Christians treated the Qur’an only as involuntary witness to Christian truth

Evidence

The first was the conviction that the Qur’an was indeed a corroboratio of the Gospel. We have just seen that this led to a feeble logical position based on false premises, and yet we must allow it some force. The Qur’an was sound only in this one respect, its confirmation of Scripture, or so it seemed to the mediaeval critic, but it seemed that it really was so; it might be loved and welcomed as a superfluous but valid witness to the truth of the Christian faith, perhaps more useful for being involuntary. This attitude can even be defended logically, provided it be not stated to a Muslim audience. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1517

Categorization

• XREF: This shows a mechanism of epistemological incorporation — the other is read only insofar as it confirms the self, echoing how Aziz/Razack show legal and security frameworks read Muslim subjects through the Western threat lens.
• SEED: Essay angle: involuntary witness as a broader colonial reading strategy — the subjugated text/voice kept only for what it confirms of the colonizer’s worldview.