Christians treated all non-Christian monstrous figures as interchangeable enemies

Evidence

This tension has relevance to modern scholarship on the history of Christian Islamophobia. Often authors paint Christians and Christendom as a single united entity, however, such generalizations ignore the prominence of theological tension within, even during times when one would most expect all of Christianity to be united against an adversary. I hope to have shown how such authors take Christianity as more unified than it was; only by acknowledging and moving beyond this generalization of Christian unity can we have a more nuanced discourse. History instead shows that perhaps a foreign religious enemy is better than a co-religious enemy. — Ali Qureshi, The Fall of Constantinople, 62 (#complicates, via linked claim)

This schism between Orthodox and Latin Christianity is significant for any discussion of the historical dynamics of Christianity. In contemporary scholarship about the history of Christian Islamophobia, many authors when describing the period largely ignore this inter- Christian tension. Some authors of this bent are Anidjar, Kumar, Todd, and Allen. For instance, in Anidjar’s book The Jew, the Arab: A History of the Enemy, he argues his case with the claim from another author that Muslims were a “common enemy” against all of Christendom (Anidjar 2003). — Ali Qureshi, The Fall of Constantinople, 25 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Monstrous figures decorated manuscript edges as moralizations of non-Christian sinfulness.; Medieval Christians classed non-Egyptian Africans with Saracens as monstrous races; Islamophobia scholarship often treats medieval Christianity as a united whole against Muslims — Ali Qureshi, The Fall of Constantinople: A Critical…, 25 (+4 more)

Related

• Islamophobia scholarship often treats medieval Christianity as a united whole against Muslims (similarity 0.89)
• Historical scholarship overstates Christianity’s unity against adversaries. (similarity 0.87)
• Secularists and Christians alike deployed Muslims as foils (similarity 0.86)
• Medieval Christendom defined itself by expelling threatening forces beyond its perimeter (similarity 0.85)
• The essay critically assesses the contemporary scholarship on Christian Islamophobia, arguing that it often overlooks the internal Christian divisions and portrays Christianity as a monolithic… (similarity 0.85)
• Christian institutions constructed the Muslim enemy to maintain their own power. (similarity 0.84)
• Medieval Christian infighting outweighed the shared threat of Islam (similarity 0.84)
• Christians judged the inner religious enemy worse than the foreign one (similarity 0.83)
• Theological explanations blamed Christian corruption and cast Muslims as God’s punishing instrument (similarity 0.83)
• The Crusades were less coherent religious triumph than convenient enemy-making (similarity 0.82)
• Orthodox clergy’s depiction of Ottomans conflated religious and ethnic identity. (similarity 0.82)
• Medieval Christians classed non-Egyptian Africans with Saracens as monstrous races (similarity 0.81)
• Medieval Christians co-identified Jews and Muslims as one hybrid enemy (similarity 0.81)
• Medieval depictions of Islam as heresy served to justify violence and resist conversion (similarity 0.80)
• Christians treated Jews and Muslims as interchangeable enemies in art (similarity 0.80)

Broader Connections

• Muslims were cast as apocalyptic beasts within Christian eschatology. #exemplifies (0.70)
• Historical scholarship overstates Christianity’s unity against adversaries. #complicates (0.65) — Ali Qureshi, The Fall of Constantinople, 62
• Islamophobia scholarship often treats medieval Christianity as a united whole against Muslims #complicates (0.60) — Ali Qureshi, The Fall of Constantinople, 25
• Secularists and Christians alike deployed Muslims as foils #expands (0.60)
• Christian institutions constructed the Muslim enemy to maintain their own power. #expands (0.55)