Christian polemicists studied Muslim revelation accounts seriously rather than dismissing them
Evidence
Certainly these Muslim accounts of Muhammad’s revelations did circulate in Spain and were used to support some Christian theories. San Pedro thought that the same tradition from ‘A’ishah about the Prophet’s perspiring while he received a revelation showed that he was exactly what the Quraysh, his enemies among his own people in Mecca, accused him of being, a soothsayer. His choice of authorities was only a little less discriminating than his predecessor’s. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 180 (
#expands, via linked claim)
More consistent deformation comes with the actual life of Muhammad. The development of the Bahira legend is a case in point; the Muslim legend was wholly ignored, except, illogically, the bare assertion of a hermit who knew Muhammad, and whom the Christians give a new role. There was no reason why they should not create their own fantasies; what is significant is that they picked out of a series of Muslim statements just the one that suited them. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1353 (
#contradicts, via linked claim)
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Christian polemists preferred their own readings over traditional Islamic interpretation; Christianity and Islam differ fundamentally over how revelation unfolds; Medieval Christian polemicists investigated Muhammad’s claims carefully rather than dismissing them (+5 more)
Related
- Christian polemicists used Muslim sources to prove Muhammad was a soothsayer (similarity 0.91)
- Christian critics adopted Muhammad’s Meccan enemies’ accusation of soothsaying (similarity 0.90)
- Christian polemicists read Muslim sources as unwittingly confirming Christian legends (similarity 0.90)
- Christians selected from Muslim sources only details that served their polemic (similarity 0.87)
- Medieval Christian polemicists treated Christian and Muslim legends as mutually confirmatory (similarity 0.87)
- Medieval Christian polemicists investigated Muhammad’s claims carefully rather than dismissing them (similarity 0.87)
- Medieval Christian polemicists adopted the Quraysh’s accusations against Muhammad as their own evidence (similarity 0.87)
- Medieval polemicists quietly dropped claims lacking cross-tradition confirmation (similarity 0.86)
- Christian polemicists explained Muhammad’s prophethood as a fraudulent bid for kingship (similarity 0.86)
- Polemical scholars adopted textual accuracy only as a tactical weapon against Islam (similarity 0.86)
- Medieval audiences preferred Islam accounts easier to ridicule over accurate ones (similarity 0.85)
- Medieval polemicists ignored known facts to fabricate Muslim heretical intent (similarity 0.85)
- Medieval polemicists distinguished what Muslims believed from what they only thought they believed. (similarity 0.85)
- Christian polemists preferred their own readings over traditional Islamic interpretation (similarity 0.85)
- Christianity and Islam differ fundamentally over how revelation unfolds (similarity 0.85)
Broader Connections
- Medieval Christian polemicists investigated Muhammad’s claims carefully rather than dismissing them
#corroborates(1.00) - Christians selected from Muslim sources only details that served their polemic
#contradicts(0.80) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1353 - Medieval Christian polemicists deliberately cherry-picked Hadith for shock value rather than understanding
#contradicts(0.80) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 1199 - Christian polemicists used Muslim sources to prove Muhammad was a soothsayer
#expands(0.80) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 180 - Medieval polemicists ignored known facts to fabricate Muslim heretical intent
#contradicts(0.75)