Source: St. Takla — Commentary on Judges Chapter 4

The Point Jael received a guest under the protection of a peace treaty, deceived him with lies and milk, and drove a tent peg through his temple while he slept. The Church did not denounce this. On the contrary, Church interpreters celebrate Jael as representing the Church herself, and her act of treacherous murder while her guest slept is presented as a spiritual model of how the Church strikes Satan. The Christians who object to a weak and unproven story about Abu Afak are happy to draw spiritual lessons from a Biblically attested story of murder by betrayal during sleep.

2 Samuel 4: The Sons of Rimmon Kill Ish-Bosheth While He Sleeps

2 Samuel 4:5–7 5 Then the sons of Rimmon the Beerothite, Rechab and Baanah, went and came in the heat of the day to the house of Ish-bosheth, while he slept at noon.

6 And they went into the midst of the house to get wheat, and struck him in the stomach. Then Rechab and his brother Baanah escaped.

7 And when they entered the house, he was lying on his bed in his bedroom. So they struck him and killed him and cut off his head. They took his head and went by the Arabah way all night.

Here is another killing in the Bible — enemies entering a man’s home, finding him sleeping at noon in his bed, stabbing him in the stomach, cutting off his head, and fleeing into the night. This is recorded in the scriptures that Christians hold sacred.

Conclusion: The Double Standard Is Exposed The Christians who raise the weak story of Abu Afak as an attack on Islam must first answer for what is in their own scriptures. Their Bible contains divinely approved accounts of killing enemies while they sleep — accounts that the Church does not condemn but actively spiritualizes and celebrates. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

The story of Abu Afak has no sound chain of transmission. It cannot be used as an argument against the Prophet ﷺ or against Islam. And those who insist on raising it despite its weakness have exposed themselves as critics who apply one standard to Islam and an entirely different standard to their own tradition.

This article is part of the OpenIslam Wiki — Doubts About the Prophet ﷺ series.