Christian anti-Islamic polemic targeted Christian readers, not Muslims

Evidence

The overwhelming probability is that the public intended by the polemists was Christian. We may forget any suggestion that some real debate between the two religions was ever practicable. Nearly all the arguments that we have just reviewed were well calculated to be effective with such an audience, and only with such. They were admirably formulated to uphold faith. They would suitably horrify those who were at a distance from actual Muslims, but they would also fortify those who could not be guarded physically from Islamic realities. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1469

These arguments are unlikely to carry weight with Muslims; they are meant rather to inspire in their Christian reader disgust and ridicule for Islam. Muhammad is a heretic and a heresiarch for these authors, as he was for Guibert de Nogent, Gautier de Compiègne, Embrico of Mainz, and Adelphus. Yet the Mozarabic authors base their caricature on knowledge of Islam and write for Christians who are in daily contact with Muslims. They cannot content themselves with fabricating wildly inaccurate tales of the trickster and magician who dupes the Saracens through false miracles. They need to provide their readers with an image of Islam that seems realistic at the same time that it is repellent. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 821

Categorization

• XREF: Load-bearing genealogy for the vault’s claim structure: shows that Islamophobic tropes were crafted from the START as reader-directed plausible caricature (a ‘seems realistic yet repellent’ image), the exact mechanism Anidjar/Aziz attribute to modern Orientalism. Undermines the notion that bigoted tropes are merely ignorant fabrications. — connects to: Mediaeval anti-Islamic polemics convinced neither Muslims nor Christians; Christian polemists preferred their own readings over traditional Islamic interpretation; Anti-Quran polemics were crafted for Christian audiences rather than actual Muslims (+9 more)
• QUESTION: This passage distinguishes Mozarabic authors (cross-culturally informed) from earlier ‘trickster/magician’ fabulists — worth asking which genealogy feeds the modern Islam-West oppositions the vault already tracks, the credible-caricature strand or the wild-fabrication strand.
• corroborated: 3 independent passages support this claim — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1469; John V. Tolan, Saracens, 821

Broader Connections

• Anti-Quran polemics were crafted for Christian audiences rather than actual Muslims #corroborates (0.98)
• Anti-Islamic polemic was shaped to repel Christians, not Muslims #corroborates (0.98) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1471
• Medieval Christian polemics against Islam were written for Christian audiences, not Muslims #corroborates (0.98) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1421
• Medieval anti-Islamic polemics aimed to fortify Christians rather than convert Muslims #corroborates (0.97)
• Christian polemics against Muhammad aimed to reassure Christians, not convert Muslims #corroborates (0.95) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1426
• Christians wrote about Islam mainly to persuade themselves, not to understand Muslims. #corroborates (0.95) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1439
• Christian anti-Muslim writing of this era was defensive apologetics, not offensive polemics #corroborates (0.90)
• Anti-Muslim polemics function to define their authors’ identity rather than describe Islam. #expands (0.85) — Peter Gottschalk and Gabriel Greenberg, Common Heritage, Uncommon Fear, 124
• Medieval Christian polemics against Islam really targeted domestic heresies, not Muslims #expands (0.78) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 886
• Anti-Islamic polemic intensified when written for audiences far from Muslims #expands (0.75) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 749