Aquinas refuted Islam without ever reading the Koran

Evidence

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. Does he (like Ramon Martí) consider that “rational” men like al-Fârâbî or Avicenna must ipso facto reject (at least in private) the “irrational” law of Muhammad? — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 1226

Categorization

• QUESTION: The closing question — did Aquinas consider Muslim philosophers like Avicenna closet rationalists who privately rejected the law — is worth pursuing in the history of medieval attitudes toward Islam.
• DEEPTHINKING: The dissonance between Aquinas fully absorbing Muslim philosophers into his Summa while simultaneously dismissing Muslims as irrational ‘beasts’ is a dense, revealing tension about how medieval intellectuals could compartmentalize philosophical borrowing from religious enemies.
• XREF: connects to: Lull never sincerely engaged actual Muslim objections to the Trinity; Aquinas denied Islam any authority because it lacked miracles and true documents; Christian polemicists never consulted Muslims about actual Muslim beliefs — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1439