Mocking the Prophet, How Should We React?

[جوري]

They don't get that.. how many times have we stated there are laws against libel and slander? Their entire anti-defemation league is established only to protect Zionists so give it up, they're lying two faced hypocrites and that's all there is to it!

 

[~Zaria~]

We have heard about the Westerners making fun of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and mocking him. What should our attitude be towards that? How should we defend the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)?.



Praise be to Allaah.

Firstly:

We and every Muslim who feels pride in his religion is grieved by what these fools and criminals have done by mocking our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) who is the best man who ever walked on this earth, and he is the leader of the earlier and later generations, may the blessings and peace of my Lord be upon him.

This insolence is nothing strange on their part, rather it is to be expected of them.

Moreover this crime – although it breaks our hearts and fills them with anger, and we are prepared to sacrifice our lives in defence of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) – is nevertheless something which brings us glad tidings of their doom, and tells us that the end of their supremacy is at hand. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Truly, We will suffice you against the scoffers”

[al-Hijr 15:95]

Allaah will suffice His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) against the criminals who mock him. He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“For he who hates you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), he will be cut off (from posterity and every good thing in this world and in the Hereafter)”

[al-Kawthar 108:3]

i.e., he is scorned and humiliated and cut off from all that is good.

When the Muslims besieged a stronghold and its people resisted, then they heard them mocking and reviling the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), they would sense that victory was at hand, and it would only be a short time before Allaah granted them victory, to avenge His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

Al-Saarim al-Maslool (p. 116-117).

There are many historical cases where those who mocked the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) were destroyed and finished off.

Moreover, why do they resent the leader of mankind, Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)?

They resent him because he called people to believe in the Oneness of God (Tawheed), and they do not believe that God is One.

They resent him because he venerated his Lord, may He be blessed and exalted, and declared Him to be far above what these fabricators say, as they attributed a wife and son to Him.

They resent him because he called people to the loftiest of morals and to give up the lowest. He called them to virtue and to block all the means that lead to immorality, but they want moral disorder and unlimited sexual liberty.

They want to indulge in the swamp of evil whims and desires, and they have got what they want!

They resent him because he is the Messenger of Allaah! Allaah, may He be exalted, is the One Who chose him above all mankind to convey His message and receive His revelation.

The signs of his Prophethood are innumerable.

Have they not heard about the splitting of the moon? Have they not heard how water sprang from his fingers time after time?

Have they not heard about his greatest sign, which is the Holy Qur’aan, the words of the Lord of the Worlds, which Allaah has protected so that it has not been tampered with by those who would distort it? Whereas their books which were revealed to their Prophets have been tampered with to a large extent.

“Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, “This is from Allaah,” to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby”
[al-Baqarah 2:79].

The greatest proof of the truth of our Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is the fact that his religion has continued for so many centuries to prevail and be victorious. Throughout his lifetime (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) he continued to prevail over his enemies. The wisdom of Allaah dictates that no liar who lies about him and his religion can ever prevail for a long time. Indeed, in their books, which their scholars concealed and distorted, it says that the liar who falsely claims to be a prophet will only survive for thirty years or so, then his message will fade away.

It was narrated from one of their kings that a man who followed the same religion as him (Christian) was brought to him, who used to revile the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and accuse him of lying. The king summoned his religious scholars and asked them: How long does a liar remain for? They said: Such and such – thirty years or thereabouts. The king said: This religion of Muhammad has lasted for more than five hundred years or six hundred years [i.e., at the time of that king], and it is prevailing and is accepted and followed. How can he be a liar? Then he had that man beheaded.

Sharh al-‘Aqeedah al-Asfahaaniyyah by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him).

Do they not know that many of their wise men, kings and scholars, when the pure and clear call of Islam reached them, had no choice but to affirm the truth of this religion, and they venerated the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and many of them announced their entry into Islam?

The king of Abyssinia, the Najaashi (Negus) affirmed that, and became a Muslim.

When the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sent a letter to Heraclius the king of Byzantium, calling him to Islam, Heraclius affirmed that he was indeed a Prophet, and he thought of announcing his Islam, and he wished that he could go to the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and be his servant, but he feared that his people would kill him, so he remained a kaafir and died in that state.

Many of their contemporaries are still proclaiming that.

1-

Michael Hart said in his book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (p. 13), where he put Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) at the head of his list of one hundred:

I chose Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to be top of this list … because Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.

2-

The Englishman George Bernard Shaw wrote a book called Muhammad, which was burned by the British authorities. He said:

The world is in the utmost need of a man with the mentality of Muhammad.

Medieval ecclesiastics, either through ignorance of bigotry, painted Mohammadanism in the darkest colors. They were in fact; trained to hate both the man Muhammad and his to them was anti-Christ. But I have studied his life, and found him to be extraordinary. I have reached the conclusion that he was never an enemy to Christianity. He must be called the Saviour of Humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it much needed peace and happiness.

3-

Annie Besant said:

It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knows how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme.

4-

The Austrian Schabrak said:

Mankind may be proud of having a man like Muhammad among them, for despite being illiterate he was able more than ten centuries ago to introduce legislation that we Europeans would be the happiest ever if we could produce something of equally high quality.

5-

Dr. Zwemer (a Canadian Orientalist):

Muhammad was an able reformer, eloquent and well spoken, courageous and daring, a great thinker. We cannot attribute to him anything that contradicts these qualities. This Qur’aan that he brought and his history bear witness to the truth of these claims.

6-

The English philosopher Thomas Carlyle, the Nobel Prize winner, says in his book Heroes:

It is very shameful for any individual in this era to listen to what is said about the religion of Islam being a fabrication and Muhammad being a treacherous fabricator. Throughout his life we see him holding firm beliefs, sincere in resolve, generous and kind, compassionate, pious, virtuous, very serious. In spite of that, he was easy-going, cheerful, friendly, and even sometimes light-hearted. He was just, sincere in intention, smart, chivalrous, and quick-witted, as if he carried in his heart the lamps of every dark night, filled with light; a naturally great man who never studied in school or at the hand of a teacher, because he had no need of that.

7-

Goethe, the German poet, said:

We Europeans with all our concepts and ideas have not yet attained that which Muhammad attained, and no one will ever surpass him. I searched in history for the loftiest example for man to follow, and I found it in the Prophet Muhammad. Thus the truth must prevail and become supreme, because Muhammad succeeded in subjugating the whole world by means of the message of Divine Oneness.

--

If that is the case, then the entire world – with no alternative – must regard the greatness of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) among all of creation above all greatness, and his virtue above all virtues, and his status as greater than any other. The world must unite in believing in the message of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and that he is the Final Prophet of Allaah.

We would like to make the most of this opportunity to call these people to Islam, for what their sinful hands have fabricated cannot be erased except by Islam. But if they are stubborn and persist in their ways, then let them receive tidings of the punishment of Hell, to abide therein forever. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Verily, whosoever sets up partners (in worship) with Allaah, then Allaah has forbidden Paradise to him, and the Fire will be his abode. And for the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers) there are no helpers”

[al-Maa’idah 5:72]

“And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:85]

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “By the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, no one among this nation, Jew or Christian, hears of me then dies not believing in that with which I was sent, but he will be one of the people of the Fire.” Narrated by Muslim (153).

Secondly:

Allaah is wise and does not decree anything that is pure evil; rather there must be something good in it for His believing slaves, no matter how evil it appears to people. The Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) spoke the truth when he said: “How wonderful is the situation of the believer, for all his affairs are good. If something good happens to him, he gives thanks for it and that is good for him; if something bad happens to him, he bears it with patience, and that is good for him. This does not apply to anyone but the believer.” Narrated by Muslim (2999).

Concerning the incident of the slander (al-ifk) – which is well known – Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Consider it not a bad thing for you. Nay, it is good for you. Unto every man among them will be paid that which he had earned of the sin, and as for him among them who had the greater share therein, his will be a great torment”

[al-Noor 24:11]

There follow some of the good things that have resulted from this sinful crime.

1.

What was concealed in the hearts of these criminals, such as resentment and hatred of the Muslims, has been made known, even though they pretend most of the time to be peaceful.

“Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their breasts conceal is far worse”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:118]

2.

Exposure of the West’s double standards. Here they cite freedom of opinion, but every wise man knows that this so-called freedom of opinion should stop before violating the sanctity of others and transgressing against them. They are lying in their claims of freedom of opinion. We all remember what happened a few years ago when one government decided to destroy the idols in their country; there was a global outcry! What about this so-called freedom of opinion? Why don’t they regard this also as freedom of opinion?

3.

Demonstration of the falseness of what some westernizers in our countries say, “Don’t call the non-Muslims kuffaar, rather call them ‘others’ so as not to fan the flames of trouble between us and them.”

But everyone should understand just who it is that hates the other, and does not respect his sanctity, and declares war against him every time he gets the opportunity.

4.

The falseness of their claim with which they have filled the world, namely the dialogue of civilizations that is based on respect for others and not transgressing against them. What kind of dialogue do they want?! What respect do they claim to show? They want us to respect them and honour them, and even to bow and prostrate to them, but all they do is make fun of us and mock us and wrong us even more.

5.

Reviving faith in Muslim hearts. We have seen the Muslims’ reaction which is indicative of deeply-rooted faith in their hearts and the extent of their love for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); even among those who neglect some religious duties leapt to defend our noble Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

6.

Uniting the Muslims. We have seen – praise be to Allaah – solidarity among the Muslims who have adopted the same stance despite the differences in their countries and languages.

7.

It has become apparent that the West is ganging up against Islam. As soon as that country sought the help of their fellow, they all stood up to support that country and the criminals encouraged one another to publish these pictures in their newspaper, so that the Muslims would know that they are all united and that we cannot confront them all.

8.

Some Muslims were keen to call these people to Islam and to show them the true image of this religion. We have seen Muslims racing to publish books in the language of these people so that the scales will fall from their eyes and they may see clearly.

9.

The effectiveness of Muslim boycotts against the products of those who transgressed against the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) has been proven. Their nation did not respond to any official or political requests, even at the highest levels, but the boycott did not last more than a few days before the newspaper that was in the wrong and its chief editor offered apologies and changed their tone, so the Muslims softened their stance somewhat.

This appears to be the new weapon of the Muslims, that they can use to influence and harm their enemies.

10.

A clear message was sent to the West: that we Muslims will never accept to see our religion insulted or humiliated, or any transgression against our Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). We will all sacrifice ourselves for him.

Thirdly:

As for our role in all of this:

1.

We must denounce it forcefully, each of us according to his abilities, by sending letters and articles, or making phone calls, to their government, foreign affairs departments and newspapers.

2.

We should demand a clear and sincere apology from them, not deception or justification of the crime which they call an apology. We do not want an apology for showing disrespect towards the Muslims; rather we want an admission of error and an apology for that error.

3.

We should request them to punish the criminals for their crime.

4.

We should also request them to stop their governments’ transgressions against Islam and the Muslims.

5.

We should translate books that call to Islam into the language of these people, and books that explain about Islam and its Prophet, and his biography.

6.

We should buy time on radio and television programs to defend the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which should be hosted by people of ability and well-founded knowledge, who know how to speak convincingly to Westerners, of whom there are many, praise be to Allaah.

7.

We should write strongly worded articles to be published in magazines, newspapers and web sites in various languages.

8.

With regard to boycotting their products, if the boycott will have an effect on them – which is what actually happens – then why don’t we boycott them and look for other companies that are owned by Muslims?

9.

We should resist this malicious attack against Islam and its Prophet; by highlighting the beauty of Islam and the fact that it is in accordance with sound reasoning, and responding to the specious arguments of the criminals.

10.

We should adhere to the Sunnah and follow the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in all things, and be patient in doing so.

“But if you remain patient and become Al-Muttaqoon (the pious), not the least harm will their cunning do to you”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:120]

11.

We should strive to call these people, for although we look at them through a lens of hatred and resentment, we also look at them with compassion, for soon they will die and will be among the people of Hell, if they die in this state; so we should call them to Islam and salvation, out of mercy and compassion towards them.

We ask Allaah to cause His religion to prevail and to support His close friends, and to humiliate His enemies.

“And Allaah has full power and control over His Affairs, but most of men know not”

[Yoosuf 12:21]

May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad.

And Allaah knows best.


http://islamqa.info/en/ref/86109

 

[~Zaria~]

Show your support in this great initiative insha Allah.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I think the protesters who engaged in violence in their reaction to the latest anti-Islamic provocations must have forgotten about this verse:

ادْعُ إِلِى سَبِيلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ وَجَادِلْهُم بِالَّتِي هِيَ أَحْسَنُ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ هُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِمَن ضَلَّ عَن سَبِيلِهِ وَهُوَ أَعْلَمُ بِالْمُهْتَدِينَ (16:125)

16:125 (Picktall) Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the better way. Lo! thy Lord is best aware of him who strayeth from His way, and He is Best Aware of those who go aright. -

They have done far more to damage the reputation of Islam than any film or cartoon.



I would like to address one section of the strange article posted above by Zaria.

A list of non-Muslims are quoted giving praise to Muhammad (pbuh). Immediately after the quotes, the article says this:

If that is the case, then the entire world – with no alternative – must regard the greatness of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) among all of creation above all greatness, and his virtue above all virtues, and his status as greater than any other. The world must unite in believing in the message of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and that he is the Final Prophet of Allaah.

How can this be a valid conclusion after a list of quotes by people who conspicuously did not convert to Islam?

Michael Hart said in his book The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (p. 13), where he put Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) at the head of his list of one hundred:

I chose Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to be top of this list … because Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the religious and secular levels.

The quotation has been altered: Hart did not include the words "(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)".

The Englishman George Bernard Shaw wrote a book called Muhammad, which was burned by the British authorities.

Shaw was not an Englishman; he was Irish. I would very much like to hear more about the book referred to and the burning incident. It is not listed in any of the major bibliographies of Shaw's works.

Annie Besant was a prominent secularist and later theosophist. At no point did she become a Muslim.

The Austrian Schabrak said:

Mankind may be proud of having a man like Muhammad among them, for despite being illiterate he was able more than ten centuries ago to introduce legislation that we Europeans would be the happiest ever if we could produce something of equally high quality.

Who is The Austrian Schabrak?

Samuel Marinus Zwemer dedicated his life to Christian missionary work in Islamic countries. His high opinion of Muhammad (pbuh) as a historical figure does not obscure the fact that he is a deeply ironic choice to call in support of the Islamic cause.

The English philosopher Thomas Carlyle, the Nobel Prize winner, says in his book Heroes:

Thomas Carlyle was Scottish, not English. He died fourteen years before the establishment of the Nobel prizes. The collection of essays referred to is called On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History. His quote praising Muhammad (pbuh) makes sense only in the context of his other remarks about Islam in the same essay. His opinion of the Qur'an is never quoted in Muslim apologetics, and I shall not repeat it here.

The description of Goethe as a "German poet" is a very limited way of describing his many works in various fields. The author of the article would very much like us to accept Goethe as an authority, but does not want to go to the trouble of actually finding out who Goethe is, or reading any of his works.

The bottom line is this: Muhammad (pbuh) was a historical figure of massive importance. Nobody can deny it. Does this mean that his claims are true? No. Does the quoted acknowledgement of many Western writers advance the Islamic cause the slightest bit? No.

Why then is this strange list of quotes repeatedly posted all over the internet? Why is it that the Muslims who post it are not embarrassed by its many inaccuracies? Who is convinced by it?

Peace

 

[جوري]

They have done far more to damage the reputation of Islam than any film or cartoon.

You know this because you surveyed the damage?

How can this be a valid conclusion after a list of quotes by people who conspicuously did not convert to Islam?

does one have to adopt completely the beliefs and lifestyle of those whom they admire partially or totally?.. That can only be the tendency of someone who draws satisfaction out of overly simplistic conclusions!

The quotation has been altered: Hart did not include the words "(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)".

So?

Shaw was not an Englishman; he was Irish. I would very much like to hear more about the book referred to and the burning incident. It is not listed in any of the major bibliographies of Shaw's works.

This reminds me of your previous refusal to accept that Ibn Rushd's books were burnt by the church. Is that you can't do simple research or that you enjoy showing off that college education?- The rest of the pedantry is more of the same!..
The way I see it, you're the one who should be embarrassed always niggling over petty details & presumptions over what we've read or allegedly haven't!

best,

 

[czgibson]

Great. Thanks for that.

Anyone else?

Peace

 

[Independent]

The Englishman George Bernard Shaw wrote a book called Muhammad, which was burned by the British authorities.

As a Bernard Shaw fan, I felt obliged to hunt this one down. It's tricky. There certainly was no book, so there was nothing to be burned by the British or anyone else. But the quote itself seems to come from "Genuine Islam", a magazine published in the 1930s produced by the All-Malaya Muslim Missionary Society in Singapore, under the auspices of Maulana Abdul Aleem Siddique and Syed Ibrahim bin Omar al-Sagoff. Shaw had been touring the region and the quote is from an interview with him. However, it doesn't form part of the main text and - whatever he said, he would have said it with his usual irony.

For instance, this is what he had to say about religion a couple of years later: '[In Egypt and India] the apparent multiplicity of Gods is bewildering at the first glance; but you presently discover that they are all the same one God in different aspects and functions and even sexes. There is always one uttermost God who defies personification. This makes Hinduism the most tolerant religion in the world, because its one transcendent God includes all possible Gods…Hinduism is so elastic and so subtle that the profoundest Methodist and the crudest idolater are equally at home in it.
Islam is very different, being ferociously intolerant...You accepted Allah or you had your throat cut by someone who did accept him, and who went to Paradise for having sent you to Hell. Mahomet was a great Protestant religious force, like George Fox or Wesley…'

This quote now has a life of its own in collections like the above and will probably live longer than most of his plays...

 

[glo]

^
Ashamed to admit that I've never heard of Bernard Shaw until now. Am googling him myself now ...
You learn something new every day ... and sometimes in the most unexpected places.

 

[StopS]

From http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel :

libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for "general damages" for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called "special damages." "Libel per se" involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune for actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U. S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement. (See: defamation, slander, libel per se, public figure)

Now use this to show how it is applicable to the case at hand.

 

[GuestFellow]

As I've said many times in the past and I will repeat again here: I do not personally encourage protests, or violent protests, nor the killings of the innocent, even if these were the people in the US embassies. If they are innocent then I do not see why they should be subject to an attack. However, if (non-violent) protesting pressures the government and produces a change then we must protest.

What I've been suggesting, and what I've always suggested, is not protesting but more productive steps in countering these insults.

I'm not sure if you understand what I'm advocating. So I will try to make myself clear.

I'm saying that some Muslims gave this video publicity. They reacted to it. It is likely the video would have died away if those Muslims did not respond to it. The video was cheap and most people did not even hear of it.

You can protest, pressure the government to remove the material, attempt to introduce laws to prevent these materials from spreading or boycott industries that make this material accessible. None of this will work. It did not work for the cartoons, nor will it work for this video. People will still find ways to insult the Prophet (P.B.U.H) in other ways. If this video is blocked/banned, some people will find ways to unblock access to the video or even start creating worse videos.

What some Muslims fail to comprehend is that ignoring something can in some cases end something. Why is this not seen as a productive solution? Or do we need to do something more dramatic to end something?

What productive steps?

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings czgibson,

It's nice to be seeing you on the forum again.

Immediately after the quotes, the article says this:

...

How can this be a valid conclusion after a list of quotes by people who conspicuously did not convert to Islam?

It is not clear that the conclusion is based upon those quotes alone. But the fact that these people did not convert to Islam does not invalidate their praise and respect for the Prophet :arabic5:, which is perhaps the point being made - that even non-Muslims can appreciate the noble status of the Prophet :arabic5:. Muslims are not unfamiliar with the notion that despite being convinced of the truth, a person may still not accept it for other reasons, as was the case with the Prophet's :arabic5: beloved uncle.

The bottom line is this: Muhammad (pbuh) was a historical figure of massive importance. Nobody can deny it. Does this mean that his claims are true? No.

I'm sure you'll appreciate that there is so much more to his claims than this. Your time on this forum has exposed you to the many aspects of such a claim.

Does the quoted acknowledgement of many Western writers advance the Islamic cause the slightest bit? No.

Not the slightest bit? If it was only Muslim writers, one might complain of subjectivity. Quoting from Western writers shows that is not so.

Why then is this strange list of quotes repeatedly posted all over the internet? Why is it that the Muslims who post it are not embarrassed by its many inaccuracies? Who is convinced by it?

Regrettably, many are not as familiar with them as yourself, hence they are not aware of the inaccuracies. However, it does not render the concept invalid altogether.


Peace.

 

[Ramadhan]

For instance, this is what he had to say about religion a couple of years later: '[In Egypt and India] the apparent multiplicity of Gods is bewildering at the first glance; but you presently discover that they are all the same one God in different aspects and functions and even sexes. There is always one uttermost God who defies personification.

Egypt has a multiplicity of gods?

You are sure this is a verbatim quote, or an altered one as you have alleged against Shaw's quote about Islam?

 

[joesixpack]

From my perspective, the response of the Muslim world should be to point to the 10+ centuries of Muslim achievements in art, science, mathematics and literature, and the gift of the Renaissance that the Islamic world handed to Europe. Then they should show the film to contrast their own historical achievements with the those of their detractors.

Honestly, the film is a huge disgrace to the filmmakers themselves. It would be a greater shame for me to have created such a film than to have had a film of that caliber made about me or my loved ones.

 

[Hulk]

It's just sad that there are people who go out of their way to do such things.

 

[joesixpack]

It's just sad that there are people who go out of their way to do such things.

It is sad, but I think it's more of a reflection on their own lack of compassion and intellectual development that they would produce something so puerile and hate-filled. The Arab world has much history to be proud of, unlike the producers of this movie.

 

[Independent]

Egypt has a multiplicity of gods?

You are sure this is a verbatim quote, or an altered one as you have alleged against Shaw's quote about Islam?

Egypt doesn't, but India does. Interesting that you're concerned about my sources but not the sources used in this list.

Shaw is talking mainly talking about Hinduism here. I'm quoting it just to show that his views are, at the very least, more complex than has been suggested here and that he very often speaks ironically, not literally.

The point is that this list of quotes from western converts/sympathisers cannot be trusted. In Shaw's case the quote is not accurately transcribed, may not be from him anyway, was not part of a book, and was never burned by the British. That's a lot of errors in a short line. It's not just a misquote, someone has been actively making stuff up. At least half of the other quotes are suspect in similar ways.

Whilst looking for the source of the quote I found the same list or variation on it in 10 other Muslim sites or forums. People have questioned its validity elsewhere too but that doesn't stop it. The list has been doing the rounds for years and probably will have a permanent life in cyberspace. I believe this is what they call 'propaganda'.

It's also downright lazy because the world is a big place, western writers are hugely varied, and you could find genuine quotes to support almost anything you want if you made the effort.

 

[Bint-e-Adam]

As We as being muslims are not doing anything so intense to stop them. Allah has Himself stopped themand ruined their cinema by an earthquake.
A picture of a cinema in America that was going to play the film of the Prophet Sep 18 at noon.An earthquake hit that area that caused the
building into two pieces.The Americans are so shocked at the miracle that they didn’t allow full media coverage on the topic and that’s why you didn’t hear about it on the news today!

 

[Independent]

A picture of a cinema in America that was going to play the film of the Prophet Sep 18 at noon.An earthquake hit that area that caused the building into two pieces.The Americans are so shocked at the miracle that they didn’t allow full media coverage on the topic and that’s why you didn’t hear about it on the news today!

Looks like this one's pure spoof. The picture comes from an earthquake in Chile in 2010. I can't post the link but this is it:
dreamofarlequin.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/1974/

On a spoof-buster site called wafflesatnoon.com it says this:

The photo
The photograph being circulated was actually taken from a new story in 2010 about an earthquake in Chile. The actual photo’s caption reads: Residents look at a collapsed building in Concepcion, Chile, Saturday Feb. 27, 2010 after an 8.8-magnitude struck central Chile. The epicenter was 70 miles (115 kilometers) from Concepcion, Chile’s second-largest city.
The Earthquake
According to the US Geological Service, the most recent significant earthquake in the US came on September 7, which was a small 3.4 magnitude tremor in Beverly Hills, California. No damage was reported from this quake.


It should also be noted that as of this writing, no public screenings of the film are known due to security risks.

 

[جوري]

Interesting that you're concerned about my sources but not the sources used in this list.

Are you exempt from the restrictions you'd place on others?

 

[Independent]

Are you exempt from the restrictions you'd place on others?

Not so far