Aquinas attacked Islam while knowing it only from hearsay despite citing Muslim philosophers

Evidence

This is the Summa’s one brief rebuttal of Muhammad and his doctrine. Thomas’s knowledge of Islam is sparse; despite the reference to a “perusal of his law,” there is no evidence that Thomas had ever seen a Latin translation of the Koran or that he had read any major Latin polemical text against Islam. Yet his portrayal, if a brief caricature, is similar to that of the Dominican missionaries, and it is tempting to see a discussion with Ramon Martí or Ramon Penyafort as the source of his slight knowledge of Islam. Clearly, Thomas is completely unaware of Muslim counterarguments to his arguments, and he does not consider Muslim doctrine to be theologically sophisticated enough to merit thorough perusal and refutation. This is all the more surprising because Thomas read (and incorporated into his theology) the works of a number of important Muslim philosophers and theologians. He nevertheless brands Muhammad’s followers as “carnal,” “beastlike,” irrational men. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 1226

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the reader’s existing Anidjar/Aziz/Razack claims about how scholars selectively engaged Islam — here the selective engagement is genuinely biographical.
• QUESTION: Does the selective use of Muslim philosophers by Christian scholastics itself constitute a trope the modern sources overlook?