Christians selected from Muslim sources only details that served their polemic

Evidence

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

Categorization

• DEEPTHINKING: The insight here is precise and broadly applicable: distortion of an adversary’s history operates by selective retention from the adversary’s OWN account, not by pure invention — an information-processing account of polemic rather than mere ignorance.
• XREF: connects to: Christian polemists preferred their own readings over traditional Islamic interpretation; Christian polemicists read Muslim sources as unwittingly confirming Christian legends — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1314; Factual corrections to Christian anti-Islamic polemic only patched a weakened doctrinal structure (+3 more)