Islamic propaganda and facts: What would the Prophet have done

I hate this American religious propaganda exercise under the banner of "what would Jesus have done" in this situation.  And it seems that some Muslims are reproducing that exercise.  How can anyone claim to speak on behalf of a dead prophet. But look, I understand. Many Muslims (and I am not talking about Islamists or the fanatical terrorists) are really pissed at what seems to them as a global campaign of Islamophobia. Many Muslims see this in the context of a long history of Western vilification of Muslims and the prophet. There is no historical figure who has received more abuse and insults than the Prophet at the hands of Western Christian (and later secular) polemicists. This is the context in which Muslims look at this current controversy.  Having said that, I won't give a pass to those Muslims who wish to distort history and erase facts to further a political point of view. Look at this article in Aljazeera.  The author said: "Upon his triumphant return to Mecca, he forgave the inhabitants of the city which had been home to his fiercest enemies. He even pardoned a member of his inner circle, Abdullah Ibn Saad, who denounced the prophet as a charlatan."  Mr Diab is wrong on more than one count.  1) When the prophet entered Mecca, he did issue a general pardon but he made exceptions.  "But those he could not forgive were the propagandists who had mocked and made fun of him in songs and verses." (see Maxime Rodinson, Muhammad, Prophet of Islam, p. 261).  2) The case of `Abdullah Ibn Saad is quite interesting. The prophet didn't forgive him but due to the intercessions of `Uthman and his insistence, he did relent at the end, and the man lived.  But later the Prophet said: "What prevented you from going after that dog and killing him"?  (see Ibn `Asakir, Tarikh Madinat Dimashq, Volume 29, p. 34).   (The man survived, nevertheless).