Both sides read the Muslim conquest as God’s punishment of the other’s heresy

Evidence

For Theophanes, the primary dramatic cause of the spectacular losses of Roman territory to the Arabs is Heraclius’s embracing of the Monothelite heresy (according to this doctrine, Christ had a single, unified will, rather than separate divine and human wills). This fall from grace is all the more dramatic as Heraclius had (for Theophanes) been the champion of orthodoxy, thanks to whom Constantinople had crushed its Avar and Persian enemies and recovered the true cross from the Persians. God and the Virgin had watched over Heraclius and guaranteed his success until the emperor inexplicably turned heretic, at which point they abandoned him to the Arab invaders. Moreover, it is the fault of wicked Monophysite Syrians that Heraclius was dragged into the nets of heresy: how could the ravaging of Syria by Arab armies be anything but God’s just and terrible punishment? — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 411 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Most Christian writers sought to explain the invasions with the traditional tools of Judeo-Christian historiography: the invaders were scourges sent by God to punish bad Christians for their sins. For Dionysus, a Syrian Monophysite, the scourge is sent against the Byzantine church as punishment for its Duophysite heresy and for its persecution of good (Monophysite) Christians. For Byzantine writers, on the contrary, the punishment falls on the Monophysites for their heresy. Some writers, by contrast, will attribute the invasions to more venal (often sexual) sins. All hoped that proper repentance would turn away the Saracen scourge, and few bothered to inquire into the religious beliefs of the invaders. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 286 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Crusade apologists justified the war as divinely authorized collective punishment; Muslims read their conquest of Christian lands as divinely sanctioned proof of Islam’s superiority; Initial Christian leaders read the Muslim conquests as divine punishment for sin — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 294 (+18 more)

Broader Connections

• Byzantine chroniclers explained Muslim victory as God’s punishment for heresy #qualifies (0.97) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 411
• Early Christian writers read Muslim conquest as divine punishment for Christian heresies. #qualifies (0.97) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 286
• Christians explained Muslim conquest as divine punishment for sin #qualifies (0.96)
• Initial Christian leaders read the Muslim conquests as divine punishment for sin #qualifies (0.95) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 294
• Carolingian chroniclers framed Muslim conquests as punishment for Christian sins #qualifies (0.95)
• Medieval Christians read Muslim victories as divine judgment against Christendom #qualifies (0.95)
• Christians interpreted Muslim conquests as punishment for sin, not divine approval of Islam #qualifies (0.95) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 67
• Crusade propagandists framed Muslim conquests as divine punishment for Christian sins #qualifies (0.94) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 1077
• Christians explained Islamic conquest as prophesied punishment for their own sins #qualifies (0.94) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 721
• Early modern Christians read Islam as divine punishment for Eastern schisms #complicates (0.85) — Robert Irwin, For Lust of Knowing, 130
• Medieval depictions of Islam as heresy served to justify violence and resist conversion #complicates (0.85) — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 139
• The heresy view of Islam predated the crusades in John of Damascus’ writings #complicates (0.85) — Green, Todd H, The Fear of Islam_ An Introduction to…, 128
• Medieval Christian polemicists framed Islam as lust-driven heresy rather than separate religion #complicates (0.80)
• Both Christians and Muslims internalized the moral-contrast trope about their two faiths #complicates (0.80) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1483
• Trinity disputes dominated Christian thinking about Islam rather than God’s unity #complicates (0.80) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 249