Christians framed Islam as a religion built on sexual licence
Evidence
It was more reasonably supposed that stirah 1v. effectively legalised homosexual relations, since in the Islamic tradition this is in fact the subject of this revelation, which, however, is considered abrogated, by sitrah xxiv, prohibiting all kinds of illicit sexual intercourse. The abrogation governed Islamic law, but was not understood by Christians. The burden of their attack on stirah 1v. was that the prohibition there was so slight as to indicate that the crime was judged equally slight. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 792 (
#exemplifies, via linked claim)
Summing up, we may say that the institution of concubinage, naturally enough, was misunderstood. There was widespread a belief in a Qur’anic text which allowed a man to do as he likes with his own; there was little realisation that it was regulated by law, and not a licensed promiscuity. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 779 (
#expands, via linked claim)
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Medieval fixation on genital washing mirrored Christian obsession with Islamic sexual sin; Christian thinking forced Islam into Christian analogical categories, misrepresenting it; Medieval Christians misread Islamic concubinage as unregulated promiscuity — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 779 (+6 more)
Related
- Medieval fixation on genital washing mirrored Christian obsession with Islamic sexual sin (similarity 0.88)
- Medieval Christians misread Islamic concubinage as unregulated promiscuity (similarity 0.88)
- Christian polemicists portrayed medieval Muslim sexuality as wholly unregulated (similarity 0.85)
- Christians misread an abrogated Qur’anic verse as proof Islam licenses sodomy (similarity 0.85)
- Medieval Christians could imagine no middle ground between Christianity and licence (similarity 0.83)
- Christian polemic attributed sexual licentiousness to Islam continuously from medieval to modern times (similarity 0.82)
- Medieval polemic treated Muslim sexuality as a symptom of a deeper spiritual laxity (similarity 0.82)
- The Qur’anic punishment for lewdness was abrogated and folded into zina’. (similarity 0.82)
- Medieval Christians missed that Islamic concubinage was legally regulated, not licensed promiscuity (similarity 0.82)
- Medieval Christians used Islam’s marital norms to claim moral superiority (similarity 0.81)
- Twelfth-century Christian polemicists framed Islam as lust-ridden heresy. (similarity 0.81)
- Medieval Christian polemicists framed Islam as lust-driven heresy rather than separate religion (similarity 0.80)
- Medieval Christian polemic held Muslim sexuality as a core mark of heresy. (similarity 0.80)
- Medieval Christian polemicists fixated on Islam’s legal theory while knowing nothing of its practice (similarity 0.80)
- Christians misread Islamic ritual by assuming it mirrored their own (similarity 0.80)
Broader Connections
- Christian polemicists portrayed medieval Muslim sexuality as wholly unregulated
#corroborates(0.90) - Medieval fixation on genital washing mirrored Christian obsession with Islamic sexual sin
#expands(0.85) - Medieval Christians misread Islamic concubinage as unregulated promiscuity
#expands(0.85) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 779 - Christians misread an abrogated Qur’anic verse as proof Islam licenses sodomy
#exemplifies(0.85) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 792 - Christian thinking forced Islam into Christian analogical categories, misrepresenting it
#expands(0.80) - Medieval Christians used Islam’s marital norms to claim moral superiority
#expands(0.80) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 67 - Medieval Christian polemicists fixated on Muslim sexuality over graver legal issues
#expands(0.80) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 848 - Medieval Christian polemicists framed Islam as lust-driven heresy rather than separate religion
#expands(0.75) - Medieval Christians understood Islam through preexisting biblical categories rather than direct encounter
#expands(0.75) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 88